Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: At least we're not IIDB

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 192192 times) previous topic - next topic

SkepticTank, superhoop, entropy, Dave Hawkins, Faid, JonF (+ 2 Hidden) and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26325
Nope.  I'm quite happy with it the way it is.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26326
Nope.  I'm quite happy with it the way it is.

But you could get more calories to feed humanity, surely?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26327
You're an idiot

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26328
200,000# / acre @ 1000# / animal (cow) would be 200 cows per acre. 1,800,000# / acre @ 1000# / cow would be 1800 cows per acre.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26329
You're an idiot

Can you be more specific?

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26330
I was low ... Chad Peterson get as high as 1.8 million lbs per acre at times.

http://magissues.farmprogress.com/BeefProducer/BP05May09/bp04.pdf
That is pretty insane. If it's 1,000 lbs per cow, that's only about 25 square feet per cow. That's too little room for a cow to even turn around in.

Note though:
Quote
He moves slowly, watching the cattle and mentally metering cattle movement and watching for signs of stress. He wants to see the cattle grazing but also exploring the new area. Too much grazing and not enough exploring means they were too hungry when moved, for example.

Both Peterson and his now former hired grazier, Nate Chisholm, are students of Bud Williams, the livestock handling guru now living at Bowie, Texas.

In fact, Peterson says, he tries to use Williams' concept of pressure and release throughout each day as he uses his highest stock densities in the morning and then decreases them somewhat through the day.

Hmm. Are you moving your goats slowly and watching for signs of stress during the move? Are you checking to see if they are exploring the new area rather than immediately grazing? Are you lowering stock density at any point in the day?
I did at first until I got the program adjusted.  I guess you ignored all those posts but now you think you're the expert and can  tell me how to do it.  What an asshole.

It's because he DIDN'T ignore those posts that he knows that you aren't doing it.

You are the asshole, Dave.  Ben just pointed out that you aren't doing what your claimed grand-guru advocates.
No. You're confused. He claimed that my density is insanely high so I pointed out that Chad Peterson's density is higher than mine.

How is your density high?

How many times per day are you currently moving your two goats inabox?
My density is about 4 pounds per square foot. Maybe 5. So that's under 200,000 pounds per acre.   Chad Peterson runs as high as 1.8 million pounds per acre at times.

The size of your cage does not determine your stocking rate David.

It doesn't even determine your density, what with the multiple moves per day thing.

So how many moves per day will give a more accurate indication of density wrt pastured area.


Ok, lets see. On the stocking rate thing.

Lets say you have huge 150kg goats. That's about 330 pounds each, so 660 pounds of goat.

Let's also say you have 8 acres, what coz cages can't be dragged through trees and all. That's 348480 square feet according to google.

660 divided by 348480 is 0.0012 pounds per square foot.

That's some pretty dense stocking rate you've got there.

"U r idjit" in 3...2...1...
  • Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 04:41:10 PM by Fenrir
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26331
In the HMG community, "stocking density" is weight / paddock size. "Stocking rate" is acres / AU averaged over the entire farm. 

For Greg Judy ...

SD ~ 100,000 lbs per acre
SR ~ 2 acres per AU
Paddock size ~ 3 acres

For me ...

SD ~ 200,000 lbs per acre
SR ~ 12 acres per AU (extremely low stocking rate)
Paddock size ~ 50 sq ft
  • Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 06:58:44 PM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26332
But of course if you've got your own system for figuring things, then you could promote that to all the HMG ranchers and I'm sure they would be thrilled with your system.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26333
"The size of your cage does not determine your stocking rate David."

The arrogance.

It would be bad enough if he knew what he was talking about. Since he doesn't, I feel kind of sorry for him.

  • MikeS
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26334
Dave,
This makes no sense.   Every other farmer you've used as an example has utilized ALL of his paddocks for grazing to the recommended level (1/3 eaten, 1/3 "trampled", 1/3 remain).  The farmer then REVISTS this paddock in a few months after recovery.

You, on the other hand, are just moving 2 goats around 8 acres.  There is no stress on your land, or even the stretch of grass you just moved over.

We've done the math with you before, using your own "HMG" numbers.  For you to get the same style of grazing/fallow/grazing/fallow system with the recommended consumption of plants for each move of your paddock, you would ONLY use from 1/2 to 3/4 of an acre for your 2 goats.

Otherwise there is nothing to compare to, you're not stressing your fields in the way that all other mob grazers recommend.  Your just underutilizing your acreage that COULD support 20 or more goats but you only have 2.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26335
Yes I'm understocked.

It's ok! :wave:

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26336
"The size of your cage does not determine your stocking rate David."

The arrogance.

It would be bad enough if he knew what he was talking about. Since he doesn't, I feel kind of sorry for him.


Im a gunna git me one o these!

I'll be a HMG superstar. Yay me  :cheer:

It's what plants crave.

  • MikeS
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26337
Yes I'm understocked.

It's ok! :wave:
Then stop trying to justify numbers like Stocking Density or Stocking Rate or whatever.  They're meaningless in your case since you have no basis of comparison to other herds.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26338
:facepalm:

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26339
Dude, try to follow the conversation. I was being criticized about such high density, that is, two goats in only 50 ft.².   So I responded by pointing out that other HMG graziers have much higher stock DENSITIES ( not stocking RATE ) than I do.   By now you should have figured out that the terms "stocking rate" and "stock density" have very specific meanings in the HMG community and I have already explained these, so please review.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26340
The "gulag"  is expanding this week ...



New larger pen is planned for one dairy cow, two dairy goats, some chickens and some rabbits. But if I feel like there is room, I will add a few sheep and a hog. If I did that, stock density would be around 500,000 lbs per acre.  With as many as 20 or more moves per day possible, that should not be a problem.
  • Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 06:28:48 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26341
Dave, that is seriously fucked up.

I don't give a shit what testy says about your cage cultured fauna, it's revolting and essentially cruel to stick a bunch of animals in a damn tiny cage, especially when you have 10 bloody acres of land to muck about with.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26342
Come visit for a week, Borealis, and you will change your mind. These animals  are living the good life.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26343
Dave, that is seriously fucked up.

I don't give a shit what testy says about your cage cultured fauna, it's revolting and essentially cruel to stick a bunch of animals in a damn tiny cage, especially when you have 10 bloody acres of land to muck about with.

cruel and illegal where I live

  • MikeS
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26344
The "gulag"  is expanding this week ...



New larger pen is planned for one dairy cow, two dairy goats, some chickens and some rabbits. But if I feel like there is room, I will add a few sheep and a hog. If I did that, stock density would be around 500,000 lbs per acre.  With as many as 20 or more moves per day possible, that should not be a problem.
2 goats = 300 lb
1 cow = 1,200 lb
2 sheep = 300 lb
1 hog = 800 lb

Your stocking density cannot be more than 2,600 lbs per acre, no matter how tight a cage you squeeze those animals.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26345
And don't worry, I WILL be using all 10 acres to feed this many animals.

But I will be doing it intelligently so as to benefit ALL species in my ecosystem, not haphazardly as most conventional homesteaders do it.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26346
All the animal cruelty of movement-restricted veal, for you to enjoy at home!

This is going to go down super-well with the people most likely to be interested in more environment-friendly food production. It is not like they are also interested in more animal-friendly production methods, and in no way does this set-up resemble chicken-batteries and boxed-in calves.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26347
The "gulag"  is expanding this week ...



New larger pen is planned for one dairy cow, two dairy goats, some chickens and some rabbits. But if I feel like there is room, I will add a few sheep and a hog. If I did that, stock density would be around 500,000 lbs per acre.  With as many as 20 or more moves per day possible, that should not be a problem.
2 goats = 300 lb
1 cow = 1,200 lb
2 sheep = 300 lb
1 hog = 800 lb

Your stocking density cannot be more than 2,600 lbs per acre, no matter how tight a cage you squeeze those animals.

Ah but the drawing only shows the 1st floor!

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26348
Cow 1000 lbs
2 goats 250
3 sheep 400
1 hog 300

~2000 total

Paddock size 160 sf

SD = 12.5 psf = 544,000 per acre


  • MikeS
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26349
Dave,
What's this term "animal performance ceiling" mean?

https://hayandforage.com/print-article-489-permanent.html
Quote
Still, Peterson explains, depending on your location, this grazing style can come with challenges. In his experience, he has found individual animal performance, like application of this grazing style, is largely dictated by environment. While it is possible to grow more grass and improve soil quality, it is impossible to change what the animal performance potential is in a given location.

Due to the high-fiber, low-protein forages present in his Nebraska ranch's environment, Peterson's "animal performance ceiling" was not very high. In 2014, he moved his operation to Montana where he felt he would have a better chance at obtaining higher animal performance using UHSD grazing methods. Grass quality was the big draw.

Peterson started his 2015 grazing season with approximately 1,000 head of stocker heifers and steers. His cattle inventory fluctuates throughout the year as he sells and buys animals. Cattle are kept in one mob and moved at minimum twice a day. Depending on the quality of forage being grazed, however, he has moved cattle as much as six times a day.

What's YOUR "animal performance ceiling" based upon the quality of your forage?