Due to direct benefit to herders, this is easier to reinforce than methane reductions with supplement e.g. seaweed as has been posted here before, since those benefits are not captured (without a carbon market or climate-friendly consumer branding to command a premium). Even if beef was methane-free, it would still have a larger impact than chicken (without regenerative agriculture, silviculture etc) but projections show that consumption is going to grow steadily as the global middle class grows so adopting these efficiencies will be important.
zahlman · 2h ago
If this has been known for years and nobody's trying to implement it, surely there's a catch?
Loughla · 1h ago
100% accurate. Livestock feed is (like most agriculture) hyper optimized.
If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
People still have this weird view of farming that it's like Johnny Goodguy and his family taking care of a small herd. While that exists still, Johnny is also tracking every input and outcome and optimizing daily.
The data collection and use in Ag would astound people.
Sightline · 56s ago
>If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
Watch Gabe Brown, he doesn't pay for fertilizer which saves him thousands.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
This article is not about a livestock feed, it's about creating a pasture polyculture that reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizer application.
The 60% claim is "in comparison with pastures without the use of nitrogen fertilization." And of course only applies to the region and cattle breed they studied, not to mention only cattle raised on pasture in the first place.
It's not claiming to be a magic growth tonic for all cattle. Though I agree the title is a bit exaggerated and invites misinterpretation.
Even tractors with RTK satellite guidance have 1 inch precision. Commercial fields with modern tractors are guided to the point that the tractors drive perfectly between crops without damaging them automatically. Spraying applications and other jobs are likewise informed, driven and executed automatically in tandem between computers and overhead imagery.
0cf8612b2e1e · 1h ago
Agreed. Farming is incredibly data driven/cost conscious. For the entire industry to not make this an overnight priority says something about the analysis is missing.
tengbretson · 34m ago
> According to him, if the leguminous plants whose reproduction is stolon-based are adequately managed in the pasture, they will persist there. "In desmodium's case, the solution is to have the cattle graze it when the plant height reaches 30 cm and remove the animals when the average height is 15 cm", he recommends.
The risks associated with over-grazing something like this makes me think it would be ill-suited for anything but management intensive rotational grazing type operations. And even then it seems a bit risky.
danielheath · 1h ago
“Worked once in a specific tropical pasture”. AFAIK, most beef production is not in the tropics.
Izikiel43 · 1h ago
South of Brazil is in the tropic of capricorn and it's a beef producing region
weaksauce · 1h ago
the other people are right that there is crazy data collection and optimization from them... however blind spots can exist and outliers could be possible in that kind of environment.
oguz-ismail · 19m ago
there's no blind spot where even a 5% increase in beef production can hide...
strken · 1h ago
I'm really curious to see a comparison with all the other common self-regenerating legumes, like clover. Maybe it's better adapted to Brazil?
kazinator · 2h ago
> Legume improves bovine digestion and reduces methane emissions.
For people too---but you have to pass it through a cow first and eat it in the form of beef. Otherwise ...
Aromasin · 2h ago
Gut biome is important for legume consumption. The first few months I went to a plant based diet my digestion was hell. At some point I reached a turning point though, and my gut health became even better than before. My flatulence was so much worse when I was eating meat regularly - often room clearing.
kazinator · 1h ago
> Gut biome is important for legume consumption.
Not to mention being a ruminant with multiple stomach compartments and a long gut.
teaearlgraycold · 2h ago
I changed to being mostly vegetarian a few years ago and the gas only lasted about a month.
wonderwonder · 2h ago
"There is resistance among farmers not only because the seeds are expensive, but also because the species used so far, especially Stylosanthes, do not persist when associated with Brachiaria grasses", Boddey explains. After some time in the field the leguminous plant wanes or dies, and it is necessary to renew the pasture, which entails further costs and work."
So the farmers did the math and the money doesn't work.
Scientists in this article seem very focused on the climate aspect of it while the farmers themselves are going to be focused on the bottom line. Farmers are not going to entail extra costs if they don't have to much the same as any other business owner.
strken · 1h ago
That sentence is about other legumes.
imoverclocked · 1h ago
You might underestimate the ability to market lower-carbon beef though. Where you see a disincentive, others may see the next "organic."
wonderwonder · 1h ago
I certainly don't speak for everyone but I don't see that catching on at the individual level. People eat the organic because its objectively healthier. I don't think most people that eat beef would care if its low carbon. I eat a good deal of beef, probably 3 steaks a week personally and another 3 in total for my wife and kids. I'm not going to pay x% more for low carbon. With that said I could absolutely see Europe mandating this and forcing everyone to just pay more for beef. So you're right, if they can target this at governments then they could force it to catch on.
aurelien_gasser · 1h ago
> People eat the organic because its objectively healthier
What makes you say it is objectively healthier?
wonderwonder · 1h ago
Its a fair question, not sure why you are being downvoted. I don't buy organic. The primary reason for me to consider it healthier is just that the animals are fed (supposedly) on pesticide free feed. My opinion rests on that. If you are speaking from a pure nutrition perspective I would say nothing.
There are others that I am sure would argue for other reasons such as the reduction of drug resistant bacteria for the good of all but I'm not sure that really plays out. It only works if the amount of organic sold far outstrips non organic. It also means intentionally paying more for the good of the commons while the majority don't.
metalman · 2h ago
double digit improvements across the board from a perenial pasture mix is realy impressive and likely to spur intrest in finding other combos that give similar results in dairy feed.
nitrogen is the key ingredient required for the digestion of all sorts of otherwise waste plant matter by cattle, so if this new pasture cover can be harvested as hay and mixed with other dryed plant matter, it would then be of use in dairy.
Hay is still the worlds largest crop.....
If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
People still have this weird view of farming that it's like Johnny Goodguy and his family taking care of a small herd. While that exists still, Johnny is also tracking every input and outcome and optimizing daily.
The data collection and use in Ag would astound people.
1. No, that's not true at all 2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
Watch Gabe Brown, he doesn't pay for fertilizer which saves him thousands.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A?t=1h13m58s
The 60% claim is "in comparison with pastures without the use of nitrogen fertilization." And of course only applies to the region and cattle breed they studied, not to mention only cattle raised on pasture in the first place.
It's not claiming to be a magic growth tonic for all cattle. Though I agree the title is a bit exaggerated and invites misinterpretation.
The risks associated with over-grazing something like this makes me think it would be ill-suited for anything but management intensive rotational grazing type operations. And even then it seems a bit risky.
For people too---but you have to pass it through a cow first and eat it in the form of beef. Otherwise ...
Not to mention being a ruminant with multiple stomach compartments and a long gut.
So the farmers did the math and the money doesn't work.
Scientists in this article seem very focused on the climate aspect of it while the farmers themselves are going to be focused on the bottom line. Farmers are not going to entail extra costs if they don't have to much the same as any other business owner.
What makes you say it is objectively healthier?
There are others that I am sure would argue for other reasons such as the reduction of drug resistant bacteria for the good of all but I'm not sure that really plays out. It only works if the amount of organic sold far outstrips non organic. It also means intentionally paying more for the good of the commons while the majority don't.
https://pasteboard.co/DO3NDAWRwLc4.png
closed asap.
when the fuck will people learn?
https://pasteboard.co/Xmg4tUPP9Cal.png
iOS 18.5 in app browser
android 13 here.
I am not sure what the reason is, then.
I tried increasing the brightness of my screen, but there seems to be no change.
but a lot of people, including on hn, do say that this low contrast thing is a disturbing trend, and from quite sometime now.
it's a pita.
It looks more like the browser is rendering the font color incorrectly than anything.