One of the annual discussions on grazing lists is about what grass fed means. Do stored forages count or must it be only grazed forage? That's hard for most temperate zone graziers since they get real winters. And, if stored forages are sometimes OK does it matter what kind of forage? Does lucerne (alfalfa) count or must it be baled grass hay? Since maize is a grass, as are all cereal grain plants, are they OK if the whole plant is used rather than just the grain? What if it is grazed when immature, before seed heads form?

Although there is some useful information in such discussions I find the question to be misguided. It's the same way that organic systems went wrong. By trying to strictly define a dogma the key objectives of such agronomic systems are lost. For grazing, that objective is the production of good food in environmentally benign ways. The methods will vary with the land, as they should, since climates and soils vary from place to place.

One thread of a recent discussion involved the use of byproducts on general farms. Many graziers also grow crops, especially for their own consumption but they usually have surpluses as well. It is dead common for anyone with a patch of dirt in the Americas to grow some sweet corn. It's tradition. The preparation and eating of such foods can have an almost ritual character: "get the water boiling, then go pick just enough ears for the meal, shuck them on the spot and drop them in the pot". The leaves and stalks, as well as some ears, are fed to the livestock. It's a treat for them too.

Using the above stated objectives - the production of good food in environmentally benign ways - then of course all ag byproducts should be fed out to livestock. I go further to include packing house wastes such as the raisin trash that I use as a mineral supplement. You have to be sensible about it and pay attention to balanced nutrition, but in my view feeding crop leftovers to livestock is its highest use, the best practice from both food and environment perspectives.

I think that narrow minded thinkers go to senseless extremes. In a state of nature survival is the only objective. In winter there is little or no food except in a few places on the planet. Plants go dormant, bears hibernate, many animals go to ground and tough it out living off back fat, some migrate and some store up food for hard times. People are among the animals that store food - like woodpeckers, squirrels and some insects.

I don't think that the development of storage methods - such as dried grains - is an original sin that separates us from a state of nature. It is natural, though our techniques have become ever more sophisticated and technological over time. There are risks - such as spoilage which can sometimes allow toxic growth such as aflatoxin (a mycotoxin from a fungus, Aspergillus) - but they can be managed. Another risk is that stored foods get so thoroughly processed that they no longer satisfy the objective of good food produced in environmentally benign ways. That too can be managed. Management counts.

There are some fine points that should be considered. A recent thread noted that researchers have found that stored livestock forage can be subtly less nutritious than fresh forage. Some nutrients are lost when forage wilts in open air, while others become more concentrated, changing the nutrient balance of the forage in ways that are less healthful for livestock. For example, animals fed dried forage seem to have lower CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid) levels than those that graze the same forage.

It also matters which varieties of fresh forage are grazed, and how they were grown. It even matters when they are grazed relative to plant maturity since the character of the forage changes - degrades - as it ages. Even more subtly, it matters what time of day they are grazed since the nutrient values change. Plants shuttle sugars to their roots at night and so when grazed in the early morning have less energy than if they are grazed after noon.

It is not possible for any ag manager to do everything perfectly - there are always tradeoffs. Looking at the whole problem, over the whole lifecycle, with real world constraints, do the best you can do and vow to improve. It's a humbling job when you look it square in the eye and acknowledge your failures.

I suggest that if you are a food producer that you do it in ways appropriate to your circumstances with the general objectives in mind, and that if you are only a consumer these are the growers you should patronize, even reward, for their sensible excellence. It takes time and energy to gather and evaluate the information needed to make good decisions, so you may have to rely in part on reputation and the judgement of others, but do go beyond certification and labels since they are always misleading. Organic food is not necessarily good food produced in environmentally benign ways. Grass fed food is not necessarily healthful and nutritious or raised in environmentally sensible ways. Rules are always gamed, regulations conceal as much as they reveal. You can turn it around. Just as food producers always fall short of perfection, food consumers do so as well. Do the best that you can and vow to improve. You can ask for more, but that doesn't change reality.