Due to direct benefit to herders, this is easier to reinforce than methane reductions with supplement e.g. seaweed as has been posted here before, since those benefits are not captured (without a carbon market or climate-friendly consumer branding to command a premium). Even if beef was methane-free, it would still have a larger impact than chicken (without regenerative agriculture, silviculture etc) but projections show that consumption is going to grow steadily as the global middle class grows so adopting these efficiencies will be important.
100% accurate. Livestock feed is (like most agriculture) hyper optimized.
If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
People still have this weird view of farming that it's like Johnny Goodguy and his family taking care of a small herd. While that exists still, Johnny is also tracking every input and outcome and optimizing daily.
The data collection and use in Ag would astound people.
This article is not about a livestock feed, it's about creating a pasture polyculture that reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizer application.
The 60% claim is "in comparison with pastures without the use of nitrogen fertilization." And of course only applies to the region and cattle breed they studied, not to mention only cattle raised on pasture in the first place.
It's not claiming to be a magic growth tonic for all cattle. Though I agree the title is a bit exaggerated and invites misinterpretation.
Even tractors with RTK satellite guidance have 1 inch precision. Commercial fields with modern tractors are guided to the point that the tractors drive perfectly between crops without damaging them automatically. Spraying applications and other jobs are likewise informed, driven and executed automatically in tandem between computers and overhead imagery.
Whatever you think of him and of course he has a large bank account and a TV show, clarkson’s farm on prime was good at highlighting the slim margins, tight schedules and how at the mercy of the weather you are.
The few, large-scale productions that comprise half of output avail themselves of this; the vast majority that comprise the remainder do not. I'd imagine it's similar in Brazil.
>If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
Agreed. Farming is incredibly data driven/cost conscious. For the entire industry to not make this an overnight priority says something about the analysis is missing.
> According to him, if the leguminous plants whose reproduction is stolon-based are adequately managed in the pasture, they will persist there. "In desmodium's case, the solution is to have the cattle graze it when the plant height reaches 30 cm and remove the animals when the average height is 15 cm", he recommends.
The risks associated with over-grazing something like this makes me think it would be ill-suited for anything but management intensive rotational grazing type operations. And even then it seems a bit risky.
the other people are right that there is crazy data collection and optimization from them... however blind spots can exist and outliers could be possible in that kind of environment.
in the book We Are Eating the Earth it bemoans that money is going to soil carbon schemes that don't do much whereas money to distribute this plant's seeds (what is needed) is scarce
Gut biome is important for legume consumption. The first few months I went to a plant based diet my digestion was hell. At some point I reached a turning point though, and my gut health became even better than before. My flatulence was so much worse when I was eating meat regularly - often room clearing.
double digit improvements across the board from a perenial pasture mix is realy impressive and likely to spur intrest in finding other combos that give similar results in dairy feed.
nitrogen is the key ingredient required for the digestion of all sorts of otherwise waste plant matter by cattle, so if this new pasture cover can be harvested as hay and mixed with other dryed plant matter, it would then be of use in dairy.
Hay is still the worlds largest crop.....
"There is resistance among farmers not only because the seeds are expensive, but also because the species used so far, especially Stylosanthes, do not persist when associated with Brachiaria grasses", Boddey explains. After some time in the field the leguminous plant wanes or dies, and it is necessary to renew the pasture, which entails further costs and work."
So the farmers did the math and the money doesn't work.
Scientists in this article seem very focused on the climate aspect of it while the farmers themselves are going to be focused on the bottom line. Farmers are not going to entail extra costs if they don't have to much the same as any other business owner.
I certainly don't speak for everyone but I don't see that catching on at the individual level. People eat the organic because its objectively healthier. I don't think most people that eat beef would care if its low carbon. I eat a good deal of beef, probably 3 steaks a week personally and another 3 in total for my wife and kids. I'm not going to pay x% more for low carbon. With that said I could absolutely see Europe mandating this and forcing everyone to just pay more for beef. So you're right, if they can target this at governments then they could force it to catch on.
Readit News
If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
People still have this weird view of farming that it's like Johnny Goodguy and his family taking care of a small herd. While that exists still, Johnny is also tracking every input and outcome and optimizing daily.
The data collection and use in Ag would astound people.
The 60% claim is "in comparison with pastures without the use of nitrogen fertilization." And of course only applies to the region and cattle breed they studied, not to mention only cattle raised on pasture in the first place.
It's not claiming to be a magic growth tonic for all cattle. Though I agree the title is a bit exaggerated and invites misinterpretation.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A?t=1h13m58s
The risks associated with over-grazing something like this makes me think it would be ill-suited for anything but management intensive rotational grazing type operations. And even then it seems a bit risky.
Dead Comment
For people too---but you have to pass it through a cow first and eat it in the form of beef. Otherwise ...
Not to mention being a ruminant with multiple stomach compartments and a long gut.
So the farmers did the math and the money doesn't work.
Scientists in this article seem very focused on the climate aspect of it while the farmers themselves are going to be focused on the bottom line. Farmers are not going to entail extra costs if they don't have to much the same as any other business owner.
"The Embrapa researcher states that this does not occur with desmodium, and it is possible have the legume in the pasture for over nine years."
Dead Comment
Dead Comment