| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
It may be that there is some confusion about ruminant digestive systems that contributes to the mistaken ideas discussed in More Cranks. Pundits loosely talk about forage as if it was all the same, just vegetable matter that could be consumed by people as well as ruminants, and so it seems inefficient to feed it to animals.
This is profoundly mistaken. People can't digest grass. They can't digest the vast majority of plant material. To people it's just fiber, something that passes through them intact. No animals except ruminants can digest this material. The complex carbohydrates that make up the stiffer bits of plants, the stuff that allows them to stand tall rather than being just a gooey mass on the ground, can only be digested by bacteria.
Ruminants have complex multi-stage digestive systems that harbor these bacteria, and gives them a mechanical assist by finely grinding the material. That's what cud chewing is about. The material is chewed, swallowed, and then festers in the rumen where the bacteria work to break down the tough bits, the cellulose, into simpler sugars. But they can only get at the external parts, so the ruminant upchucks a cud and chews the soggy mass again, breaking it down further to expose more surfaces to the bacteria.
Actually, there are some insects such as termites that harbor these bacteria too. The key point though is that it is only these bacteria that can do the work, and only ruminants that have a system that converts the cellulose into something that people can eat. It is no wonder that all over the planet ruminants have become dominant. Whether it's herds of wildebeest in Africa, bison on the plains of N. America, deer and elk in wooded areas of the world, or goats in the mountainous areas, they form the base of food webs and provide for less numerous carnivores, everything from wolves to humans.
This is relevant to the discussion in More Cranks, which debunked the claim that "a herd of cattle grazing in a pasture" produces more GHGs than internal combustion engines. One way or another the cellulose in those plants will be digested by bacteria. It doesn't matter whether it is in the gut of a ruminant or a mulch pile on the ground. It's the same bacteria. If there is air available then aerobic, oxygen breathing, bacteria will do the job. If not, then anaerobic bacteria will thrive. The former will emit CO2 in the process, the latter will emit CH4.
One of the major hopes of biofuel proponents is that humans will discover ways to do that trick and so be able to produce cellulosic ethanol. Currently humans are only able to use the sugary bits, the seeds of plants such as maize, to make ethanol. The cellulose passes through current ethanol systems intact, and is often fed to - you guessed it - ruminants.
In the comments following that earlier post John Freeland objects:
The problem is cutting forests and growing corn to feed factory fed cattle in CAFO's. A lot of us could do fine with less red meat and eat beans once in a while.Maize is fed to ruminants because it is cheap. It is cheap because it is subsidized. That is changing now that ethanol is subsidized too since the biofuel plants are bidding up the price of grain. Ruminants do not need it. In fact, it is bad for their health. They evolved to eat and digest grasses, cellulose. They can also digest the starchy bits, but that is a scarce and seasonal commodity in real life. They can even digest meat, but they aren't well equipped to catch and kill other animals. They eat a little carrion and the occasional rodent as well as lots of insects, but it's a minor spice rather than a staple food for them.
It can be sensibly argued that CAFOs would be more environmentally benign and produce superior products if they used less grain, or none at all. That is happening as the price of grain soars due to ethanol subsidies. Feed lots use various coproducts such as cotton gin trash, fruit and vegetable packing house wastes, as well as various kinds of hay and even straw left over from grain harvests. They are using increasing amounts of silage, such as maize silage, in which the whole plant is chopped up while still green and moist, and stored in oxygen free containers to ferment for a time. The ruminants get a little grain but it is mostly leaves and stalks, and highly nutritious for them.
It can be sensibly argued that our agronomic systems can be improved. Instead, uninformed extremists advocate nonsensical changes that support their otherwise unrelated agendas and biases. It can be argued that our systems have been distorted by government interventions - extremists from another era - and that we would benefit from removing those distortions. But it cannot be argued that further distortions based in bad science and worse ideology will help us.
The above link is to a cattle feeding outline from a course at Cornel. The diet is corn-based.
From Cornell:
"A. Objective: Grow cattle as fast and efficiently as possible.
B. Use the most economical feeds:
High grain diets are definitely used more efficiently than high forage diets because they provide more energy above maintenance.
High grain diets can cost more than high forage diets and still be more economical.
Whether or not grain is fed to cattle is purely a matter of economics.
If the feedlot industry did not use excess grain, less grain would be grown and farm land would be idle."
Following the feed plan down toward the bottom is a list of chemical dietary suppliments, including steroids.
Corn is a "nitrogen hog." Soy beans, as legumes are much better in that regard. Frank and Deborah Popper's "Buffalo Commons" make ecological sense, but how many ould it feed? The 800-pound gorilla nobody wants to talk about is human population and earth's carrying capacity.
I worked on a dairy farm as a teenager. Hay was a risky crop, vulnerable to conditions too wet or too dry. It can get expensive. There are hay fields and then again there are fields with bull thistle leafy spurge and crap that cows won't eat. Progressive range managers advocate mixed species grazing as goats will eat things that the cows won't. Try to get the western cow culture to switch to goats and sheep! Fuggettaboutit.
One day the farmer I worked for brought home a truckload of rough and gnarled carrots he'd gotten from a vegetable processor. He got it for next to nothing. There are all sorts of alternative feeds. When it comes to keeping weight on a dairy cow and milk coming out through the winter, the usual feed choice is King Corn. As it gets more expensive, folks will eat less beef and drink less milk.
Posted by: John Freeland at July 23, 2007 07:44 PMOne of my business partners also runs a feedlot. I advise him on technical subjects and predict futures for him. It may be luck, but I've been right far more often than wrong, and he takes my advice more often as time goes on as a result. He uses no grain at all now.
He does use silage, but that's mostly leaves and stalks, not grain. It's heavy at 65% moisture, so you can't haul it around long distances. It takes different equipment to handle efficiently. But it pencils and is better for the animals as well as the environment. He's considering making and using grass silage too, though that's a skilled activity not undertaken without planning. It's better than hay made from the same materials.
He'd be bankrupt if he followed those antique Cornell guidelines. Universities are usually far behind the state of practice in agriculture, and seldom have staffs that really have a useful grasp of the subject. This is true in many fields and is well known to all except university staff and undergraduates. It's a sad truth but experts are often incompetent. They are good at noogie wars with one another but of little use in physical reality, and less use in business reality.
"If the feedlot industry did not use excess grain, less grain would be grown and farm land would be idle."
It would go to ethanol plants, chicken and pig factories, or even industrial chemical refineries that make plastics from it. This is as silly as the argument that biofuels will reduce fossil fuel use. Farm land will only be idle if the subsidies, such as CRP, are more than they can net from a crop. Idle land is still taxed and still needs maintenance. It's not free. It may be idle for a time until a farmer figures out how to make a profitable crop, but that's no help. If it stays idle for long it becomes real-estate and gets turned into housing. That's no help either. Governments will see that their tax bases are not eroded. Land will not be idle unless someone pays the piper.
"Corn is a "nitrogen hog." Soy beans, as legumes are much better in that regard."
One of the biggest gaffes made by university staff is the comprehensive failure to measure and monitor soil nitrogen, and so be able to make useful recommendations for amendment. In fairness, it ain't easy. But every week it seems we hear about more errors, including the unproductive use of nitrogen for corn, as much as five times as much as is necessary to produce the crop, and the chronic under use of nitrogen for soya, weakening the crops and making them subject to various diseases as well as lowering yield.
Don't drink the kool-aid. Remain open to knowledge because we don't have much yet. An interesting one from a recent paper is that corn grown on pasture land needs only starter nitrogen to produce well. When done this way the plants are smaller but the amount of grain is the same. It seems that much of the nitrogen goes to leaves and stalks, but only after the seeds have had their proper share. That makes sense if you think of it from corn's perspective. First things first.
What was old is new again. This is an ancient method. By rotating crop land uses, including a period as pasture, land improves and more crops can be had with fewer inputs. An interesting application of this principle involves near simultaneous use, with strips of pasture in grain fields, at different locations each season. It can also break parasite and disease cycles, thus reducing some other costly inputs.
"the usual feed choice is King Corn. As it gets more expensive, folks will eat less beef and drink less milk."
This is wishful thinking. There are lots of dairies that use little or no grain now, and lots of beef produced without it. Most of the world does it that way. McDonalds buys beef from New Zealand (it is said, though I have no documents) that never had a taste of grain. They export all over the world and are world beaters at that game. It's not speculation. Grainless and/or low grain systems exist and are cheaper than the US grain based system, so cheap that they can ship the products across the ocean and still beat US prices. US producers scream for protection from them.
As corn gets too expensive for this use it won't mean reduced production of meat and dairy, it will mean changes in production systems, even closure in some locations as others become more competitive. That will be painful for producers who are invested in grain systems. Think of it as creative destruction if you want, but alternative and arguably better production systems exist. As it happens, they are also more environmentally benign, though agriculture is never harmless.
The anti-meat and dairy brigades will be disappointed. All of their arguments are false and often instrumental, confirmation for groundless bias. If the subject is approached with an open mind that reasons from evidence then far different conclusions will be reached.
Posted by: back40 at July 23, 2007 09:16 PMBack40:
You wrote "Universities are usually far behind the state of practice in agriculture, and seldom have staffs that really have a useful grasp of the subject. This is true in many fields and is well known to all except university staff and undergraduates."
So what are the bright College of Ag undergraduates interested in pursuing livestock agriculture as a career to do? For many, their reason for spending time in the university is to get that fundamental knowledge and perspective for future success, much less so the credential as in many other fields. IMO comparatively few in agriculture care about the credential and much more about the results.
So what are the top 5 or 10 books (or blogs, websites or magazines) they should read to start getting a grasp of how the world really works and where things are likely to go because of how it works? What should they make every effort to go see and do? Who and what should they pay attention to and who and what should they not? How can they reduce their risk of being suckered in by bad ideas and false prophets but increase their ability to recognize the good ones? How do they figure out who to pay attention to and who not?
What should they take from the university, what should they leave and what should they do on their own to maximize the return to their time spent in the hallowed halls?
Posted by: JMG3Y at July 28, 2007 09:10 AM"what are the bright College of Ag undergraduates interested in pursuing livestock agriculture as a career to do?"
This is the same for most fields. At university you get the basics, the old stuff, and the standard model. In practice you push the boundaries and get real experience. Would you not expect your older, more experienced self to be more knowledgeable and wiser than your younger student self?
A part of this is that life isn't neatly divided into departments. Everything is cross disciplinary. Good decisions must draw on many disparate bodies of knowledge. You can read shelves full of books, talk to the best practitioners in your field, read new research papers that have harvested small but precious nuggets of disembodied knowledge, and integrate it all yourself to synthesize your pragmatic and provisional plans.
It isn't universities per se that I criticize, it is the idea that you can get working knowledge that is applicable in real life. What you learn is how to learn, and an attitude (hopefully) of inquiry. You get tools for thought. I've read many university academics saying similar things, especially the need for cross disciplinary thinking when attempting to formulate real life plans and solve problems.
It is well to remember that being a bureaucrat, and that is a large part of what an academic is, is worlds apart from real life. Unhelpfully, many academics have no clues about this and may think of themselves as competent because they have prospered in that hothouse. You will need to unlearn that part of your university experience and see them as they are rather than how they see themselves.
It isn't easy. You are bound to fail a few times. Mentoring is useful. Arrogance is not. I'm pretty much a failure so I have some insight into these things. I think I could do better now, but my time is past. Staircase wit.
Posted by: back40 at July 28, 2007 02:01 PM