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.
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.
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.
Yes, legumes are fairly unique in that their root nodes host symbiotic bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen for the atmosphere. That's why they are so important in crop rotation or polyculture.
Every region could have different species that work best. The finding of this study, as I understand it, is identifying this foreign species that happens to work well for the location and agricultural needs.
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.
Whatever you think of him and of course he has a large bank account and a TV show, clarkson’s farm on prime was good at highlighting the slim margins, tight schedules and how at the mercy of the weather you are.
The few, large-scale productions that comprise half of output avail themselves of this; the vast majority that comprise the remainder do not. I'd imagine it's similar in Brazil.
>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.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"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
> Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
> "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
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
> And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
> If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
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.
> 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.
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.
in the book We Are Eating the Earth it bemoans that money is going to soil carbon schemes that don't do much whereas money to distribute this plant's seeds (what is needed) is scarce
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.
For me it means I reduced my meat consumption by about 95%. As far as I see it that’s 95% as good as being completely vegetarian, which is a pretty good score!
I usually like the tongue in cheek term “fake vegetarian”.
Humans are quite capable of digesting a diet rich in legumes just like all our other close relatives in the great ape kingdom. They subsist on a 85-99% plant based diet, primarily of fruits, nuts, and seeds. We have clearly adapted to eat more meat as our bodies changed to master running and throwing for hunting, but we are still a variant of great apes at the end of the day.
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.....
"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.
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.
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.
FWIW, “organic” is commonly used to do price segmentation in the retail food market. They often don’t produce different types of food, it may all be technically organic but they can selectively target people willing to pay a premium for that label. It nets out positive in terms of profit/revenue over the entire lot versus selling it all at the same price.
Many examples of food products being artificially binned to create “premium” products that are identical to nominally lower tier products. Once you’ve seen it from the inside you can’t unsee it. It is so pervasive that I default to the cheapest product unless I have specific contrary knowledge regarding quality.
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.
If this has been known for years and nobody's trying to implement it, surely there's a catch?
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.
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.
I'm curious if the nitrogen fixation is done by symbiotic bacteria.
If so, can both organisms survive in all the climates where cattle is raised?
Yes, legumes are fairly unique in that their root nodes host symbiotic bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen for the atmosphere. That's why they are so important in crop rotation or polyculture.
Every region could have different species that work best. The finding of this study, as I understand it, is identifying this foreign species that happens to work well for the location and agricultural needs.
Cows graze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
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.
Whatever you think of him and of course he has a large bank account and a TV show, clarkson’s farm on prime was good at highlighting the slim margins, tight schedules and how at the mercy of the weather you are.
The few, large-scale productions that comprise half of output avail themselves of this; the vast majority that comprise the remainder do not. I'd imagine it's similar in Brazil.
>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.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"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
> Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
> "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
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
> And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
> If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
All sorts of reactions take place in the soil and with plants/microbes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle
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.
Adoption is growing in Brazil but it takes a while for a practice to become mainstream.
“Worked once in a specific tropical pasture”. AFAIK, most beef production is not in the tropics.
South of Brazil is in the tropic of capricorn and it's a beef producing region
> 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.
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.
in the book We Are Eating the Earth it bemoans that money is going to soil carbon schemes that don't do much whereas money to distribute this plant's seeds (what is needed) is scarce
there's no blind spot where even a 5% increase in beef production can hide...
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?
[dead]
> 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 ...
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.
I changed to being mostly vegetarian a few years ago and the gas only lasted about a month.
What is "mostly vegetarian"?
I'm also mostly vegetarian, meaning about five times a year or so I like to eat salmon sushi.
For me it means I reduced my meat consumption by about 95%. As far as I see it that’s 95% as good as being completely vegetarian, which is a pretty good score!
I usually like the tongue in cheek term “fake vegetarian”.
> Gut biome is important for legume consumption.
Not to mention being a ruminant with multiple stomach compartments and a long gut.
Humans are quite capable of digesting a diet rich in legumes just like all our other close relatives in the great ape kingdom. They subsist on a 85-99% plant based diet, primarily of fruits, nuts, and seeds. We have clearly adapted to eat more meat as our bodies changed to master running and throwing for hunting, but we are still a variant of great apes at the end of the day.
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.....
Is this plant an invasive species?
As said in the article, it's Asian in origin. Probably wouldn't call it invasive since it needs renewal on a regular basis.
"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.
That sentence is about other legumes.
In the very next paragraph:
"The Embrapa researcher states that this does not occur with desmodium, and it is possible have the legume in the pasture for over nine years."
You might underestimate the ability to market lower-carbon beef though. Where you see a disincentive, others may see the next "organic."
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.
> People eat the organic because its objectively healthier
What makes you say it is objectively healthier?
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.
> The primary reason for me to consider it healthier is just that the animals are fed (supposedly) on pesticide free feed.
Pesticides are permissible to use in organic agriculture, though there are restrictions. See: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...
FWIW, “organic” is commonly used to do price segmentation in the retail food market. They often don’t produce different types of food, it may all be technically organic but they can selectively target people willing to pay a premium for that label. It nets out positive in terms of profit/revenue over the entire lot versus selling it all at the same price.
Many examples of food products being artificially binned to create “premium” products that are identical to nominally lower tier products. Once you’ve seen it from the inside you can’t unsee it. It is so pervasive that I default to the cheapest product unless I have specific contrary knowledge regarding quality.
[dead]
[dead]
low contrast text site - barely readable.
https://pasteboard.co/DO3NDAWRwLc4.png
closed asap.
when the fuck will people learn?
Didn’t look like that for me, plenty of contrast and much sturdier letter forms.
https://pasteboard.co/Xmg4tUPP9Cal.png
iOS 18.5 in app browser
wow, interesting, and thanks for the feedback.
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.
Android 16 / mobile Chrome here, it displays a dark font like the iOS paste above.
It looks more like the browser is rendering the font color incorrectly than anything.
forgot to mention that it is mobile Firefox.
I had checked the settings earlier, nothing seemed applicable.
interestingly, just now I tried it on mobile Chrome, on the same phone, and it rendered okay.
https://pasteboard.co/pPrVKF3dyyhz.png
(didn't think of that earlier somehow, dumb me, maybe because the page wasn't that important to me.)
so it may be a mobile Firefox issue.
Your fonts look different and much thinner than mine do on iOS/ safari. Do you have antialiasing turned off or something?
yes, thinner, which is part of the problem, apart from the low contrast.
>antialiasing
nope.
Yeah, renders fine on my device too (ios 18.5 safari)