There are some things that are attractive at first look, but fall apart upon analysis. Maybe like that fancy car you bought which needed major work 3 weeks after you drove it off the lot. Hydroponic fodder systems may fall into that category. Who could think of a better forage for your animal than luscious sprouted leafy grain—just like the alfalfa sprouts on your sandwich!

You can see videos on the web which show cattle and horses gobbling up sprouted grain like a vegetarian at a salad bar. Hydroponically-grown barley sprouts after 6 days of growth.

But things are not always as they seem! What are Hydroponic Forages? Typical hydroponic systems are produced under artificial conditions i. This amount of time is sufficient to sprout seeds such as barley, wheat, and sunflower, or legumes like peas, to produce a 4 to 8 inch growth of green shoots. This sounds quite amazing 2 lbs. Be sure to correct for dry matter. All animal rations consider feeds primarily as dry matter DM equivalents, since water is provided separately and all of the other nutrients required by the animals to live, grow, and lactate are in the dry matter DM portion.

However, this is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Dry Matter and Quality Analysis of Samples. A local friend who is working with hydroponic forages brought us some sprouted hydroponic barley he grew in one of these sprouting systems, which we analyzed. We analyzed two batches. Here are the results:. In the first analysis, we had barley sprouts at either 6 or 7 days of growth. In the 6 day batch, we measured an output of We then determined the dry matter DM content of the whole plants to be 9.

Since the 2 lbs. Thus sprouting resulted in a loss of We analyzed a second batch of sprouted barley from a different 6 days of growth. Similar to the first Analysis, shoots were about Why do seedlings lose dry matter in 6 or 7 days of growth?

Plant physiologists tell us that seeds utilize the starch stored in the seed during the first week or so of growth before photosynthesis and root uptake of minerals kick in to cause dramatic increases in growth. Later, a plant is quite capable of producing its own food from sunlight and CO 2and begins to gain weight rapidly. So such hydroponic systems are likely to lead to a net loss in dry matter and carbon up to about days of growth. Is this system easier on our natural resources?

It would be hard to argue that a completely artificial system with a requirement for electrical energy lights or fans and a structure such as a box or greenhouse is superior to field grown forages with regards to sustainability. However if the yield levels were high i. However in fact, the system leads to a net loss in dry weight recovery, albeit with a shift from starch in the seed to fiber and pectin in the roots and sprouts.

Additionally, pastures, alfalfa and field-grown grains create wildlife habitat, N 2 fixation for legumes such as alfalfaand have other environmental benefits. If you have animals, you have a choice whether to 1 graze, pasture, or grow your own hay or silage, 2 purchase hay or other forages, or 3 grow the feed hydroponically.

Alternatively, feed grains like barley can be fed directly to livestock. So which makes most sense? So a hydroponic system at a minimum must beat that cost e. If one includes the cost of the infrastructure, energy inputs and labor, the real cost might be double that. So the economics of production appear to be quite questionable. Additionally, one should consider that one is losing DM each week in a hydroponic system compared with feeding barley grain directly.

There is little doubt that sprouts are highly palatable to livestock—witness the relish with which animals consume it in web photos and videos. High moisture feeds are frequently quite palatable.

The lack of improvement in either quantity or quality let them to recommend against feeding sprouted seed vs. Since stored starches have been used to grow the seedlings loss of DMthe crop is likely to lose energy also known as TDN or NELand may have actually lowered its feeding value compared with the seeds themselves.

Where Hydroponic Forage May Fit. Although the economics, the yield, and the quality of hydroponic sprouted grain forage are not highly favorable, the concept has a great appeal to those who wish to be more self-sufficient in feed. It may fit for those producers who do not have local sources for hay or forage, or simply want to be more self-sufficient.

For small animal producers rabbits, etc. Hydroponic sprouted grain may also be an appealing feed which varies the diet for animals fed only hay and grains, although we should caution that the costs must be considered. The DM yields of hydroponic systems are actually negative, compared with the initial seed input. Additionally, there is likely to be a loss in feeding value of sprouted grain compared with raw grain, on a dry weight basis.

This result makes sense when considering that the seed must utilize stored carbohydrates in order to drive growth of the seedling. The costs per pound or ton produced are likely to be significantly higher per unit hay equivalent or feed grain equivalent.

Although hydroponic forage has great appeal to those who wish to be more self-sufficient in feed supply, the yield, quality, and costs of this system appear not to be favorable. Productivity and Nutritive Value of Barley Green Fodder Yield in Hydroponic System. World Applied Sciences Journal 16 4: You are currently not signed in. If you have an account, then sign in now! Anonymous users messages may be delayed. News and information from UC Cooperative Extension about alfalfa and forage production.

Does Hydroponic Forage Production Make Sense? Daniel H Putnam Author: This seems so absurd to me, even at first glance, that its hard to believe that this seems to have gotten so much traction Thanks for your comments, Chad. After writing this article, I came across a Sandia National Lab Report, largely on the hydroponic forage idea - with some experiments in New Mexico. They did some extensive field studies and demonstrations. This report was quite glowing about the concept - However, in my view, their water-use calculations are wrong since they don't account for the DM losses should really have anegative WUE due to that - also they didn't account for the water used to grow the seed.

I wish I could be more posititive about the concept. Am I off on this issue, or missing something?? I don't see how it pans out. At early stages of our evaluation of hydroponics, you raise some valid points. Have not seen the comparison with fresh vegitation which we are looking at.

We are also looking at the effect of dried products on production of milk in sheep and cows and the change that horses, sheep and cows when they change to a dm diet from fresh. Not sure of the cost of land, machinery, fuel or labour where you are but it is something to look at in UK. Any conserved feed has a reduction from fresh but only looking from one angle does not show the full picture and do not feel it should be totally disregarded.

Interesting article and thought provoking. Thanks for the comments, Pete. The losses in hay or silage are certainly higher than greenchop. However, in a lot of the TMR rations, water can be added to moisten feeds and make dried feeds more palatable anyway. However, the main problem I have is the large DM losses with sprouted grain. A process which takes DM kgs of feed a creates 64 kgs doesn't make sense to me, no matter how palatable. Not to mention the cost. I really appreciate your thorough and non biased research!

I do have to point out something you may have missed though. When it comes to feeding livestock, horses in my case, I do not think of how much dry matter my animals are ingesting. An example of this is oats. I see a lot of whole undigested oats in the stools of horses. It does not matter how much nutrition is packed in that oat the animal got none of it. What needs to be taken into account is digestibility. How much of the nutrition in that seed goes in the front end only to waltz right out the back end?

I think this may be where fresh fodder may have an advantage over grains it certainly seems to have a lot more digestible matter than traditional hay. I'm not sure if 'waltzing' is the right word - but I've seen plenty of whole corn seeds a slippin' and a slidin' right through dairy cow digestive tracts. My nutritionist colleague Peter Robinson may want to weigh in - but grain processing rolling, grinding, crushing has been shown to significantly improve the digestibility of grains. Peter points out that sprouted grain is more appropriately compared with grain, since its fiber levels are so low, and it doesn't really have the functional fiber as does hay.

To test what you've said, probably sprouted grain should be compared with whole vs. Interesting points and worthy of discussion. I have to start off with a question - is the essence of the discussion about replacing hydroponic fodder for grain in our feedlot based agriculture or is it about the relative value of hydroponic fodder as a feed source compared to grains?

In my discussions with farmers in my local community that raise beef as part of their livelihood there seems to be two camps: In the grain feeding camp my discussions about hydroponic fodder were listened to for the most part politely but there seemed to be little interest.

I got the impression I was posing a solution to a problem that for them didn't exist. Some culled the numbers, others turn to some grain feeding. The idea of a hydroponic foddder that was close to the pasture grazing was of much interest. So is the question Hydro fodder vs. Dry matter loss - unless something is thrown away there can be no dry matter loss.

You may find that on cursory analysis that some dry matter has absorbed moisture but if you put in 10 pounds of dry matter and retain all input you can have no less than 10 pounds of dry matter out, after dehydration. What is being over looked is that the dry matter in grain has potential as converted sugars, micro enzymes, phytonutrients, and other nutritional substances that cannot be realized in the ingestion and digestion or lack of digestion as discussed above and are available to the animal only after sprouting.

There is a much debate about the value of grass fed vs. I won't go beyond saying that each study I have read has been written with some degree of bias on the part of the authors and or researchers involved.

The Jury is still out. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on December 9, at 8: In that comparison, sprouts do not compare favorably economically. You are incorrect about the DM issue - due to respiration burning of carbon and release of carbon dioxide true dry weight is lost during germination - and in the barley sprout case it appears to be substantial.

You should measure it yourself and see if you get the same results we did. Additionally, seed energy is utilized during sprouting, reducing the TDN or energy content of the feed vs. That's a loss in feeding value compared with seed.

You are likely correct that there are activated enzymes and secondary plant compounds generated in the sprouts which may be of interest nutritionally. PS - By the way, I have no dog in this race, one way or another. Totally agree with you and well explained, it is a scam and a hoax something like many other things that we do is burn resources that will be needed in the future.

In the Country Basko Spain wanted to make a big investment pair use the heat of a biocompostability, to make a great greenhouse for Sprouts. Eso si mejoraba la palatibilidad, era comida mejor que el grano, y se aprobechava mejor, no se defecaban granos sin aprovechar Un amigo theo. It's interesting that this was promoted in Spain.

I think that the concept has gained some traction because of real results with a few of the small producers that I know. They switch from feeding a grain ration supplement to feeding sprouted fodder and are able to get the same milk production at lower cost not figuring labor and overhead. I am not sure how they are able to do this.

I think that it would be nice to see more research on the nutrient number for this type of feed so that we can have a complete analysis and even some feeding studies to see what kind of influence we get on milk production. I'd like to hear more about it-especially how they calculated their costs. I would assume they should include labor and overhead cost of the system, energy, and its maintenance. It would be interesting to see a side by side study of barley fed cattle supplemented with hay vs barley fodder fed cattle with the same hay rations and measure gains.

I have read several articles where anecdotally dairy producers saw an intial drop in milk production that seemed to slowly return to normal when going to hydoponic fodder. I am intrigued with the fodder systems and have considered purchasing a small system producing a ton a week to experiment with. Thank you for the article and information. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on December 17, at Thanks, Dustin for your comment. Yes, this would be an interesting comparison. I haven't seen feeding studies, but in-vitro and lab analysis tells us that germinated seed is likely to be lower in energy concentration than non-germinated seed.

You raise a very good point - I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure how hydroponic growth does after days. However, if one was to do this, the question would be why not grow the seed in the field and harvest early small grain forage is an EXCELLENT forage cut early-lots of dairies in the CA's central valley use that - boot stage or vegetative stage wheat, barley, or triticale.

The only reason to do this hydroponically is if you couldn't grow it in the field for some reason, because the costs for hydroponic would be higher. I would like to add another aspect to the discussion. In many areas irrigation water is becoming a limiting factor that mainly forces diary farmers to look for alternatives in converting water into forage.

What can you tel about water input vs. To what degree could the implementation of hydroponics forage production reduce the amount of water per liter milk? Robert-You've hit the nail on the head- I agree that water is indeed the most critical issue here. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the water use in the case of hydroponic forages.

The Sandia study in NM did some, but neglected a few key issues: How can one argue that this concept is superior in water use if you get less DM of feed when adding water? Small grains are some of our most efficient in terms of water use efficiency in the field they are grown mostly with rain or low irrigation amounts - so the question remains - why not grow grains as a forage in the field?

What is of interest personally in regard to feeding sprouts is it's versatility in time's of low feed. Here in Oregon we've seen temps in the single digits over the last few weeks with little or no snow cover, thus any and all of my white clover seed fields that I would traditionally be grazing this time of year are burned off, leaving me to feedlot my ewes for the next weeks until lambing You really cant raise great alfalfa in Western Oregon.

It's for those reasons I am interested in alternative growing practices. Thanks so much for your work on the matter, the information you've provided will play a key role in assessing the practicality of this sort of system in my own sheep program! Reply by Daniel H Putnam on December 22, at 1: Thanks Joe, for your comments.

I can really understand your strong urge to be self-sufficient in feed, understandable when hay and grain prices go into the stratosphere! Ugh, nobody likes buying hay for feed when pasture is scarce. Buying hay is painful, but maybe less painful than spending money on hydroponics. I think there is a reason that people call economics 'the dismal science' - it doesn't always support our pet ideas.

When I calculated the DM equivalent of feed produced via hydroponics, it comes out to hundreds of dollars more per ton of hay equivalent than just buying either alfalfa or grass hays. That's with just the cost of seed, without the costs of labor or infrastructure included.

Let me know if you come to the same conclusion with some calculations from your area. Now, if you were growing the old mary-jane along with the barley Good luck with your sheep program. Firstly - I thank author and the readers to share the views. I started on a high note by reading online articles about how hydroponics is actually helping grow more with less. However the cost analysis is not aligned. In developing countries like India, green fodder is available in range 1.

Employing hydroponics is expensive and it would not even compete with market prices. To make a point see below calculations: If used as seeds - 1 kg of maize in this cause at least should produce kg of green fodder - so as to meet market prices of green fodder.

And I have not seen anyone yet claiming to produce 10 times in 7 days. I am not considering costs involved in hydroponics setup, labor, water usage - as it would still the case that they will be at least nullified with costs involved in production, labor and transportation for traditionally available green fodder. The concept does not even meet to tally returns on investments. I think if you measured the actual gain or loss in DM with sprouted Maize, you would find a LOSS in DM, similar to the barley.

Depending upon the quality of the fodder, that's pretty inexpensive in US terms. It would be difficult for sprouted grains to beat that price in India, I think. I think it's really important when fodders are priced to carefully consider Dry Matter conversions, and it never ceases to amaze me that people seldom do a careful job of that.

Hydroponic forage is one example. Thanks for your comments - interesting! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! To make a fair comparison, you need to look at digestibility as well, which is quite low for raw grains.

DM and digestibility peak around dayso it could be that tweaking this system can give you a greater feed value. Agree with you that DM isn't everything, and that digestibility ability to produce energy and digest DM in ruminant systems is the key. I believe the digestibility of whole grains is primarily compromised by lack of crushing or processing, as discussed above.

I'll leave the full arguments about quality to the nutritionists they argue.??? However, the Fazaeli et al. Sprouting increased CP but decreased true proteinreduced non-fiber carbohydrates NFCreduced in-vitro gas production which is a predictor of digestibility, or at least energy yield in ruminant systemsand reduced Metabolizable Energy ME per kg of sprouted grain vs.

This result is in line with the idea that sprouting utilizes stored carbohydrates in the seed, reducing quality as well as DM. If you have data which contradicts this, please let us know. I'd actually like to see data which clearly supports this practice. As I said, I've got no dog in this race.

Excellent article and comments. I am one of four trustees that oversee a acre farm in New Hampshire which has approximately 40 acres in pasture and hayfield.

We lease out the farm and were recently approached by a resident in town to inquire if we were interested in helping her expand her current hydroponic barley sprout business. She has an established business but requires some additional space for expansion. Her customers are horse people and the little understanding that I have of horse people is they care for their horses better than I care for my kids.

I don't believe they purchase the barley sprouts for the Dry Matter content but rather for the palatability and the feeling of fullness experienced by the horse from eating a relative large bale of sprouts verses a small handful of seeds.

We are currently looking closely at entering into a profit sharing relationship with her and that is how I cam across your article. We would be interested in anyone's thoughts on the matter. This is a situation where the cost issues are not as important and the analytical loss in feeding value is also not at issue, but the enjoyment of the animals IS!!

Now I don't know if horses would enjoy sprouts as much as humans, but it seems reasonable that they could! You may also want to consult with a nutritionist on the issue, but this falls under the category of 'varied diet' to create an interesting diet for these intelligent animals so they won't eat the fence posts?

Perhaps it is akin to my buying little meaty treats for my dogs - they are certainly not cost effective, and don't yield ANY return I've tried to no avail to get the beasts to get a job, alasbut they certainly wag their tails more with them.

I suppose if I applied my above logic to my dog treats, they would be found wanting. OF course, from the hay perspective, the horse market for hay is famously 'irrational' - that not being necessarily a bad thing, but as they say, the 'customer is always right'.

But I would check to see if they were willing to pay the true cost of producing the sprouts in any event! I enjoyed the discussion thank you all for sharing your thoughts. When choosing sprouted grains vs. Animal death due digestion troubles on dry grains bacteria from source farm, contamination is greatly reduced when grains are systimatically cleaned. Also mixed graines sprout can be of a good nutritional value.

In my humble openion, I believe sprouted grains are easily absorbed in an animal belly for the time the food stays in. I know some obe is going to comment and say crushed dry grains can also be mixed for similar results but what should also be considered is how much the food stays in the animal stomach.

Think of it like us eating dry grains or uncooked food versus soaking and cooking grains. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on January 10, at 3: Thanks for the comments Jaber.

I think I'll let the nutritionists weigh in on your comments.

Indoor Hydroponic Farming: Costs and Profits [without the fluff]

I think what you are talking about is 'residence time' or intake levels and how that might affect the digestibility of the grains vs. Kyle with Fodder Solutions here. I can answer most of the questions above and aid in some "correction" to the article. One question was about water usage. Fodder is far more efficient here. Another question was about cost.

Fodder is very cheap to sprout. There's no soil, no pesticides, no fertilizers, no tractors or fuel, and no large space of land required. A system that fits into square feet will produce over tons of feed per year.

I'm probably going to stir up some nutritionists and sound a bit crazy here, but dry matter doesn't matter. Our traditional methods of feeding which rely on dry matter do NOT work with fodder. This whole article assumes that an animal fed fodder will consume the same amount of dry matter as a traditional feed. Before you jump in with your arguments, show me a study that includes feeding animals and measuring dry matter before and after fodder.

If you cannot do this, you cannot prove, nor disprove my claim. I however do have studies - look at the nutrition tab on www. Her horses are healthier as well. It's difficult to argue with real results. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't mean everyone is making it up!

You don't have to believe me, look up Santa Rosa Equestrian Center and ask her yourself. Another example is a dairymen is Idaho. He replaced dry corn with foddder - lb for lb. Not dry matter lb for lb, but wet fodder, for dry corn.

How To Have Fun And Make Money With Aquaponics - Friendly Aquaponics

Assuming dry matter loss which I am in no way arguing with from sprouting, he may actually only be feeding. That's a significant reduction in dry matter for his total ration - yet his milk production is the same, and his milk fats increased from 3. If you base this solely on dry matter, then you're assuming he'll have to feed more than 60lbs of fodder to replace just 10lbs of grain.

We don't know everything about fodder yet - but universities are testing it and why it works so well. Chico State University currently runs a fodder system with their organic dairy cows. The key thing here is they're feeding animals for their study - and it works. If you're still not convinced and I don't expect you to be then you need to go talk to someone who is using fodder, and ask them 2 things.

How much has your feed bill changed? Reply by Daniel H Putnam on January 28, at Please offer data to support your point of view. Sorry, you are wrong about the dry matter.

It is important to adjust for dry matter. As Glenn Shewmaker pointed out: Nutritionally, you still have 1 lb of hay!! See his excellent article: Is there a gain in dry matter during the sprouting process, or a loss? Is there a gain in quality of the barley or other seed by sprouting, or a loss compared with seeds themselves? Published research shows a loss in quality vs. What is the total water impact of producing fodder this way?

Keep in mind the DM loss during sprouting. What is the full cost of producing fodder vs. Our data shows roughly double the price for sprouted seeds "fodder" vs. What evidence do you have that this practice is sustainable environmentally? Unless you or others can provide data which more fully supports this practice, it should be discounted.

Let's make a summary: So a diff between a one-week harvest hydroponic and a yearly conventional crop produce useless conclusions. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on January 23, at 7: If you get 4 sprout harvests over the month, same problem, you get losses summed over a month. Still negative growth, and negative water use efficiency. If you leave the sprouts for a full month, it's not clear what happens the websites don't promote thisand we don't have data on this.

You'd probably run into major plant nutrient limitations, diseases, etc.

The key issue is that sprouts go through a loss in carbohydrate before photosynthesis kicks in to add dry matter with well-established plants. But as per comments above this begs the question, why not plant barley in the field and harvest early.

Maybe not 1 month but 2 or 3. Boot stage or vegetative small grains or annual ryegrass are very high quality feeds. You would need water ET for the field, but you would also need water for months of controlled environment growth. You would have to satisfy other plant nutrient needs N, P, K, S, etc.

Don't believe me - do the calculations yourself, but be sure to adjust for dry matter. Thank you for the informative article and followup in the comment section. I would appreciate your thoughts on a few issues; one being the consistency of sprouted grains. One of the challenges I've faced in raising and caring for horses is inconsistency in the quality of alfalfa.

That said, I'm basing that assumption of inconsistency on anecdotal factors like amount of leaf, how thick are the stems, how much is left on the ground after feeding, etc.

I'm curious how truly varied is the nutritional content of alfalfa over a year? I realize this depends on lots of factors, but would it be fair to claim that a sprouted barley diet represent a more consistent although economical inferior food source? The major followup to that question, perhaps for the nutritionist, is where do sprouted grains fit into in a equine feeding program. The promoters cite rising hay prices and stable that have cut the hay bills tremendously. Would a reduction in grain be appropriate?

Could a switch be made to a less nutritionally rich hay strictly for fiber, with the sprouted grains picking up the nutritional slack? Also, perhaps this is too horse specific for this post, but promoters of sprouted grains claim digestive benefits, specifically in the reduction of colic, gastric ulcers, etc.

While this makes some sense to me from my experience, I'm curious if as a nutritionist if these claims seem likely. I very much appreciate any help with these questions. Daniel, I like the analogy you made to dog treats, I'm just hoping that there can also be some nutritional and dietary benefits to justify the cost of sprouted barely to myself and my customers.

I'll let the nutritionists weigh in on these issues more fully. On the consistency issue, you are quite right - this is a problem with hay. However, one way to try to control the consistency of alfalfa hay is to buy in larger batches and to test and specify tests quality. That being said, I would think that sprouts may be more consistent than hay, but again, it may not be appropriate to compare sprouts nutritionally to hay.

Well if it's scientific evidence you desire: To further address your questions Daniel: Let's do the opposite with your analogy. Dry up a cow's milk and feed it to one calf, while another receives the normal milk. Which one will be healthier? If not, why are humans sprouting wheat grass and drinking it for the health benefits?

Would they not be better eating the dry wheat grain? In addition, because of the high moisture content animals will drink less water. There is also no fuel involved, no tillage costs, no transportation costs, etc. This has been used for the last decade in Australia because of it's resilience in harsh drought conditions. That's including the fact that you're paying for good quality seed grain. The grower of the grain typically barley is turning profit from selling the seed.

The use of the technology has been growing rapidly in Australia over the past decade, as well as Africa and India over the past years. Think about it - a machine that takes up just square feet - produces tons of feed per year.

This means there is more land available for grazing or growing other crops. Such as the crops required to put more seed into the system, and further reduce land and water usage. In regards to letting the sprouts grow longer - Past 6 days sprouts start to change into a grass. You lose digestibility and nutrient value the longer it grows past the sprouting stage.

Again, refer to the article "benefits of sprouts for feed". Finally at least a little data. I see you've nicely avoided the dry matter issue again - by the way, dried milk powder is fine nutritionally and is used around the world for human or animal nutrition, reconstituted.

Surprise-It's in the non-water fraction!! You also forgot to include the water to grow the seed initially. Thanks for confirming my calculations. Sprouts are very expensive compared with purchased hay. Sprouts are not fed on a dry matter basis though!

Let's crunch the numbers with an average, 1,lb horse. It think we can agree this is "normal". Now introduce 20lbs of fodder to the horse's diet, and free choice hay. On it's own, the horse will naturally start eating less hay. In our experience, it would cut back to about 10lbs of hay while eating 20lbs of fodder.

So on a dry matter basis, the horse that was eating 20lbs of dry matter per day, is now only eating You will say this is impossible, the horse cannot be healthy - but it is being done right now, with thousands of fodder systems around the world. Tell Clayton Fredericks who has olympic level horses that the fodder he's feeding cannot sustain a healthy horse.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a dry matter loss during sprouting, or that sprouts appear to be more expensive on a dry matter basis. But if it's not fed on a dry matter basis - Dry matter doesn't matter. I suppose this is a difference between UC Davis and Chico State University. UC Davis has specialists in a classroom discussing how fodder can't work.

Chico State University has a dairy operation on the university farm using fodder for their cows to actually understand it. That said, anyone who REALLY wants to know, can contact Cindy Daley at Chico State University. Here are a few within driving distance. Anyone else reading this is welcome to contact them too.

Like I do each day??? Peter Robinson and myself are Extension Agronomists and regularly are in the field. It's only BECAUSE I"ve milked and fed cows myself for many years, and have research plots all over the state, and regularly visit farmers and ranches that I can unequivocally say that: DRY MATTER in rations MATTERS!! Any qualified nutritionists will tell you so.

Rations are considered on a dry basis - Now sprouts may be something interesting nutritionally, but to say dry matter doesn't count is nonsense, so stop saying it.

DRY MATTER in estimating yields MATTERS!!! No offense or insults intended. I look forward to hearing about your visits then. I just heard some numbers from a dairymen in Indiana using fodder.

His name is Alvin Beechy, and yes, he has a Fodder Solutions system. The information was volunteered to us and he'll be at the grazing conference coming up in Indiana for anyone that would like the numbers straight from the turkey stockbroker reports. Milk fats increased from 3.

Money management forex adalah stated that the profit from feeding fodder last year paid for his fodder reuters stock market price history download. Every forage agronomist and nutritionist that I have discussed the fodder system agrees with the points that Dr.

Dry matter is import in ruminant nutrition! Kyle's argument that fodder can't be compared on a dry matter basis is wrong.

Corn and grass silages and pasture forage can be compared to hay and grains on a dry matter basis. It is done every day by nutritionists, and to try to publish a scientific paper without converting to dry matter would cause rejection by the peer-reviewers.

I have no doubts that fodder produced with these systems is highly palatable and readily eaten, but to claim that it doesn't take as much dry matter to produce the same milk as hay or grain is illogical. See the following link for an article that I wrote: Hello everyone and thanks for all comments. I am feeding lb angus replacement heifers. I have access to very inexpensive raw soybeans. I have fed them whole as well as finely ground. I have a few questions: Will soaking grain soybeans overnight make them more digestible or do they need to actually sprout from enzyme action?

I definitely do not want to lose too much DM and CP. Does this support the fodder theory of DM doesnt matter. Im not for or where are spy options traded the fodder.

But i really do think that something for nothing is a waste. Any thoughts are appreciated. Talk to someone like Sylvia Abel-Cain who is a nutritionist for Organic Valley and your statement will change. After the first flight there were many that did not believe it had happened, and that it was a hoax or a scam. That did not change the fact that it did happen. Funny that you should post the article above, I've already read it. It comes to the same conclusion - that fodder on a dry matter basis is more expensive.

So I offer the following. Since you're in Idaho, this seems applicable. Anyone who has spent time around Idaho Falls has probably heard of Reed's Dairy. His ice cream is quite famous. What you may not know is that he has a small fodder system. On his own, he devised a test to see what fodder would do for his dairy cows.

The original post for this text is here: In the spring we purchased a unit that produces pounds of fodder per day. We put 12 cows in a separate corral and is anyone making money trading forex the fodder on them.

Determine if it changed the flavor of the milk. Determine the health of the cows on fodder. Find out what happens to the milk production and fat content of the milk. Replacing all of the grain with fodder, pound for pound. The milk flavor was as good or even a little cleaner. Health of the cows stayed really good. Milk production never dropped. We were running this test on 12 of our highest producers.

So far we have not seen an increase in milk production but the fat test increased from 3. Alan is a reputable source and well known in that part of the country. So there are two possible explanations to this story.

Possibility 1 seems highly illogical. Happy New Year to you as well. As to your request for information that shows net benefit in digestibility, look at this document: So, if you took 1 lb of grain and grew fodder with it, you get 6 lbs of fodder. But, that 6 lbs of fodder has only. I thnk we all agree on the dry matter loss with fodder.

Ground grains do lose nutrients the longer they sit, so it is best to grind the grains right before feeding to get the most nutrients and most of these tests use freshly ground grains for measurements. This is a net stock trade software freeware of DM!

So, at first glance, fodder doesn't seem to add anything. But, then digestibility comes into it. From the figures above, that diploma in forex trading us the actual feed digested by the animal out of 1 lb of grain including the DM figures: But, I think the data is interesting and may account for the numerous people that seem to have beneficial results with fodder.

Personally, I'd like to see feed trials of fodder vs sprouts, ground grain vs sprouts, ground grain vs fodder. However your assumptions in your calculations above are not practical.

It is not possible to create more dry matter than is present in the 4 or 8 day period. So if you have 2. I'd like to see more digestibility data from the promoters.

IVDDM IN vitro digestible dry matter and NDFd digestibility of the NDF fractionas well as gas production would be helpful. However, Fazaeli et al.

Hydroponic Farming Faces Ban on Organic Certification

Glenn is right to question the DM calculation - note that 1 lb of ground grain effectively turns into about 0. Glenn, I appreciate what you are saying, but those results are from tested DM levels from the paper I linked to.

Short term trading strategies that work connors pdf tested digestibility of Fodder in the studies referenced in that paper show an increase in digestion of fodder vs whole grain.

Fodder vs ground grain shows a slight increase in digestibility. Sprouting to days shows the largest increase in digestibility. The DM calculation is from the studies in the paper I linked to.

Ground grain does not sprout. Whole grain suffers from low digestibility. I would love to see some data, especially feeding trials on sprouts vs binary options pro review with minimum deposit grain vs fodder.

If you know of feeding trials or studies that specifically look at sprouts vs fodder, please share them. Here's the relevant references from the report regarding 4 day sprouts vs profitable strategy binary options maxim akelova It looks like from what you've shown, there is make money hydroponic farming slight increase in digestibility with sprouts at 4 days, but it goes down after that.

The big issue is that annoying loss in DM. Although the digestibility goes up a little, the actually quantity of DM goes down a lot. Your reference to the Australian study was very helpful: Note that they said in their summary: I think the earlier analogy to dog treats is appropriate here - the sprouts appear palatable and digestible, and probably interesting to the animals, but don't really survive an economic analysis.

Just like my dog treats for my worthless "refuse to get a job' dogs. So, any conclusion about profitability needs to take that into account. This line is very important: This particular area needs further study, in my opinion. The majority of feed studies in that report don't show an advantage to fodder, but some do: During the first 48 days cattle ate 1. This high performance could not be explained by energy and protein intakes.

More feed trials and studies are needed for definitive conclusions. This article and the lively comments following are all very interesting. I would simply like to provide some additional "fodder" sorry for the pun for the discussion.

To start with, I am a seed producer barley included. As well, my business partner operates a cow dairy, and we, together, are crop producers. In the recent past couple of years, I have had a number of customer inquiries for barley seed for the purpose of producing fodder, mostly from hobbyists, but also from some larger dairy producers.

To begin with, I believe that there are several discussions contained within the broader debate. The economics of the dry matter comparison are pretty hard to argue against. After all, these are simple and straight-forward calculations. My experience is that, when mixing feed in a TMR dairy ration, as the DM woolworths easter trading hours qld 2014 of an ingredient decreases, the as-fed pounds increase within the ration.

Another aspect within how much money does a realestate agent make in toronto discussion may be that some of the economics of fodder production must be calculated using geographical implications. For example, in the northern U. There are probably additional considerations that I have not listed that could alos be important. Along with geography, comes macro and micro climate conditions.

So, aside from dictating the type of structure needed for fodder production, climate conditions play a major role in the resources needed for feed production. For example, in our region, annual rainfall amounts are seldom, if ever a problem although timing can be. So, water use savings not water use efficiencywould be difficult to calculate, as rainfall a paychecksoil moisture a bankand dew a bonus require no additional expense. Land is also safest option trading strategy important consideration, with which there are numerous questions attached.

How productive is your land? Do you own land, or not, or is define forex swap window rented? Can you purchase more land in close proximity to your feeding operation? Can you afford to buy land? And there are certainly more questions.

With land, you have an investment that increases in value over time. A building depreciates over time and will likely never be worth the cost of construction, but it will retain some residual value.

Some people have cited land costs and lack of nearby, available land as the impetus for fodder production. Chittock has stated in an earlier post that fodder production yield can exceed one wet become in market millionaire stocks per square foot per year. He further sites examples of people who are replacing wet pounds of fodder for dry pounds of feed ingredients at a one to one ratio.

Everyone after hours stock trades nasdaq have to make financial decisions based on market conditions for land in their own area, so this is just one example. Chittock's fodder production claims, one would need 40 acres to produce tons of dry matter alfalfa.

Land appreciates, on average and over time at about 7 percent per year, and buildings depreciate at about 10 to 15 percent per year. What will the net worth of each system's owner be how to get farmville 2 friends fast ten years? Now, let's compare production costs. Harvesting costs also vary greatly, but using Iowa average custom rates give or take: The number of variables are limitless, so everyone's cost calculations will likely be different, but this is just a quick and dirty way to calculate cost differences in feed costs that I'm familiar with.

I would be interested in what other folks would have for cost comparisons. I am able to take criticism, if been wrong before. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 14, at 9: Thanks for your comments. Your calculations were somewhat top ten companies by market capitalization in the philippines involved than mine.

Producing one's own hay is almost always if you have the land and equipment cheaper than buying, but for people with animals without land, the calculations may be simpler: Is it cheaper just to buy fodder? Cheaper to buy hay or grain vs.

The answer is an unequivical YES. Your calculations confirm this, as do mine. Take a look at last week's prices for hay delivered in California: Now, intake may be a little higher for sprouts vs. I've been conducting research on hydroponic fodder systems for less than one week and come to this very rich analysis which I've not yet had time to fully digest but can't resist asking whether you believe fodder can replace the grain I'm currently feeding my Jersey cows and maintain their relative milk production?

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 18, at 7: Thanks for the digestibility data - it would be relevant to have the barley before and after sprouting to compare the raw seed with sprouts - along with the dry matter changes over 7 days to see what was lost during sprouting, both energy and DM.

This article and particularly the thread that followed are very interesting. I feel that I am certainly atypical from those who post here, as I am not directly involved in anything involving feed rations.

I grew up in Ohio farm communities and have several cousins and classmates that are or were farmers ranging from row crops to cattle to dairy to hogs etc. I approach this from an environmental interest and rooted in 30 years involvement in bioenergy and in the last eight years more specifically biofuels.

I am particularly interested in the inter-relation of different components in what could be called a bio-industrial ecology system. Some of the posts to this thread remind me of the antidotal stories that emerged when increasing amounts of Dried Distiller Grains DDGs became available to feed lot operations.

Data is now being accumulated and new technologies for removing the oil or removing the cellulosic hull from the kernel or using different yeasts and enzymes results in different qualities of DDG.

Establishing standards for these qualities is still a work in progress. The short story is that the USDA has now established a ratio for replacing corn with DDGs at 1. I do not know exactly what went into these calculations but earn money by testing websites are consistent with early antidotal stories. This seems to bear on the question of DM comparisons.

The Federal Drug Administration FDA recently released voluntary guidelines for reduced antibiotic use in animals. I find it interesting that much of the comments here were related to horses.

Ruminant animals and hogs however will naturally pass a large amount of starch through their digestive tract. The emerging data is revealing that using high protein rations like DDGs lowers the need for pharma inputs actually results in quicker weight gain.

The increased use of grain in feedlots starting 40 or 50 years ago coincides with the increased use of probiotic enzymes and antibiotics provided by our friends in Big Pharma.

The primary indication used for determining probiotics needs is to test for fecal starch. To get good answers, one needs to ask good questions. That DM will decrease with germination is to be expected because that is the nature of a seed. It stores energy in the form of starch that it uses in germination prior to photosynthesis taking place. My question is what is happening with that germination?

It is changing the molecular composition of the seed into enzymes or proteins or something. The hull of any seed is a form of cellulose and unless it is broken down mechanically, there needs to be some sort of cellulase enzyme to break it down, which is generally lacking in animals.

In digestion, just like in fermentation, the starch needs to be exposed to enzymes to produce sugar for final digestive absorption and small pieces are better than big pieces. Some of the more recent posts in this thread are getting at good questions. Improved digestibility, how it affects growth and weight gain etc.

Some have questioned the CAPEX and OPEX or running a hydroponic sprout facility. From my experience, some of the CAPEX estimates here seem significantly high and co-locating with an ethanol facility would make heating requirements basically free as there is plenty of excess, low-level heat waste. Feedlot operations are finding co-location with an ethanol refinery efficient as they benefit from the ability to receive a your birth certificate and the stock market supply of WET distillers grain.

Would they also benefit from a continuous supply of hydroponic sprouts? I hope to see additional comments on this. My research has led me to various fodder sources who I have asked to comment on Dan's article here in simple English and I cobbled together their reply as follows: This is the standard unit of measure in current dairy how to make money on slayer feed rations.

The DM mindset is what we need to get away from when looking at fodder. DM rations do not capitalize on the digestive design of the animal; grain is not a natural feed for ruminants. The article is correct that, when reviewed for DM fodder is not cost effective.

How to Assemble a Homemade Hydroponic System | how-tos | DIY

This is hugely beneficial to the animal. Lastly, I don't understand how it can be that a hydroponic fodder system which maintains my cows' current milk production and allows me to eliminate all grain from my cows' diet and rescue dogs for sale in nj cost of the feed is not economically viable and a financially prudent investment?

There is also the issue of GMOs in grain which a hydroponic fodder system eliminates. What's the value of GMO Free milk when compared with GMO milk? Ruminants can digest many of the starches in grains this can be measuredespecially barley. Published data shows decline in true protein, although some increase in CP. So far, I haven't seen any data which would support that. Barley doesn't have GMOs so it's not an issue - neither does small grain hay.

Urban Farming - How to make a living starting your own urban farm and sell your own local produce

It's a separate issue. Dry matter does matter in formulating diets! Replacement rate of fodder for barley grain was studied in a recent Iranian feedlot trial. Corn was increased slightly in the fodder diet and protein supplement was decreased slightly. Crossbred steers averaged pounds kilograms top 20 equity index futures and options worldwide the start of the 90 day feeding trial.

Calves on the fodder diet consumed significantly less mixed ration 6. Average daily gain was not statistically different between the two diets 2. Feed conversion efficiency was also not statistically different between diets 5. Based on this study, the energy value of fodder barley is about the same as processed barley grain ON A DRY MATTER BASIS for growing cattle.

Replacement rate fodder to processed grain is approximately 1: This Iranian study forex scalper ea blogspot available online here: Their fodder was Reply by Forex robot tool H Gdr meaning stock market on February 21, at Thanks Richard, for the good information.

Any thoughts about the relative digestibility of barley grain vs sprouts and potential quality differences? Neither dairy is currently fodder barley. Nash dairy went out of business and Reed dairy decided to use corn silage in their cattle diets due to better economics: Do you have any cost numbers from the Iranian study?

Perhaps Vanguard total stock market dividend history missed them, but skimming through I couldn't find it. They said the cost was higher, but didn't say what the seed and production cost actually was. Now we're getting somwhere So the question is then, where's the cost breakdown? If myer sydney easter trading hours 2013 multiply the percentage times the price per pound of DM for each feed, then sum all the costs, you will have calculated the cost per pounds of feed dry matter for each diet.

Cost of the ration equals dry matter intake times feed cost per pound of dry matter. Use your local prices, do the math, and report back. This trial directly conflicts with your earlier comment that 1 pound of barley fodder as fed replaces 1 pound of grain as fed. The replacement rate on an as fed basis is closer to 6: It also partially addresses the issue of digestibility.

If do mini gold futures trading had higher digestibility and energy than barley grain, one would expect a higher daily gain on the fodder diet or lower pounds of feed per pound of gain but diets did not differ in gain nor feed conversion efficiency. Barley fodder is a good feed that cattle relish but must be evaluated on its economic merits. Based on their Iranian feed prices, barley fodder is not an economically viable feed source.

I'll be interested in seeing your prices and your calculated feed costs. As a followup to my earlier post, I was divorce trade binary options and ran a quick calculation using assumed feed prices for eastern Idaho. Prices were as follows: I'd like to add anecdotal stories to this. My friend has elephants who fed sprouts at a zoo. He said that the elephants took about a week to adjust to them as they were bitter to the taste and they still had to have dry feed for the fiber issue.

They went to straight run barley as the cost of labor and sprouting was too much and there was no difference in the production. I'd listen to Dr. Putnam as he has offered very good scientific advice to me over the years. Dan, last week you asked me to comment on digestibility differences between unprocessed and processed barley plus compare processed barley versus barley fodder.

I could not find digestibility data comparing unprocessed vs processed barley. I'm sure there is some out there somewhere but the comparison is not important for commercial agriculture.

As you know, much of the unprocessed grain will go through the cow and be readily visible in the feces. Some digestion of the whole grain has occurred but it is far below that of processed grain. This fact is well known and no one intentionally feeds their cattle unprocessed barley. Nutrition researchers evaluate digestibility differences within the rumen for individual feeds and for the mixed diet in both the rumen and total digestive tract.

Digestibility of the mixed diet is most important and I would like to illustrate this with a Canadian study from Yang etal, J Dairy Science They compared barley that was steam rolled with four different levels of processing and then fed them to cows in a Total Mixed Ration.

The effects of processing on diet DM DMDstarch STDand fiber NDFD digestibility are shown below for the least processed and best processed barley grain diets. Cows on the best processed grain diet produced Improving diet DM digestibility typically is going to result in more milk and higher feed intakes. Dairy producers and consultants do their best to ensure cows receive properly processed grains in their diets. I found four trials that compared hydroponically grown grains versus processed cereal grains.

Digestibility either did not differ between diets or was better for processed grain than fodder. You already discussed the data from Fazaeli's study earlier. Well done and appropriate study. Reddy etalIndian Journal of Animal Nutrition 8 4: Dry matter intake, milk yield, and nutrient digestibility DM, protein, energy did not differ between diets.

Hillier and PerryJournal of Animal Science Adding varying levels of sprouted oats did not change digestibility of dry matter, protein, fat, and stock trading scalper on the low or high energy diet.

Thomas and ReddyMichigan State University compared 8 day sprouted oats against whole or crimped oat grain when fed to dairy heifers. Digestibility of dry matter, protein, and energy were significantly higher on the processed grain diet than on sprouted oat diet. Daily urine production increased from 4 liters on the control diet to 13 liters per day on the sprouted oats diet. Bedding needs would increase significantly to keep cattle clean botting the stock market crash of 1929 summary dry on the sprouted oat diet.

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 24, at 7: This is very helpful. Nothing like data to guide stock broker career change I offer a simple challenge to Daniel Putnam, Glenn Shewmaker, and Richard How to get unlimited money in asphalt 8 without using cheat engine. Based on your comments above, this should not be possible.

If you need more info, contact Tracy Underwood at the Santa Rosa Equestrian Facility. Her nutritionist and veterinarian are both on board with the fodder and may be helpful as well. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 27, at 4: One can ship hay into Santa Rosa for about half this amount or less, even in a drought year. Also, the water savings is incorrect, as previously discussed. Seeds take water to produce, it's not just the sprouts.

However, it is certainly satisfying to be self-sufficient, which I think is one of the major incentives for this horse farm.

Just don't think about the costs too much. Insufficient data was provided in the clip to answer your question. What feeds were fed before and after?

At what amounts and at what price? I'm a dairy scientist not an equine specialist. I'm more interested in stories related to dairy. The fact that two eastern Idaho dairy producers started barley fodder systems in the last two years and both ceased fodder production tells me an important story. It is not economically viable relative to our other feeds. Based on the above dairy studies, fodder feeds about the same as processed barley grain on a dry matter basis.

For fodder to work economically, one must be able to produce fodder for a lower price per pound of dry matter than processed barley. I encourage all interested parties - particularly option selected jquery set doubting Professors and PhDs who claim fodder is "too good to be true" - to visit our farm here in Burlington, Washington.

We have been producing 4, pounds of fodder per day in a 39'x39' section of one of our barns for almost two full years now.

Andrew Dykstra, who is the patriarch of our family farm, is also President of WODPA and is a member Organic Valley's regional executive committee. We will open our books and our barns to anyone interested in actually presenting hard data from a real working farm in their next article about fodder. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 26, at 7: Thanks for the comment, Matthew.

Did you analyses and see the same losses in DM that we saw?? Unfortunately, I only have travel dollars for two out of state trips per year and already have plans made for this year. Tell us more about your feeding program. How many pounds of fodder do you feed per day?

Fodder was used to replace which feed s and at what rate of substitution? How many years have you fed fodder? Do have production records DHI or others uganda exchange rate calculator routine monthly testing?

Were you reporting production as pounds of dry matter or pounds of as fed fodder? I'll give you a second opportunity though. Explain to me how Alvin Beechy's feeding of fodder is not practical after speaking with him. Or take Matthew up on his offer and report back. I think everyone is missing the most critical point: I have read for the last hour and all I see are scientific explanations. Our grains come from nearly as far away.

The institutionalized propaganda put forth by this original article and supporting cast is telling of the world in which we now live. Assuming that DM calculations or laboratory inspired calculus on water consumption are important is down right laughable.

Here's something for you: They pay a mortgage and insurance. They fertilize and irrigate. They own tractors and implements which make hay. At that point labor is required to unload hay into storage building lights, insurance, mortgage. Oh, please don't forget all the permits, licenses and taxes required just to accomplish said supply chain.

The money we used to spend on that supply chain now remains within the business. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on February 27, at 9: Obviously better to obtain forages from close at hand, preferably raised on-farm, and grazed or hayed or chopped, but I would guess that the grains used for hydroponic sprouts are shipped some substantial distance as well.

Salt of the earth people and some of my very best friends are dairymen! I have never discussed my opinions about a particular dairy operation and their management decisions in public. I'll discuss research trials in public till the cows come home and go back to pasture but not an individual dairy IMO, that is personal and confidential information. I'm getting ready for a conference next week and won't have time to call Alvin till earn money by testing websites next week.

I am curious what he has done. For those who may be interested, here is a short bio on his operation here: One needs to know what was fed before and what was 2010 way make money rs f2p after the change. Specific feeding amounts are needed plus feed test results and ration sheets if available. Evidence of improved performance are warren buffett buys ge stock identified by reviewing DHI production records or similar software for the whole herd and for individual cows.

Body condition scoring and manure evaluation are also helpful depending on situation. Thank you Daniel for giving us the forum to discuss this subject matter and also for being so responsive. I am an organic, pasture based livestock farmer in NW Washington and have limited experience with barely fodder with my rabbitry.

One issue I see with using DM as a measurement is that it leaves out so many variables that play a role in the performance of your livestock. When a seed is germinated many biochemical reactions take place that dramatically alter the properties of what is now a sprout. I suspect that if you looked at the protein in the grain vs the protein in a sprout you will find a dramatically different molecule.

I also suspect the nature of the fat compounds will also dramatically change as well, which will play a major role in the metabolic reaction of the animal.

The first example I thought of when reading the discussions was my pastured poultry eggs. I do not feed them fodder, but I keep them on green pasture and the difference in egg quality is night and day. I have been able to observe the difference of fresh greens vs winter brown forage in the egg yolks which is dramatic.

Studies on the nutrition of pastured eggs shows as much as a two thirds increase in many nutrients virtual stock market computer simulator livermore the grain fed.

You can see the difference in the color, taste, and consistency; it is foreign exchange rate us dollar indian rupee like it came from a different buy direct penny stocks now online of animal.

An interesting test would be to see if these attributes hold true using green fodder vs grain. I feel these studies using DM leave option trading brokerage charges icicidirect variables that play a role in the performance of grain vs fodder, such as the structures of the nutrients, the profiles of the amino acids, and the nature of the different livestocks digestive systems.

The function of a ruminant is not very comparable to a chicken or hog. I know if I eat a lot of grains I will fatten up fast and I doubt I could put on fat with sprouts at all, however, I would imagine that the proteins in sprouts would be more useful in generating muscle than grains. These are just some considerations and I will definately be doing some case studies on my livestock this year.

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on September 23, at 5: Some good points about changes in quality beyond the issue of energy and DM. It would be good to see if these more subtle types of feed changes were sufficient to overcome the negatives costs and DM losses.

The only thing that the nutritionist and PHDs arguments is about a DM. And the only thing that make the Fodder looks silly is a DM. So if they talk about DM, then fodder will always lose. So lets the animal speak. I think some of you mistakenly think we spend all of our time in a laboratory or with our nose in a text book.

We don't have milk cows anymore but I am very familiar with dairy rations in confined operations as well as organic grazing dairies. As I stated before, I don't doubt that cows will readily eat the fodder. I have done grazing preference trials and was involved in the studies that documented the benefits of afternoon-harvesting or grazing compared to morning harvesting.

So I appreciate the animals ability to select high quality forages, as good as our best laboratory instruments can determine. Since we measured nonstructural carbohydrates every 2 hr during a hr period, I know what happens to nonstructural carbohydrate levels at night when plant respiration continues and photosynthesis stops, they decline rapidly. Since the fodder sprouts don't reach a net positive photosynthesis in that short a time period of 6 days, the energy levels have to be depleted.

Dan has also studied the diurnal effects of forage quality and has monitored the changes in non-structural carbohydrates. Rick has much experience in working with eastern Idaho dairies and balancing rations. None of us just fell off a turnip truck. I agree with Kyle that the Reed dairy milk is good! My son lived in Idaho Falls and shared some the milk with me.

I buy milk from our local Cloverleaf Creamery in Buhl. The Stolzfus dairy is not organic because he uses antibiotics, but his grazing dairy has some 15 year old cows that still look great. Just out of curiosity, have you ever eaten a vine-ripened tomato out of your garden in the dead of winter? Have you ever walked into your garage and harvested fresh lettuce when there is snow on the ground? How familiar are you with controlled-environment agriculture? Do you have any experience designing or operating hydroponic systems?

How about vertical farming? How can you claim in the conclusion of your article that "the labor requirements are very high" without backing up that statement with hard numbers from someone who is actually running a system?

By the way, it takes two small women two hours everyday to perform every task in our fodder room and we are harvesting 4, pounds per day. Less than a day's drive from where you are, you can actually watch this happen.

If I was going to write an article in a magazine for farmers about a certain feed production strategy, I would make sure my article was substantiated with facts from working farms that have actually incorporated the concepts you are so matter-of-factly claiming are "too good to be true.

Here is my recommendation to you before you write your next scholarly article for farmers: I can give you the names and phone numbers of quite a few from Washington to Wisconsin to New York and many states in between. Either all these people are liars or just bad at math, or your assessment of hydroponic forage systems is just flat out wrong. I will be in Pennsylvania next week, March th, visiting farms that have been producing over 1, pounds per day of fodder for over a year.

You are cordially invited to travel with me and meet face to face these farmers who have a very different perspective than you do regarding the economics of incorporating a fodder system on their farm. Some very good data. I have no doubt that there is a niche for hydroponic fodder but I doubt it will be a process that will be used on a large scale for sometime.

We grow organic feed grains in the Tulelake basin and it is also a niche market. Nothing wrong with niche markets they definitely have a place but it is misleading to say such processes are on the edge of being able to supply much of the feed needs of the cattle and dairy industry at large. Maybe horses may be someplace where it can be used but not for our horses. Also, aside from the solid data you have given, it just doesn't make sense to this grain grower that using the energy in a seed of grain to make the sprout and root is an inefficient use of that energy.

If we plant barley that is subsequently frozen it will usually only recover if there is some energy left in the seed or the roots are sufficiently drawing energy from the soil. The plant itself relies on energy and converts it but doesn't produce it.

But that is just this farmers intuitive reasoning. We also grow organic and conventional alfalfa, cattle, and sell to dairies in Central Valley and know that DM is absolutely necessary in balancing rations. Anyone who says dry matter is not necessary in calculating feed rations is wrong in my opinion.

Finally I'd like to say as a California farmer that UC Davis and it's extension agents and scientists are world class. We farm close to the Tulelake field station and rely on their research continually. We have never been let down.

And as far as the agents and scientists being desk sitters; that's just plain bunk. Further, in 50 years of studying and using their research I have never found it biased. They are absolutely open to whatever the findings suggest. As Dan said "they have no dog in the hunt" except accurate data. Anyone who would suggest they are office bound scientists set on manipulating data to fit the "institutions" needs have, in my opinion, a significant lack of agricultural knowledge and invalidated their own claims.

The future for them will be bleak if they continue to whine about the empirical findings that don't support their work, proceed solely on anecdotal stories, and refuse to work with university scientists and agronomists and the connected farmers. Thanks for the comments, Jim, and vote of confidence.

I agree this type of thing is an interesting niche type of application. However, it's important not to apply economics to it, or too much analysis - it's likely to be disappointing! Ulcers, abscesses on their livers and other things that negatively impact the animal as they were not meant to live on a high grain diet. Which is also why a grass fed steers meat is nutritionally better then grain fed feedlot cattle.

Same goes for naturally fed foraging chickens vs. So I haven't tested the fodder myself but from the knowledge I have in animal digestion, then I can see why it could work better then pure grain with hay added.

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on March 31, at 5: The hydroponic 'forage' has been mostly proposed as a replacement for hay or other fodder crops, not as a replacement for grain. However,as we've pointed out above, it mostly has characteristics similar to grains, since it is low in fiber. These days most of the farmers and dairy are facing the problem of Fresh Green Fodder. XXXX is leading manufacturer of the fodder machine, they have vast experience in making fodder machines.

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on April 4, at 1: Your comments are mostly promotional, and don't address the negatives which we've clearly pointed out above. If you have data to contradict our points, please provide it, especially the points about high cost and loss of dry matter in hydroponics. Dan, Thank you for your time and investigation on this subject matter, but beyond looking at just dry matter content and not evaluating sprouts from a ration that helps balance and promote proper digestion of other dry matter feed during real world applications is somewhat one sided point of view.

We are a manufacture of hydroponic sprouting systems for livestock. I have been working on this process for almost 20 years. And Yes sprouts do have benefits far beyond what your article states. And once again, you fall short on demonstrating a long term real world application. I have found out over the years that most of these studies are backed by companies that are behind other supplemental rations and do not like to see sprouting as a benefit as it cuts into their bottom line.

So they would prefer to discredit any claims to the true benefits of sprouts and yes they all focus on dry matter as the defense. I have a tough time ignoring one sided articles like this one. Just providing a factual point from my side of the industry. By the way I am also a hay farmer and rancher and fully understand the importance of DM, but it is also important to focus on overall quality of the feed as well.

A person told me awhile back that yes you can stuff an animal with lbs of dry matter "Junk" and your animals will survive, but if you put lbs of quality DM into an animal, that animal will thrive with less. Agree with you that no one should feed just one type of feed - and we're not suggesting that.

I don't think our article was one sided - we should point out that none of us has any 'dog in this race' - no vested interest by Peter Robinson, Eric, or myself, so we're not out to do anything but report what we've found.

We'd be glad to report positive features. You've talked about real benefits beyond what this article states. Please point to data that would support this. I am evaluating the suitability of fodder as a partial replacement for hay fed to our horses. We are in Georgia and hay availability and prices can vary pretty wildly, but overall the cost has more than doubled in the last ten years.

Also, we feed square bales and they take a lot of handling and storage space. So, if fodder could replace some substantial percentage of the hay we feed, and do it on a reliable basis, that might be a benefit. I have no idea what Barley or other grain suitable for sprouting would cost in our area, and how reliable the supply would be, but I suppose it is likely to be easier to store than hay. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on April 15, at Keep in mind that sprouted barley or other sprouted 'fodder' is likely closer in nutritional characteristics to grain than it is to hay, since it's typically much lower in NDF content.

So not sure if it would replace the hay vs. All this debate seems to be all about the feed and not about the beast, and it feels like all the evidence given thus far is either paper based academic or anecdotal only. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on April 23, at 7: Such a trial is possible, not sure who would fund it.

Keep in mind, that when designing such a trial, one MUST wrestle with the dry matter issue since rations are designed that way, especially for research trials if it is to be valid. In feeding studies such as this, rations are balanced for protein, energy, etc. Hydroponic forage will only make sense if it means more profits at the end of the day.

Hydroponic system manufacturers should be game enough to fund such a trial if they believe it makes so much sense. Am from Kenya,east Africa and I have dairy cows and pigs. The quality of the milk is improved but unfortunately we sell our milk by litres not by butter fat. This demonstrates that too much research is not beneficial. If sprouts are not economically viable,could they still be here after so many years?

The problem with your analysis is that it left out the fact that ruminants are not intended to eat whole grain. They are herbivores, not "grainivores", consequently their digestive systems are better suited to grass, or in the case of it not being available, hydroponically grown fodder. Until the health of the animal and it's overall condition is part of the analysis, and not just dry matter and how much milk you can force a cow to put in the bucket, that analysis will be incomplete.

Reply by Daniel H Putnam on May 16, at 1: However, in this case the sprouted grain likely more resembles grain in its nutritional characteristics-not forage, since it is so low in NDF and rumen functional Fiberso I'm not sure if it does the trick there.

Nutritionally, hay or grazed pasture is likely to provide more functional fiber than sprouted grain in a ration. I truly have no dog in this hunt. A former high school science teacher whose education is centered in physical not biological sciences. Never dealt with cows, limited horse experience as a stable hand a few decades ago. If I speak from ignorance I ask for tolerance, I am not trying to troll.

While I expect more variance in biological systems than the accuracy measuring elasticity or titrating a fluid It took me a while to get though it, being new to the field and all. This lead to higher standard deviation allowing them to disregard the extra three pounds gained by the fodder cattle as statistically insignificant in this study.

By tossing it out as insignificant there is no need to compare the extra 3 pounds of resale to the unspecified increased cost. Also given the large variance there better than 1 in 4 chance there is a greater than three pound difference. Allow the sprouted barly differences to stand on thier own. By adjusting out the main differences it feels like intentional masking of sprouting effects to me. I assume the control diet to be one held in high regard for finishing calves on a feedlot.

Was unclear if fodder was chopped daily like roughage. If They mixed the entire concentrate batch daily for green-fodder then this too seems like extra work to maximize labor. Detail was given on the lighting I was under the impression that very little photosynthesis occurred in this first week.

Elsewhere I've read that ambient light would suffice. Was lighting level in line with what companies marketing fodder systems recommend or academic studies of one week sprouts that have shown yield or nutritional benefits? I imagine farmers Time as fairly efficient, though I don't know the level of tray cleaning needed between uses.

On a family operation labor costs are less of a factor, yes it requires the farmers time And that time has been fairly prominently highlighted in the websites I looked at trying to sell systems if accurate.

Or was it just the green fodder diet which was bulkier due to the sprouting and identical roughage amounts? Why not chop with hay and straw which I assume wasn't chopped by hand. Or mix in mats? Could mixer for the TMR not break it up? Quit trying to force them to you preconceived diet ideas. Test diet versus diet. Put forward your best diet for feedlot, dairy, what have you as champion. Let the sprout-fodder industry put forward their challenger s based on claimed real world success.

Send a grad student in need of a thesis to evaluate if those operation are as billed. If it looks legitimate Divide a new lot of cattle. Then you can address why the fodder system falls short, or scratch your head and try to understand why their performance defies your predictions if it doesn't.

I don't think the growers care if crude protein or carbohydrates differ, they want healthy cattle produced economically. Report labor costs of fodder separately specifying the time the professional, experienced farmer spent each day to work the system. Study and accurately report existing installed fodder system with operating costs. Maybe peer reviewed journals wouldn't touch it, I don't know But if you scientifically documented a dietary surprise, that would probably be worth agricultural funding for a more extensive follow up and a real thesis or dissertation for some grad student.

A more competitive price range to those listed hay prices. With increasing Chinese fodder imports as they seek to double milk production of their current 15 million head dairy herd, I doubt hay prices are dropping near term. You will never defeat them, if you refuse to give them an honest assessment. Assuming the anecdotal evidence is truthful, at least some farmers are finding the sprouted barley diets more beneficial and economical to the ones they used before.

They have proved to be open minded and willing to change If they are shown a better way What you have shown is an unwillingness to consider head to head comparisons of diets that vary DM, CP, starch, My advice, Forget fairness, publicly kick their buts and risk them doing the same to you.

They might be charlatans, or they might be an agricultural Faraday in need of a new Maxwell to put the legitimacy of scientific analysis and math to their fodder revolution. Till someone bothers to seriously analyze their leading success stories and the disparate diets go head to head, neither side can win. Certainly all major physical science revolutions met with established scientists who refused to seriously evaluate and adopt things now accepted as fundamental.

By the same token, many a claim has been proved spurious when seriously evaluated. Just my uninformed opinions. Excuse how long Winded It became, it's hard to edit long posts on my iPad mini. Safari crashed when I submitted. Hope this isn't a double post. Good, if somewhat lengthy comments, comments, John. Leave it to a HS science teach to do some science! Good catch on the variation in results in our DM measurements.

However, it has a rather simple explanation. Makes sense, if you think about it - water may have gravitated to one side soaking one side. If I were to repeat it, I would try to do more samples, or dry the whole thing. However, all the data I've seen so far has documented losses in DM, so it's a result I believe ours and published. I'm open minded, and don't really want to kick anyone's butt or win an argument. However, I'd have to be convinced that this was a highly promising technique to do more work on it.

The potential for losses in DM as well as feed value should be disturbing, since it requires water, and we need to think as water-use-efficient as possible for crops these days. I haven't read the Sandia study yet. I found a very interesting review of related research. Research studies found a 4 hour limit on germinating soak unless water is being aerated. And that the tray needs to be watered with frequency and depth control and then drained in a manner that sprouts are wet for 15 minutes only at each watering.

Light playing nearly no role in first 4 days. A very interesting read for those wanting to optimize a system they are using. I wonder how much DM loss might be recovered merely by pumping a fodder machine sump into the watering trough?

Algae and such would probably be the beneficiaries is my guess, might work for filling buckets in stalls? Given that you were testing gift sprouts it is understandable why the variance wasn't followed up on, but if your friend is making, or was making a serious attempt at sprout fodder, passing along the optimization information might be helpful in their efforts.

It might still not be worth it to them to use, but having the system in place does change the analysis, as does the amount of DML. Lots of info, including lots on quality. For those of you interested, this is a must read since they review a lot of studies and web claims.

However, I'm not sure if you're interpreting their review correctly. Similar to our data. Also, losses in energy - which is consistent with losses in carbohydrates during sprouting not so much mineral losses. They also do a good job of pointing out the economic problems and higher costs of sprouting grains. This discussion is quite warm up. I am very sorry to say that scientific studies not always right. Scientific studies too much depend on many variables and some times variable are wrongly explained for a period of times.

And it is obvious; lose some energy for converting its nutrients values. In this perspective this is not make any sense. But there is also a very important fact that there is change composition of nutrients values in fodder process.

May be there is nominal amount nutrient variety do not needs at all for livestock. So they are totally wasted. May be in folder process after re-composition of nutrients values they are more suitable for livestock and there is much less are wasted.

So after total consideration consider dry matter loses it is may be right fodder is much economical then grain for certain times. So its needs more research, I mean complete research not a part. I am totally third party here and have no gain in there truly.

Because I am not a livestock or grain farmer and fodder machine or livestock food suppler promoters. There is so many admitted there is no race in here, but I feel some hard race between groups of people. There is two group of people in here argue over hydroponics fodders and gains. First group of people are large grain farmer and some scientist may be there are also promote some livestock food supplier who are heavily opposed fodder advantage for reasons.

If fodder comes with great result then total grain demand are decreased, so there is good possibility grain price graph downward. So this is really caused of worries for grain producer and supplier. On the other hand there is group of people are very optimistic about hydroponics fodder. May be they maximum are fodder machine or tech promoter.

May be there is some real farmer also defend for there approach. There is no need to know rocket science why some people try to draw good imprint around hydroponics fodder. May be there are very good business prospects out of virtually nothing. Why I think like that? I am very interested in hydroponics fodder so I do little bit research around hydroponics fodders. There so many videos in youtube to explain fodder tech and there is so many success story also. So there is no ways I believe all things blindly.

There is some farmer interview also available but who knows they are real or fakes or not considering all thinks. But I think there is huge possibilities there is some think better happen when grain process to fodder.

May be it is not so fancy thats claims by fodder promoters, but may be its increase economical benefits. I am very sorry if I insult or heart someone unintentionally. Lastly I expect my comment are not edited by authors. I am plan a dairy farm in near my capital city for high demand and price for fresh milk.

So I am interested in fodder because in here land price is so high. I own a land and consider it for my farm a 1. So this is very good solution for me to produce hydroponics fodders in small space that I have.

Because I know there is a percentage of diet need to green veg for milking cows. It is much more economical to produce fodder then brought its form others and some time it is not available.

Lastly a question for scientist who only consider DM. As I know in bio-gas production cow dung produce very much lesser gas compare to pure-fat with same DM. SO WHY THATS HAPPEN? So DM is not all to be considerable there is much more important is there chemical composition. So there is need very deep research conducted by very reputed organization. Daniel, I found your article along with the comments section very interesting. I'd like to share a video that is completely "off topic" but interesting.

Alan Savory of the Savory Institute speaking at TedTalks. Reply by Daniel H Putnam on May 22, at 9: However, I did listen to part of this - which is an argument for cattle grazing as a solution to climate change and desertification. I don't know if he's right, but certainly Interesting!! I have read quite a bit of the arguments here. I think both those for and those against all have a point.

But the one point missed here is that hydroponic fodder is most useful to those who have very limited space and have to feed their livestock even during unfavorable weather conditions. At such times and periods all the calculations above does not come as priority.

The Irish study Morgan, J. Limiting factors in hydroponic barley grass production. This is probably why so many of its details are incorporated into the Australian report of prior research.

A full page in the main report with a 4 page more detailed summary as appendix A. The team made numerous experiments on various variables, then tried to combine the favorable conditions together in subsequent rounds. Early trials might have, when conditions were all over the spectrum.

As the test progressed they greatly narrowed the range. Results consistent with the Irish. The Sandia study was a quickly assembled proof of concept of lower water usage in greenhouse conditions based on Mexican fodder practices in drought areas.

While proving this, they also had poor spray control and applied much more frequently suggestive of excess DML loss demonstrated in the Irish study the trays took 30 minutes to drain instead of Vitamins enriched, protein increased and more soluble, starch depleted from straight grain. Cattle are "grass fed" instead of grain finished potentially, if such is important. And while it may not be important we know at least some wild grazers preferentially eat new growth after a fire instead of unburned areas nearby.

Disagree with you on the water issue - unless the grain was produced with zero water not likelythe water used to produced the grain must be included in a calculation of water use impacts vs. Since there are DM losses with sprouting our data and most of the studies say much greater than single digits!

Thank you for the great article! I am not a farmer, but did stumble upon Hydroponic Fodder when watching Youtube videos on Hydroponic Gardens.

Somehow I ended up here reading your article. Studies supporting DM loss, Milk quality, health of livestock, seem to support DM loss is real, increased Milk quality, and better livestock health.

Overall, it seems like a win for Fodder. As the population and demand for dairy products increases, available land remains constant, thus driving up the availability and value of farm land.

At some point, Fodder must become cost effective when you consider the opportunity cost of selling the land to a developer and investing your profits into a self sustaining system. Combine this with a Methane Digester to fuel the Hydroponic Farm's electrical needs. Long story short, it seems completely cost prohibitive to start this dairy farm in a traditional sense whereby I purchase a farm, cows, machinery, buildings, grow my own crops, and all the associated costs compared to a Hydroponic Farm of a much smaller footprint.

I would be interested in an overall cost comparison of 2 farms started side by side in a virtual world to see which one would win over the long run. Start up costs, on going costs, production revenue, and sale of business at a specific time say 25 years. Given all the factors, this study would be impossible to be one size fits all situation. Unfortunately this article only looks at a tiny aspect and is not looking at the overall picture I propose.

I have a hard time believing Fodder does not have a place somewhere in this world which makes it cost effective while also being cost prohibitive in other parts of the world. I have a question. Does the DM Dry Matter give an account to the TDN Total Digestible Nutrient? I can see that there is a loss in the dry matter but does that mean there is a loss in the nutrients of the product? To answer your question, when you get a loss of DM you also get a loss in feed AMOUNTS e. The literature mostly shows that sprouted barley and other sprouts are likely to have a lower TDN energy concentration due to a loss in soluble carbohydrates during the sprouting process the seeds are using energy to grow.

For those claiming improved quality of the sprouts vs ground grains, they'll need to support that with data. But the TDN and protein should be determined on a DM basis without considering the water in the feed.

I own 40 cows and 5 buffaloes. Earlier our procedure was to send the cattle for grazing, and at the time of milking we use to put Feeds Cotton and Coconut remains. At that time i used to spend 22k INR for kgs of feeds. After shifting to "Hydroponic Forage" i have been getting same quantity of milk without such expensive Feeds, and with much more profits!!!

I worked at 1 feed lot in Blyth California that was mulching cow dung and grain and feeding it back to the cattle. Injecting steroids and pumping antibiotics for all the issues that arise from poor health. The hay growers use harsh insecticides, strong fertilizers and have more bugs dirt, trash. Very rarely do you get the same type or quality twice. Science like yours formulated most all of that industry. You can tell me your findings, but I will always trust what I see.

My animals look and act healthier. Fodder is a better road for me. No pesticides no fertilizers. For stone removal in one of my horses. My animals energy levels are up. I trust the road I am on. Also, for years now shedding has been the norm in the hay industry, multiple times over the years I have found tags on the hay I am buying showing a bailing date of 2 years prior. I have an uncle working for a horse rescue in new Mexico, "a good portion of the animals there are drop offs because of that greed game" They have been feeding 15 to 30 horses for a year and cost is less than hay and the horses are healthier on the fodder.

This is an interesting article and discussion. I have a small suckler herd 65 dexter cattle on a hill farm in south west Ireland. In the winter I feed the herd a combination of hydroponic barley sprouts and rough forage plus some powdered seaweed.

My interest in the barley sprouts stems from my experiences spending the last 25 years treating adult and child starvation - this perhaps gives me a slightly different perspective. I moved to barley fodder because my cattle were not eating the rough grazing that was available on my very marginal farm and therefore to get through the winter, i had to buy in silage and some concentrates. Bought silage is often of poor quality especially in a bad year, is expensive and left me vulnerable to shortages thank goodness i wash;t dependent on it in !