Did you know Roundup Ready sweet corn is now available?

[dmccarty]

Concerning chicken manure...when I lived in New England we were deathly afraid of using it in our gardens because the "common knowledge" was that it contained copper residue and that the heavy metal would be bad for the ground and leach into the groundwater. Copper is fed to keep the shells hard enough for shipment. Has something changed in the chicken manure argument?

The wifey feeds our chickens a calcium supplement to help with the egg production. I forgot how much calcium a hen needs to produce an egg but it was a large amount. The big difference in our eggs vs store bought is the hardness of the egg shells. Our hen's eggs take quite a bit more force to crack open than store bought. I would be surprised that copper would help harden an egg shell and even if it did that it would be cost effective compared to other supplements. I think the supplement we are giving the hens is limestone based. It really would shock me that limestone would be less cost effective than copper. Hopefully another TBNer will have some information.

When I lived in FLA there was a story about some land that had been owned by a very old couple for many decades. They raised chickens and used the manure to improve their garden soil aka SAND. :shocked::laughing::laughing::laughing: In that area of South FLA the soil was just sand but the photos of the soil in the garden showed wonderful black soil. The couple lived into their 80s-90s eating out of that garden.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

Herds of stressed and improperly nourished dairy & beef cattle are both un profitable and unsustainable. Neither is the goal of a skilled manager. If you want answers, get out and learn how herds are actually fed and managed rather than reading reactionary worst-case garbage that highlights those few who use the techniques you are so upset about.

Every truclkoad of milk that is delivered to a licensed dairy processing plant is tested for antibiotic residue before it is unloaded.
Carcasses are similarly tested. There is a zero-tolerance for antibiotic residue in both product classes.
Both the economics and cultural benefit of preventative-level antibiotic dosing in cattle disappeared long ago, yet the stories persist. Antibiotic use in dairy cattle per capita is probably less than that of the human population.

The vast majority of ruminants we raise eat far more roughage than concentrates as measured by any yardstick you may choose.
Long-term concentrate-only diets have always been costly, and not the best answer nutritionally. Generally it doesn't happen other than in print.
The benefits of grain finished beef are market driven, not shoved down the consumer's throat. Farmers produce to a demand.
There are no "grass fed beef" production standards, and much of the beef marketed as such is grain finished away from public view so as to be tender enough to chew.

I believe, from what I read, that you are underestimating the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feeding, particularly in confinement operations.

There is currently a bill in congress to deal with making FDA-gathered data public as it relates to antibiotic/antimicrobial use on farms.
Bipartisan bill would improve reporting of information about antibiotic use in animal feed | Avinash Kar's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

The primary concern is the development of resistant strains of bacteria. Everyone except the meat industry says it is a problem. The meat industry is denying and covering up the issue. Hence the bill to force the information to be public.

It is difficult to get an accurate answer about exactly how much farm antibiotic use there actually is. That's a big warning flag. In 2001 one researcher made an estimate of 15-17 million pounds annually in the US. In 2009 the FDA released a report that showed 80% of antibiotic use in the US is on farms. Around that time, the FDA produced a list of human health critical antibiotics that were mandated to be phased out of agricultural use.

A more recent estimate of farm antibiotic use is 30 million pounds:
Yes, Antibiotic-Resistant Bugs Can Jump from Animals to Humans | Mother Jones
"Antibiotic use on livestock farms has surged in recent years庸rom 20 million pounds annually in 2003 to nearly 30 million pounds in 2011.
Over the same period, the entire US human population has consumed less than 8 million pounds per year, meaning that livestock farms now suck in around 80 percent of the antibiotics consumed in the United States."

Put it all together and it has the usual hallmarks of a cover-up. It goes well beyond "reactionary worst-case garbage that highlights those few who use the techniques you are so upset about."

The sources do not distinguish the antibiotic use between beef cattle, dairy and other animals such as swine and poultry. I am not sure how anyone would know, on the national level, exactly which animals are getting what unless you pay a fee to the FDA for access to their data. I don't know how inclusive and refined that data is, as it only contains what is actually reported to the FDA.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I have a degree in Anmal husbandry/ dairy. and over half a lifetime feeding and providing care for dairy & beef cattle.

I may know less about animal nutrition than you think you know, I'll give you that.

Sorry Rick, I found your reply humorous in a good sort of way. Always enjoy your posts :thumbsup:

One thing I know is there is no convincing anyone that their way is wrong or incorrect. They believe what they want and if you show them a study showing them their wrong they will find fault in the study. If the chemical companies don't do any research they get bashed for not doing anything yet if they fund research they get bashed just the same. There is no winning, all I and everyone else can do is follow the laws and do what we feel is best for each of our individual operations.

 

[dave1949]

Sorry Rick, I found your reply humorous in a good sort of way. Always enjoy your posts :thumbsup:

One thing I know is there is no convincing anyone that their way is wrong or incorrect. They believe what they want and if you show them a study showing them their wrong they will find fault in the study. If the chemical companies don't do any research they get bashed for not doing anything yet if they fund research they get bashed just the same. There is no winning, all I and everyone else can do is follow the laws and do what we feel is best for each of our individual operations.

Ain't it the truth.

I can be convinced. Show me where the annual 15-25 million pounds of antibiotics are going on US farms.

Robert, I respect both you and Rick. If I wanted to raise grapes, I would trust you. If my NH tractor had a mysterious illness, I would trust Rick. But I don't see how Rick's position on antibiotics jibes with the data that is easy to find.

 

[DFB]

Just for clarity on beef production it looks like USDA has had Grass Fed Marketing Claim Standards since 2007

What used to be 80% is now 99%

Grass and forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Hay, haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other roughage sources may also be included as acceptable feed sources. Routine mineral and vitamin supplementation may also be included in the feeding regimen.

to quote the pdf

"As a result of the public comments received, AMS determined significant modification to the proposed grass (forage) fed standard was needed. AMS re-proposed the grass (forage) fed claim standard in the May 12, 2006, Federal Register Notice (71 FR27662). It proposed that grass (annual and perennial), forbs (legumes, Brassica), browse, forage, or stockpiled forages, and post-harvest crop residue without separated grain shall be at least 99 percent of the energy source for the lifetime of the ruminant specie, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning.

The purpose of voluntarily participating in a USDA Process Verified Program is to obtain AMS verification for specific practices so that livestock or meat producers products can be differentiated in the marketplace.

Although producers and handlers may use an approved grass (forage) fed label without participating in a USDA QSVP, the use of any official certificate, memoranda, marks, or other identifications, and devices for purposes of the Agricultural Marketing Act without complying with the program requirements may result in either a fine, imprisonment, or both. Section 203(h)

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Ain't it the truth.

I can be convinced. Show me where the annual 15-25 million pounds of antibiotics are going on US farms.

Robert, I respect both you and Rick. If I wanted to raise grapes, I would trust you. If my NH tractor had a mysterious illness, I would trust Rick. But I don't see how Rick's position on antibiotics jibes with the data that is easy to find.

Dave, I'm not trying to argue with you but almost every post you have in this thread seems to talk about a coverup or conspiracy by just about every farm and chemical industry as well as the government overseeing it. I really don't think you can be convinced on this subject and that is fine with me as I don't want to convince you. In fact I am just relaxing now enjoying TBN. I've been out spreading lime since 5:30am today after getting home at 10pm last night moving equipment around. So I am just here for the entertainment and I am trying my best not to get too drawn into this discussion.

Tomorrow is finish disking and planting corn and if things work out hopefully start spreading Urea on 33 acres of grapes before the rain comes in.

 

[DFB]

Talk about not agreeing...

I was just perusing the AG Profesional website reading the newsroom articles and they are pointing out that 50% of the 90% corn farmers surveyed are using a soil insecticide in addition to planting Bt corn with the genectically modified built in rootworm resistance creating a problem

University of Illinois entomologist Mike Gray who reports that over 90 percent of farmers will be using a Bt hybrid to help control corn rootworms. But just to ensure success, Gray says about half of farmers will also be applying a soil insecticide as cheap insurance. "From my perspective, the escalation of soil insecticide use along with corn rootworm Bt hybrids has been fueled primarily by concerns about Bt resistance and high commodity prices," he said.

Gray found the use of a soil insecticide, along with a Bt hybrid for rootworm control to be somewhat ironic. He said, "I think it is worth mentioning that one of the key benefits touted concerning the use of Bt hybrids for corn rootworm management was the reduction of soil insecticide use. It is a bit surprising that, 10 years after the first Bt hybrids entered the marketplace for corn rootworms in 2003, a heightened interest in the use of soil insecticides has surfaced in such a significant fashion."

 

[dave1949]

Dave, I'm not trying to argue with you but almost every post you have in this thread seems to talk about a coverup or conspiracy by just about every farm and chemical industry as well as the government overseeing it. I really don't think you can be convinced on this subject and that is fine with me as I don't want to convince you. In fact I am just relaxing now enjoying TBN. I've been out spreading lime since 5:30am today after getting home at 10pm last night moving equipment around. So I am just here for the entertainment and I am trying my best not to get too drawn into this discussion.

Tomorrow is finish disking and planting corn and if things work out hopefully start spreading Urea on 33 acres of grapes before the rain comes in.

I've turned into a ag conspiracy nut? :laughing: Oh dear.

Enjoy the evening Robert and good luck with the rain tomorrow.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I've turned into a ag conspiracy nut? :laughing: Oh dear.

Enjoy the evening Robert and good luck with the rain tomorrow.

Thanks, hopefully it holds off. We need it but not till Friday :laughing:

 

[dmccarty]

Talk about not agreeing...

I was just perusing the AG Profesional website reading the newsroom articles and they are pointing out that 50% of the 90% corn farmers surveyed are using a soil insecticide in addition to planting Bt corn with the genectically modified built in rootworm resistance creating a problem

University of Illinois entomologist Mike Gray who reports that over 90 percent of farmers will be using a Bt hybrid to help control corn rootworms. But just to ensure success, Gray says about half of farmers will also be applying a soil insecticide as cheap insurance. "From my perspective, the escalation of soil insecticide use along with corn rootworm Bt hybrids has been fueled primarily by concerns about Bt resistance and high commodity prices," he said.

Gray found the use of a soil insecticide, along with a Bt hybrid for rootworm control to be somewhat ironic. He said, "I think it is worth mentioning that one of the key benefits touted concerning the use of Bt hybrids for corn rootworm management was the reduction of soil insecticide use. It is a bit surprising that, 10 years after the first Bt hybrids entered the marketplace for corn rootworms in 2003, a heightened interest in the use of soil insecticides has surfaced in such a significant fashion."

Seems reasonable to me. The farmer has huge amount of money tied up in a crop. The farmer has many variables that can destroy or minimize the crop that are outside their control. Using Bt and the insecticide to provide a better chance of maximizing their production makes sense as along as the cost of the inputs are not too great. This would be a good case of some operations research and matrix math that I did too many years ago in school. Course one has to make assumptions which might be right. Or wrong. :shocked:

Fighting crop disease and insects is a Spy vs Spy exercise. What works today is not likely to work tomorrow. One thing is for sure. If I had to grow my own food to live, I would have to quit my current jobs and garden full time. Even then I still might starve.

Later,
Dan