OldMcDonald
Platinum Member
Those of you inclined to take this matter further and consider setting up a system might be interested in the following post I made to another US site forum about a year ago. Due to some referencing to other threads on that forum you probably need to check out the links for yourself:-
Slow down people. A 19th Century Brtitish Prime Minister, Disraeli, said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Add to that - misinformation, both purposeful and through ignorance.
I will keep this as short as possible, but Barley Green Fodder (or BGF for ease) is a long long way short of what some people claim. It is fine for a treat, or indeed as a part of a ration, but only a part.
Now take some of the information provided in the thread and elsewhere that I have rechecked - I did post on the other thread that I have twice looked at BGF and the numbers did not warrant going ahead, even making everything myself. First, the DM content is below 20%. The CropKing site quotes as low as about 10-15%. The FarmTek figure that xxxxxx quotes above (and she has not mistyped because both moisture level and DM are given, and they agree) is almost exactly 70%. Whatever was analysed no doubt was 70% for the lab to produce the report, but that was not fresh BGF. Next thing to know is that the total DM after growing for circa 7 days is actually less than the DM of the original barley grain. More than 20% less in some Australian trials and a little under that in Asian tests.
Next, feeding BGF. FarmTek have made a serious mistake in quoting 2% of liveweight as the amount required. 2% is a reasonable guideline for the Energy required for maintenance of most livestock, it could be even lower, but animals that are intended to grow, are pregnant or lactating could go nearer 3% - the reason I said allow for 3% in the other thread. There will inevitably be some wastage. Not a big deal you might think. BUT FarmTek is referring to 2% of liveweight of BGF, or some other feed. The roughly 2 to 3% needed is actually the quantity of DM and not feed as is. At 20% DM it would take 10 to 15% of liveweight of BGF to make up the 2 to 3% of liveweight as DM. This makes an absolute nonsense of the numbers of different classes of stock they say can be fed with their system. They do say to feed at least 1% of liveweight as roughage. Alfalfa hay would be a good feed, and I would up the amount to 1.5%. I think this error by FarmTek may be repeated by some other companies.
Next Global Fodder Solutions (GFS) -[ N.B. link www.globalfodder.com] GFS Fodder is NOT the same as BGF. Note the tables given by GFS. They show three different feeds, Barley grain, BGF and GFS Fodder. GFS Fodder uses BGF as a base for its rations. Calcium is added because BGF has the reverse C
ratio necessary. Protein is also increased, but I do not know with what, other than the claim of "engineered by 100% natural means".
Now for the naughty bit. A cost comparison between BGF and barley grain is given. Both costs are only for grain - no capital cost of equipment, no running costs like labour, water, electricity. One good point though, it explains the calculation between feed "as is" and on a DM basis. This shows that almost 20kgs of BGF is needed to replace 3.5kgs of barley. BUT (again) they claim to produce 19.94kgs of BGF from 2.22kgs of barley grain - 9 times the weight increase. Half that, or less, has been achieved in trials, although FarmTek claims almost as much.
As a practical example of how it might work, my does are currently either in very late pregnancy or lactating. They have limited grazing at this time of year (the days are short) but have ad lib Sudan grass hay and are consuming about one and a half pounds a day each, so have sufficient roughage. They also receive one pound a day of a purchased compound feed (for milking sheep) so have adequate minerals and vitamins, plus a pound a day of corn. To replace the corn at 90% DM I would need about four and a half pounds of BGF and I see no reason why this would adversely affect their performance. BUT I would need to sprout and grow a pound of barley if I could match the production that agronomists have achieved in trials. Much easier and cheaper to feed the grain.
................
I firmly believe that BGF has a place for some people, especially those whose feed cost is unimportant. I have done a lot of research over about 3 years and think it is not for a commercial farmer who can grow his own other feeds.
I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong.
Slow down people. A 19th Century Brtitish Prime Minister, Disraeli, said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Add to that - misinformation, both purposeful and through ignorance.
I will keep this as short as possible, but Barley Green Fodder (or BGF for ease) is a long long way short of what some people claim. It is fine for a treat, or indeed as a part of a ration, but only a part.
Now take some of the information provided in the thread and elsewhere that I have rechecked - I did post on the other thread that I have twice looked at BGF and the numbers did not warrant going ahead, even making everything myself. First, the DM content is below 20%. The CropKing site quotes as low as about 10-15%. The FarmTek figure that xxxxxx quotes above (and she has not mistyped because both moisture level and DM are given, and they agree) is almost exactly 70%. Whatever was analysed no doubt was 70% for the lab to produce the report, but that was not fresh BGF. Next thing to know is that the total DM after growing for circa 7 days is actually less than the DM of the original barley grain. More than 20% less in some Australian trials and a little under that in Asian tests.
Next, feeding BGF. FarmTek have made a serious mistake in quoting 2% of liveweight as the amount required. 2% is a reasonable guideline for the Energy required for maintenance of most livestock, it could be even lower, but animals that are intended to grow, are pregnant or lactating could go nearer 3% - the reason I said allow for 3% in the other thread. There will inevitably be some wastage. Not a big deal you might think. BUT FarmTek is referring to 2% of liveweight of BGF, or some other feed. The roughly 2 to 3% needed is actually the quantity of DM and not feed as is. At 20% DM it would take 10 to 15% of liveweight of BGF to make up the 2 to 3% of liveweight as DM. This makes an absolute nonsense of the numbers of different classes of stock they say can be fed with their system. They do say to feed at least 1% of liveweight as roughage. Alfalfa hay would be a good feed, and I would up the amount to 1.5%. I think this error by FarmTek may be repeated by some other companies.
Next Global Fodder Solutions (GFS) -[ N.B. link www.globalfodder.com] GFS Fodder is NOT the same as BGF. Note the tables given by GFS. They show three different feeds, Barley grain, BGF and GFS Fodder. GFS Fodder uses BGF as a base for its rations. Calcium is added because BGF has the reverse C
ratio necessary. Protein is also increased, but I do not know with what, other than the claim of "engineered by 100% natural means".Now for the naughty bit. A cost comparison between BGF and barley grain is given. Both costs are only for grain - no capital cost of equipment, no running costs like labour, water, electricity. One good point though, it explains the calculation between feed "as is" and on a DM basis. This shows that almost 20kgs of BGF is needed to replace 3.5kgs of barley. BUT (again) they claim to produce 19.94kgs of BGF from 2.22kgs of barley grain - 9 times the weight increase. Half that, or less, has been achieved in trials, although FarmTek claims almost as much.
As a practical example of how it might work, my does are currently either in very late pregnancy or lactating. They have limited grazing at this time of year (the days are short) but have ad lib Sudan grass hay and are consuming about one and a half pounds a day each, so have sufficient roughage. They also receive one pound a day of a purchased compound feed (for milking sheep) so have adequate minerals and vitamins, plus a pound a day of corn. To replace the corn at 90% DM I would need about four and a half pounds of BGF and I see no reason why this would adversely affect their performance. BUT I would need to sprout and grow a pound of barley if I could match the production that agronomists have achieved in trials. Much easier and cheaper to feed the grain.
................
I firmly believe that BGF has a place for some people, especially those whose feed cost is unimportant. I have done a lot of research over about 3 years and think it is not for a commercial farmer who can grow his own other feeds.
I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong.
