- Author: Daniel H Putnam
- Author: Peter H. Robinson
- Author: Eric Lin
There are some things that are attractive at first look, but fall apart upon analysis. Maybe like that fancy car you bought which needed major work 3 weeks after you drove it off the lot. Hydroponic fodder systems may fall into that category.
There are a number of systems available on the web promoting this concept (try Googling ‘hydroponic fodder' or ‘hydroponic grass’ on the web – there are plenty of sites).
Looks good? Who could think of a better forage for your animal than luscious sprouted leafy grain—just like the alfalfa sprouts on your sandwich! You can see videos on the web which show cattle and horses gobbling up sprouted grain like a vegetarian at a salad bar.
Figure 1. Hydroponically-grown barley sprouts after 6 days of growth.
But things are not always as they seem! Let’s see if this concept makes sense.
What are Hydroponic Forages? Typical hydroponic systems are produced under artificial conditions (i.e., greenhouse or lighted systems in a closed box), with regular watering, producing a ‘crop’ within 6 - 7 days. This amount of time is sufficient to sprout seeds such as barley, wheat, and sunflower, or legumes like peas, to produce a 4 to 8 inch growth of green shoots.
One website indicated that 2 lbs of seed will make 9 - 12 lbs of fodder, and they paid $14.50 for a 48 lb bag of barley (30 cents/lb), or $10 for 50 lbs of wheat (20 cents/lb). Similarly, another web source indicated that 10 lbs of seed produced 50-60 lbs of ‘forage’.
This sounds quite amazing (2 lbs. makes 12 lbs. in a week!), that is until you start thinking about it more carefully.
Be sure to correct for dry matter. All animal rations consider feeds primarily as dry matter (DM) equivalents, since water is provided separately and all of the other nutrients required by the animals to live, grow, and lactate are in the dry matter (DM) portion. Thus, a feed with 90% water (such as sprouted grain) has considerably less ‘feed value’ than something with only 5% water (such as the grain itself), on a pound for pound basis.
So, in the example above, if 2 lbs of seed is 95% DM (a likely scenario), and the resulting fodder is 10% DM (also a likely scenario), then 1.90 lbs of DM of seed (2 lbs at 95% DM) produces about 0.9 to 1.2 lbs of dry weight fodder (9 - 12 lbs of total fodder at 10% DM) which is no net DM gain at all; in fact, it is a loss of DM!
However, this is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Let’s try testing the concept using real data from real sprouted fodder.
Dry Matter and Quality Analysis of Samples. A local friend who is working with hydroponic forages brought us some sprouted hydroponic barley he grew in one of these sprouting systems, which we analyzed. We analyzed two batches. Here are the results:
Analysis 1. In the first analysis, we had barley sprouts at either 6 or 7 days of growth. In the 6 day batch, we measured an output of 14.8 lbs of sprouts, roots and spent barley seeds, starting with 2 lbs of raw barley seed. We then determined the dry matter (DM) content of the whole plants to be 9.7% (90.3% water), meaning that there was 1.44 lbs. of DM in the sprouts. Since the 2 lbs. of seed was 95% DM, there was a loss of 0.46 lbs DM during sprouting (1.9 lbs. DM – 1.44 lbs. DM). Thus sprouting resulted in a loss of 24.2% of the DM that was in the seeds after 6 days of growth. The net loss of DM after 7 days of growth was even higher at over 30%! In fact, on a dry weight basis, little of the shoot, root and spent seed mixture produced was green shoots (13% after 6 days and 17% after 7 days of growth). Most of the weight was in the root/seed mass (the whole mass is generally fed in hydroponic forage systems).
Analysis 2. We analyzed a second batch of sprouted barley from a different 6 days of growth. Similar to Analysis #1, this resulted in a 25% loss in DM over 6 days, but with considerable variation between pods (Table 1). Similar to the first Analysis, shoots were about 15.5% of the sprout DM. Quality of the sprouts appeared to be good, using a standard NIRS equation, at about 15% CP, with low ADF% and NDF%.
Why do seedlings lose dry matter in 6 or 7 days of growth? Plant physiologists tell us that seeds utilize the starch stored in the seed during the first week or so of growth before photosynthesis and root uptake of minerals kick in to cause dramatic increases in growth. So it’s not surprising that the total dry weight of the plant (i.e., seed, root, shoot) decreases during that time, rather than increasing, because the plant is using up stored carbohydrates from the seed. Later, a plant is quite capable of producing its own food from sunlight and CO2, and begins to gain weight rapidly. So such hydroponic systems are likely to lead to a net loss in dry matter and carbon up to about 10-14 days of growth.
Sustainability? Is this system easier on our natural resources? It would be hard to argue that a completely artificial system with a requirement for electrical energy (lights or fans) and a structure such as a box or greenhouse is superior to field grown forages with regards to sustainability. However if the yield levels were high (i.e., high DM produced per unit water or unit energy), it is possible that it could be justified but, as we’ve seen above, that is not the case. However in fact, the system leads to a net loss in dry weight recovery, albeit with a shift from starch (in the seed) to fiber and pectin (in the roots and sprouts). We haven’t calculated Water-Use Efficiency for a hydroponic system, but with the yield levels given, it is unlikely to be superior to field-grown forages, especially if the water used to grow the grain is considered. Additionally, pastures, alfalfa and field-grown grains create wildlife habitat, N2 fixation (for legumes such as alfalfa), and have other environmental benefits.
Can hydroponic fodder production be profitable? If you have animals, you have a choice whether to 1) graze, pasture, or grow your own hay or silage, 2) purchase hay or other forages, or 3) grow the feed hydroponically. Alternatively, feed grains like barley can be fed directly to livestock. So which makes most sense? We calculate that one ‘pod’ starting with 104 lbs. seed (52 weeks x 2 lbs./week) would produce about 60-80 lbs. DM per year. This is approximately 2/3 of a 125 lb. bale of hay (alfalfa, grain, or grass) per pod, which (these days) goes for between $12 and $18/bale. So a hydroponic system at a minimum must beat that cost (e.g. be cheaper than about $8-$12/pod/year), including infrastructure, seed, and labor. Another way to look at it, considering only the cost of seed at 18 cents/pound (not the infrastructure of lights, box, trays, greenhouse, etc. or labor), the hydroponic cost of production would equal about $461/ton hay (90%DM). If one includes the cost of the infrastructure, energy inputs and labor, the real cost might be double that. During the past 10 years, California top-quality alfalfa hay has only occasionally been over $300/ton of DM delivered, and in 2013 generally ranged between $220 and $260/ton (90%DM hay). So the economics of production appear to be quite questionable. Additionally, one should consider that one is losing DM each week in a hydroponic system compared with feeding barley grain directly.
But isn’t the nutritional quality better? There is little doubt that sprouts are highly palatable to livestock—witness the relish with which animals consume it in web photos and videos. High moisture feeds are frequently quite palatable. However, we do not have data to suggest that barley ‘forage’ is superior to feeding other forages with similar analyses, or even better than feeding barley directly. The feeding value of the shoot/seed/root mixture may not be better than the initial barley seeds themselves. Fazaeli et al. (2012) found that true protein decreased, and the non-fiber carbohydrate, Metabolic Energy, and in-vitro gas production decreased in sprouted barley compared with the raw seed, and there were losses in DM yield. The lack of improvement in either quantity or quality let them to recommend against feeding sprouted seed vs. raw seed. Since stored starches have been used to grow the seedlings (loss of DM), the crop is likely to lose energy (also known as TDN or NEL), and may have actually lowered its feeding value compared with the seeds themselves. Barley sprouts should probably still be classified as a ‘seed-type-feed’ rather than a true forage, since the NDF and ADF (fiber) levels are relatively low.
Where Hydroponic Forage May Fit. Although the economics, the yield, and the quality of hydroponic sprouted grain forage are not highly favorable, the concept has a great appeal to those who wish to be more self-sufficient in feed. It may fit for those producers who do not have local sources for hay or forage, or simply want to be more self-sufficient. For small animal producers (rabbits, etc.), this may offer a ready source of palatable feed. Hydroponic sprouted grain may also be an appealing feed which varies the diet for animals fed only hay and grains, although we should caution that the costs must be considered.
Summary. The hydroponic concept may be appealing at first look, but it generally doesn’t hold up to scrutiny after careful thought. Its main problem is that it exhibits a net loss in terms of DM yield of 24 to 30% after 6 to 7 days of growth. The DM yields of hydroponic systems are actually negative, compared with the initial seed input. Additionally, there is likely to be a loss in feeding value of sprouted grain compared with raw grain, on a dry weight basis. This result makes sense when considering that the seed must utilize stored carbohydrates in order to drive growth of the seedling. The costs per pound or ton produced are likely to be significantly higher per unit hay equivalent (or feed grain equivalent). Although hydroponic forage has great appeal to those who wish to be more self-sufficient in feed supply, the yield, quality, and costs of this system appear not to be favorable.
Reference:
Fazaeli, H., H.A. Golmoihammadi, S.N. Tabatabayee and M. Asghari-Tabrizi. 2012. Productivity and Nutritive Value of Barley Green Fodder Yield in Hydroponic System. World Applied Sciences Journal 16(4): 531-539.
This logic lends some serious support to feeding fresh, green, WET forage over dry hay, no?
I have recently begun feeding sprouted barley fodder to my horse, goats, cattle, pigs, and chickens, and I have noticed no decrease in health or condition, and only increases in perceived happiness, weight gain, and cost savings.
I don't know the science of why it works or why it shouldn't work, but these animals have been around for much longer than we have been feeding them dry hay, and they survived well enough before we decided to tame them.
Appreciate your perspective. Yes, animals have been consuming fresh forage for a long time.
The key issue is whether foods (or feeds) should be EVALUATED on a wet or dry basis.
Imagine if you took a gallon of milk and added 5 gallons of water. Would the nutritional value be greater or less? It would be the same!! But one would have to drink 6 x as much to get the same nutritional value as the non-diluted gallon of milk. Conversely, concentrated milk powder delivers a lot of nutrition.
Feeds should be evaluated on a dry matter basis regardless of how they're fed, since animals have a daily requirement for protein, energy, minerals, in addition to water (an important nutrient). Highly moist forages - they will have to consume more. It makes no sense to ignore the moisture percentage. Silages, for example, are about 65% water, compared with hay at about 12% moisture. A cow must consume more of the silage to obtain the same nutrients since they're consuming both water and nutrients.
Animals sometimes highly prefer fresh fodder (such as greenchop or grazed forage or sprouts) vs dry hay - fresh forage provides water as well as nutrients. However, if fodder is VERY high in moisture, animals can become very loose (don't stand behind them), and actually this could be a negative in terms of feed efficiency.
It is clear animals require a certain concentration of nutrients (evaluated on a dry basis)regardless of how it's delivered, plus water consumed freely.
Hope this makes sense.
Dan
after 6 years, has there been a nutritionist who "weighed in" on the grain vs fodder digestibility?
you have frequently said "i will wait for a nutritionist to weigh in" and havent found any comment from a nutritionist... only anecdotes of farmers.
nice research though. thought-provoking and convincing.
thanks...
ps.
a lot of people say that grass-fed beef tastes better than grain-fed beef. and grass-fed beef is also more expensive here in my location. this may not be related at all but the price of the output (meats, eggs, etc.) may outweigh the "loss of DM." this is not in any way scientific. just wondering.
Appreciate your perspective. Yes, animals have been consuming fresh forage for a long time
I really hope to see the same high-grade blog posts by
you later on as well.
The site style is wonderful, the articles is really great :
D. Good job, cheers
Best regards,
Your follower,
Alex Carros
What we were considering was a comparison between sprouted grain vs. either grazing grasses
One question, if the water has plenty of added nutrients, will the first stage plant get those nutrients and loosing less or even increase DM?? I know, that must not be a function in the plant at that stage but "forcing" that in some way (probably not posible) could be interesting.
Appreciate your perspective. Yes, animals have been consuming fresh forage for a long time
Using the fertilizer we invented, we were able to prevent the dry matter from burning in the plant during growth.
And we were able to bring this forage to the enrichment stage.
After seven to ten days, put it in a vacuum.
If the package is not opened, it can be stored for up to sixty days .
This forage is semi-dry and has an excellent response .
We have been researching this for years .
We harvest this hydroponic forage on the morning of the fifth day .
With this hydroponic forage cake, we no longer need straw and alfalfa .
And livestock also consumes fresh fodder .
Increased milk and milk fat _ Reduced feeding length _ Elimination of diseases is one of its benefits .
We have tried and tested growing fodder with good results and the economics work based on importing good quality high germ barley from the States. Local demand from horse people is looking very positive as they are looking to use it up to 50-80% maximum to hay/alfalfa bales every day.
They like all the well documented benefits for horses which really only can be discovered by using fodder to feed horse and watch/measure the benefits. We have also studdies answers to fodder questions from the Kentucky Equine Research centre, which is interesting and gives practical advice
Does anyone on this blog have first hand experience of feeding horses fodder? as we are yet to set this project up.
Regards
Thanks
William
I finally trusted to leave a comment
I have enjoyed reading your page.
Just wanted to tell you to keep up the great work you are doing!
After writing this article, I came across a Sandia National Lab Report, largely on the hydroponic forage idea - with some experiments in New Mexico. see: www.sandia.gov/water/docs/ID08_Hydroponic_Pohl.pdf
Worth looking at. They did some extensive field studies and demonstrations. This report was quite glowing about the concept - However, in my view, their water-use calculations are wrong since they don't account for the DM losses (should really have anegative WUE due to that) - also they didn't account for the water used to grow the seed.
I wish I could be more posititive about the concept. Am I off on this issue, or missing something?? I don't see how it pans out.
Interesting article and thought provoking.
Interesting article and thought provoking.
However, the main problem I have is the large DM losses with sprouted grain. The Sandia study (quite detailed, worth looking at), shows DM losses during sprouting in the 36% range, greater than our little study. A process which takes 100 DM kgs of feed a creates 64 kgs doesn't make sense to me, no matter how palatable. Not to mention the cost.
You make a very good point. I'm not sure if 'waltzing' is the right word - but I've seen plenty of whole corn seeds a slippin' and a slidin' right through dairy cow digestive tracts. My nutritionist colleague Peter Robinson may want to weigh in - but grain processing (rolling, grinding, crushing) has been shown to significantly improve the digestibility of grains. Hays are a different story - with much higher fiber contents, which are only partially digested in the best of situation (NDF digestibilities are from 30% to 70%) - but this is normal for hay with its lignin and cellulose. Peter points out that sprouted grain is more appropriately compared with grain, since its fiber levels are so low, and it doesn't really have the functional fiber as does hay. To test what you've said, probably sprouted grain should be compared with whole vs. crushed grains in terms of digestibility/energy yields, taking into account the DM losses we pointed out above.
In my discussions with farmers in my local community that raise beef as part of their livelihood there seems to be two camps: those that feed grain for much or a majority of the animals' diet and those that raise grass fed beef, goats, sheep, and chicken. In the grain feeding camp my discussions about hydroponic fodder were listened to for the most part politely but there seemed to be little interest. I got the impression I was posing a solution to a problem that for them didn't exist. In the grass feeding camp there was much more interest - and it grew out of the much poorer pasture these farmers had available during the winter months and hence the effect their ability to feed their herds/flocks. Some culled the numbers, others turn to some grain feeding. The idea of a hydroponic foddder that was close to the pasture grazing was of much interest.
So is the question Hydro fodder vs. grain? May be not.
1. Dry matter loss - unless something is thrown away there can be no dry matter loss. You may find that on cursory analysis that some dry matter has absorbed moisture but if you put in 10 pounds of dry matter and retain all input you can have no less than 10 pounds of dry matter out, after dehydration. What is being over looked is that the dry matter in grain has potential as converted sugars, micro enzymes, phytonutrients, and other nutritional substances that cannot be realized in the ingestion and digestion (or lack of digestion as discussed above)and are available to the animal only after sprouting.
2. There is a much debate about the value of grass fed vs. grain fed meats, the nutritional value, the economics, the environmental impacts, etc. I won't go beyond saying that each study I have read has been written with some degree of bias on the part of the authors and or researchers involved. The Jury is still out.
What we were considering was a comparison between sprouted grain vs. either grazing grasses, buying hay or feeding grain directly. In that comparison, sprouts do not compare favorably economically.
You are incorrect about the DM issue - due to respiration (burning of carbon and release of carbon dioxide) true dry weight is lost during germination - and in the barley sprout case it appears to be substantial. You should measure it yourself and see if you get the same results we did. (oven dried before, and after sprouting)
This is similar to fermented forages (silage) which loose dry matter during fermentation by evolving CO2 and other gasses. Usually >5% in that case.
Additionally, seed energy is utilized during sprouting, reducing the TDN or energy content of the feed vs. the raw seed. That's a loss in feeding value compared with seed.
You are likely correct that there are activated enzymes and secondary plant compounds generated in the sprouts which may be of interest nutritionally. However, in my view, unless someone can document that these are so important nutritionally that they would overcome a 25-30% loss in feed DM, the loss in energy, or the tremendous economic disadvantage, the concept has to be viewed very skeptically.
PS - By the way, I have no dog in this race, one way or another.
That if improved palatability, was better than the food grain, and is best used, not grains untapped defecated A theo friend
Totalmente de acuerdo con usted y perfectamente explicado, es un engaño una estafa y algo como muchas otras cosas que lo uníco que hacemos es quemar recursos que se necesitaran en el futuro. En el Pais Basko se quería hacer una gran inversión par aprovechar el calor de un Biocompostaje, para hacer un gran invernadero para Germinados. El Razonamiento de un compañero, Veterinario Javier Garro y de mi persona convencio de no hacerlo ya que perdíamos, energía de cada una de las semillas en el proceso de germinación al quemarse el almidón, así se perdia entre un 5-10 % de la energia total.
Eso si mejoraba la palatibilidad, era comida mejor que el grano, y se aprobechava mejor, no se defecaban granos sin aprovechar Un amigo theo
Your estimation of loss in energy in the sprouts was similar to the Fazaeli study which saw substantial loss in energy during sprouting.
It's interesting that this was promoted in Spain.
Dan
Yes, this would be an interesting comparison. However, given the losses in weight of the seed during germination (on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of the DM), it's not enough that germinated seed be 'just as good' as ungerminated seed - it should be a lot better. I haven't seen feeding studies, but in-vitro and lab analysis tells us that germinated seed is likely to be lower in energy concentration than non-germinated seed.
Were I to construct a simple hydroponic growing room (with the help of some local marijuana growing hippies) I would be able to quickly access a feed source that would not require me to store large inventories of alfalfa, nor dedicate/transition limited irrigated clover pasture (used to fatten lambs) to alfalfa, which has in the past proven (for me) a poor field forage due to it's propensity to cause bloat, and it's inability to stand up to heavy hoof traffic in our rainy northwest, and our very short growing season for it... You really cant raise great alfalfa in Western Oregon. It's for those reasons I am interested in alternative growing practices. Thanks so much for your work on the matter, the information you've provided will play a key role in assessing the practicality of this sort of system in my own sheep program! Regards, Joe Wells
Buying hay is painful, but maybe less painful than spending money on hydroponics. I think there is a reason that people call economics 'the dismal science' - it doesn't always support our pet ideas.
When I calculated the DM equivalent of feed produced via hydroponics, it comes out to hundreds of dollars more per ton of hay equivalent than just buying either alfalfa or grass hays. That's with just the cost of seed, without the costs of labor or infrastructure included.
Let me know if you come to the same conclusion with some calculations from your area.
Now, if you were growing the old mary-jane along with the barley......
Good luck with your sheep program.
Dan
In developing countries like India, green fodder is available in range 1.5 to 2.5 INR per Kg (thats 1 USD per 40 kg roughly) - which grows on its own or as a byproduct of the harvested crops. Employing hydroponics is expensive and it would not even compete with market prices. To make a point see below calculations:
1 Kg of maize costs about 10-15 Rs (ref http://agmarknet.nic.in/cmm2_home.asp?comm=Maize&dt=16/12/2013 for recent market price range). If used as seeds - 1 kg of maize in this cause at least should produce 10-15 kg of green fodder - so as to meet market prices of green fodder. And I have not seen anyone yet claiming to produce 10 times in 7 days. I am not considering costs involved in hydroponics setup, labor, water usage - as it would still the case that they will be at least nullified with costs involved in production, labor and transportation for traditionally available green fodder. The concept does not even meet to tally returns on investments.
Thanks for your comments-all the way from India!
I think if you measured the actual gain or loss in DM with sprouted Maize, you would find a LOSS in DM, similar to the barley. so even though you might get 6-10 kg from 1 kg seed, the amount of feed might actually be LESS - try it out and see! (you'd have to measure the dry weight with a microwave or something).
Let's see- your purchase cost for 40 kg of fresh green fodder is according to my calculations, about $82 US dollars per English ton (2000 LBS) if the fodder was 25% DM, and $102/ton hay equivalent if 20% DM. Depending upon the quality of the fodder, that's pretty inexpensive in US terms. Currently, Chinese dairies are paying 350-450$/MT (Metric Ton is 1.1 English ton) for imported high quality alfalfa hay from US.
It would be difficult for sprouted grains to beat that price in India, I think.
I think it's really important when fodders are priced to carefully consider Dry Matter conversions, and it never ceases to amaze me that people seldom do a careful job of that. Hydroponic forage is one example.
Thanks for your comments - interesting!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
DM and digestibility peak around day 3-4, so it could be that tweaking this system can give you a greater feed value.
Thanks for your comments.
Agree with you that DM isn't everything, and that digestibility (ability to produce energy and digest DM in ruminant systems) is the key. However, digestibility must also be determined on a dry weight basis, and if you have a 20-30% loss in DM, that's a major problem.
I believe the digestibility of whole grains is primarily compromised by lack of crushing or processing, as discussed above.
I'll leave the full arguments about quality to the nutritionists (they argue..??? Naw!).
However, the Fazaeli et al. paper (World Applied Sciences Journal 12(4) 531-539, 2012) was clear: Sprouting increased CP (but decreased true protein), reduced non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC), reduced in-vitro gas production (which is a predictor of digestibility, or at least energy yield in ruminant systems), and reduced Metabolizable Energy (ME) per kg of sprouted grain vs. the original grain. This result is in line with the idea that sprouting utilizes stored carbohydrates in the seed, reducing quality as well as DM.
If you have data which contradicts this, please let us know. I'd actually like to see data which clearly supports this practice. As I said, I've got no dog in this race.
Happy New Year,
Dan
You may have hit on a situation where this truly might have a fit! This is a situation where the cost issues are not as important and the analytical loss in feeding value is also not at issue, but the enjoyment of the animals IS!! Now I don't know if horses would enjoy sprouts as much as humans, but it seems reasonable that they could! You may also want to consult with a nutritionist on the issue, but this falls under the category of 'varied diet' to create an interesting diet for these intelligent animals so they won't eat the fence posts....?
Perhaps it is akin to my buying little meaty treats for my dogs - they are certainly not cost effective, and don't yield ANY return (I've tried to no avail to get the beasts to get a job, alas), but they certainly wag their tails more with them. I suppose if I applied my above logic to my dog treats, they would be found wanting.
OF course, from the hay perspective, the horse market for hay is famously 'irrational' - that not being necessarily a bad thing, but as they say, the 'customer is always right'.
But I would check to see if they were willing to pay the true cost of producing the sprouts in any event...!
I think I'll let the nutritionists weigh in on your comments. I think what you are talking about is 'residence time' or intake levels and how that might affect the digestibility of the grains vs. digestibility of the sprouts.
Anyone?
Dan
One question was about water usage. Fodder is far more efficient here. It only takes 2 to 3% of the amount of water required for standard forage production.
Another question was about cost. Fodder is very cheap to sprout. There's no soil, no pesticides, no fertilizers, no tractors or fuel, and no large space of land required. A system that fits into 200 square feet will produce over 200 tons of feed per year. (That's "wet" lbs - more on that below)
Now to the big question and the main problem here - Dry Matter. I'm probably going to stir up some nutritionists and sound a bit crazy here, but dry matter doesn't matter. Our traditional methods of feeding which rely on dry matter do NOT work with fodder.
This whole article assumes that an animal fed fodder will consume the same amount of dry matter as a traditional feed. They do not.
Before you jump in with your arguments, show me a study that includes feeding animals and measuring dry matter before and after fodder. If you cannot do this, you cannot prove, nor disprove my claim. (I however do have studies - look at the nutrition tab on www.foddersolutions.net)
As an example, watch this video. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=9385462 Tracy Underwood saves $200 PER DAY by feeding fodder. Her horses are healthier as well. But the fact of the matter is, that's a savings of $73,000 per year. It's difficult to argue with real results. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't mean everyone is making it up! You don't have to believe me, look up Santa Rosa Equestrian Center and ask her yourself.
Another example is a dairymen is Idaho. He replaced dry corn with foddder - lb for lb. Not dry matter lb for lb, but wet fodder, for dry corn. 1lb of seed can grow into 6.5lbs of wet feed. Assuming dry matter loss (which I am in no way arguing with) from sprouting, he may actually only be feeding .15lb of dry matter fodder - for each lb of corn. That's a significant reduction in dry matter for his total ration - yet his milk production is the same, and his milk fats increased from 3.1% to 3.9%. His cost of "wet" fodder was $138 per ton. His corn was $350 per ton.
If you base this solely on dry matter, then you're assuming he'll have to feed more than 60lbs of fodder to replace just 10lbs of grain. - That is a totally unrealistic amount of fodder to feed!
We don't know everything about fodder yet - but universities are testing it and why it works so well. Chico State University currently runs a fodder system with their organic dairy cows. The key thing here is they're feeding animals for their study - and it works.
If you're still not convinced (and I don't expect you to be) then you need to go talk to someone who is using fodder, and ask them 2 things. "How is the health of heard now that you're using fodder? How much has your feed bill changed?" If you need someone to talk to, I know people around almost all of the US using fodder.
Since you haven't offered any data to support your contention, it has to be dismissed as a promotional piece.
Please offer data to support your point of view.
Sorry, you are wrong about the dry matter. It is important to adjust for dry matter. As Glenn Shewmaker pointed out: Try adding 9 lbs of water for each pound of hay, and then sell the hay for 40$/ton? Nutritionally, you still have 1 lb of hay!!
See his excellent article: http://www.progressivecattle.com/focus-topics/nutrition/6025-hydroponic-forage-system-too-good-to-be-true
Here are the key questions which require data (from promoters) to support the practice:
1. Is there a gain in dry matter during the sprouting process, or a loss? Our research shows a loss of 25-30%.
2. Is there a gain in quality of the barley or other seed by sprouting, or a loss compared with seeds themselves? Published research shows a loss in quality vs. the initial seed. Do you have feeding data to indicate an improvement in feeding value/lb DM?
3. What is the total water impact of producing fodder this way? – not just the water used in sprouting but the water used for grain production for the seeds? Keep in mind the DM loss during sprouting.
4. What is the full cost of producing fodder vs. producing hay or purchasing forage or grain crops? Our data shows roughly double the price for sprouted seeds "fodder" vs. purchased hay. See above.
5. What evidence do you have that this practice is sustainable environmentally?
Unless you (or others) can provide data which more fully supports this practice, it should be discounted.
Good point to compare over same period.
If you get 4 sprout harvests over the month, same problem, you get losses summed over a month. Still negative growth, and negative water use efficiency.
If you leave the sprouts for a full month, it's not clear what happens (the websites don't promote this), and we don't have data on this. You'd probably run into major plant nutrient limitations, diseases, etc.
The key issue is that sprouts go through a loss in carbohydrate before photosynthesis kicks in to add dry matter with well-established plants. Note that harvested sprouts in our study were only abut 15% leaves, majority (85%) was in the roots and spent seeds.
But (as per comments above) this begs the question, why not plant barley in the field and harvest early. Maybe not 1 month but 2 or 3. Boot stage or vegetative small grains (or annual ryegrass) are very high quality feeds. You would need water (ET) for the field, but you would also need water for 2-3 months of controlled environment growth. You would have to satisfy other plant nutrient needs (N, P, K, S, etc.) somehow - in the field the soil will help, not so with hydroponics, where you'd have to add nutrients.
The other option: grow hay during the growing season, harvest and store. It's cheaper. Don't believe me - do the calculations yourself, but be sure to adjust for dry matter.
I would appreciate your thoughts on a few issues; one being the consistency of sprouted grains. One of the challenges I've faced in raising and caring for horses is inconsistency in the quality of alfalfa. That said, I'm basing that assumption of inconsistency on anecdotal factors like amount of leaf, how thick are the stems, how much is left on the ground after feeding, etc. I'm curious how truly varied is the nutritional content of alfalfa over a year? I realize this depends on lots of factors, but would it be fair to claim that a sprouted barley diet represent a more consistent (although economical inferior) food source?
The major followup to that question, perhaps for the nutritionist, is where do sprouted grains fit into in a equine feeding program. The promoters cite rising hay prices and stable that have cut the hay bills tremendously. But, it was mentioned here on 11/15 that “sprouted grain is more appropriately compared with grain, since its fiber levels are so low, and it doesn't really have the functional fiber as does hay.” I have reviewed the nutritional data for sprouted barely specifically and am confused as to how to incorporate it. Would a reduction in grain be appropriate? Could a switch be made to a less nutritionally rich hay strictly for fiber, with the sprouted grains picking up the nutritional slack? Additionally, with the difference in DM/high moisture content, how best to adjust for the increased weight of sprouted grains when rationing?
Also, perhaps this is too horse specific for this post, but promoters of sprouted grains claim digestive benefits, specifically in the reduction of colic, gastric ulcers, etc. While this makes some sense to me from my experience, I'm curious if as a nutritionist if these claims seem likely.
I very much appreciate any help with these questions. Daniel, I like the analogy you made to dog treats, I'm just hoping that there can also be some nutritional and dietary benefits to justify the cost of sprouted barely to myself and my customers. Thank you
Good questions. I'll let the nutritionists weigh in on these issues more fully.
On the consistency issue, you are quite right - this is a problem with hay. However, one way to try to control the consistency of alfalfa hay is to buy in larger batches and to test and specify tests quality. That being said, I would think that sprouts may be more consistent than hay, but again, it may not be appropriate to compare sprouts nutritionally to hay.
Dan
PS My dogs still haven't secured a paying job, but alas, I still give them treats.
http://www.foddersolutions.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Benefits-of-sprouts-for-feed.pdf
http://www.foddersolutions.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UK-Sheep-Trial.pdf
http://www.foddersolutions.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/equine-case-Studies.pdf
http://www.foddersolutions.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lamb-enterprise-sprouts-at-Glen-Innes.pdf
Respiratory+Disorders+in+Horses
Digestive+Tract+Equine
John, those horse studies should answer your questions.
To further address your questions Daniel:
1. Is there a gain in dry matter during the sprouting process, or a loss?
Let's do the opposite with your analogy. Dry up a cow's milk and feed it to one calf, while another receives the normal milk. Which one will be healthier?
2. Is there a gain in quality of the barley or other seed by sprouting, or a loss compared with seeds themselves
Read the article above "Benefits of sprouts for feed." Clearly there is a gain. If not, why are humans sprouting wheat grass and drinking it for the health benefits? Would they not be better eating the dry wheat grain? No, they're not.
3. What is the total water impact of producing fodder this way?
Sprouting grain uses 2-3% of the water required for standard forage production - aka hay. In addition, because of the high moisture content animals will drink less water. There is also no fuel involved, no tillage costs, no transportation costs, etc. This has been used for the last decade in Australia because of it's resilience in harsh drought conditions.
4. What is the full cost of producing fodder vs. producing hay or purchasing forage or grain crops?
Typically it's around $100 per ton. That's including the fact that you're paying for good quality seed grain. The grower of the grain (typically barley) is turning profit from selling the seed. If you grew your own barley seed, the $100 per ton would decrease dramatically. (This is a "wet" $100/ton - since that's how you feed it.)
5. What evidence do you have that this practice is sustainable environmentally?
The use of the technology has been growing rapidly in Australia over the past decade, as well as Africa and India over the past 2-3 years. Think about it - a machine that takes up just 200 square feet - produces 200 tons of feed per year. This means there is more land available for grazing or growing other crops. (Such as the crops required to put more seed into the system, and further reduce land and water usage.)
In regards to letting the sprouts grow longer - Past 6 days sprouts start to change into a grass. You lose digestibility and nutrient value the longer it grows past the sprouting stage. Again, refer to the article "benefits of sprouts for feed".
Finally at least a little data. Thanks!
I see you've nicely avoided the dry matter issue again - by the way, dried milk powder is fine nutritionally and is used around the world for human (or animal) nutrition, reconstituted. Surprise-It's in the non-water fraction!!
In your 2-3% water-use concept - your forgot to adjust for DM of the different materials (sprouts and forage). You also forgot to include the water to grow the seed initially. Need to re-calculate.
On the economics, Let's see, according to your calculations, if sprouts cost around $100/ wet ton to produce, and the dry matter is about 12% (to be generous, see above data), you'd get 240 lbs of DM in a ton with the sprouts, and hay is about 90% DM (very standard), you would get 1800 lbs of DM in a ton. The 'hay equivalent' cost of sprouts then would be $750/ton on a hay-equivalent basis.
Thanks for confirming my calculations. Sprouts are very expensive compared with purchased hay.
Cheers,
Dan
- On a dry matter basis, yes. Sprouts are not fed on a dry matter basis though!
Let's crunch the numbers with an average, 1,000lb horse. Let's say the normal ration is about 20lbs of alfalfa hay each day, or 2% of body weight. It think we can agree this is "normal".
Now introduce 20lbs of fodder to the horse's diet, and free choice hay. On it's own, the horse will naturally start eating less hay. In our experience, it would cut back to about 10lbs of hay while eating 20lbs of fodder.
20lbs of wet sprouts would only be around 2.75lbs of dry grain. So on a dry matter basis, the horse that was eating 20lbs of dry matter per day, is now only eating 12.75lbs of dry matter per day.
You will say this is impossible, the horse cannot be healthy - but it is being done right now, with thousands of fodder systems around the world. Tell Clayton Fredericks (who has olympic level horses) that the fodder he's feeding cannot sustain a healthy horse.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a dry matter loss during sprouting, or that sprouts appear to be more expensive on a dry matter basis. But if it's not fed on a dry matter basis - Dry matter doesn't matter.
I suppose this is a difference between UC Davis and Chico State University. UC Davis has specialists in a classroom discussing how fodder can't work. Chico State University has a dairy operation on the university farm using fodder for their cows to actually understand it.
That said, anyone who REALLY wants to know, can contact Cindy Daley at Chico State University. http://www.csuchico.edu/ag/faculty-staff/college-faculty/daley-cindy.shtml
Daniel, the only further advice I can offer at this point is to get out of your office and speak with some ranches and farms that are actually using this as a way of sustaining their animals. Here are a few within driving distance. Anyone else reading this is welcome to contact them too.
Chico State University
http://www.srequestrian.com/
http://www.ghswest.com/gypsyhorses/
Darrell Wood (President of Panorama Meats) http://www.panoramameats.com/
It's never easy to implement something deemed impossible by the experts.
What?? get out of my office?? Like I do each day??? Peter Robinson and myself are Extension Agronomists and regularly are in the field.
It's only BECAUSE I"ve milked (and fed) cows myself for many years, and have research plots all over the state, and regularly visit farmers and ranches that I can unequivocally say that:
DRY MATTER in rations MATTERS!! Any qualified nutritionists will tell you so. Rations are considered on a dry basis - Now sprouts may be something interesting nutritionally, but to say dry matter doesn't count is nonsense, so stop saying it.
DRY MATTER in estimating yields MATTERS!!! If someone says 'my variety yields 25 tons per acre" - that would be amazing for alfalfa (yields from 5-12 tons dry hay at 90%DM) but not so much for corn silage (yields from 22 to 35 t/acre silage at 30% DM).
DRY MATTER MATTERS!
Suggest: stop being insulting in your comments, and address the facts.
Dan
I look forward to hearing about your visits then.
Over the past year his milk production increased 21%. Milk fats increased from 3.6 to 3.7 to over 5. His increase in profit for the milk alone was 22%.
He stated that the profit from feeding fodder last year paid for his fodder machine.
Dry matter is import in ruminant nutrition! Kyle's argument that fodder can't be compared on a dry matter basis is wrong. Corn and grass silages and pasture forage can be compared to hay and grains on a dry matter basis. It is done every day by nutritionists, and to try to publish a scientific paper without converting to dry matter would cause rejection by the peer-reviewers.
I have no doubts that fodder produced with these systems is highly palatable and readily eaten, but to claim that it doesn't take as much dry matter to produce the same milk as hay or grain is illogical.
See the following link for an article that I wrote:
http://www.progressivecattle.com/focus-topics/nutrition/6025-hydroponic-forage-system-too-good-to-
be-true
Glenn Shewmaker, Ph.D.
Professor and Extension Forage Specialist
University of Idaho
1. Will soaking grain (soybeans) overnight make them more digestible or do they need to actually sprout (from enzyme action)? I definitely do not want to lose too much DM and CP.
2. 800lb steers on wheat pasture surely dont eat 60lbs of wheat per day to get the equivalent 20-25lbs of tmr. Does this support the fodder theory of DM doesnt matter.. Im not for or against the fodder. But i really do think that something for nothing is a waste.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
That doesn't surprise me one bit. Talk to someone like Sylvia Abel-Cain who is a nutritionist for Organic Valley and your statement will change.
"...but to claim that it doesn't take as much dry matter to produce the same milk as hay or grain is illogical. "
I'm sure the Wright brothers were deemed illogical. After the first flight there were many that did not believe it had happened, and that it was a hoax or a scam. That did not change the fact that it did happen.
Funny that you should post the article above, I've already read it. It comes to the same conclusion - that fodder on a dry matter basis is more expensive. So I offer the following. Since you're in Idaho, this seems applicable.
Anyone who has spent time around Idaho Falls has probably heard of Reed's Dairy. His ice cream is quite famous. What you may not know is that he has a small fodder system. On his own, he devised a test to see what fodder would do for his dairy cows. The original post for this text is here: http://foddersolutions.net/fodderforums/?topic=fodder-for-dairy
"We milk 160 Holstein cows on our dairy. In the spring we purchased a unit that produces 300 pounds of fodder per day. We put 12 cows in a separate corral and tested the fodder on them.
Our goals were:
1. To see if we can replace the flaked corn pound for pound with fodder
2. Determine if it changed the flavor of the milk.
3. Determine the health of the cows on fodder.
4. Find out what happens to the milk production and fat content of the milk.
Here is what happened and hopefully it will help answer your question/
We gradually (over a four week time frame) changed from 20 pounds of corn per day per cow to 20 pounds of fodder. Replacing all of the grain with fodder, pound for pound.
The milk flavor was as good or even a little cleaner.
Health of the cows stayed really good.
Milk production never dropped. We were running this test on 12 of our highest producers. So far we have not seen an increase in milk production but the fat test increased from 3.2% to 3.9%
Hope this helps.
Alan
Reed’s Dairy
Idaho Falls, ID"
Mind you, this is "wet" lbs for "dry" lbs. Alan is a reputable source and well known in that part of the country. So there are two possible explanations to this story. 1 - He made the whole thing up. 2 - Reducing dry matter in a ration while maintaining, or even improving health, is possible.
Possibility #1 seems highly illogical.
Kyle Chittock
Ordinary Guy
Thanks for the reply. Happy New Year to you as well.
As to your request for information that shows net benefit in digestibility, look at this document: http://www.qcl.farmonline.com.au/files/48/20/01/000012048/Hydroponicfodder.pdf
It brings up some really good points about fodder and sprouts. Fodder at 8 days is 10-15% dry matter, 85% water. So, if you took 1 lb of grain and grew fodder with it, you get 6 lbs of fodder. But, that 6 lbs of fodder has only .9 lbs of actual feed, the rest is water. I thnk we all agree on the dry matter loss with fodder.
The original grain is 90% DM, so about .9lbs of feed. Whole grain is 40% digestible, but ground grain is close to 75% digestible. Ground grains do lose nutrients the longer they sit, so it is best to grind the grains right before feeding to get the most nutrients (and most of these tests use freshly ground grains for measurements).
Sprouts at 4 days have 80% dry matter, and usually about 2.5-3 lbs per pound of original grain. So, at 2.5 lbs, that is 2 lbs of feed (more than fodder and the original grain). This is a net increase of DM!
So, at first glance, fodder doesn't seem to add anything. But, then digestibility comes into it. Whole grain is about 40% digestible, Ground grain is about 75%, Fodder is 80%, and 4 day sprouts is 85%.
From the figures above, that gives us the actual feed digested by the animal out of 1 lb of grain (including the DM figures):
Whole grain: 1 x .9 (DM) x .4 (digestibility) = .36 lbs feed value
Ground grain: 1 x .9 (DM) x .75 (digestibility) = .68 lbs feed value
4 Day Sprouts: 1 x 2.5 (sprouts) x .8 (DM) x .85 (digestibility) = 1.7 lbs feed value
Fodder: 1 x 6 (sprout) x .15 (DM) x .8 (digestibility) = .7 lbs feed value
This doesn't take into account enzymes, vitamin content, unmeasurables, etc, that can play a role in the feed value of a particular method. But, I think the data is interesting and may account for the numerous people that seem to have beneficial results with fodder.
Personally, I'd like to see feed trials of fodder vs sprouts, ground grain vs sprouts, ground grain vs fodder.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. However your assumptions in your calculations above are not practical. It is not possible to create more dry matter than is present in the 4 or 8 day period. So if you have 2.5 lbs of 4-day sprouts it cannot be more than 0.4 dry matter (2.5 x 0.4 = 1.0).
Glenn
I think you're quite right to identify digestibility as an important factor. I'd like to see more digestibility data from the promoters. IVDDM (IN vitro digestible dry matter) and NDFd (digestibility of the NDF fraction), as well as gas production would be helpful. Note: these are all both based upon a DM basis (except gas).
However, Fazaeli et al. (2012) found a decrease in Organic matter digestibility, decrease carbohydrate and energy in the fodder after sprouting compared with the seed, so your assumption that sprouts would be superior may not be true.
Glenn is right to question the DM calculation - note that 1 lb of ground grain effectively turns into about 0.75 lbs of grain after sprouting (Dry basis), so the digestibility would have to be a LOT greater to make up for this difference.
Dan
What sprouts were tested in the Fazaeli study? Sprouts or fodder? The tested digestibility of Fodder in the studies referenced in that paper show an increase in digestion of fodder vs whole grain. Fodder vs ground grain shows a slight increase in digestibility.
Sprouting to 3-4 days shows the largest increase in digestibility.
The DM calculation is from the studies in the paper I linked to. The .75lb of DM you reference is after growing to fodder, not in the initial sprout stage that I am referencing (sprouts younger than 4 days). Numerous studies (also referenced in that link) show less of a DM loss than 25%, and more in the range of 10-15%.
Ground grain does not sprout. Whole grain suffers from low digestibility. Grinding and/or sprouting increases that digestibility by a large margin (doubling it or more).
I would love to see some data, especially feeding trials on sprouts vs ground grain vs fodder. If you know of feeding trials or studies that specifically look at sprouts vs fodder, please share them.
The Fazhaeli study was on sprouts 6-8 days old.
It looks like from what you've shown, there is a slight increase in digestibility with sprouts at 4 days, but it goes down after that. The big issue is that annoying loss in DM. Although the digestibility goes up a little, the actually quantity of DM goes down a lot.
Your reference to the Australian study was very helpful:
http://www.qcl.farmonline.com.au/files/48/20/01/000012048/Hydroponicfodder.pdf
It's a detailed review. Note that they said in their summary: "Profitable use of sprouted grain as a feed source for commercial cattle production appears unlikely " They note that the failure to account for DM was a major problem, and later state that "Sprouts have been found to cost from two to five times the cost of dry matter compared with the original grain."
Confirms our critique.
I think the earlier analogy to dog treats is appropriate here - the sprouts appear palatable and digestible, and probably interesting to the animals, but don't really survive an economic analysis. Just like my dog treats for my worthless "refuse to get a job' dogs.
Thanks for the clarification on the Fazhaeli study.
The conclusion in the Australian Report is also based on a system that cost $76,000, which is typically more expensive than systems available now or owner-built. So, any conclusion about profitability needs to take that into account. This line is very important:
"The sprouts option has the highest income but also much higher variable and fixed costs resulting in a loss of $2,215 and being $7,338 worse than the ‘no change’ option. In this case $76,000 was spent on a shed and associated equipment and grain was priced at $250/t."
So, without that $73K expenditure, it would have been profitable.
It is interesting to note that several analyses in that study show a variance of DM loss from 7% up to 40%. If the digestibility figures are reliable (the majority showing higher digestibility with fodder vs raw grain), and DM only drops by 7%, then there could be an overall benefit to fodder production, because gains in digestibility could make up for small DM losses. This particular area needs further study, in my opinion.
The majority of feed studies in that report don't show an advantage to fodder, but some do:
"Tudor et al. (2003) measured intake and liveweight change in 17 Droughtmaster steers that received low quality hay and barley sprouts over 70 days. During the first 48 days cattle ate 1.9 kgDM/head/day of sprouts (15.4 kg wet weight) and 3.1 kgDM/head/day of poor quality hay and gained 1.01 kg/head/day. Energy intake was 47 MJME/head/day, which was considered by nutrition standards to only be sufficient for low weight gains of up to 200g/head/day. This high performance could not be explained by energy and protein intakes."
I think there's a lot going on here that may not be easily explained through the data we currently have. More feed trials and studies are needed for definitive conclusions.
To start with, I am a seed producer (barley included). As well, my business partner operates a 140-cow dairy, and we, together, are crop producers. In the recent past couple of years, I have had a number of customer inquiries for barley seed for the purpose of producing fodder, mostly from hobbyists, but also from some larger dairy producers.
To begin with, I believe that there are several discussions contained within the broader debate. The economics of the dry matter comparison are pretty hard to argue against. After all, these are simple and straight-forward calculations. My experience is that, when mixing feed in a TMR dairy ration, as the DM content of an ingredient decreases, the as-fed pounds increase within the ration.
Another aspect within this discussion may be that some of the economics of fodder production must be calculated using geographical implications. For example, in the northern U.S. climate where I'm from, the cost and type of structure needed to maintain a consistently narrow temperature range for fodder production would have a high initial cost, given the robust construction design, insulation, lighting, etc., and a subsequently higher maintenance cost, mostly due to heating costs. There are probably additional considerations that I have not listed that could alos be important.
Along with geography, comes macro and micro climate conditions. So, aside from dictating the type of structure needed for fodder production, climate conditions play a major role in the resources needed for feed production. For example, in our region, annual rainfall amounts are seldom, if ever a problem (although timing can be). So, water use savings (not water use efficiency), would be difficult to calculate, as rainfall (a paycheck), soil moisture (a bank), and dew (a bonus)require no additional expense.
Land is also an important consideration, with which there are numerous questions attached. What is your land worth, and /or what is its market price? How productive is your land? Do you own land, or not, or is it rented? Can you purchase more land in close proximity to your feeding operation? Can you afford to buy land? And there are certainly more questions.
With land, you have an investment that increases in value over time. A building depreciates over time and will likely never be worth the cost of construction, but it will retain some residual value.
Some people have cited land costs and lack of nearby, available land as the impetus for fodder production. For example, Mr. Chittock has stated in an earlier post that fodder production yield can exceed one wet ton per square foot per year. He further sites examples of people who are replacing wet pounds of fodder for dry pounds of feed ingredients at a one to one ratio. Everyone will have to make financial decisions based on market conditions for land in their own area, so this is just one example.
Let's say one invests $200,000.00 to build a building for fodder production on land they already own. Let's compare that to purchasing land at $7,000.00 per acre that can produce 5 tons (dry matter) of alfalfa per acre per year. Using Mr. Chittock's fodder production claims, one would need 40 acres to produce 200 tons of dry matter alfalfa. With this example, it would cost $280,000.00 for the land. Land appreciates, on average and over time at about 7 percent per year, and buildings depreciate at about 10 to 15 percent per year. What will the net worth of each system's owner be in ten years?
Now, let's compare production costs. If fodder production yields 6 pounds of feed per 1 pound of seed, using previously stated seed prices ($15/bu), fodder would cost approximately ($15 bus. / 48 lbs. / 6 lbs. yield) $0.05/lb., excluding labor, water, heat, building costs, etc. Alfalfa seed is more costly, perhaps around $65.00 per acre, plus seeding and tillage, perhaps totaling $90.00 per acre but this cost can be spread over a three year stand life. Harvesting costs also vary greatly, but using Iowa average custom rates (give or take): $13 to cut/mow per acre; $3 rake per acre; $9 per 950 pound (3x3x8)bale. So, seed plus establishment is $90/acre / 3 year stand life / 5 tons per acre = $6/ton. In a three cut system yielding 5 tons/acre/per, cut/mow = $39 per acre/5 tons per acre = $7.80/ton; Rake = $9 per acre/5 tons per acre = $1.80 per ton; Baling = 10.5 bales/ per acre x $9 per bale / 5 tons per acre = $18.90 per ton. Added together, production costs per ton would equal about $34.50, or a bit less than $0.02/lb. Even with $200/acre/year in fertilizer costs ($200/ 5 tons/ 2000 lbs = $0.02/lb) So, even using a one to one comparison between wet fodder and dry alfalfa (which I remain extremely skeptical about), it would appear that dry alfalfa still would be the better economic feed choice.
The number of variables are limitless, so everyone's cost calculations will likely be different, but this is just a quick and dirty way to calculate cost differences in feed costs that I'm familiar with. I would be interested in what other folks would have for cost comparisons. I am able to take criticism, if been wrong before.
Thanks for your comments. Your calculations were somewhat more involved than mine. Producing one's own hay is almost always (if you have the land and equipment) cheaper than buying, but for people with animals without land, the calculations may be simpler:
Is it cheaper just to buy fodder? Cheaper to buy hay or grain vs. 'grow ones own' fodder in a hydroponic system? The answer is an unequivical YES. Your calculations confirm this, as do mine.
Take a look at last week's prices for hay delivered in California:
California – Dlvd to Tulare/Hanford Dairies
(# Tons in survey, and price)
Supreme 1,025 $/Ton $297-$315
Premium 1,545 $/Ton $280-$310
Good 550 $/Ton $265-$285
Fair 350 $/Ton $265-$270
These are prices during a drought and low hay supply!!! (quote from Seth Hoyt's 'The Hoyt Report')
Compare this to the calculation of hydroponic fodder at $750/ton on a hay equivalent basis (this is Fodder Solution's $100/wet ton cost estimate, not mine). Now, intake may be a little higher for sprouts vs. high quality hay (data is not clear about this), but it must be MUCH higher in performance to justify these differences.
Dan
See http://www.rebelarmy.com/pdfs/Barley.pdf
And is there a way for me to join this discussion, i.e., have a user account and password?
You just did join- it's a moderated discussion.
Thanks for the digestibility data - it would be relevant to have the barley before and after sprouting to compare the raw seed with sprouts - along with the dry matter changes over 7 days to see what was lost during sprouting, both energy and DM.
Dan
The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) recently released voluntary guidelines for reduced antibiotic use in animals. In the background data supporting these guidelines, the FDA clearly pointed their finger at “high energy (i.e. starch) feeds like corn that require increased antibiotic use” as needing to be changed. I find it interesting that much of the comments here were related to horses. It is my understanding that ‘hindgrindeers’ like horses and mules can use high starch corn diets well, and indeed was an early driver for growing corn in the late 19th century to ‘fuel’ our means of motive power. Ruminant animals and hogs however will naturally pass a large amount of starch through their digestive tract. The emerging data is revealing that using high protein rations like DDGs lowers the need for pharma inputs actually results in quicker weight gain. There is of course the on going dispute as to whether corn fed or grass fed cattle make better steaks, but using a ‘high energy’ ration at the end of ‘finishing’ seems to result in good marbling. The increased use of grain in feedlots starting 40 or 50 years ago coincides with the increased use of probiotic enzymes and antibiotics provided by our friends in Big Pharma. The primary indication used for determining probiotics needs is to test for fecal starch. A ‘high energy’ grain diet has been the standard for many years but it may be time to question this.
To get good answers, one needs to ask good questions. That DM will decrease with germination is to be expected because that is the nature of a seed. It stores energy in the form of starch that it uses in germination prior to photosynthesis taking place. My question is what is happening with that germination? I am fairly sure that the loss of DM isn’t just disappearing as heat. It is changing the molecular composition of the seed into enzymes or proteins or something. The hull of any seed is a form of cellulose and unless it is broken down mechanically, there needs to be some sort of cellulase enzyme to break it down, which is generally lacking in animals. In digestion, just like in fermentation, the starch needs to be exposed to enzymes to produce sugar for final digestive absorption and small pieces are better than big pieces.
Some of the more recent posts in this thread are getting at good questions. Improved digestibility, how it affects growth and weight gain etc. and its relation to other feed rations are more important questions than the fact that a seed will have more ‘energy’ (starch or DM) than a sprout.
Some have questioned the CAPEX and OPEX or running a hydroponic sprout facility. From my experience, some of the CAPEX estimates here seem significantly high and co-locating with an ethanol facility would make heating requirements basically free as there is plenty of excess, low-level heat waste. Feedlot operations are finding co-location with an ethanol refinery efficient as they benefit from the ability to receive a continuous supply of WET distillers grain. Would they also benefit from a continuous supply of hydroponic sprouts? You may see where I am coming from in a ‘bio-industrial ecology system’ context. I hope to see additional comments on this.
"Yes, DM stands for dry matter. This is the standard unit of measure in current dairy cow feed rations. The DM mindset is what we need to get away from when looking at fodder. DM rations do not capitalize on the digestive design of the animal; grain is not a natural feed for ruminants. The article is correct that, when reviewed for DM fodder is not cost effective. What nutritionists don’t say is the next step, that the increased moisture of fodder carries additional digestive enzymes, amino acids, nutrients etc. This is hugely beneficial to the animal."
"Dan Putnam’s opinions on grain vs. sprouts. On average a barley seed is approximately 13% protein, maybe 30% digestible to a cow. By sprouting it you’re taking the starches that create the DM and transforming them to a more simple sugar. You’re activating the proteins during this stage as well. This lends to the barley sprout testing at least 18% protein with a 70%+ digestibility."
Dan, I would greatly appreciate your reply to the above and would also appreciate a simplified version of your argument that a milk consumer could understand.
Lastly, I don't understand how it can be that a hydroponic fodder system which maintains my cows' current milk production and allows me to eliminate all grain from my cows' diet and the cost of the feed is not economically viable and a financially prudent investment?
There is also the issue of GMOs in grain which a hydroponic fodder system eliminates. What's the value of GMO Free milk when compared with GMO milk?
Thank you.
I think your estimate of digestibility of grain is low, if the grain is processed. Ruminants can digest many of the starches in grains (this can be measured), especially barley.
Published data shows decline in true protein, although some increase in CP.
The big issue is the loss in total feed tonnage due to DM losses, so whatever supposed increases in digestiblity (or enzymes) that some claim has to overcome that 25-25% decline in total feed tonnage due to sprouting. So far, I haven't seen any data which would support that.
Barley doesn't have GMOs so it's not an issue - neither does small grain hay. It's a separate issue.
Dan
This Iranian study is available online here: http://jast.modares.ac.ir/?_action=showPDF&article=4708&_ob...%E2%80%8E
In the above trial, the calves fed the fodder diet consumed 14.5 pounds of dry matter per day. Of this, 22% was fodder barley which equals 3.19 lbs of fodder dry matter. Their fodder was 19.3 percent dry matter and the as fed feeding rate was 16.5 lbs of fodder per head per day (3.19/0.193 = 16.5 pounds as fed).
Any thoughts about the relative digestibility of barley grain vs sprouts and potential quality differences?
The 30% that some have stated seems very low for rolled barley
Dan
There were two dairy producers in eastern Idaho that grew barley fodder on their dairies in 2013. They quoted production costs of $100/T (Nash Dairy) and $140/T (Reed Dairy). At the time of these quotes, cost per pound of dry matter was $0.17 per pound of flaked barley and fodder prices per pound of dry matter were $0.33 at Nash Dairy and $0.47 at Reed Dairy. Neither dairy is currently fodder barley. Nash dairy went out of business and Reed dairy decided to use corn silage in their cattle diets due to better economics: lower feed cost and less labor over a fodder system.
The only thing useful I gained out of it was this statement, "As shown in Table 4, the total means of
dry mater intake was significantly (P< 0.05)
lower (6.6 vs. 7.2 kg d-1), in calves fed green
fodder than those fed the control diet."
No noticeable difference in health, but they DID feed less dry matter when using fodder. Now we're getting somwhere... So the question is then, where's the cost breakdown?
The Iranians did not provide feed prices in their study but they did provide the composition of their diets on a 100% dry matter basis (see Table 1). If you multiply the percentage times the price per pound of DM for each feed, then sum all the costs, you will have calculated the cost per 100 pounds of feed dry matter for each diet. Cost of the ration equals dry matter intake times feed cost per pound of dry matter. Use your local prices, do the math, and report back.
This trial directly conflicts with your earlier comment that 1 pound of barley fodder (as fed) replaces 1 pound of grain as fed. The replacement rate on an as fed basis is closer to 6:1 (fodder to barley grain). It also partially addresses the issue of digestibility. Barley fodder was included in the diet at a relatively high percentage (22% of DM). If fodder had higher digestibility (and energy) than barley grain, one would expect a higher daily gain on the fodder diet or lower pounds of feed per pound of gain but diets did not differ in gain nor feed conversion efficiency. Barley fodder is a good feed that cattle relish but must be evaluated on its economic merits. Based on their Iranian feed prices, barley fodder is not an economically viable feed source. I'll be interested in seeing your prices and your calculated feed costs.
Alfalfa hay, $180/ton, $0.102/lb DM
Wheat straw, $60/ton, $0.034/lb DM
Corn silage, $40/ton, $0.057/lb DM
Fodder, $120/ton, $0.40/lb DM
Barley grain, $300/ton, $0.169/lb DM
Corn grain, $315/ton, $0.177/lb DM
Wheat bran, $270/ton, $0.152/lb DM
Cottonseed meal, $440/ton, $0.25/lb DM
Canola meal, $420/ton, $0.239/lb DM
urea, $200/ton, $0.10/lb DM
limestone, $120/ton, $0.060/lb DM
salt, $60/ton, $0.030/lb DM
Price for Control diet = $11.86 per 100 lbs DM
Price for Fodder diet = $16.59 per 100 lbs DM
Daily feed cost on control diet = $1.88 per head
Daily feed cost on fodder diet = $2.41 per head
Using these feed costs and 15% DM fodder, the fodder diet was 28% more expensive than the control diet. If we use 19% DM fodder, then the fodder diet is 14% more expensive than the control diet ($0.26 more per head per day). The lower % DM is the appropriate number to use for fodder barley on our eastern Idaho dairy operations.
I'd like to add anecdotal stories to this. My friend has elephants who fed sprouts at a zoo. He said that the elephants took about a week to adjust to them as they were bitter to the taste and they still had to have dry feed for the fiber issue. 2nd, Neighbor worked a dairy in England that tried sprouts. They went to straight run barley as the cost of labor and sprouting was too much and there was no difference in the production.
I'd listen to Dr. Putnam as he has offered very good scientific advice to me over the years.
I could not find digestibility data comparing unprocessed vs processed barley. I'm sure there is some out there somewhere but the comparison is not important for commercial agriculture. As you know, much of the unprocessed grain will go through the cow and be readily visible in the feces. Some digestion of the whole grain has occurred but it is far below that of processed grain. This fact is well known and no one intentionally feeds their cattle unprocessed barley.
Nutrition researchers evaluate digestibility differences within the rumen for individual feeds and for the mixed diet in both the rumen and total digestive tract. Digestibility of the mixed diet is most important and I would like to illustrate this with a Canadian study from 2000 (Yang etal, J Dairy Science 83:554-568). They compared barley that was steam rolled with four different levels of processing and then fed them to cows in a Total Mixed Ration. The effects of processing on diet DM (DMD), starch (STD), and fiber (NDFD) digestibility are shown below for the least processed and best processed barley grain diets.
Grain DMD STD NDFD
Least 62.4 78.0 56.6
Best 70.3 93.6 58.4
Properly processed barley increased overall DM digestibility by 8 percentage units and starch digestibility by 15.6 percentage units. Cows on the best processed grain diet produced 11.4 pounds more milk per day and consumed 6.6 pounds more feed per day. Improving diet DM digestibility typically is going to result in more milk and higher feed intakes. Dairy producers and consultants do their best to ensure cows receive properly processed grains in their diets.
I found four trials that compared hydroponically grown grains versus processed cereal grains. Digestibility either did not differ between diets or was better for processed grain than fodder. You already discussed the data from Fazaeli's 2012 study earlier. Well done and appropriate study.
Reddy etal (1991, Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 8(4):274-277) evaluated 8 day old barley fodder as a replacement for cereal grains in dairy diets. In trial 1, fodder replaced 50% of the concentrate on a dry matter basis and in trial 2, fodder replaced 25% of the concentrate on a dry matter basis. Dry matter intake, milk yield, and nutrient digestibility (DM, protein, energy) did not differ between diets.
Hillier and Perry (1969, Journal of Animal Science 29:783-785) evaluated high and low energy diets supplemented with 8 day sprouted oats with growing steers. Adding varying levels of sprouted oats did not change digestibility of dry matter, protein, fat, and energy on the low or high energy diet.
Thomas and Reddy (1962, Michigan State University) compared 8 day sprouted oats against whole or crimped oat grain when fed to dairy heifers. Digestibility of dry matter, protein, and energy were significantly higher on the processed grain diet than on sprouted oat diet. Daily urine production increased from 4 liters on the control diet to 13 liters per day on the sprouted oats diet. Bedding needs would increase significantly to keep cattle clean and dry on the sprouted oat diet.
This is very helpful. Nothing like data to guide us!
Your data showing dry matter digestibilities of 62-70% for processed grain is in line with what I had thought.
Dan
Watch this video: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=9385462
Explain to me what's going on. In particular, please explain the "savings of $200/day". Based on your comments above, this should not be possible.
If you need more info, contact Tracy Underwood at the Santa Rosa Equestrian Facility. Her nutritionist and veterinarian are both on board with the fodder and may be helpful as well.
Also, the water savings is incorrect, as previously discussed. Seeds take water to produce, it's not just the sprouts.
However, it is certainly satisfying to be self-sufficient, which I think is one of the major incentives for this horse farm. Just don't think about the costs too much.
people in east india and bangladesh(most of the people live in poverty) used to eat sprouted food from the long time.
the logic is they won't do it unless they gain something.(economics or health)
infact,japanese use alot of sprouted food and mushrooms.so
the average life span is much high.
I'm a dairy scientist not an equine specialist. I'm more interested in stories related to dairy. The fact that two eastern Idaho dairy producers started barley fodder systems in the last two years and both ceased fodder production tells me an important story. It is not economically viable relative to our other feeds.
Based on the above dairy studies, fodder feeds about the same as processed barley grain on a dry matter basis. For fodder to work economically, one must be able to produce fodder for a lower price per pound of dry matter than processed barley. Here in eastern Idaho, we pay $15 to $20 per ton to have barley steam rolled or steam flaked. Can you produce fodder barley for $0.011 per pound of dry matter over the purchase price of the grain?
Richard J Norell, PhD
Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Idaho
We are Organic Valley producers and replaced our $40,000 per month grain bill with a fodder system that cost us approximately $50,000 to build and $15,000 a month to operate. We have been producing 4,000 pounds of fodder per day(in a 39'x39' section of one of our barns) for almost two full years now.
Andrew Dykstra, who is the patriarch of our family farm, is also President of WODPA and is a member Organic Valley's regional executive committee. We will open our books and our barns to anyone interested in actually presenting hard data from a real working farm in their next article about fodder.
Dan
I'd love to visit your dairy if you were closer. Unfortunately, I only have travel dollars for two out of state trips per year and already have plans made for this year. Tell us more about your feeding program. How many pounds of fodder do you feed per day? Fodder was used to replace which feed(s) and at what rate of substitution? Do you grow your own organic feeds or purchase some/all on the open market? How many years have you fed fodder? Do have production records (DHI or others) with routine monthly testing?
Based on your post, your operating costs are $15,000 per month or $500 per day and your production is 4000 pounds (or 2 tons) of fodder per day. Were you reporting production as pounds of dry matter or pounds of as fed fodder? If its as fed, your operating costs are $250 per ton of fodder ($500/2) which is double the average cost in eastern Idaho.
I'll give you a second opportunity though. Explain to me how Alvin Beechy's feeding of fodder is not practical after speaking with him. Or take Matthew up on his offer and report back.
I have read for the last hour and all I see are scientific explanations. Where's the reality? In South Carolina we truck hay from Ohio, New York, etc just to feed horses something with more than 10-12% protein, AND that doesn't lead to an impaction. Our grains come from nearly as far away.
The institutionalized propaganda put forth by this original article and supporting cast is telling of the world in which we now live. Assuming that DM calculations or laboratory inspired calculus on water consumption are important is down right laughable.
Here's something for you: We buy hay from suppliers in Ohio/NewYork. They pay a mortgage and insurance. They fertilize and irrigate. They own tractors and implements which make hay. They hire people. Hay/Grains are loaded and stored in a barn/elevator, which takes people, lighting, equipment, energy. Then the hay is loaded into semi's and trucked 700+ miles (diesel, rubber, insurance, driver, profits) to South Carolina. At that point labor is required to unload hay into storage building (lights, insurance, mortgage).
Oh, please don't forget all the permits, licenses and taxes required just to accomplish said supply chain.
We grow fodder, replacing 30% of our hay requirements (thanks to better protein digestion) and 75% of our grain. We have INTERNALIZED the entire supply chain. The money we used to spend on that supply chain now remains within the business.
Sigh... and we wonder why our economy and country are being run into the ground.
- RM
I've been in Extension for 31 years and thoroughly enjoy working with Idaho dairy producers. Salt of the earth people and some of my very best friends are dairymen! I have never discussed my opinions about a particular dairy operation and their management decisions in public. I'll discuss research trials in public till the cows come home and go back to pasture but not an individual dairy... IMO, that is personal and confidential information.
I'm getting ready for a conference next week and won't have time to call Alvin till later next week. I am curious what he has done. For those who may be interested, here is a short bio on his operation here: http://www.lagrangeswcd.org/attachments/Northern_Indiana_Grazing_Conference_brochure.pdf
Sorting through an on-farm anecdotal story is time consuming and not always illuminating. One needs to know what was fed before and what was fed after the change. Specific feeding amounts are needed plus feed test results and ration sheets (if available). Evidence of improved performance are best identified by reviewing DHI production records (or similar software) for the whole herd and for individual cows. Body condition scoring and manure evaluation are also helpful (depending on situation).
When a seed is germinated many biochemical reactions take place that dramatically alter the properties of what is now a sprout. I suspect that if you looked at the protein in the grain vs the protein in a sprout you will find a dramatically different molecule. I also suspect the nature of the fat compounds will also dramatically change as well, which will play a major role in the metabolic reaction of the animal.
The first example I thought of when reading the discussions was my pastured poultry eggs. I do not feed them fodder, but I keep them on green pasture and the difference in egg quality is night and day. I have been able to observe the difference of fresh greens vs winter brown forage in the egg yolks which is dramatic. Studies on the nutrition of pastured eggs shows as much as a two thirds increase in many nutrients vs the grain fed. You can see the difference in the color, taste, and consistency; it is almost like it came from a different species of animal. An interesting test would be to see if these attributes hold true using green fodder vs grain.
I feel these studies using DM leave out variables that play a role in the performance of grain vs fodder, such as the structures of the nutrients, the profiles of the amino acids, and the nature of the different livestocks digestive systems. The function of a ruminant is not very comparable to a chicken or hog. I know if I eat a lot of grains I will fatten up fast and I doubt I could put on fat with sprouts at all, however, I would imagine that the proteins in sprouts would be more useful in generating muscle than grains. These are just some considerations and I will definately be doing some case studies on my livestock this year.
I was looking over the posts (many of them!!) over the past year and I missed yours.
Some good points about changes in quality beyond the issue of energy and DM. It would be good to see if these more subtle types of feed changes were sufficient to overcome the negatives (costs and DM losses).
Cheers,
Dan
So lets the animal speak.. see how their improvement.
I might take you up on the offer to visit in April.
I think some of you mistakenly think we spend all of our time in a laboratory or with our nose in a text book. I have lived and still live on our family farm for 50 + years and routinely help with summer pasture and help feed alfalfa hay and corn silage to beef cattle. We don't have milk cows anymore but I am very familiar with dairy rations in confined operations as well as organic grazing dairies.
As I stated before, I don't doubt that cows will readily eat the fodder. I have done grazing preference trials and was involved in the studies that documented the benefits of afternoon-harvesting or grazing compared to morning harvesting. In these studies we found that a 1-2% increase in nonstructural carbohydrates increased dry matter intake, digestibility, and milk production. So I appreciate the animals ability to select high quality forages, as good as our best laboratory instruments can determine.
Since we measured nonstructural carbohydrates every 2 hr during a 24-hr period, I know what happens to nonstructural carbohydrate levels at night when plant respiration continues and photosynthesis stops, they decline rapidly. Since the fodder sprouts don't reach a net positive photosynthesis in that short a time period of 6 days, the energy levels have to be depleted.
Dan has also studied the diurnal effects of forage quality and has monitored the changes in non-structural carbohydrates.
Rick has much experience in working with eastern Idaho dairies and balancing rations. None of us just fell off a turnip truck.
I agree with Kyle that the Reed dairy milk is good! My son lived in Idaho Falls and shared some the milk with me. I buy milk from our local Cloverleaf Creamery in Buhl. The Stolzfus dairy is not organic because he uses antibiotics, but his grazing dairy has some 15 year old cows that still look great.
I look forward to your visit in April if you can make that happen.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever eaten a vine-ripened tomato out of your garden in the dead of winter? Have you ever walked into your garage and harvested fresh lettuce when there is snow on the ground?
Many people who have spent 50+ years doing things a certain way have a hard time wrapping their brain around concepts that are foreign to them, no matter how intelligent or educated they may be.
How familiar are you with controlled-environment agriculture? Do you have any experience designing or operating hydroponic systems? How about vertical farming?
How can you claim in the conclusion of your article that "the labor requirements are very high" without backing up that statement with hard numbers from someone who is actually running a system? By the way, it takes two small women two hours everyday to perform every task in our fodder room and we are harvesting 4,000 pounds per day. Less than a day's drive from where you are, you can actually watch this happen.
If I was going to write an article in a magazine for farmers about a certain feed production strategy, I would make sure my article was substantiated with facts from working farms that have actually incorporated the concepts you are so matter-of-factly claiming are "too good to be true."
It seems fitting that you end your article with a recommendation for farmers to "search for science-based studies from land-grant universities to verify product claims." Of course that would be your recommendation.
Here is my recommendation to you before you write your next scholarly article for farmers: talk to some farmers who actually have experience with the farming techniques that make up the subject of your article. I can give you the names and phone numbers of quite a few from Washington to Wisconsin to New York and many states in between. Either all these people are liars or just bad at math, or your assessment of hydroponic forage systems is just flat out wrong.
I will be in Pennsylvania next week, March 13-15th, visiting farms that have been producing over 1,000 pounds per day of fodder for over a year. You are cordially invited to travel with me and meet face to face these farmers who have a very different perspective than you do regarding the economics of incorporating a fodder system on their farm.
I have no doubt that there is a niche for hydroponic fodder but I doubt it will be a process that will be used on a large scale for sometime. We grow organic feed grains in the Tulelake basin and it is also a niche market. Nothing wrong with niche markets (they definitely have a place) but it is misleading to say such processes are on the edge of being able to supply much of the feed needs of the cattle and dairy industry at large. Maybe horses may be someplace where it can be used (but not for our horses).
Also, aside from the solid data you have given, it just doesn't make sense to this grain grower that using the energy in a seed of grain to make the sprout and root is an inefficient use of that energy. If we plant barley that is subsequently frozen it will usually only recover if there is some energy left in the seed or the roots are sufficiently drawing energy from the soil. The plant itself relies on energy and converts it but doesn't produce it. But that is just this farmers intuitive reasoning.
We also grow organic and conventional alfalfa, cattle, and sell to dairies in Central Valley and know that DM is absolutely necessary in balancing rations. Anyone who says dry matter is not necessary in calculating feed rations is wrong in my opinion.
Finally I'd like to say as a California farmer that UC Davis and it's extension agents and scientists are world class. We farm close to the Tulelake field station and rely on their research continually. We have never been let down. And as far as the agents and scientists being desk sitters; that's just plain bunk. Further, in 50 years of studying and using their research I have never found it biased. They are absolutely open to whatever the findings suggest. As Dan said "they have no dog in the hunt" except accurate data.
Anyone who would suggest they are office bound scientists set on manipulating data to fit the "institutions" needs have, in my opinion, a significant lack of agricultural knowledge and invalidated their own claims. The future for them will be bleak if they continue to whine about the empirical findings that don't support their work, proceed solely on anecdotal stories, and refuse to work with university scientists and agronomists (and the connected farmers).
I agree this type of thing is an interesting niche type of application. However, it's important not to apply economics to it, or too much analysis - it's likely to be disappointing!
Cheers,
Dan
I meant: it just doesn't make sense to this grain grower that using the energy in a seed of grain to make the sprout and root (for feed) is an EFFICIENT use of that energy.
Ulcers, abscesses on their livers and other things that negatively impact the animal as they were not meant to live on a high grain diet.
Which is also why a grass fed steers meat is nutritionally better then grain fed feedlot cattle. Same goes for naturally fed foraging chickens vs. commercially fed "grocery store eggs".
So I haven't tested the fodder myself but from the knowledge I have in animal digestion, then I can see why it could work better then pure grain with hay added.
The hydroponic 'forage' has been mostly proposed as a replacement for hay or other fodder crops, not as a replacement for grain. However,as we've pointed out above, it mostly has characteristics similar to grains, since it is low in fiber.
Dan
XXXX is leading manufacturer of the fodder machine, they have vast experience in making fodder machines. they have there machine across india working efficiently throughout the year.
the best part of the fodder grown is machines are:
Can grow fodder in 8 days (55kg -30 K per day)
It takes less space (1200 kgs/sq.feet)
Less water consumption (1-2 ltrs/day per kg of seeds)
Less electricity (7-30 units /day depending on machine)
Outside environment doesn’t affect the inside fodder
365 day production throughout the year
Highly low cost production, significant savings can be made in the cost of feeding livestock
No fungal/bacterial /microbial growth due to sanitization of water & air by U.V light & Ozoniser
Unskilled labourers can operate the system, no need for highly skilled labour. System is not labour intensive – A single person can operate the 365 tonne machine for 2 hrs a day
No need for tractors and expensive equipments
System is not labour intensive – A single person can handle a 365 tonne output machine for just 2 hrs in a day
You can grow Doctor’s recommended grain green feed & any kind of vegetables
We've removed the references to specific products in your comments.
Your comments are mostly promotional, and don't address the negatives which we've clearly pointed out above.
If you have data to contradict our points, please provide it, especially the points about high cost and loss of dry matter in hydroponics.
Dan
We are a manufacture of hydroponic sprouting systems for livestock. I have been working on this process for almost 20 years. And Yes sprouts do have benefits far beyond what your article states. I would like to point out that in the study you are comparing sprouts as a 100% replacement feed for the most part. And once again, you fall short on demonstrating a long term real world application. I personally do not believe in feeding my animals or myself for that matter 100% of one type of ration every single day. Ourselves as livestock owners and our customers all over the US/Canada have seen benefits economically and nutritionally that these short term testings in the lab and field studies have not spent or neglect for the most part to take the time and go out and get a general consensus as to if there is true benefit to feeding sprouts from people that have been doing it for years. I have found out over the years that most of these studies are backed by companies that are behind other supplemental rations and do not like to see sprouting as a benefit as it cuts into their bottom line. So they would prefer to discredit any claims to the true benefits of sprouts and yes they all focus on dry matter as the defense. When I have customers that have demonstrated up to 50% reduction in overall operational and feed costs with increased health benefits to their animals. I have a tough time ignoring one sided articles like this one. Just providing a factual point from my side of the industry. By the way I am also a hay farmer and rancher and fully understand the importance of DM, but it is also important to focus on overall quality of the feed as well. A person told me awhile back that yes you can stuff an animal with 40-55 lbs of dry matter "Junk" and your animals will survive, but if you put 30-40 lbs of quality DM into an animal, that animal will thrive with less.
Thanks for your comments. Agree with you that no one should feed just one type of feed - and we're not suggesting that.
I don't think our article was one sided - we should point out that none of us has any 'dog in this race' - no vested interest by Peter Robinson, Eric, or myself, so we're not out to do anything but report what we've found. We'd be glad to report positive features.
You've talked about real benefits beyond what this article states. Please point to data that would support this. Keep in mind that the benefits should overcome the 25% loss in DM and losses in energy which have been observed.
Dan
Sounds interesting. Keep in mind that sprouted barley or other sprouted 'fodder' is likely closer in nutritional characteristics to grain than it is to hay, since it's typically much lower in NDF content. (only about 15% of the mass of sprouts is in the leafy portion, the rest in residual seed and roots). So not sure if it would replace the hay vs. the grain - that's worth a discussion with a nutritionist.
Dan
Why not have a trial set up as follows;
• 10 of Dairy Cows , 10 of beef steers, 10 of lambs, fed a conventional feed ration that suits
• 10 of Dairy Cows , 10 of beef steers, 10 of lambs, fed a hydroponic fodder ration that suits
• 100 day trail, separate pens,
• Measure for weight gain (beef cattle and lambs), milk fats (dairy cows), milk production (dairy cows)
• Document all the costs for each system.
• Compare the differences
Have the trial moderated by an independent body with “no dog in the race” publish the results in plain layman terms that anyone can understand.
Any takers ?
Such a trial is possible, not sure who would fund it.
Keep in mind, that when designing such a trial, one MUST wrestle with the dry matter issue since rations are designed that way, especially for research trials if it is to be valid. In feeding studies such as this, rations are balanced for protein, energy, etc., on a DM basis, to fairly compare feeds.
Dan
Thanks for your response, i can understand that from your point of view and your profession you would always be focused on the DM and feed values ect ect. but from a farmers POV they are not selling the feed ! they sell the meat/milk ect. Hydroponic forage will only make sense if it means more profits at the end of the day.
Hydroponic system manufacturers should be game enough to fund such a trial if they believe it makes so much sense.
After making my hydroponic unit last year,am saving 34% on feeds with pigs and 12% on dairy cows.The quality of the milk is improved but unfortunately we sell our milk by litres not by butter fat.
This demonstrates that too much research is not beneficial.If sprouts are not economically viable,could they still be here after so many years?
This has been interesting.. I truly have no dog in this hunt. A former high school science teacher whose education is centered in physical not biological sciences. Never dealt with cows, limited horse experience as a stable hand a few decades ago. If I speak from ignorance I ask for tolerance, I am not trying to troll.
1) this articles experiments. 4 trials seems small. While I expect more variance in biological systems than the accuracy measuring elasticity or titrating a fluid... From <2%- 50%. Is what seems very large swing on DM loss. If I had that variance I'd be focused on procedures and methods used, looking for what I need to improve upon. At 13,600 seeds to the pound, I'd expect individual seed variances to average out to a much tighter range. If you could identify and reproduce methods of sprouting with only 5% - 10% DM loss, wouldn't that be of value? Instead it almost seems you found wanted and moved on.
2) the Iranian experiment.. It took me a while to get though it, being new to the field and all.
2a) The sample size was relatively small. This lead to higher standard deviation allowing them to disregard the extra three pounds gained by the fodder cattle as statistically insignificant in this study. By tossing it out as insignificant there is no need to compare the extra 3 pounds of resale to the unspecified increased cost. Also given the large variance there better than 1 in 4 chance there is a greater than three pound difference.
2b) why not keep the concentrates the same? Allow the sprouted barly differences to stand on thier own. By adjusting out the main differences it feels like intentional masking of sprouting effects to me. I assume the control diet to be one held in high regard for finishing calves on a feedlot.
2c) my first reading I thought the concentrates for the fodder diet were mixed daily, but subsequent rereading. Was unclear if fodder was chopped daily like roughage. If They mixed the entire concentrate batch daily for green-fodder then this too seems like extra work to maximize labor.
2d). Detail was given on the lighting... I was under the impression that very little photosynthesis occurred in this first week. Elsewhere I've read that ambient light would suffice. Was lighting level in line with what companies marketing fodder systems recommend or academic studies of one week sprouts that have shown yield or nutritional benefits? Was this why they had 5% instead of 25%. Was your 2% tray top and your 50% deeply shadowed on bottom?
2e) labor, were labor costs calculated based on realistic farm implementation or time grad students spent trying to scientifically measure and proportion? I imagine farmers Time as fairly efficient, though I don't know the level of tray cleaning needed between uses. On a family operation labor costs are less of a factor, yes it requires the farmers time... And that time has been fairly prominently highlighted in the websites I looked at trying to sell systems if accurate.
2f). 5% refusal, Was this the same on both diets? Or was it just the green fodder diet which was bulkier due to the sprouting and identical roughage amounts?
2g) hand shredding, labor intensive, time well spent? Why not chop with hay and straw which I assume wasn't chopped by hand. Or mix in mats? Could mixer for the TMR not break it up?
3) DM. Protein, carbohydrate, etc.. Quit trying to force them to you preconceived diet ideas. Test diet versus diet. Put forward your best diet for feedlot, dairy, what have you as champion. Let the sprout-fodder industry put forward their challenger(s) based on claimed real world success. Send a grad student in need of a thesis to evaluate if those operation are as billed. If it looks legitimate... Divide a new lot of cattle. Farmers fund the cattle and feed just like they normally would as well as operate the fodder system, student provides labor of mixing/feeding/testing the cows. Then you can address why the fodder system falls short, or scratch your head and try to understand why their performance defies your predictions if it doesn't. I don't think the growers care if crude protein or carbohydrates differ, they want healthy cattle produced economically. Report labor costs of fodder separately specifying the time the professional, experienced farmer spent each day to work the system. Study and accurately report existing installed fodder system with operating costs. Maybe peer reviewed journals wouldn't touch it, I don't know.... Hayandfodder.com might publish it. But if you scientifically documented a dietary surprise, that would probably be worth agricultural funding for a more extensive follow up and a real thesis or dissertation for some grad student.
So if DM is consistent at 5% loss the Iranians reported that feeds an extra 26 cattle fed per hundred compared to your 25%. $750 hay is now $600 If their claims of pound per pound replacement are just a little optomistic and it takes 2-3 pounds instead of the 7 you claimed caused hay equivalent of $750, becomes $250 to $375.... A more competitive price range to those listed hay prices. With increasing Chinese fodder imports as they seek to double milk production of their current 15 million head dairy herd, I doubt hay prices are dropping near term.
You will never defeat them, if you refuse to give them an honest assessment. Assuming the anecdotal evidence is truthful, at least some farmers are finding the sprouted barley diets more beneficial and economical to the ones they used before. They have proved to be open minded and willing to change... If they are shown a better way.... What you have shown is an unwillingness to consider head to head comparisons of diets that vary DM, CP, starch, ...
My advice, Forget fairness, publicly kick their buts and risk them doing the same to you. They might be charlatans, or they might be an agricultural Faraday in need of a new Maxwell to put the legitimacy of scientific analysis and math to their fodder revolution. Till someone bothers to seriously analyze their leading success stories and the disparate diets go head to head, neither side can win. Certainly all major physical science revolutions met with established scientists who refused to seriously evaluate and adopt things now accepted as fundamental. By the same token, many a claim has been proved spurious when seriously evaluated.
Just my uninformed opinions. Excuse how long Winded It became, it's hard to edit long posts on my iPad mini.
Safari crashed when I submitted. Hope this isn't a double post
Leave it to a HS science teach to do some science! Good catch on the variation in results in our DM measurements. However, it has a rather simple explanation. We were given the sprouted barley trays from our friend, and couldn't dry down the entire trays - thus we took subsamples - about 1/4 of the tray (a large sample actually)-- it looks like there was probably a random effect of high moisture on one side of the tray vs. the other. Makes sense, if you think about it - water may have gravitated to one side soaking one side. If I were to repeat it, I would try to do more samples, or dry the whole thing.
However, all the data I've seen so far has documented losses in DM, so it's a result I believe (ours and published). The Sandia study showed 35% DM losses, I think.
I'm open minded, and don't really want to kick anyone's butt or win an argument. However, I'd have to be convinced that this was a highly promising technique to do more work on it. The potential for losses in DM as well as feed value should be disturbing, since it requires water, and we need to think as water-use-efficient as possible for crops these days.
Dan
I can be found at
http://www.qcl.farmonline.com.au/files/48/20/01/000012048/Hydroponicfodder.pdf
In short it would seem most of your DM loss for 6 day sprouts was washed away, as opposed to consumed by the growth. Research studies found a 4 hour limit on germinating soak unless water is being aerated. And that the tray needs to be watered with frequency and depth control and then drained in a manner that sprouts are wet for 15 minutes only at each watering. Light playing nearly no role in first 4 days. A very interesting read for those wanting to optimize a system they are using.
Following those water control regimens reportedly put you close to 6% DM loss on day 6. I wonder how much DM loss might be recovered merely by pumping a fodder machine sump into the watering trough? Algae and such would probably be the beneficiaries is my guess, might work for filling buckets in stalls?
Given that you were testing gift sprouts it is understandable why the variance wasn't followed up on, but if your friend is making, or was making a serious attempt at sprout fodder, passing along the optimization information might be helpful in their efforts. I figure once you build the machine the depreciation expense is there weather you use it or not, as well as opportunity/interest cost incurred when the capital was invested in it.
It might still not be worth it to them to use, but having the system in place does change the analysis, as does the amount of DML.
Thanks for the great reference - I hadn't seen this one. Lots of info, including lots on quality. For those of you interested, this is a must read since they review a lot of studies and web claims.
However, I'm not sure if you're interpreting their review correctly. They do a great lit review - showing a 7 to 47% loss in DM with sprouting grains (not 6%). Similar to our data. Also, losses in energy - which is consistent with losses in carbohydrates during sprouting (not so much mineral losses).
They also do a good job of pointing out the economic problems and higher costs of sprouting grains.
Dan
I am totally third party here and have no gain in there truly. Because I am not a livestock or grain farmer and fodder machine or livestock food suppler promoters.
There is so many admitted there is no race in here, but I feel some hard race between groups of people. There is two group of people in here argue over hydroponics fodders and gains. First group of people are large grain farmer and some scientist (may be there are also promote some livestock food supplier) who are heavily opposed fodder advantage for reasons. If fodder comes with great result then total grain demand are decreased, so there is good possibility grain price graph downward. So this is really caused of worries for grain producer and supplier.
On the other hand there is group of people are very optimistic about hydroponics fodder. May be they maximum are fodder machine or tech promoter. May be there is some real farmer also defend for there approach. There is no need to know rocket science why some people try to draw good imprint around hydroponics fodder. May be there are very good business prospects out of virtually nothing. Why I think like that? I am very interested in hydroponics fodder so I do little bit research around hydroponics fodders. There so many videos in youtube to explain fodder tech and there is so many success story also. But I am very disappointed after I find virtually all/maximum video create by hydroponics fodder machine or tech company promoters. So there is no ways I believe all things blindly. There is some farmer interview also available but who knows they are real or fakes or not considering all thinks. But I think there is huge possibilities there is some think better happen when grain process to fodder. May be it is not so fancy thats claims by fodder promoters, but may be its increase economical benefits.
I am very sorry if I insult or heart someone unintentionally. Lastly I expect my comment are not edited by authors.
Lastly a question for scientist who only consider DM. As I know in bio-gas production cow dung produce very much lesser gas compare to pure-fat with same DM. SO WHY THATS HAPPEN? yes,easy answer it is for their chemical composition. So DM is not all to be considerable there is much more important is there chemical composition. If grain have a unit nutrients and may be there is lesser% are use by livestock and fodder nutrient are greater% use by livestock. So there is need very deep research conducted by very reputed organization. like UN based organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
You're right - it's definitely off topic.
However, I did listen to part of this - which is an argument for cattle grazing as a solution to climate change and desertification. I don't know if he's right, but certainly Interesting!!
Dan
The Iranians used 6 day sprouts over 90 days with 5% DML. Results consistent with the Irish.
The Sandia study was a quickly assembled proof of concept of lower water usage in greenhouse conditions based on Mexican fodder practices in drought areas. While proving this, they also had poor spray control and applied much more frequently (suggestive of excess DML loss demonstrated in the Irish study the trays took 30 minutes to drain instead of 15.). The fact that Sandia had 35% DML over 8-10 days isn't terribly surprising as it has been consistently shown it is easy to sprout fodder with high DML, but while it was measured, controlling DML was not the point of Sandia Labs.
So... 6 -7 day sprouts, single digit DML ... Vitamins enriched, protein increased and more soluble, starch depleted from straight grain. Cattle are "grass fed" instead of grain finished potentially, if such is important. "Grass" grown with far less water and acerage use than fields. And while it may not be important we know at least some wild grazers preferentially eat new growth after a fire instead of unburned areas nearby.
Disagree with you on the water issue - unless the grain was produced with zero water (not likely), the water used to produced the grain must be included in a calculation of water use impacts vs. field-grown grain or forage.
Since there are DM losses with sprouting (our data and most of the studies say much greater than single digits!), the sprouting process itself has negative water use efficiencies (addition of water to grain reduces yield), not positive.
Studies supporting DM loss, Milk quality, health of livestock, seem to support DM loss is real, increased Milk quality, and better livestock health. Overall, it seems like a win for Fodder.
My Take:
As the population and demand for dairy products increases, available land remains constant, thus driving up the availability and value of farm land. At some point, Fodder must become cost effective when you consider the opportunity cost of selling the land to a developer and investing your profits into a self sustaining system.
Suppose you were considering starting a 7000+ cow dairy from scratch. In my naïve opinion, you should be able to purchase 40 acres or less and run your whole operation in a several story building consisting of ground floor milking station with several floors above containing the Hydroponic Farm. Combine this with a Methane Digester to fuel the Hydroponic Farm's electrical needs.
Long story short, it seems completely cost prohibitive to start this dairy farm in a traditional sense whereby I purchase a farm, cows, machinery, buildings, grow my own crops, and all the associated costs compared to a Hydroponic Farm of a much smaller footprint.
I would be interested in an overall cost comparison of 2 farms started side by side in a virtual world to see which one would win over the long run. Start up costs, on going costs, production revenue, and sale of business at a specific time say 25 years.
Given all the factors, this study would be impossible to be one size fits all situation. Unfortunately this article only looks at a tiny aspect and is not looking at the overall picture I propose.
I have a hard time believing Fodder does not have a place somewhere in this world which makes it cost effective while also being cost prohibitive in other parts of the world.
Yes, TDN (Total Digestible Nutrients)is always calculated on a 100% DM basis (although sometimes expressed on a 90% or 'as received' basis).
TDN, Protein and other quality measurements are usually expressed as a % of DM.
To answer your question, when you get a loss of DM you also get a loss in feed AMOUNTS (e.g. now you have 25% less protein or TDN based upon loss in weight), but the CONCENTRATION may or may not be lower after this loss (you would need to measure it). The literature mostly shows that sprouted barley and other sprouts are likely to have a lower TDN (energy) concentration due to a loss in soluble carbohydrates during the sprouting process (the seeds are using energy to grow). For those claiming improved quality of the sprouts vs (ground) grains, they'll need to support that with data.
But the TDN and protein should be determined on a DM basis(without considering the water in the feed).
Dan
I am small dairy owner from India, Karnataka, Hubli. I own 40 cows and 5 buffaloes. Earlier our procedure was to send the cattle for grazing, and at the time of milking we use to put Feeds ( Cotton and Coconut remains).
At that time i used to spend 22k INR for 1440 kgs of feeds.
After shifting to "Hydroponic Forage" i have been getting same quantity of milk without such expensive Feeds, and with much more profits!!!
So, i conclude this way
Grazing + Feeds = Costlier affair.
Grazing + Hydroponic Forage = Profitable affair.
after growing up in the beef industry the health of my animals will always be number #1..beef growers that try to get cattle to eat something that's not good for them in order to turn a profit, adding all sorts of different "filler" to grains, to make the grain go further. I worked at 1 feed lot in Blyth California that was mulching cow dung and grain and feeding it back to the cattle. Injecting steroids and pumping antibiotics for all the issues that arise from poor health. The hay growers use harsh insecticides, strong fertilizers and have more bugs dirt, trash. Very rarely do you get the same type or quality twice. Science like yours formulated most all of that industry. You can tell me your findings, but I will always trust what I see. My animals look and act healthier. Fodder is a better road for me. It's clean. It's alive. No pesticides no fertilizers..no wasted grain in there dung. 2 years ago I spent $7000. For stone removal in one of my horses..5 years old..15 pounds of stones..the since "vet hospital" told me it was alfalfa that caused it and how there is now a higher percent of younger horses getting them..who's findings do I follow. My animals energy levels are up..and it's not the same rolling eyes in the back of his head spooking at every little thing...like I said ..I trust the road I am on..no disrespect...but the absorption is higher with the barley and you can see it in their coats..
I have a small suckler herd (65 dexter cattle) on a hill farm in south west Ireland. In the winter I feed the herd a combination of hydroponic barley sprouts and rough forage plus some powdered seaweed. My interest in the barley sprouts stems from my experiences spending the last 25 years treating adult and child starvation - this perhaps gives me a slightly different perspective.
I moved to barley fodder because my cattle were not eating the rough grazing that was available on my very marginal farm and therefore to get through the winter, i had to buy in silage and some concentrates. Bought silage is often of poor quality especially in a bad year, is expensive and left me vulnerable to shortages (thank goodness i wash;t dependent on it in 2013!).
I had wondered whether the my cattle's reluctance to eat the dried mountain grass was from mechanisms akin to the anorexia that you see in starving adults and children. The anorexia that is a feature of human starvation is in a large part due to essential nutrient deficiencies, especially type 2 nutrients (see Golden MH Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1991;374:95-110.
The nature of nutritional deficiency in relation to growth failure and poverty) . In grains many of these nutrients required for growth and appetite are "locked up" in storage compounds such as phytate that cannot be brocken down by mammalian enzymes. If these essential nutrients (which are not stored in the body) are missing in the diet appetite is suppressed. Sprouting barley grain breaks down these nutrients thereby greatly increasing their bio-availiabiliy (there are many other aspects to sprouting such as synthesis of certain vitamins and essential limiting amino acids, particularly lysine i believe which i haven;t time to go into.
The key point is that when an animal eats a diet with bioavailiable nutrients they are healthy and have much greater appetites. This results in my cattle eating large quantity of rough mountain grass or, when that runs out, straw. Straw is devoid of most nutrients but it has a very high dry matter content (high energy) and is very cheap.
So i believe that sprouted barley should not be seen as a fodder replacement (as Daniel points out it has many differences to fodder e.g. fibre content) it should be seen as a provider of essential nutrients that increase animal health and appetite thereby allowing the grow energy needs to be met by cheap rough forage.
hope this is of interest.
In haste
Steve
Some of the forages that animals commonly receive are quite poor - thus your interest. These sprouted grains should be of much greater palatability than a lot of forages I've seen.
It seems that sprouted barley should be seen as replacing perhaps the grain portion or as a supplement - not necessarily as a 'fodder' similar to hay or silage, due to its low fiber.
Cost is still an issue, though.
Dan
When you look at it in that way, the cost comparison needs to be made between barley sprouts and grain/ supplements combinations that have a similar efficacy in promoting the intake of rough forage/straw.
My Dexter cows eat approximately 10Kg of straw a day - a very large intake for such small cattle and a great deal of low cost energy. I have tried achieving the same with a protein supplement (rape seed expeller - about 30% crude protein) and seaweed for the minerals and although i haven't had time to run any trials i get the impression that the barley sprouts work better. I plan to run a trip on this in the near future.
Another strategy is ot provide these essential nutrients through licks. However in Ireland the cost of highly bio-availiable chelated minerals licks with added essential amino acids is very high and you often have to buy a whole lot of molasses which you don't need or want.
Dried fortified ration is another alternative but that is expensive and it is hard to keep the whole range of essential vitamins and essential fats stable in dried mixes. As a result i would guess that it will not drive appetite with the same efficacy. This needs a trial as well.
i'll try to dig out some data on anti nutrient content of grains and sprouts.
steve
http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/rodeo/ci_26221604/rice-straw-new-method-get-through-drought
Not surprised in the least bit by this.
What are your concerns about DM loss on green feed vs. DM loss in extensive grazing?
I think you misunderstand me. It looks like the animals enjoy the sprouted grains quite nicely, so I'm not really against sprouted grain per se (as long as one understands the limitations). The main concerns are 1) High cost vs. buying hay or feeding grain (on the order of double - do the math!), 2)Loss of DM in the sprouting process (remembering that one can also feed ground barley itself successfully) 3) Loss in nutritional value (energy primarily) vs. grain. While proponents claim improvements in quality with sprouts, they must show that these improvements overcome these limitations. So far I haven't seen evidence for this.
Also, sprouted grain isn't really 'fodder' in the same way as grass hay or alfalfa forage - it doesn't really have high fiber like true forages, so is probably more similar to a grain than a forage.
Definitely all other types of forage production have their own limitations with losses in DM. Grazing and greenchop have probably the least losses in DM (at least pre-feeding) compared with haying or silage making, but those tend to be less than the 25-30% that we've seen with the sprouts. Highly managed intensive grazing with top forages can be very efficient, but that's a different subject.
I sense your passion.
No, nobody's bought me off, if that's what you're thinking.
I have really nothing against sprouted barley as fodder - in fact it looks delicious.
I just have the annoying habit of looking at things and asking questions, such as is it really beneficial (to the farmer or the animal), and is it economically sound?
Be careful not to compare sprouted grain to whole grain. There is lots of evidence that grinding or rolling (other processing) makes grain more digestible - see comments above.
Also, we shouldn't pretend that sprouted grain is equal to true forage (alfalfa or grass fresh or hay) - it's very different, and is closer to a grain than a forage.
Sprouting also reduces phytic acid content, making it easier for livestock, especially ruminants, to absorb nutrients from them.
I'm interested in your thoughts on these points.
For a large producer, 1 out of 100 death loss (or whatever number) may be acceptable but to someone like me who's herd is only 5, 1 animal is a 20% loss. It's one more part that should be put into the equation. There's really no science behind my thoughts but i just figured it was something to think about. I am not saying one way or the other is the best or that sprouted fodder actually is safer, but it seems like some people are getting good results from sprouted grains. It's just one of those things that needs more research but that takes time, money, and energy. I am going to try it on a small scale with my goats and chickens this fall/winter and see how it goes.
Not sure how one could demonstrate better animal survival with various types of feeding strategies - since there are so many, and so many reasons that animals die.
Let us know how it turns out.
Dan
Two weeks ago I set up my hydroponics "farm", DIY style and I am already feeding my cows with the fodder.....
I will come back to the forum in a month's time with some observations on
1. general health of the animals
2. labor requirements as compared to the convectional feeding programs
3. Savings / loss
4. Production
I will not comment on DM because
1. I am no scientist / nutritionist and I am doing no research
2. It does not bother me what its quantity (%) is in the sprouts as long as the animals do well, health/production wise
Lastly I wish to propose to the scientists to try and figure out what is it in the sprouts that make them match or better the conventional feeding programs (in terms of animal performance) albeit with very little DM, instead of persistently repeating to us what they have scientifically proven and we are not disputing (that spouts loss DM in the process).... I believe if they can tell us that this forum will have achieved a milestone..... over to you @Daniel and company
Let us know how it turns out.
Dan
1. It is a bit arrogant of you to dismiss these producers who are claiming real world results based on your minds eye and interpretation of others research. To insist the posters producer research that proves their efficacy claims is counter productive as you know there is not such research out there because big Ag has not and is not going to fund it. Even if they produced it you would dismiss it as not peer review. The criticism that you are an arm chair scientist is accurate as it pertains to this subject as you apparently have not or are not out visiting any dairies or ranches “successfully” using fodder as a feed substitute since you have dismissed it in your minds eye.
2. Much AG research and indeed new Ag product (drugs, feed supplements, fertilizers, etc) development involves proving efficacy and in many cases companies claim efficacy in much the same way the posters here are claiming efficacy ie without demonstrating scientifically how their product achieves the efficacy. The only difference is the posters here have not kept good records as their goal was not to conduct a research project. Our government approves these sorts of products from Big Ag everyday without any challenges from the Ag research community ie YOU. Why? Well because most of your research is funded by big AG and you are not going to bite the hand that feeds you. Since none of these posters are going to pony up a million dollars for you to do an efficacy study you are inclined to bite. Since most Univ Ag Ext has become nothing more than an extension of Big Ag it is not true that you do not have a dog in this race. Prove me wrong and approach Organic Valley and ask them for funds to do the efficacy research on barley fodder.
3. The only relevant issue here from an efficacy perspective is how much barley fodder is needed to replace X amount of DM feed and still provide an equivalent or better animal health and production. All other discussion of cost, water use, labor are subject to individual producer’s variables. Each individual producers can best compute these for their specific operation and decide for themselves if using barley fodder is a good fit for them. It is bad enough you are being an arm chair scientist here you don't also need to be an arm chair economist.
What had been an interesting and collegial discussion has gone to the gutter thanks to you.
I don't know who you are or where you reside, but I guess you weren't with me Friday as I visited 3 dairies in California over 17 hours, nor Tuesday, when I visited 3 alfalfa growers in the Sacramento Valley, nor previous Friday, when 100 farmers and PCAs attended our Fresno Field day. Nor are planning to be with me when I'm planting my field trials at many locations this fall -you're welcome to get out of your armchair critic's chair and join me. Armchair - geeze, I must be missing something.
And, by the way, both Peter Robinson and I did do some (non-armchair) research (with no funding) which we presented above.
When one's arguments don't hold water, try throwing mud. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson - insults are the last refuge of scoundrels.
Ok we will stick to the facts!
Much of your data seems to come straight out of another Univ's study see link below: So I have to wonder how much real research you actually did.
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=ans_air
However, you conveniently neglected to mention the conclusions from this real study.
"Due to changes in the nutritive characteristics of the
fodder (less starch, more sugars, vitamins and lysine)
monogastrics such as people, horses, swine and poultry may
have more benefit. In the end analysis, it is ultimately
animal performance relative to the alternative costs that
determines profitability and usefulness .... more research seems necessary"
I think this is what other posters with real world experience with using barley fodder have been say here just in different words and you have been mocking them with your dog biscuit comments!
Essentially the above Univ study is suggesting the same as I have ie an efficacy study!!
WOW indeed!
Remy
http://www.progressivedairy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11578:experts-remain-leery-on-feeding-sprouts-while-farmers-using-the-system-are-pleased&catid=46:feed-and-nutrition&Itemid=72
What a fantastic discussion. I have two "pleasure" horses here in the Indian Wells Valley aka "High Desert" of Eastern California. I have no dog in this hunt, either. Just sharing what I think I've learned.
1) Green Fodder is a misnomer, more properly thought of as a grain replacement. Most every site that discusses GF and full diet requirements says something along the lines of "in addition to
2) Lots of perspectives reflected here:
2a) Livestock for profit: bottomline is everything, got that. Marbling, fat content, yolk color and even stock health are only important to the degree they maximize profit. This seems to break down into
-- "mass-market". Supplies are readily available, reliable in both cost/quality, same with climate/weather. Mid to large operations, lots of competition, very market-driven. GF would increase cost without increasing profit, or so it sounds.
-- "stressed/smaller-market". Supplies come from far away, are unreliable in either cost/quality/both, climate is often a major problem. Small to mid operations, limited usable land/water, some competition perhaps, but supply drives consumer prices, so folks will to a degree pay for what the operation produces. Animal health and happiness can be a value-driver more than in mass-market areas. Higher costs of GF may be offset by reliable production year-round and consistent/superior product quality to market, with market price compensating for increased cost.
2b) Non-profit operations: meaning families/groups with limited means/land/water supporting themselves either through direct consumption or limited sales, effectively non-commercial. DM and other science not so important as a sense of doing the right thing for the animals and environment - oh, and having control! Supplies, bought in small quantities, not as cost-effective as for commercial operations. GF may/may not make fiscal sense, but cost is not a primary driver.
2c) Got pets (this is me): There is no profit whatsoever other than the pleasure of one another's company, be it on the trail or just cleaning pens. Will pay serious $$$ for the animal's health and happiness. Same supply-line issues as with non-profit ops, and in my case "stressed" areas - one local supplier of grains/supplements, limited water resources and NO ability to grow my own (those who do have my respect!). DIY GF is a serious option: reliable, I'm in control, worth the cost for having happy(er) horses, but sorry Kyle, not buying a unit from you - but sweet units and best of luck.
3) Basically, one set of solutions won't work for everyone. Apples & oranges & mangoes, etc.
One other thing I noticed; Dan et. al. are on the plant side of things, so they're going to have a view towards "is this the same thing as that when it gets to the animal's mouth". Would be nice to have inputs from Animal Science types, get their perspective, which might be different, more along the lines of "does this produce the same value as that when my end-product gets to market".
Anyway, excellent discussion!
I am a small farmer from Romania. I own 2 acres of land and i raise chickens, pigs, rabbits and cows. I am very interested in "fodder" topics and i read a lot about this matter. For start i don' t want to argue with any team , either is pro or against green fodder. My opinion is that, in this debates i didn' t saw an equilibrate opinion. In Romania, like in other countries, cows for example, go to pasture from spring to autumn eating fresh and juicy grass all day long with a small suplement of hay and smashed grains. In the winter time the main forage is hay, but the recomandations is to fed the cows with some juicy forages even in the winter time. Mellows, pumpkins,bettle, molasses, corn silage, etc. Especially for diary cows. Even pigs and chickens need some fresh forages in the winter. But these forages are very hard to keep durring the winter for a very small farmer. My question is: what if we replace that kind of food with green fodder. Not to replace hay or grain, just for vitamine suplement. Thank you
I hope you are feeling good.
My dear friend, I'm going to join a hydroponic forage producers, but because it is the first time they'd come to me if you have questions that I hope you can help me.
Do you think the hydroponic forage production is economically affordable?
Are startup costs and other collection costs are high?
What are the challenges facing the economic challenges? (For example, diseases and…)
Hydroponics matter how diseases arise and how to deal with them?
Is it dangerous to animals?
The ideal environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and light to what should be done?
What type of lighting should be used? Natural or artificial? What color of artificial light is better?
Do you need to use during the irrigation nutrient solution? Water hardness in the range should be?
How to irrigate the better? Is the tray should always be wet?
Thank you sincerely
J. Dairy Sci. 97 :1–14
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2014-8518
Conducted with continuous flow fermentor system (in vitro) - compared haylage with herbage, also sprouted vs. grain.
Part of their summary conclusions:
"Supplementation of herbage-based and haylagebased
diets with 7-d SB (sprouted barley) increased true and apparent DM digestibility marginally (3 percentage units); however,it had no effect on fiber or CP digestibility, CH4
output, and bacterial efficiency. The small increase in
digestibility coupled with the DM yield loss associated
with sprouting barley could result in less digestible
energy available to the animal and negative effects on
animal performance when supplementing with high quality
herbage diets, such as herbage or haylage."
Sprouting it in either a hydroponic or aquaponic system is something I am looking into as a way to provide my hogs with fresh forage because I have limited space to graze them. I am setting up an aquaponic system which will use catfish to supply nutrients to the grow beds, and the plants will clean nitrates out of the fish water. Such systems can run into problems with nitrogen spikes when vegetables are harvested from the grow beds unless fish are culled at the same time. For me, sprouting barley for my hogs may be a viable solution as the barley can be immediately added to help take up some of the extra nitrate burden while the next round of vegetables is being established.
three things that have come out clearly in my case:
1. Cost of feed (dairy meal supplements) has been reduced to zero and overall cost has been greatly reduced (by close to 20%)
2. Production is almost the same for now, but the animals look better...... am not sure whether its my eyes wanting to see that but there is definitely a difference in appearance and its good
3. Cost of production for me is very cheap.... i am in the tropics so I do not need electricity and other forms of energy to regulate the temperatures... an appropriate green house in good enough
How do i post photos here?
Thank you.
Personal Training London
I would like to ask the original author, Daniel, I believe: you have done a scientific study related to the cost and efficiency of growing fodder using a hydroponic system (and I assume you mean a system that is produced by a company for profit). And you have deemed that, based on your study, it is not possible for fodder to be a cost-efficient replacement for grains. You have somewhat dismissed online "testimonials" as mere promoters of products or people who "have a dog in the race."
What if the "hydroponics system" was eliminated and a small-time farm (what folks may call hobbyists) used resources at hand to produce their fodder and thus fed their animals as well as reduced their feed costs?
I live near Pueblo Colorado which is considered a semi-arid biome. There is no way possible to (naturally) grow one's own food much less food for an animal. I know numerous families in the homeschool community who are raising a variety of animals, however. One family raises prize milk goats (up to 10?) on slightly over an acre of property by using a fodder system. Another family raises several goats, chickens, and last year a hog on the fodder system. Another family raises a small flock of chickens. Each of these families has used the resources they have to provide their own food supplies (although the fodder is not the ONLY food source, I know they use hay also). One family set up shelving units (about $125 in cost) in a basement room close to the bathroom. They take the sprouting trays into the downstairs bathtub to spray them down each day. They use no extra light. This feeds at least 2 goats and a flock (40ish) of chickens. Another family uses a good portion of a bedroom for their sprouting shelves. The family with chickens simply uses trays in their windows. Sometimes the water is saved for other uses, or used from tray to tray to tray. I know all three families use fodder BECAUSE IT IS COST EFFICIENT. The 2 families with goats are large (8 children and 11 children respectively) and have some food allergies that require the goat milk.
These families are not promoters of commercial systems and yet their experience defies your scientific study. Or maybe you would raise eyebrows and tell me that a mother of 8 (or 11) isn't keeping scientific tabs on her budget??? ;)
Science and experience seem to clash on this topic. Why has the United States not produced a farm/farmer willing to do a study on the subject and we sort of rely on an Iranian experiment for any input at all?? The scientists have decided without a doubt one thing (fodder is lower in nutrition and higher in cost) and yet you walk out of the lab and the story on the street is completely different: cost is down and health/production remain the same or better. (Ok the 2 Idaho farms notwithstanding.) The scientists continually ask for statistics and data (understandable) and the folks deep into animal husbandry continually ask the scientists "why doesn't your data match my experience?"
We're looking to build up a large enough herd of rabbits to slaughter a thousand a year (6 kids for whom to budget food). I guess it's time to do a controlled study. Would you like to direct the scientific part of it? :)
It looks like hydroponic sprouts works for you. It fits into those aspects (in my original article) where it seems to fit - people who would like to be self-sufficient in feed and have few other resources. You probably still have to buy your grain for sprouting though.
On your rabbit idea - suggest that you calculate your hay-equivalent yield of the sprouts (correcting for dry matter of course), and calculate the yield of the sprouts on a hay-equivalent basis, and compare the costs of the seed with the costs of buying hay (alfalfa hay or high quality grass) from farmers locally. As detailed above, when I do this calculation, the hay comes out better - but maybe your situation is different.
As you said, mothers with lots of kids have to be hard-nosed about the economics.
In spite of what others have stated, the nutritious part of feeds is in the dry matter portion, so you need to correct for dry matter. You can always add water to milk, and it may go further, but doesn't improve its nutritional value.
Sprouts should be considered more similar to grain rather than to forage nutritionally, due to their low fiber content.
Good luck -
Dan
I have owned performance horses for about 30 years, and 3 years ago I started feeding fodder when Texas was in a terrible drought. I wanted to replace the very expensive hay and concentrated feed with 100% fodder. Like everyone else on this post, I was concerned about the nutritional value of the fodder. When I tried to research the nutritional value, I found that the "experts" don't know anything about the nutritional value of fodder. The best that they can do is kill the growing plant, dehydrate it, and then count the dried chemicals that make it up and see how that compares to the nutritional needs of horses (which were also based only on the dead, dry chemicals).
I have to agree with the people on this post who say that dry matter doesn't matter. I don't feed dry matter, and I don't believe you or any of the other nutritional specialists who claim that the nutritional benefits of a living plant are equal to the chemicals that the plant contains after it is killed and dried.
You didn't respond to how the anecdotal studies mentioned, where fodder replaced concentrated feed of some kind on a 1 to 1 basis, of wet weight, were able to sustain at least equal weight or performance, when you say they would have to feed 7 times as much wet weight to get the same nutritional value. Maybe dry matter doesn't matter.
In my own experience, after 3 years of feeding my polocrosse horses, I have spent about 1/4 of what I had been spending before, and my horses' condition hasn't suffered at all, and their overall health has improved. My horses do have access to some pasture some time, but most of the time they get almost all their nutrition from what I give them. If I can give them 20 pounds (wet weight) per day, I don't think they need any other feed or hay (I do keep a mineral block out for them).
I raise rabbits. I have about 20 adults, which is a small rabbitry. I switched to fodder not to replace hay but to replace commercial pellets. So I don't understand the whole comparing of the cost of growing and feeding fodder to hay. I compare it to the cost of the feed that is has replaced.
Before fodder I was using 200 pounds of pellets, per month, for adults on a maintenance diet. Litters consumed an additional 50 pounds per month and required about 6 weeks of feeding pellets to reach market weight. At 20 dollars per 50 pound bag my feed costs ranged 80 to 230 dollars per month plus 5-10 dollars in hay.
Fodder costs me 15 dollars for a 50 pound bag of barley. That produces about 4.5 pounds of fodder per pound of grain, or 225 pounds per bag of grain. I use 4 gallons of water per day to produce. The rabbits drink 50% of the water they were drinking when they were fed 100% dry food.
They eat the same weight of fodder as they did in pellets. So my feed costs have become 15 dollars per month instead of 80 for maintenance does and bucks, and 45 per month instead of 230, if I have 5 litters in growout.
I do not know of anyone who feeds rabbits 100% hay and nothing else. I'm sure that can't be what you mean. I may experiment with a group of rabbits but hay just does not contain enough protein. Alfalfa does but it is so high in calcium. I had numerous rabbits who had bladder issues from too much calcium coming from the pellets (made from alfalfa hay) and all of those resolved once I began feeding fodder.
So no it is not a hoax, and it works great for rabbits. I save so much money that my rabbits now have a fantastic profit margin instead of a margin so slim one wonders why they are even raising rabbits.
We have developed a solar powered 'glasshouse' specifically for hydroponic barley shoot systems that will produce 10 tons a day from half an acre ( 2,000 acres equivilent ).
From research, minor issues such as DM play little part in the argument comparative to water usage issues, with alfalfa requiring 1,100 litres per kilo and feed crops in the USA consuming 56% of all fresh water the only way to sustain the beef and dairy industry will be through innovations like hydroponic barley sprouts. Based in California you should know the implications of the predicament more than anyone.
As an aside I never back something I do not believe in, to that end I have been eating 20 grams of freeze dried barley shoots a day for three months.
Results: Hypertension down from 160/110 to 140/95 after six years of going nowhere with medication, half stone weight loss with muscle build, higher energy levels and focus improved sleep pattern.
It works for me so I would be quite happy to recommend to any animal!
Also you can do the same thing with a stack of buckets for the small backyard flock. Just punch a bunch of holes in them and rotate them. This is exactly the same as a countertop sprouter, but larger.
I would think running a flush and drain system where the pump only goes on a few times per day would be negligible energy.. but I've not measured it.
As for the water, why aren't you harvesting every drop off your land? Swailing for your crops, hugelkultur, even the simple rain barrel for the roof. Permaculture as a lot of interesting solutions out there.
Again I'm just a backyard homesteader, but I'm sure people have scaled these primitive solutions up.
At the end of the day you can buy a bag of organic barely for about $15 and quadruple it's feed value for the time it takes to pour about 1/2 gallon of water through a bucket stack 2x per day.
Eric |
There are many benefits to be found from using fresh barley grass and spouted grains that has been organically and hydroponically grown. When barley is sprouted, it releases many vitamins and minerals as well as converting hard to digest starches in easily digestible proteins. Some of the benefits include:
1-Water use reduction and conservation compared to field irrigation
2-Reduction in overall daily feed costs.
3-Significant reduction if feed waste - the entire root mass is consumed with the grass
4-Increased nutritional value in the feed
5-High yield in a very small area
6-Increase your independence by growing food for your animals with no need for cultivated land
7-High digestibility
8-Vitamins & mineral saturation
9-Phytate reduction for pH normalization
10-Enzymatic activity increase
11-Increases in Omega 3, amino acids, natural hormones
12-Hedge the increase in feed costs by pre-buying large quantities of grain to have on hand
13-On-demand availability of fresh green feed 365 days a year - all season access.
Issues and Considerations
1-Mold and fungus growth can be a problem. Sterile equipment, a low humidity environment, good temperature regulation, clean water, and good air circulation can all help avoid mold and fungus problems. A one percent bleach solution can be used to wash the grains prior to the initial soaking. This will pre-sterilize the seed.
2-Depending on the sprouting setup - it can be labor intensive to rotate and clean trays and transport the "wet" feed.
3-Seed quality can play a factor in the overall success and quality of the fodder produced.
4-Storage of large quantities of grain needs to be considered in the costs and setup of a on-demand fodder system. Keeping the stored grain from moisture and pests is important.
5-Some systems require power to operate and a lack of power/water in emergency situations needs to be factored in to the setup.
we have posted it on our company website
No one has suggested this so I assume it would not work, but why wouldn't it?
Outside my farm, the shephard community take the lambs for open grazing where only dry grasses are available as the hill that they take their flock is in arid area. I left equal number of lambs in their herd.
The lambs at my farm, doubled their weight in 85 days and the lambs with the shephard, even after 120 days were nowhere near doubling.
According to me everything in right formula is important...the dry matter and the grass..
Extreme underestimates of digestibility for grains are often added to these calculations to inflate the value of fodder, even for horses. Am I missing something here?
I could go on for days, or, people can quickly look at http://www.ker.com/library/advances/206.pdf or general feed analyses.
I regularly formulate rations for all classes of horses AND ruminants, dairy and otherwise.
DE is DE is DE, and all expressed on DM basis. We would do the same type of calculations for animals on pasture, which also contains much water.
Thoughts?
Ground grains can be very high in digestibility.
A good read can be found at J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2011) Vol. 13: 367-375
Performance of Feedlot Calves Fed Hydroponics Fodder
Barley
H. Fazaeli1*, H. A. Golmohammadi, A. A. Shoayee, N. Montajebi, and Sh. Mosharraf
The abstract states:
This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of barley green fodder produced
by hydroponics system on the performance of feedlot calves. In a completely block
randomized experiment, 24 cross bred (Holstein×Local) male calves were assigned
randomly to one of the two treatments (diets) that were either control (grain barley) or
hydroponic barley green fodder (BGF) that was included to provide 22.8 percent of the
total diet on dry matter basis. Seed grade barley was grown in a hydroponics chamber
system where the growth period was adjusted for 6 days. Body weigh gain was not
significantly different between the treatments, but the animals that had received the
control diet had higher (P< 0.05) dry matter intake than those fed BGF diet. There was a
tendency (P= 0.199) toward differences in feed efficiency due to dietary treatments. From
economical point of view, feed cost increased up to 24 percent when the calves were
offered BGF, because of the costly production of hydroponics green forage. Although the
mass production of fresh fodder was about 4.5 times per kg of barley grain, this was due
to water absorption during germination and growth period. Nevertheless, the dry matter
obtained was less than the initial barley grain and further dry matter losses were found in
the green fodder. These findings suggest that green fodder had no advantage over barley
grain in feedlot calves, while it increased the cost of feed.
Fodder is becoming a staple in feed production in areas where drought has caused a shortage of forage causing high prices where grain is still relatively cheap. The argument of feeding grain vs fodder is 100% bioavailability of nutrients and the health and well being of the animal(s). There have been studies that show promise using cost of gains from feeding fodder vs dry forages that show promise that the digestibility poses an advantage to fodder. Although I don't think any of them have been published. People that I know personally who have incorporated fodder into their operations report substantial reductions in overall feed cost. Unfortunately I don't have the scientific evidence to back it up and this article is also missing conclusive evidence regarding this aspect and therefore is an incomplete analysis.
I'd like to see a complete analysis of the water use issue - the water used for production of the grain included vs. grazing or hay.
Hay prices have fallen a bit in CA this year in spite of the drought. Supply and demand is a complicated equation.
http://www.chicostateorganicdairy.com/research.html
so hydro is high in sprouting feeding that comes out back will be running like water too much of that i guess will be weight losses unless you feed hay as well
and seeds will only last 7 to 10 days max
so while the seeds for sprouting is there the sprout will grow once the seed is used up the sprout will have to get nutrition from another source
so to try and grow seeds for a full 50 days will be impossible with out ground that has fertilizer in it
hydro grow is only water base growth but to go the full cycle u will need a greenhouse effect where u have special treated ground for a full grow system like a mushroom system
and i think that feeding will cost far more then the old fashion way
just my penny of a thought
I've been interested in fodder for several years, but mostly have just read about it. Most of the information (actual studies do seem to be based around cattle, when I have horses) The DM argument was one I'd not been presented with before and I think this might be where some of the confusion (for me anyrate) came from.
Most horse owners are taught to feed by body weight, but rarely is DM discussed. Once I wrapped my head around the cost analysis of 'as fed <> dry matter', the lightbulb went on.
So a pastured horse who eats only 'as fed' would need to consume approx 40lbs/day for 1000 lb body weight. and 20 lbs hay if hay fed. (using the usual 'by the rule thumb that most horse owners do use)
If we consider the fodder to be 'as fed' NOT DM then I think the calculations might make more sense cost wise for the average horse person.
We are suffering a pretty bad drought up in the MNW (canada) currently and hay is slim to none, which renewed my interest in this type of feed.
I do think it has a valid place in the traditional sense of feeding. esp considering the current cost of hay up here which has just gone through the roof. My horses have just become a case study! And sine I'm an engineer by nature, I promise to be back with actual cost/caculations when I have them. Do I believe it's more cost efficient, most likely not, but when I can't actually find hay to purchase, it might be a definitely viable alternative. Even cubes are in short supply around here atm.
But it seems to me that your economics analysis is missing some important considerations. First is the cost of land, the interest payments, taxes and cost of labor and equipment that is associated with traditional hay production. You also can't simply cut a field year after year without reconditioning the field.
Fodder systems are much more compact allowing for smaller acreage. Its not just the cost of seed that needs consideration. Its the entire value engineering of farming that comes into play. In parts of the country where land costs and taxes are higher. Your better off with less land and higher yields.
Thanks for the comments.
Agree with your point about the cost of reconditioning fields, and of course using less land.
However - if you purchase hay you don't have to worry about any of it, at least economically. Don't have to worry about any cost except the cost of hay.
Generally, it's cheaper to produce one's own hay, but not always. Depending upon individual expense issues (cost of land, etc.), cost of production for hay is about $100/ton to $160/ton in many areas. However, if you don't have land you can buy it at market price or try the hydroponic concept. We took one fodder enthusiasts' estimate of $100/ton (that's wet, mind you) for the fodder as one estimate. At that rate, it's about $750/ton dry hay equivalent. A little pricey.
Considering ONLY the cost of seed at 18 cents/lb, that the HAY EQUIVALENT cost of fodder is well north of $400/ton.
Is that cheaper than purchasing hay? Definitely not this year, when alfalfa is priced between $140 and $240/ton delivered. And not even in the very high priced year when it was $350/ton.
So while it may be a treat for one's animals, the above illustrates why they call economics the dismal science. Doesn't quite pencil out.
Looks delicious though!
Thanks for the comments.
Dan
From what experiment i have done on my farm with just one animal is feed 1/3rd of ration and weight equivalent seeds as fodder(maize) and what i saw was hay in take was reduces by 50% so what i did was i halves the fodder(maize) and kept the ration at reduce(1/3rd) level and i still saw reduction in hay consumption but at no point did i saw reduction in milf.
Many people go for urea treated grains and fodder to fulfill protein requirement of the animal but that protein can easily be easily made available by sprouting fodder. And yes that 1/3rd reduction in grain ration was more then enough for show clear profit.
I guess it's time for me to post again. Your math in the last post is VERY misleading. Sorry, but it's all wrong.
You can easily replace 1lb of dry matter with 2lbs of wet fodder. Reference: http://nebula.wsimg.com/33c0820d8f7f469962277a789cf2391e?AccessKeyId=220F6E13424FA33C937A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
I've seen people do as good as 1:1, but that depends on the ration. We need to look at research done on animals actually eating fodder. Your dry matter calculations do not work. None of the numbers above make any sense in the real world.
Let's take a worst case scenario:
Barley seed is not going to be very good at 18 cents per lb, so let's forget that. Let's use an "average" number of a small machine, so the costs are higher than normal.
Good barley seed: 28 cents per lb.
Yield: 7lbs of wet sprouts from 1lb of seed
2,000lbs of sprouts requires ~ 285lbs of seed
285 X .28 = $79.80
Average cost of electricity per ton = $10
Total cost of fodder (excluding equipment) = $89.80
Cost if replacing high quality alfalfa, 2lbs sprouts for 1lb of dry hay = $179.60 per ton
Let's round to $180 per ton for this scenario. This is a small backyard farmer who cannot grow their own hay. (If it's a larger customer, they're going to get a better price on barley, lower utiity cost, and overall price per ton will come down)
This is BETTER than the $240 per ton alfalfa. You improve feed conversion of everything fed with fodder (shown by the digestibility studies mentioned above) improve animal health, etc.
I don't know why you refuse to look at any people actually using fodder and ask how they are saving money if this is "dismal science".
Progressive Dairy Article: "Fodder cuts dairy’s feed bills in half"
"http://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/feed-nutrition/fodder-cuts-dairys-feed-bills-in-half
HYDROPONIC,AS IT IS IN KENYA NOW IS A FRAUD LIKE QUILL BUSINESS.
PROVE? JUST SHOW ME A SINGLE FARMER PRACTISING HYDROPONIC FODDER FOR MORE THAN A MONTH AND I WILL SHOW YOU THOUSANDS WHO HAVE INVESTED IN" HYDROUNITS" ONLY TO REALIZE THE MILK PRODUCTION WENT DOWN AND INPUT WENT UP.
MANY COWS HAVE DIED OF AFLATOXIN.
Interesting story, David. There have been a number of growers who have successfully used grazing on their dairies (here in CA) - also, Argentina has over 10 million acres of alfalfa and other forages used for dairy grazing systems. Interesting! It can work and has worked in many areas. Your $7,000/acre sounds cheap here in CA, where land is more than double this in many areas, for irrigated land. In terms of the economics of hydroponic fodder, I would do some hard-nosed economics about the purchase of (even expensive) hay and how that compares in your area of Florida. The above analysis on the high costs of hydroponic forage (compared even to the $350 hay of last year) has held up to scrutiny, if one is honest about the dry matter issue. Regardless of what some people have said, rations are ALWAYS balanced on a DM basis.
I was about an hour into reading this debate when it struck me, the original analysis can only be considered anecdotal due to the fundamental lack of scientific discipline.
Consider the author's statement: "A local friend who is working with hydroponic forages brought us some..."
While I have derived some value from my time this afternoon, I can't help but feel upset at myself for not spotting the lack of controls and real evidence used to back the article sooner.
"A friend brought me some"... realy?
That is hardly what I would reliable. Not that I would claim this to be, but what if the "local friend" had in some way, whether intentional or accidental, did something that adversely impacted the source sample?
While I won't go so far as to use the words junk science, I for one think the credibility of the article deserves some serious scrutiny. Where did the samples really come from? What if any were the environmental controls? How can you prove anything stated in the article given the source and methodology? What exactly is the affiliation of the authors with the University?
There are some talking points in this article which, to quote the author, seem "attractive at first look, but fall apart upon analysis".
"A friend brought me some"... realy?
Assuming for a moment that the analysis had merit, the authors do the audience a great disservice by demanding facts while failing to provide your own.
Also, I find the incomplete reference section alarming as well. The authors cite websites that are not given. Is this the quality one can expect from this University?
I have "no dog in the race", I like many, am researching the viability of fodder for a given purpose. I am sure you can understand my frustration upon realizing I wasted my time on "A friend brought me some".
Cindy shows the cost to produce 1134 pounds of fodder per day in her powerpoint ($69.30 for seed, $20 for labor, and $5 for utilities which totals $94.30). The as fed cost of fodder is $0.083 per pound ($94.30/1134 = $0.083). If we assume fodder is 15% dry matter, then Chico State produced 170.1 lbs of fodder dry matter per day (1134 x 0.15= 170.1). The cost per pound of dry matter is $0.553 (94.3/170.1). Cindy shows lower cost for processed barley in her study ($0.31 per pound as fed and $0.35 per pound of dry matter).
Cindy used $0.06 per pound of fodder as her feed cost yet her actual feed cost was $0.083 per pound of fodder. Using the corrected number, income over feed cost was significantly lower on the 36 lbs of fodder diet ($13.44) than on the 6 pounds of processed grain diet ($13.92).
To recap, Cindy's trial was very informative. She matched all my earlier statements: 1) Fodder has a similar feeding rate to barley when fed at similar lbs of dry matter, 2) Fodder is more expensive than grain on a per pound of dry matter basis, and 3) Income over feed is reduced on fodder diets due to the higher cost of fodder per pound of dry matter.
Note her data shows that 6 pounds of barley fodder replaces 1 pound of processed grain. She has several earlier interviews where she states the replacement rate is 2 pounds of fodder for 1 pound of processed barley. Clearly her recommendation is different today after conducting a trial that documents a 6:1 replacement rate. IF someone tells you it is 2:1, show them Cindy's data.
"Cindy's data" conclude:
-Rumen dynamics change under the influence of fodder and DO NOT APPEAR TO HOLD TO THE 6:1 CONVERSION as implied by the DM
analysis.
-COMPARABLE milk production was established with a 2 lbs of
fodder to 1 lb of grain exchange.
What I undestand from that is that the replacement rate is 2:1,according to "Cindy" (although the actual study doesn't support that with data.)
I am not asking from you to answer to the conclusions (I already asked Prof. Daley directly), I only ask you and the rest of the respected readers to be self-possessed and unbiased (in other words "chill out").
What are the results from your own personal trials Richard? (in order to save precious time I already tell you that I have none).
Please, don't mistake literature research for field research. Don't mistake information for knowledge.
I had not read completely through the slideset and had not seen her conclusion that 2 pounds of fodder replaces one pound of grain. Her production trial with a 6:1 replacement rate clearly does not support her 2:1 conclusion. The small changes in rumen dynamics would not allow 0.3 lbs of fodder to replace 0.9 lbs of barley. If it did, the cows on fodder would produced more milk and/or put on more body condition.
You had a questioning about water usage, in my own system I am growing 250# of barley sprouts per day on 30 - 40 gallons of water. I have replaced a 3% body weight dried alfalfa hay we will say around 14 or 15 % Crude protein with a 2% body weight fresh sprouts and 1% timothy hay with a small dairy herd. The cows are producing 10 to 20% higher milk yields, have overall better body condition and daily consumption of water is reduced which offsets a large portion of the water used during production of the feed. I paid $0.07/lb for my alfalfa hay which is up at least 50% this year. Sprouts cost me about $0.035 per pound to produce using certified seed plus additional labour, my 13 yo daughter looks after the system and she spends around 45 minutes per day after school harvesting and re-seeding, I do it in about 15 minutes. I am developing an automated seed cleaning, soaking system that will allow me to purchase non seed grade barley for less than half of the price bringing my production costs down to 1.5 - 2 cents per pound. I am not using any lights or other special equipment, you could factor in a portion of my heating bill for my shop where it is located but we are talking maybe $25/mnth which would add about 1/3 of a penny per pound putting me at 0.038/pound. All in all I have probably cot my feed bill by more than 25% and increased my yield. At the same time it allows me to free up more land for summer pasturing or other production otherwise used for making hay. I was reading a study that was conducted in Australia where they had over 1kg/day beef gains where science had determined using dry matter calculations that the cows would produce no more that 200g per day. It was a good article and well written but nutritionists are starting to take a different look wet feeds, I am currently working with a dairy nutritionist to develop a more balanced feed plan for commercial dairy production in my area.
Thanks your information - quite interesting. I'm glad you were able to make it work.
In terms of water use, it's important to include the water used to produce the grain originally, and compare with water used for barley grain or hay based upon dry matter production. In the case of sprouts, they are closer nutritionally to barley grain than to hay due to the low NDF content.
I'm not a beef person, but 200 grams gain/day sounds pretty low I think for any system - and 1 to 2.2 lbs (1 kg) daily gain is more normal I think if grain is included.
I am glad that you feel that 200g per day seems unrealistic because they were basing that estimation on dry matter values by volume of wet feed supplied to the animal. Same type of thinking you have on the subject.
With regards to water use for growing the grain to supply the system. We don't need to irrigate grain unless we live in the desert so in my geographical area we are dependent on rain, the natural water table and soil quality. But this is where the sustainability comparison really leans to the fodder side. And I am going to use hay as an example because you don't base feed livestock straight grain whether it's rolled or crushed because eventually it will kill them it's too hard on their rheumen.
We will use 2% body weight as an example for feed intake requirements and I am going to use a 1:1 ratio because that is what I am using on my farm.
A 1000 pound cow will eat 7300# of hay per year. It requires around 3 acres to produce that hay and yes I realize that is a loose number because there are many variables involved in hay yields.
However the same cow will eat 7300# of sprouted barley per year and it will require 0.23 acres to grow that barley. (Based on typical yields in my area). You could feed 10:1 and your still not even close.
Yes I realize you cannot feed straight barley fodder or grain for that matter without adding some roughage in for fibre. But I used it to provide a solid contrast to how much land this type of feed system can open up for other crops.
On another note, I think you have driven the nail pretty hard into the loss of DMV from sprouting. Mainly from energy loss (starches) during sprouting. However cows must burn more energy and generate more acid and bacteria to break down dried feeds.
There are too many variables to look at it from a DMV prospective, the only way to determine whether your theory is correct or not is to do a controlled side by side study. I haven't had the time but I am going to see if I can get our government to provide a research grant to our local ag college to perform such a study so that will give us accurate data to dispute all of these discrepancies and assumptions.
As an engineer my career revolves around numbers that represent indisputable fact so I understand your prospective. Lets get some more data before we write it off.
However, the main point is that feeding 7300 lbs of 90%DM hay (6570 lbs of DM intake) is fundamentally different than feeding 7300 lbs. of 10% DM sprouts (730 lbs of DM intake). They're not equivalent. Put them on an equivalent basis and see what you come up with in terms of water and land.
7300/3=2433 not 1200 I did a rough estimate of the Timothy I took off of my (non-irrigated) field last year and on the high side I got around the same as the U.S national average you posted. With a mixed forage I know I could produce more but anyone who is getting 7 T/A has a heavy fertilizing program, irrigation in an extended growing season hopefully with non-gmo Alfalfa. I would also assume that is during their crops peak years not their average. But anyways I will re-do the numbers based on what my (un-irrigated) land produced because after all we are trying to determine if sprouting barley is efficient AT ALL because your article claims it is blasphemy. We are not trying to determine if it is viable for the privileged few that have high priced land like your 7 T/A irrigated farmers. Maybe I am wrong but I don't know anyone that yields remotely close to 7 T/A in my area by conventional farming.
So lets use your national average. It takes 2.3 Acres to produce 7800# of hay per year instead of the 3 that I originally posted and my apologies I wasn't trying to cherry pick stats I should have looked at the material I was referencing more closely.
So 2.3 acres for hay and .18 acres for barley is 13X more land to produce hay. That is a staggering statistic to the benefit of sprouting. Which I would like to point out is classified as a grass feed by the grass fed beef/dairy establishment. Producers receive a higher dollar per lb for their product if it is grass fed which needs to be considered when establishing financial viability as well.
Daniel Putnam
"However, the main point is that feeding 7300 lbs of 90%DM hay (6570 lbs of DM intake) is fundamentally different than feeding 7300 lbs. of 10% DM sprouts (730 lbs of DM intake). They're not equivalent. Put them on an equivalent basis and see what you come up with in terms of water and land."
By your fundamentals I would have to feed over 128# of sprouts to get the same nutritional benefit of 20# (approximation) according to actual DMI. We all get it Daniel you don't need to keep repeating it. The difference in feed value is going to be speculative because the animal is going to absorb more of the available protein and nutrients sprouted than dry and no one with a reasonable amount of common sense would ever refute that statement, not even you. There may be less energy available in the feed used up by the process of sprouting (DM loss) but that doesn't necessarily mean the animal is absorbing less. The question is how much? You don't know, if you did you would have provided the evidence, likewise I would do the same. Drop the DMI comparison you are back peddling.
As I mentioned, I am replacing 15% crude protein Alphalfa pound for pound with 2/3 WM barley sprouts and 1/3 Timothy hay for fibre and the timothy is fed at free choice so they are only consuming 1% of their body weight when consuming 2% sprouts. Some guys feed a higher ratio of sprouts and feed straw for fibre which is again more financially efficient of system but I don't like feeding straw for personal preference. Maybe for beef cows but not for dairy.
What are the most common base feeds for livestock? Grass/Legumes and the evil gmo corn silage. What did I use as a comparison for land usage and feed value? Hay. Why? Because that is what I am replacing with sprouts. Why is that important to this discussion? Because your article claims that there is no value in sprouting grains. Is there value? Yes there is I just explained it.
These are real numbers from an actual feeding operation that is taking place on my land 12 months of the year and I would be more than happy to have you out for a tour because it's obvious that you either don't believe me or don't want to.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.
My training as a chemical engineer and work as a project manager makes the "economics" a priority to me, but the economics of my location seem to be quite different from those who have contributed to the discussion thus far. Specifically, I am 17 miles on bad dirt roads (think no faster than 25 mph in order to not destroy your vehicle) to the nearest grocery store and another 20 miles to get to a feed store. Also, bear in mind that at times the roads are completely impassable.
My inquiry is not driven by some "prepper", "self-sufficiency" or "organic" mentality, but pure practicality. I am trying to figure out if I can grow what we need cost-effectively in comparison to retail shopping at your standard grocery store or Walmart (25 miles away, 17 of which are over the horrid roads I mentioned before).
While my soil is not good, I understand that it can be amended and I do expect to do in-ground growing as much as I can, if practical. My big issue is water.
Our well water is too salty and conductive for irrigation or human consumption but okay for livestock. While solar stills can produce the drinking water we need from the well, I do not see that as a practical solution for irrigation.
Rain water harvesting can only supply a small portion of our needs (say 1000-1500 gallons per month on average), but it is sporadic and, when it comes, often torrential so cannot be relied upon as our sole source. Mixing well water with the rain can augment to a degree, but it seems to me that hauling of public water (we have a 1,250 gallon tank on a trailer) to our location (over the same 17 miles of horrid roads) will likely have to be a part of any option we pursue. I will also, where possible, use grey water for growing things.
It is in this environment that I am considering a hybrid aquaponics system that includes some self-wicking beds fed with worm compost for food production and a hydroponic fodder system for our livestock.
In this, I am not trying to sell our produce/meat in competition with commercial producers, but rather seeking to more cost-effectively produce food than I can buy it for retail, particularly in light of our high cost of travel.
I have read Dr. Putnam's analysis with great interest. My sense is that if he, as a leading skeptic, thinks that a hydroponic fodder system might suit my situation well, then it is a no brainer to go that way. Alternative, if he has an idea that he thinks might work better in my situation, I would be very open to it. I am also very interested in what others, particularly those with practical experience, might suggest.
I look forward to reading your comments.
Your note is a challenge indeed. Might be one of those situations where the sprouted grain may be good.
First thing I would think would be to examine your water resources in more detail. Quantity (is it a good well?) and salinity. We have been growing alfalfa on saline water at about ECw of 5-10 in West Side San Joaquin Valley in soil. In hydroponic sand tanks the Riverside folks saw yield reductions at about EC of >10 but not below (established plants cut multiple times, not sprouts). The are other salt-tolerant species like barley (forage) and tall wheatgrass. Some desert soils can be reclaimed - would recemmend talking with some of the Texas experts on that issue. And test the water to see if it can be used. You'll have to watch ions like Mo, B, and Se that might be toxic at some levels.
I would guess that a higher priority would be to produce hydroponic vegetables vs. forage or the sprouts, but sprouts might be useful too. REmeber cattle need lots of forage. You should probably examine the cost of the sprouts vs. delivered hay.
The seeds are transformed into a product with new physical attributes and this transformation may result in adding certain values to the product.
I would like to know what are the nutrition benefits or ,any other benefit , of hydroponic products that can compensate its DM loss ?
Thank you
When the seed is turned into a sprout, would the entire composition not change?
You aren't comparing a seed anymore... it is bigger... it has grown...so one as thinking the dry matter doesn't decrease, the entire "sample" that is being analyzed is something entirely different, so there is water, there are leaves, there are veins... if you add water to a balloon, the dry matter (rubber) doesn't decrease.... but the new 12 inch water balloon does have 80% water content, 18% rubber, and 2% air, where when it was just am empty balloon it was 90% dry matter and 10% air. So you could say adding the water to it made it less of a balloon if we were to compare the seed and fodder in the same way...
To say it is a dog wagging its tail treat for horses is a little ignorant in my obviously humble opinion. Horses need to have grasses and forage lining their guts for slow decomposition. They chew hay and gasses down to half inch pieces that ferment in their hind guts.... feeding seeds and grains is much harder on them and causes ulcers which is why smaller grain feedings with more grass and hay is better than anything.
So if you understand what I was getting at with the balloon analogy... is your analysis with seed to fodder the same?
Thanks for your comment.
The difference between a balloon being filled with water vs. seed germinating, is that germinating seeds use carbon while germinating, therefore dry weight. Carbohydrates (starches etc.) to grow leaves before they start adding more carbohydrates through photosynthesis than are lost early on. 6 days is too short to make up for that loss.
Therefore seeds would LOOSE dry matter in 6 days, while you are right, balloons would be the same when filled with water.
Cheers,
Dan
Scientist: Doesn't work, I've done an experiment.
Farmer: Um... does work, I'm doing it.
Scientist: No, it doesn't. Did you not read what I've just written?
Farmer: Ok... I'm still doing it though.
Scientist: Prove to me what you are doing is possible, in a manner that is acceptable to me.
Farmer: Love too, but I'm a bit too busy farming and making money. Anyhow, isn't that *your* job? Why don't you come out here and watch me farming and making money?
Scientist: Nah, science doesn't work like that.
Farmer: No worries. We'll still be here farming and making money if you change your mind...
I started sprouting the grains, using primitive methods; buckets and cat litter boxes for trays. I stack them up three high to keep the roots moist. Slowly, their ingredients have been removed and green feed increased.
My feed now costs me less than R2,000/month and the horses are fat, fat, fat and very shiny and healthy. That is really all the proof I need. I really don't care about the DM analyses and all that other stuff. The proof really is in the pudding.
Oh, and the sprouts are grown in open air, watered only twice a day, which is +- 5L water per day.
Soon, my horses will be on only grazing and barley sprouts, which will cost me even less.
Money talks...
greeting from Afu University Dubai http://goo.gl/tfeKBm
I was just in Costa Rica in Guanacaste this spring - awfully dry there. Fires and all. Reminds me of our 5 year CA drought.
Perhaps a situation where any type of fodder (at all) is hard to come by is the type of situation where this makes more sense. Still, the DM losses and economics (as well as the fact that sprouts are nutritionally closer to barley seeds than long hay) should be considered. I would take a hard look at whether hay can be shipped in (and at what cost), and the true costs of sprouting vs. process unsprouted barley grain. See Rick Norell's post above about the relative cost issues. Sprouts are more expensive than grain, and the daily gains were about the same.
http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=515 Average daily gain was similar between controls and animals fed barley fodder. Cost per pound of gain was significantly higher on the fodder diet.
Both DM and TDN are important. TDN is the concentration of total digestible nutrients expressed as a fraction or percentage of dry matter (DM). Barley grain varies from 77 (light grain) to 84% TDN and net energy for gain is 1.4 Mcal/kg.
In the recent study by Hafla et al. 2014: J. Dairy Sci. 97 :1–14
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3168/jds.2014-8518
They reported crude protein was higher in the barley fodder by about 2% as we would expect. Crude protein increases because the starch and sugars are used in plant respiration during sprouting, thus other components increase in concentration although the actual amount is less. However, rumen degradeable protein increased in the sprouted barley (SB) compared to barley grain. Starch, the source for much of the sugars used in plant respiration declined from 58.1% in barley grain to 27.7% in SB. Nonstrucural carbohydrates also declined significantly from 62.1 % in barley grain to 48.8% in the SB. The structural fibers increased as expected from 14.4% to 30.5% NDF and 5.3% to 15.5% ADF, from barley grain to SB. Ether extract (fatty acids [FA]) were 2.2% for barley grain and 4.0% for SP.
Total digestible nutrients (TDN) Dairy NRC 2001 summative equation:
The sum of digestible crude protein, fat (multiplied by 2.25), non-fibrous carbohydrates, and digestible NDF.
TDN= [(NFC*.98) + (CP*.93) + (FA*.97*2.25) + (NDF * NDFD)] – 7
Since starch and nonstructural carbohydrates decline and structural carbohydrates (NDF and ADF) increase in concentration, although FA increases and is very energy dense, I don’t see how TDN can increase more than barley grain. Then there is the issue of dry matter loss from sprouting.
Hafla et al. Conclusions are verbatum:
“Supplementation of herbage-based and haylage based diets with 7-d SB increased true and apparent DM digestibility marginally (3 percentage units); however, it had no effect on fiber or CP digestibility, CH4 output, and bacterial efficiency. The small increase in digestibility coupled with the DM yield loss associated with sprouting barley could result in less digestible energy available to the animal and negative effects on animal performance when supplementing with high quality herbage diets, such as herbage or haylage.”
I maintain that sprouted barley or barley fodder has no advantage over barley grain. There is no magic to barley fodder.
for grain and hay, there is almost 20% of amino acid. where my com need only 20%.
if it eats 10kg everyday, it will always do the same.
like you, who eat same amount every day. dont think about dm.
you cant be hungry
This is regarding your article on October 11, 2013 on “ Does Hydroponic Forage Production Make Sense?” in Alfalfa and forage news.
I am from Sri Lanka’ where 95% of the farm holdings are below 2 hectares. They own 71% of the agricultural land. Mixed farming, including livestock in only in 21% of these holdings. Sri Lanka Imports 80% of its milk supply. Its meat production by ruminants is falling by about 1-2% annually.
The farm holding priority for inputs, including time,labor and funds are as below.
First Priority Rice (we are self-sufficient) grown first with rains in September-October (Two and Half month varieties) and the harvest is taken in February -March. Second cultivation with irrigated water (Sri Lanka is having an extensive network of reservoirs build 2000 years ago) in April-May and harvested in July. During this period farmers are busy with paddy cultivation.
Second Priority is Vegetable, pulses and cash crop cultivation. Limited resources are given to these and time allocation is also limited as this is done during the rice cultivation season.
The last priority is Livestock. Almost no or very limited resources are used for the livestock sector. However, in this farming system and under the present context,
• the risk reduction ability,
• farm yard manure not only for crops, but also for inland fisheries (a one eighth of the fish production from inland sources) and also
• Due to efficient disposal of crop byproducts (otherwise burnt emitting carbon dioxide)
Livestock is an essential part.
So now. This is where hydroponic fodder can be introduced and will be the catalyst to increase livestock production.
THANK YOU
I compared the calories per 100 g of wheat seed is 394 and is reported at 30% digestible. 100 g of wheat sprouts are 214cal and is reported to be 70% digestible. 1 cup of wheat sprouts can be made with less than 2 oz of wheat making it 5 times more calories when you compare calories out of wheat. .
This happens when a seed germinates and begins the fast start processes of life. it creates calories out of water.
Yes, you are right the real question is nutrition and calories (among other nutritional values like protein and fiber and digestibility of all).
And Yes, the real question is also dry matter, so you should care.
You do not get more calories from sprouted seeds than with the seeds themselves, until the seedlings start producing their own calories through photosynthesis. But that happens after 7 days, so initially, there is a loss of calories as the seed sprouts.
With sprouts, since they are growing, they are using up energy (calories) from the seed endosperm.
Calories (digestible energy) are always considered on a dry weight basis to compare different products in animal feeds whether sprouted seeds, un-sprouted seeds, or hay.
I came across this article in researching fodder after someone mentioned they were thinking of setting up a fodder operation.
Having done considerable research on various aspects of horses, with care, feeding, and well-being of our babies as we think of them (including the four we claim as ours as we treat them the same as our own), my primary concern is they are getting all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, etc. that they need.
Show me the GA (guaranteed analysis) of barley fodder that lists the CP, ADF, NDF, TDN, ME, etc., as well as vitamins A, B-complex, C, D (not really necessary as horses like humans make there own from sunlight), E, H, and K, and minerals Ca, Cu, Fe, I, K, Mg, Mn, P, and Zn. I have such analyses for various forages. Show me the data, please.
As for grains, horses were not meant to eat them. They were meant to eat grasses and other forage. The major problem with grains and grain-based fodder is the inverted Ca to P ratio. Horses need a calcium to phosphorus ratio of at a minimum of 1.2:1, preferably 2:1. (Research Miller's Head on the effects of inverted Ca to P ratio on horses.)
Since there is not enough land to provide sufficient forage for our babies, we feed them free-choice coastal bermuda hay (the main hay grass grown here in the Lowcountry of South Carolina) and multipurpose pellets at the daily rate of 750g for the two seniors (they may be 20+ mares, but those girls can scat when they want to), 250g for the mini, and 500g for the rest. Seem too little feed per horse? No, they're butterballs, leaning toward the overweight side of the fence. We do try to turn them out once a week to mow the yard, which lowers our hay bill a good bit.
As to their health, they regularly race each other around the pen. If they are running around and playing with each other, I say they're healthy. (On the really cool days they show off by having an eleven-horse marathon of sorts.)
To add to the energy our horses have, our 14yo Painted Walker mare took off, followed by our 18yo thoughbred Arabian and 3yo Heinz 57 colt. When Baby Girl, the PW, saw the other two less than ten feet behind her, she left them. In less than two seconds Baby added over 50 feet of distance between her and the other two.
My point is this: regardless of the food consumed, horses (any critter for that matter, humans included) must get all the nutrients, fiber, and energy they need to be healthy. The food MUST BE COMPATIBLE with a given critter's digestive system for the greatest efficiency in extracting the necessary components from the food. The greater the incompatibility the more of a crap shoot it becomes, until the critter can't meet its daily needs for extreme incompatibility.
To wit: fodder is viable in certain locations, argument accepted. Fodder is than grain-based supplements in a particular area, argument accepted. But at present it is not the be-all end-all feed it seems to be. Long term research needs to be done, research spanning years if not decades.
By the way, Kyle, I hate pushy salesmen/saleswomen. I won't be buying anything you are trying to sell me. Period.
To the person importing hay from Ohio and New York: SERIUOSLY?? Our hay is grown about 50 miles away. We VOLUNTARILY chose to pay a $25 delivery fee. Fellow delivers it AND drops it off in the pen where we want. The bales are round and 1300 pounds each at $60 per bale. Also the grower himself came out on a delivery to see what we had at the end of a bale after the horses had munched it down. He went to a remnant, pulled some out to check, then looked at me said, "I hate selling bad hay." Get that level of service from your OH or NY growers.
Now this post would not be complete without some numbers. Since we increase the supplemental feed (hay is lacking in some vitamins and minerals, hence the supplement) during the winter as our horses tell us when they need they increase, and since the winters vary in coldness here (mild/harsh) and duration, I used worst case cost (horses eat more in winter than summer: the bacteria in their hind guts generate heat converting the digestible
fiber into a more easily absorbed form).
Our feed is currently $9.10/50lb. Call it $10/bag to allow for variability in production cost. We need about 130 bags per YEAR feed and 130 bales per YEAR hay. 33 deliveries per year at $25 each.
130 x $10 = $1300
130 x $60 = $7800
33 x $25 = $825
Our cost per year, worst case, is $9925. For ELEVEN horses. That is $902.22 per horse per year. How would growing my own fodder compare after adding up the TOTAL cost of starting up and long term running costs? This MUST INCLUDE THE COST OF THE SEED USED.
Cost of seed... hmmm.... This is a variable cost. Since the seed is purchased a fodder system is not 100% independent. Droughts, natural disasters, variable costs of growing the barley and harvesting the seed...
My thoughts on the subject.
Thomas
As for DM figures: the only way to compare nutritional content of each is to convert them to then same form (you can't expect results to make sense if one unit of measure is pounds and the other is kilograms; they must both be the same unit.
Thanks for sharing this article.....
We run a commercial stable operation and maintain about 75 horses. We have fed fodder to the horses for 4 years. We also feed grass and alfalfa and four different Purina products. Not all the horses get fodder, but most do.
We're a stable, not a laboratory or university, but we do keep track of what all our horses eat at an individual horse level. Among other things, we track the calories that are actually fed to each animal daily.
I've read all the comments that mentioned horses. The comments about dry matter have been great. Yet, I think they overlook one thing. The horse.
It seems assumed that a horse requires the same amount of energy fed whether they are on or off of fodder. That is just not the case.
Before we introduced fodder 4 years ago, my average horse in the herd required over 26,000 calories a day to maintain a good body condition. This number varied but had stuck pretty close to 26,000 for 2 years.
Two months after adding fodder to their diet, the same average horse in the herd required just over 21,000 calories per day to maintain a good body condition. And four years later, I'm still just above 21,000.
In our case, the introduction of fodder caused the horses to become more efficient at digesting their food. They were able to extract more energy from the ration they were fed, and hence the dry matter required by the average animal was less.
The reduction in calories required by each horse resulted in a reduction to our overall feed costs. Maybe it's fodder magic, maybe it's getting more water in their gut while they eat, but it works.
I learn it very nicely.It has been something new ideas that you make.It has been something new ideas that you make.It will be helpful for us.Thanks for sharing this article...
I think reading Michael's comments would be wise. He's speaking solely from experience of using fodder for his own horses. Interestingly enough, the only people that have commented on this forum about actually feeding fodder have positive things to say. I don't think that's a coincidence.
You may also be interested in a calculation on the water use in sprouts, in a second blog on this issue.
See: http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=22050
Cheers,
Dan
Horses get the trots for fodder.
Dave
Keep Posting:)
From what I can tell from the article, the argument the author is making is that pound-for-pound dry grain has more dry matter that hydroponic fodder. This fact doesn't seem to be in question. This unfortunately seems to be where the author leaves off.
What is more interesting to know is changes in weight gain in livestock raised for slaughter, and milk production in dairy animals.Some of the comments have mentioned that their animals pass whole grains through their digestive tract without digesting them. That's natural. Grains are ultimately seeds. Seeds are naturally designed to be spread by grazing animals and nourished by the animal's manure. Seeds are only digestible after they've been broken down. Some readers have commented on oats being rolled, steamed or flaked prior to being fed to their animals. This, I understand, increases digestibility. I would like to know if the author's studies included the cost of these value added processes.
In closing, I would like to say that the author's study seems to ignore the most vital and in my opinion obvious question. The question of return on investment. I would like to propose a simplified version of such a question. If a farmer feeds his livestock $100 worth of dry grain how much value does it add to the livestock, either in the form of weight gain or milk output? And how does that compare with the same farmer feeding the same livestock $100 worth of hydroponic fodder?
I feed chickens, and I understand Daniel Putnams's point that $100 worth of grain, by his calculations becomes $75 worth of gratin. However, as stated in earlier comments about feeding horses, it takes less fodder to feed my chickens. In other words, in the same amount of time it would have taken me to feed them $100 worth of grain, they are only consuming, again using Mr. Putnam's calculations, around $50 worth of fodder. I have fodder left over!! So to address Graham's economic question, I have reduced the cost of inputs without reducing output.
In addition, my system had minimal initial outlay, constructed with items on hand for the most part. The water usage is minimal because it is a closed system, constantly recirculating the same water (which is the same water that also is growing 80 heads of various lettuces.) I don't need to own or rent land that must be insured and pay property taxes. I don't need a tractor that burns fuel and adds to carbon in the air. I also don't need to truck in hay from out of state (another carbon load.) I work with a seed supplier who has also worked hard to reduce his carbon footprint as well. These are all factors that have not been worked into the calculations.
So basically, even though the author claims I am getting less forage for my seeds, it takes less to feed my hens, and they digest more, so my feed cost per day is less and that is the ONLY point that matters.
informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
We have a small bird operation in SC.
As I am understanding it, the reduction in DW is attributed to burning carbs stored in the seed to release energy for growth. This makes sense. However, I am reading that the germination process reduces phytate, which makes Fe, Zn, and Ca more bioavailable. Reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273767885_Bioavailability_of_essential_minerals_and_phytase_activity_during_soaking_and_seed_germination_in_Soybean_Glycine_max
The gist of what I am reading here is telling me that the increase in bioavailable Fe, Zn, and Ca in sprouts is on the order of 2.5 times ungerminated seed at the 72 hour point from initial soaking in water.
If this is the case, then would it make sense to feed fodder? It's more expensive, however appears to have much greater nutrition available.
The only dog I have in this is that I want to get the best feed I can without breaking my budget.
Good point on the phytase.
I'll let a nutritionist weigh in on the value of phytase for avian nutrition... and whether that is sufficient to outweigh the loss in carbohydrates.
Hope You Are Well
Would you moisture content for barley and corn growing in the greenhouse hydroponic explain?
1. On the East Coast we plant kikuyu grass pastures as the better protien grazing
2. Dry feed i.e. Peanut hay or lucern, molasses and yellow maize are mixed and fed as supplement feed at a cost of around R 3200 per metric ton
3. Sheep do not graze pastures if grass are long (taller than 100 mm)
4. Sheep would rather find newly grown stems green and succulent. Will eat around 10 % dry material
5. Regardless the DM fodder is cheap to produce as we feed for every 10 sheep on 9 kg fodder fodder (barley sprouted fodder)
6. results are no parasites, pallatable all year round good feed, cost effective and quality and heathy products for end consumer
7. Bottom line - 150 % lambing %, less vet costs, more sheep per ha, 60 % cheaper feed with no wastage, for better results and that is all we farmers are concerned about
One cannot comment if you have not experimented for yourself
But maybe there are other benefits you can not measure in dry matter !!
more fat on the milk, more fertility ? increase in milk yield not dependent on dry matter?
Several years ago we produced GHF and fed it to our cows trying to replace forages and it was Not economically viable....
After several years passed we found information which made us think we had made a big mistake !! by trying to compare the GHF with regular forages .... what we had to compare was the cost of GHF with the cost of concentrate ( grains)
We where suggested to replace up to 6 pounds of concentrate with 6 pounds of GHF.
We are producing and feeding our 320 milking Holsteins in Lima Peru for 3 months now.
our rolling herd average was 9650 kg of mil per cow in 305 days.
we replaced 3 kilograms of concentrate with 3 kilograms of GHF as fed.
our milk production has increased in 4 pounds per cow per day and the math says
cost per pound of GHF is $.10 and the cost of the grain concentrate is $0.23 per pound
our milk fat test has gone up in 3%.
also the fertility of the herd has improved ( it could be seasonal as we are in winter now)
We nned to wait and do more analisis before we jump to conclusions.. but we are happy with the results so far.
If someone wants to make a study at our farm you are very welcome.
We also feed our horses with GHF they love it and we have cut concentrate on a one to one basis
By weight.
We harvest at 8 days
We have made análisis at Cumberland Valley Ag services in the USA to determine the best money to feed. Which is 8 days
After the 8th day lignin which is non digestible or with low digestibility jumps in at a rate of 6% per day.
We have also seen a decrease in DRy matter . But we do not feed any product fully dry
Our GHF has 84 % humidity and if we leave it outside for six hours it dries more
I can send pictures but do not know how to do it
Thank you all for your interest and help
I just read your comment about using Fodder on your farm. As a researcher for fodder-users, I'd appreciate getting your contact for more of your actual experiences and results.
This article is interesting in that the science looks to prove against the practical use of fodder but, many people are experiencing positive results in their feeding programs.
Thanks for writing about it Daniel !
Cheers
This report states the following as facts:
a) There is about 85% water or more in fodder (according to the table).
b) 2 pounds of seed may produce around 12 pounds of fodder.
c) 12 lbs of fodder is equivalent to about 1.8 lbs of DM.
Therefore,
if a cow eats 20 pounds of DM a day,
and 12 pounds of fodder equals 1.8 pounds of DM,
so 20 lbs of DM divided by 1.8 lbs = 11.11 units of fodder.
11.11 units of fodder times 12 pounds of fodder in each unit = 133.32 lbs of fodder.
IN SHORT, 20 LBS OF DM IS EQUAL TO 133.32 LBS OF FODDER!
according to this report, a cow will actually eat 133.3 pounds of fodder a day, which is outrageously ridiculous!
I highly doubt there is a cow capable of eating this much fodder; therefore, I believe this report is unrealistic.
Interesting point about subsidies. This pertains to grains, though (wheat and rice primarily), not to forages.
In the US, there are zero subsidies for forage crops including any types of hay (alfalfa, oats, grasses) or silage. However, there are subsidies for grain production, which can then be used to be sprouted for sprouted grain for animals.
Dan
I saw a YouTube clip of an Australian farmer using shipping containers to grow cattle fodder, in deserts regions, which gave me the idea to look at manufacturing these containers for them to grow fodder in to feed their cattle. I am a complete novice and was wondering what your thoughts are in this type of application? We have some agricultural subsidies in South Africa and I am trying to get the corporates involved to help ensure food security and reduce the massive price increases in food that we are experiencing in this country, because of the drought and high rate of farmers brutally murdered in souyt Africa. If there is anyone that is able and willing to off me assistance in the design of these containers, I’m sure there are 100’s of our farmers that would greatly appreciate your kind assistance.
Interesting comment, and heart-wrenching to hear about your drought effects. This is perhaps one area where the sprouted barley might make sense - where you have absolute dearth of forages of any sort. However, I would also carefully calculate the costs of imported hay from other regions, since hay is now trucked long distances and even exported around the world - to see whether that is more cost effective, as per our calculations above, be sure to account for moisture differences. Also see our blog on the water issue in this same series. However, there is certainly something to be said for having daily sources available on the ranch. Be careful on the design issues about energy inputs - a major disadvantage of container-grown hydroponics.
However If I can use this hydroponic fodder system my cost for feeding animal will be cut in half and it will be fresh instead of dry.
I am on edge of adopting to this and it will not cost me no more than 1000usd to make as I have already made purchasing calculations based on market prices.
Water is not expensive electricity is. But this will not use much as later I am planning to shit all to solar.
I don't own any lands as they cost well above 50k USD per hectare.
All this calculation is from Pakistan.
That being said, I have one doubt that as far as I read had not been addressed in the discussion. Would it be possible to use other seeds as germinates that could in turn be more economically viable than barley? I have not done any research on this, I am just wondering. I understand the discussion has centered on the cost of seed vs germinates, but what about other seeds that the cow would usually not eat, say like millet.
If you don't have much in the way of locally-available pasture or purchased high quality hay, this might be one of the cases where it works. Horse people are different than cattle people, and spend a lot on feeds. You'll have to see if the horse people go for it. However, I would still take a hard look at the economics vs. other options.
Remember that though people use the word 'fodder' for sprouted seeds, they are really closer to grains than forages nutritionally (Low in fiber).
I don't have experience with other seeds, but they might be worth a try. People have used corn and wheat.
Dan
That being said, I have one doubt that as far as I read had not been addressed in the discussion. Would it be possible to use other seeds as germinates that could in turn be more economically viable than barley? I have not done any research on this, I am just wondering. I understand the discussion has centered on the cost of seed vs germinates, but what about other seeds that the cow would usually not eat, say like millet.
I majored in biology and part of the my chosen curriculum was on animal behavior and botany. It is quite obvious that grain germinate fodder will not match plain grain economically as a mainstream staple, yet some good research should be done in specific scenarios, where systems could be fine tuned, if proven economically viable. The first thing that comes to mind would be with regards to young cattle recently weaned from the mothers. An adult cattle with a matured digestive system may be better suited for digestion of grain than a young one with an immature one, that is considering nature as the control group. The other scenario that pops in my mind is in terms of fertility, if feeding young cows germinates proves to be easier in terms of digestibility, that cow may reach fertility faster, which would translate to faster milk production and quicker return on investment. Barley undergoes a quick transformation of starches to malt sugar at the beginning of germination (beer-crafting) and I can see why experimenting with cattle is very expensive, but perhaps a 1-4 day germinate could prove cheaper than highly processed grain with a relatively low need for investment, both in terms of labor and infrastructure.
I any case I am enjoying the discussion very much and I am sorry some people get offended by the subject as if it were a personal issue. Thank you for your time.
I’m late to the game here but looks like you still reply to comments on here,
so here goes . My nieghbour is planning a barley sprout feeding program in the new year and his numbers have piqued my interest. I’m also a cow calf producer looking for effieciencies to start turning a profit at this gig. I didn’t read all the comments but have a question and hope I didn’t miss a reply on it in the comments. I noticed the focus of your research was DM and how sprouted barley had to be compared to other diets on a DM basis. So my question is why are we comparing it to a TMR or fed ration rather than a grazing a pasture basis. Or can you link a study of that nature for me ? The lbs of gain per acre of fresh grass as most of that content is water also. I’m assuming studies have been done and that they will use the DM factor to make the comparison?
Thanks Roger
John the Baptist was in prison, and began to doubt if Jesus was the real Messiah. He sent messengers to Jesus and asked Him, are you the Messiah, or should we be looking for someone else? Jesus replied, Tell John what you have seen--the lame are healed, the deaf hear, the blind are healed, and people are raised from the dead. In other words, the evidence is out there and plain to see. Perception and context are the problem.
Really, MUST you be so insulting in your language?
By the way, sprouted grain is closer to grain (nutritionally) than it is to grass or legume fodder(hay or grazing).
Dan
I noticed as I experimented from overnight soaks to longer and longer sprouting, that the amount of undigested grain in the feces dropped, and eventually was absent.
Most of the links on this page relating to digestibility are broken. It would be nice to see a study using early sprouted grain vs. fodder.
I've found 2 days sprouts to be very cost effective and low cost compared to fodder. It just requires soaking and draining, a little climate control. I do 25# a day of dry gain in the space it takes for 4 buckets. Longer sprouting gives you a solid block of tanged roots that are difficult to feed.
The comparison I would like to see if comparing grain to ground grain, to sprouted grain.
Scientist : Can't work
Farmer : Does work
Ok so the dry matter loss (DML) and total digestible nutrients (TDM) makes sense. You will lose mass due to the growth stages from grain to fodder. You will also have a significant gain in moisture content, but also a significant increase in TDM.
A animal normally eats between 2-3% of its body mass every day since then it is in human terms "full".
Thus we can work on a 1:1 ratio.
Lets say a sheep eats 1kg of feed a day
That means 1kg of fodder or 1kg of grounded seeds.
(1:7 grow ratio)
1kg of fodder cost about $0.042
1kg of seeds cost about $0.293
Makes sense, yes the seeds and hay are more densely packed with nutrients, but the fodder gives easier access to those nutrients even at a 30% DML.
There is always a difference between theory and practice, and from my understanding almost all of the farmers that replied on this forum ,that have a type of fodder system is happy with the result.
So unless we have a detailed study from what goes in to what comes out and in what form. We wont know for sure. There are many studies done, but most of the theoretical studies contradicts the practical studies. There are huge differences in DML, this can be to environment , seeds and human error.
What is clear is that horses and dairy cows benefit from fodder in terms of health and milk production.
It also seem viable in areas where there are feed, space or drought problems.
My Conclusion
Farmers: Fodder systems work since we save on feed and it is good for the animals
Scientist: Fodder Systems cant work, since its not profitable.
Good work D. Putnam, I do not question your results and research, but it seems that it is actually viable in real life, so there might be a few other variables to consider.
Thats a good question however I think the author is correct that in reality many of the adverts that people buy into is that of a snake oil salesman. Thats does not mean that the technology is not good. On the contrary I think this might be a very good system if you live in a country that has issues with drought or semi arid. As for cows this might interest you.
--- Dairy Cows
Artificially grown fodder (AGF) Versus NB-21 was used (10 kg/day) as a constituent in the ration of cross-bred (Ongole x Holstein) milch cows and voluntary feed intake, digestibility of nutrients and quality and quantity of milk yield were studied. The DMI was similar in the groups, the digestibilities of DM, OM, NFE (P< 0.05), CF and NFE (P< 0.01) were significantly higher in animals fed with AGF. An increase of 7.8 per cent in milk production, 9.3 per cent in FCM and 10.5 per cent in fat yield was observed on ration containing AGF.
Nutrient utilisation by milch cattle fed on rations containing artificially grown fodder [1988]
Indian journal of animal nutrition
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201302690806
You can also find an in depth study done by MLA Australia and the issue of loss of DM starts on Pg 10 to Pg 15. It makes for a very good read.
https://www.mla.com.au/download/finalreports?itemId=959
It sounds like the hydroponic sprouts are replacing a seed feed (e.g. barley grain) not the fodder, which is proper. Sprouts are too low in fiber to be a true 'fodder' or forage crop. Typical grass hays are 50-70% NDF and alfalfa 35-45% NDF (Fiber), while these sprouts can be 25%NDF. IF the calves like it, why not!
It sounds like the hydroponic sprouts are replacing a seed feed (e.g. barley grain) not the fodder, which is proper. Sprouts are too low in fiber to be a true 'fodder' or forage crop. Typical grass hays are 50-70% NDF and alfalfa 35-45% NDF (Fiber), while these sprouts can be 25%NDF. IF the calves like it, why not!
I'm a physicist by trade, so my comments relate to the argument itself rather than to one side of the argument or the other.
Reading through the thread has been like actually watching Isaac Newton arguing with Albert Einstein.
Dan, my Isaac Newton, has a scientific method, and measures that he is sure of. There is no doubt in his mind that DM is the measure to use, and he is sure of his calculations which tell him that fodder machines decrease, rather than increase DM ... therefore, according to all he not only believes but has seen in practice (and he is not just an armchair scientist - he clearly practices his science and he clearly works very hard) he is not able to see that fodder machines can be profitable because they do not increase DM.
Dan concedes that fodder may be tasty, that it may make you a bit more self-sufficient, but it does not increase DM - total food - and this is his Newtonian Mechanics.
Kyle, my Albert Einstein, (and he is not just a machine salesman - he is someone who is trying to supply a machine that an industry either needs right now, or will certainly need if it is going to feed us to the end of this century) believes in something more than Newtonian Mechanics. Kyle's belief is also based not only on what he has learned, but it is based on what he has seen. Kyle has many clients that have come forward and said they tried it - and they are intelligent people who have all concluded their machine was food beneficial.
To Kyle, just as to Einstein, a kg is not just a kg.
Albert Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light the kg actually gets heavier. What Einstein said about a kg does not fit into Newtonian Mechanics.
What Kyle is saying does not fit into the science that Dan believes in.
The point of an argument is not to win the argument. The point of an argument is to find the truth.
Dan, can I beg you to please go and visit some of the places that are actually using the fodder machines and see with your own eyes what they are seeing. Even if you discover something new, you won't throw out what you already know - you will add to it.
Just so you know, physicists almost always use Newtonian Mechanics - for almost every practical purpose it is correct ... we use Einsteinium Mechanics when we are doing something like building spaceships or nuclear weapons.
Newton is by far the more useful physicist, but would you want to get on a spaceship built by a Newtonian Physicist?
You guys are building my spaceship - you produce the food that I absolutely depend on.
You might understand that I really hope you can find the truth.
Dan, that might mean going and looking for yourself at something that simply shouldn't be possible. After all, how can a kg ever be more than a kg?
Kyle, Dan is right when he says that there is still conflicting scientific studies, and the studies are all done by intelligent people. I realise that you are already collecting testimonies and data. I encourage you to do anything and everything you possibly can to increase the number of studies being done. It may take some time before the studies increasingly go in your favour.
I need you guys to make enough food for the world's quickly growing population because I have no clue how to make food. If you guys don't figure out what rules to use and when then I'm the bloke that's going to starve.
Stephen
I have no doubt that animals likely relish this type of hydroponic fodder. However, if this were a highly productive system, I would be quite excited. So far, don't see the evidence....
Cheers,
Dan
Maybe we could establish how much it is better to wait before collecting the forage in order to exploit the energy storage and reach an optimal dry matter gain (for example to reach a target of 15-20%), provided that it is possible with these systems the cost of energy consumed.
I am not a professional breeder, I only have a few animals for family consumption and hobbies, but I am very interested in the topic of soilless cultivation and I would like to use it as a hobby, especially with a view to producing vertically in the least possible space, but with the aim to create sustainable and closed self-production systems (self-producing, therefore also seeds).
You've asked a good question. I'm not sure exactly. However, likely about 2-3 weeks until photosynthesis begins putting carbohydrates back into the developing root system and the developing tillers, just like in the field. At 7 days, the plant is still mostly seeds (imbibed with water) with a developing radical (root), and a minority of the sprouts are leaf (I think only 20-30% or so). It has used energy to do this. This changes as the plant develops into a normal barley plant. So once photosynthesis and the production of sugars exceeds the
respiratory demand of the germinating seed, it will start developing a positive crop yield (DM accumulation). However, not sure if in hydroponic situation whether the plant becomes disease-susceptible and ungainly (etilolated) under those conditions.
For a hobby and for animals who relish these sprouts, I have no problem with the practices of growing sprouts-they should enjoy it. Just don't expect it to be highly economically viable. We feed millions of horses (and doggie pets) each year with virtually zero economic gain, so there is nothing new with this idea.
Cheers, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Dan
I really hope to see the same high-grade blog posts by
you later on as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my very own blog now