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.
Yes, legumes are fairly unique in that their root nodes host symbiotic bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen for the atmosphere. That's why they are so important in crop rotation or polyculture.
Every region could have different species that work best. The finding of this study, as I understand it, is identifying this foreign species that happens to work well for the location and agricultural needs.
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
> 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
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
> And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
> If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
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
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.
I'm curious if the nitrogen fixation is done by symbiotic bacteria.
If so, can both organisms survive in all the climates where cattle is raised?
Yes, legumes are fairly unique in that their root nodes host symbiotic bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen for the atmosphere. That's why they are so important in crop rotation or polyculture.
Every region could have different species that work best. The finding of this study, as I understand it, is identifying this foreign species that happens to work well for the location and agricultural needs.
Cows graze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
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
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A?t=1h13m58s
> 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
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
> And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
> If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
All sorts of reactions take place in the soil and with plants/microbes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle
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.
Adoption is growing in Brazil but it takes a while for a practice to become mainstream.
“Worked once in a specific tropical pasture”. AFAIK, most beef production is not in the tropics.
South of Brazil is in the tropic of capricorn and it's a beef producing region
> 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
there's no blind spot where even a 5% increase in beef production can hide...
I'm really curious to see a comparison with all the other common self-regenerating legumes, like clover. Maybe it's better adapted to Brazil?
[dead]