Feeding in Winter

[gruberguy]

We usually have our own alfalfa we feed in winter only. Pasture only all summer. We've had to let our alfalfa sit out past 3 years and have been rotating that patch in corn/soybeans. I've been buying alfalfa from my neighbor since. I don't do any testing, and I've never heard of anyone in this area doing it either. Plus, it'd be a slap in the face to my neighbor considering it's a 2nd year alfalfa field, so you couldn't ask for any better! Add to the fact, if I don't buy, he has a list of 100's of people that would buy every bale he could bale!! Yes, his field is sprayed... If it wasn't, the bugs/worms can't wipe out a field pretty quick in some years!! I occasionaly feed some grass hay, but not alot of it....

 

[Bossroo]

In my neck of the woods in Cal., land , water and fuel prices, not to mention labor and workmans comp. costs are very high and the best quality alfalfa hay is sold at a premium to very large dairy farms ( average 4,000 + cows and where a county produces more milk than the state of Wisconsin) . Much of Nevada's alfalfa crop is also imported to supply demand. Lesser quality hay is sold to feed stores at a much lower price, then sold to hobby farmers at a marked up price. I buy 100+ tons of this much lower quality hay per year and am lucky to do so. Therefore, any good alfalfa grower has to spray his fields or the evil hords of aphids, grasshoppers, and the caterpiler offspring of the small white and /or yellow butterflies, etc. will consume a huge percentage of the crop. Since there is 5-7 cuttings per year , soil analysis is done and custom chemical fertilization is required or the crop tonage and quality drops. Wheat, oat, barley hay is OK if one can find some of good quality ( not weedy) , but pricey. Grass hay is more likely than not weed hay and priced very high comparatively and has very little nutritional value. I refuse to buy this so called hay junk. Simple economics 101 of supply and demand at work !

 

[meadow1view]

In my neck of the woods in Cal., land , water and fuel prices, not to mention labor and workmans comp. costs are very high and the best quality alfalfa hay is sold at a premium to very large dairy farms ( average 4,000 + cows and where a county produces more milk than the state of Wisconsin) . Much of Nevada's alfalfa crop is also imported to supply demand. Lesser quality hay is sold to feed stores at a much lower price, then sold to hobby farmers at a marked up price. I buy 100+ tons of this much lower quality hay per year and am lucky to do so. Therefore, any good alfalfa grower has to spray his fields or the evil hords of aphids, grasshoppers, and the caterpiler offspring of the small white and /or yellow butterflies, etc. will consume a huge percentage of the crop. Since there is 5-7 cuttings per year , soil analysis is done and custom chemical fertilization is required or the crop tonage and quality drops. Wheat, oat, barley hay is OK if one can find some of good quality ( not weedy) , but pricey. Grass hay is more likely than not weed hay and priced very high comparatively and has very little nutritional value. I refuse to buy this so called hay junk. Simple economics 101 of supply and demand at work !

There are at a minimum 2 principles I would consider when invested in any endeavor (business or personal). First is socioeconomic and the other is environmental impact. They are inextricable as are most principles in life which is why a Holistic (or considering everything as belonging to a bigger whole) is imperative. You are quite correct that pesticides and herbicides are required in a monoculture environment such as a field of soybeans, alfalfa, corn, etc. That is why nature selects against it with pestilence and it is not allowed to exist in a natural state. The big industrial agricultural machine came along in the early 1900's and promised a stable, guaranteed production model that would feed the world. It did indeed feed the world for a while, but not without great cost. We are now realizing the folly of the grand experiment (called industrial agriculture) that we have all become accustomed to and expect to exist forever. The big agricultural conglomerates have been smiling all the way to the bank ever since.

The socioeconomic impact is usually not fully realized by most people because it has been achieved surreptitiously. How many consider the cost of cleaning up our waterways (nearly all have now been tested as polluted). How about the cost of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, algaecide, rodacides, etc to the consumer (this is usually the only factor we consider)? The cost of increased health care from ingesting contaminated food and water? The cost in taxes taken from your pocket in order to subsidize the large conglomerates that produce these chemicals?

The environmental impact is more discernible or at least should be. Reduced aquatic populations in our rivers and streams along with precautions against consuming too many of these aquatic species. Land that is now dependent upon chemical fertilizers to grow anything because it has become sterile due to the use of the fertilizers to begin with. The estrogenic effects of pesticides and herbicides in our food supply which is pounding the health right out of our bodies (look around at friends, neighbors, and family and you see rampant sickness).

Both principles could be expanded upon, but it is not necessary to throw greater light to the issue. As far as simple economics 101 (I have had economics class at the college level like many others), it should be noted that our financial world does not operate on such simple principles (though it should). Crude oil is now trading at $86/barrel and yet refined fuel at the pump is much higher than historical pricing would indicate - not because of demand (demand has dropped around the world due to pricing) or refinery issues. Throw in speculators, CDO's, hedging, and a whole host of other financial vehicles and you get such a complicated system that it seems nearly impossible to be able to forecast or plan at a business level. My point being, when we rely more and more on external inputs to drive our operations, we increase our vulnerabilities to the extent that we are subject to every whim of the markets (which not only drives pricing, but also quality as you noted). I agree that much of what farmers produce today can be considered junk, but not because of whether it is grass or a legume. It has much more to do with management. In fact many weeds are more nutrient dense than most grasses - that is why goats prefer them as a forage since a goat requires a higher nutrient level than a cow or sheep (comparitively). We seem to live by the saying "the end justifies the means". We don't care the cost, both for us and future generations, we only care whether we have a perceived benefit. I only feed grass hay because my animals maintain good animal performance on it without breaking the bank. I don't want to encourage my neighbor to go against nature in his operation by buying a product that ultimately costs all of us whether we realize it or not.

I have not discussed at all what my operation entails and how it has liberated me from the bondage of my former business model (conventional farming). I merely wanted to address the more abstract and general principles that affect us all in some ways. As in any business, if you don't adapt or adjust before the storm clouds roll in, you are most likely too late to make it. Here, in Missouri, many farmers went out of business this year, not due to the drought though that is what they would blame it on. Their business perished because their management allowed them to be so vulnerable to price fluctuations and external inputs that they could find no solution in their paradigm. I have never seen so many herd dispersals in the markets as I do every week now. It is a shame because we need many more local, small farmers to feed our communities.

One thing I have learned in life: when the herd (of people) is running in one direction, make sure you are heading in the other direction.

 

[Bossroo]

Considering the socioeconomic impact... If one looks at who makes the most environmental polution impact of our waterways and lands, consider the good folks in the cities where they think if a little bit of chemicals works on my lawn, home, germicidal soaps for the body and home, birthcontrol hormones, insectides, herbicides, etc. then I can use more and make it work better and faster mentality. Then all these chemicals end up down the sink and street drains, then treatment facilities, eventually into our streams and rivers. There are quite a few more of these folks living in the cities than the producers of agricultural products. I have many friends in the agrobusiness as well as in large international chemical corporation world. They not only have to have licences to apply chemicals, strictly follow storage and application rules, and they do not go willy nilly in their application of them simply because it is way to expensive to add additional chemicals it they are not needed. They use laboratory lab test to identify areas of their fields for treatment , and those that have upgraded their tractor and spray rigs, helicopter equipment , etc. the results are programmed into their database and use satalite coordinates when applying treatments in areas of the field that need treatment and not apply in areas that do not. Since most of these producers live and work on their production lands, they are not willing to do any bodily harm to themselves or their families and do all that they can to avoid any possible lawsuits for malpractice or their property and their livelyhood is at great peril.

 

[meadow1view]

If one looks at who makes the most environmental polution impact of our waterways and lands, consider the good folks in the cities where they think if a little bit of chemicals works on my lawn, home, germicidal soaps for the body and home, birthcontrol hormones, insectides, herbicides, etc. then I can use more and make it work better and faster mentality. Then all these chemicals end up down the sink and street drains, then treatment facilities, eventually into our streams and rivers. There are quite a few more of these folks living in the cities than the producers of agricultural products.

No doubt, a good point. Many of our city "brethren" care not what impact their lifestyles have on the land that grows their food, in fact, I would argue that many do not even have a clue as to what real food is or how it should be raised. However, are you implying that our country neighbors do not use these same chemicals, hormones, soaps, etc? The vast majority of the U.S. does and that is the tragedy. Just because our waste goes to a leach field as opposed to a treatment facility does not mean there is no impact.

In my former life, I was a certified hazmat worker. I worked on and supervised several Superfund sites (usually military bases) and I can assure you that the soil and water supply around these bases was contaminated for many miles and since most bases are located in a rural setting, many country folks were drinking horrible water. We often times had to be in level B protective gear (saranex suit, gloves, boots, and positive pressure respirator) to do our work because of the chemicals that we were extracting from the ground. If you look at the MSDS to many chemicals being applied to the land, the toxicology reports and health effects listed should make us question their overall impact.

Since most of these producers live and work on their production lands, they are not willing to do any bodily harm to themselves or their families

Since most farmers are ignorant of the harmful effects of the chemicals they apply (much like the city inhabitant not understanding what harm they are doing by flushing chemicals), they don't realize what they are actually doing. My wife and I both grew up in agribusiness and I can remember my father-in-law mixing up noxious chemicals in his sprayer with nothing more than a pair of gloves (level D protection) and not too worried about application amount per acre. This happens so many times in fields across this country that it should make us incredibly nervous. I too know people in big business (agriculture and otherwise) and they certainly talk a good game, however, I have experienced too much in my walk on this earth to be fooled by it anymore. Even well-intentioned individuals can and do harm others (much like a grandmother accidentally running over a child she did not notice).

They not only have to have licences to apply chemicals, strictly follow storage and application rules, and they do not go willy nilly in their application of them simply because it is way to expensive to add additional chemicals it they are not needed

As far as licensing goes - that simply means one is state sanctioned, not necessarily a responsible steward. As an Environmental Health and Safety manager for a fortune 500 company, it was my duty to keep our specific facility in compliance with all EPA, DOT, DNR, and OSHA regs. I can personally attest that our facility manager (as almost all managers do) only wanted environmental compliance so as to keep his posterior out of jail (his words), not because it was prudent or the responsible thing to do. And we all know that when storing , transporting, or using chemicals there are always the inadvertent spills (hence the need for contingency planning). In a perfect world, the purveyors and applicators of our chemical warfare (pesticides, herbicides, etc) would only apply exactly what is needed and only where needed.........but this is not a perfect world.

My point, more specifically, is that there is a more beneficial means to putting food on the table and it entails following the blueprint that nature has showcased for us. Until the early 1900's, man did not engage in chemical warfare because it simply did not exist. Look at our world today versus what it must have been like for eons. It is my intent to pose an alternate view to the conventional method of farming employed today.

 

[Bossroo]

Wow ! Great credentials in working in hazmat cleanup and Environmental Health and Safety Manager and I can see where you are comming from by working in the worst of the worst. I too was certified in Environmental Health and Safety and worked in that capacity at an Ag University Vet. Med. Teaching Hospital. I assisted in the design of a new Vet. reasearch (where chemicals and pathogens were studied and handled),housing for research and ill/ injured animals from private farms, and student classroom building where environmental health and safety were of great concern. I also worked at a private serology company for antibody and genetic marker production. My wife worked for a major international Ag. Chemical research station where chemical herbides and pesticides where studied, also where test chemicals were applied and studied at cooperating University farm lands and private farms prior to being certified and marketed. I can assure you that only a tiny amount of these potential chemicals ever reach the marketplace. The problems arrise when our city brethren, wanna be farmers, or just those that do only what is necessary to "keep his posterior out of jail". With an attitude like that by your facility manager ... Why did he keep his job ? On the flip side I have personally been on quite a few farms where they do the right thing in their farming endeavers (also, my wife and I have a number of relatives that farm large corn, wheat, cattle,and hog operations) (I raised many hundreds of sheep and owned a horse breeding farm) , custom ag. herbicide/ pesticide application companies that treat 100,000 acres of farm lands and pest control companies that make sure that all of their emplyees follow all guidelines or they are immediately fired. Returning to the good old days of ancient farming methods would mean that many more people would have to b return to toil in the fields. Today,since many agricultural product producers have great difficulty in finding these type of workers that are willing to work in the fields... food and fiber production will soon deminish. So where will we all be then ? We must find ballance of the old and new.

 

[meadow1view]

Wow ! Great credentials in working in hazmat cleanup and Environmental Health and Safety Manager and I can see where you are comming from by working in the worst of the worst. I too was certified in Environmental Health and Safety and worked in that capacity at an Ag University Vet. Med. Teaching Hospital. I assisted in the design of a new Vet. reasearch (where chemicals and pathogens were studied and handled),housing for research and ill/ injured animals from private farms, and student classroom building where environmental health and safety were of great concern. I also worked at a private serology company for antibody and genetic marker production. My wife worked for a major international Ag. Chemical research station where chemical herbides and pesticides where studied, also where test chemicals were applied and studied at cooperating University farm lands and private farms prior to being certified and marketed. I can assure you that only a tiny amount of these potential chemicals ever reach the marketplace. The problems arrise when our city brethren, wanna be farmers, or just those that do only what is necessary to "keep his posterior out of jail". With an attitude like that by your facility manager ... Why did he keep his job ? On the flip side I have personally been on quite a few farms where they do the right thing in their farming endeavers (also, my wife and I have a number of relatives that farm large corn, wheat, cattle,and hog operations) (I raised many hundreds of sheep and owned a horse breeding farm) , custom ag. herbicide/ pesticide application companies that treat 100,000 acres of farm lands and pest control companies that make sure that all of their emplyees follow all guidelines or they are immediately fired. Returning to the good old days of ancient farming methods would mean that many more people would have to b return to toil in the fields. Today,since many agricultural product producers have great difficulty in finding these type of workers that are willing to work in the fields... food and fiber production will soon deminish. So where will we all be then ? We must find ballance of the old and new.

I did not want to hijack this thread since it was started in reference to feeding hay so I think we should continue our friendly discussion on a new thread. I may have been misinterpreted on some of my earlier posts concerning certifications, though. I do not really care about certifications or degrees (that is why I do not list them) - I care more about what the real world tells me through experience; that is why I was relating past experiences to give a reference point. I believe you have had much experience in agriculture and you already know that it is quite a complicated endeavor if you desire to master it. Holistic Management is actually not an ancient methodology - it is actually more recent than conventional farming. Look forward to hearing more from you.

 

[finns&fjords]

With that many sheep I would make several to cut down on the mobbing feeding and give plenty of room for all to eat at the same time.

I have a steel trough, that was once some type of narrow barrel, set up on the wood log ends. How big of a plastic pipe do you use? I'm curious as I'd like a couple more feeders so I don't have to move this one when I move the flock to different areas.

 

[EllieMay]

I would buy the largest pvc pipe they have in the store.
I mounted mine to the sides of the barn stalls and the sides of the fence.
It's very easy to just lean over and pour the feed into the pvc trough without getting mobbed.
You can also make them free-standing.
I don't have pics of my troughs, but they are very similar to these:

 

[Bridgemoof]

I LOVE that! That's perfect. We will be working on that after Christmas to mount to our fences.