# It Can be Done ( and cheaply)



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Fodder feeding cattle in Canada.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UluPey05VEQ[/ame]


----------



## opportunity (Mar 31, 2012)

That is a neat Idea. I wonder how much it costs for the inputs to get started


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Well, you could build the frame of the greenhouse and growing racks yourself. His looks homemade. I'd say the biggest costs will be lumber and the greenhouse plastic. It's doable.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

I have always had an interest in this. Way back in the eighties a company in Ohio that sells hydroponic vegetable growing supplies .... everything including greenhouses.

However .... very expensive. There is lots of DIY hydroponics out there hobby to commercial scale. A friend of mine has hydroponic strawberries and sells from a little store ... he is a vegetable grower. His system is entirely DIY.

Judy ..... if you need a dependable source of feed start out with conventional hydroponics ..... and then maybe down the road consider adding the fish culture to it if you still want to do that.

I gave you this advice before. I have a degree in horticulture with kind of a minor in agronomy .... which sometimes gives me an edge when it comes to investigating things like this.

.... but you can do hydroponics on a shoestring budget .... you will need a pump timer and some nutrient testing equipment. You could make troughs out of anything and line with a good grade of plastic with UV inhibitor etc.

I am growing candy onions hydroponically with DIY set up ..... needs to be ready April fools day.

I'm thinking some Zoo s use these systems......

Edit: Oops I did not closely read your OP. The system I am thinking of grows out the sprouts so you have at least several inches of green shoots to feed..... and you also feed the roots.


----------



## southerngurl (May 11, 2003)

How was the heat from the cows heating the greenhouse? Very cool, I think I know what I'm going to raise these jersey calves out on.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

OK.......... sorry about this but I jumped the gun and posted without watching the video..... which I have now watched. Yes this is exactly the method I referred to in my first post. They have added cows to provide some free heat which is interesting.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Very interesting, I would do it if I didn`t have so dog gone many cattle. > Marc


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

The danger here is that you might spoil your cows so that they will never want to eat another dry old hay bale:spinsmiley:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

OK ..... some comments

There are various types of hydroponic systems. The system in the OP video is a system called aeroponics which sprays the nutrient solution onto the plants. Another system is called nutrient flow technique (NFT) ..... In this system nutrient solution is pumped into a narrow long trough which has one end raised slightly higher than the other so the solution flows down the trough. The grain to be sprouted is spread out over the bottom of the trough. You can have the troughs stacked like shelves and pump the nutrient up into the top trough..... it flows down to the end and is transferred to the trough below it. The nutrient solution flows down that trough and then drops down into the next trough.

One advantage of this system is that it keeps the grass blades dry .... being constantly wet for the 7 day growing cycle could cause some diseases.

Here is Crop Kings system. Each shelf has (4) 11 inch wide troughs 13 feet long. there are six shelves. The unit measures 44 inches wide by 14 feet long and is about 64 inches high. 

You need a pump and timer and a holding tank to store the nutrient.

You harvest one shelf per day which is a mat of forage 44 inches wide by 13 feet long. The mat can weigh up to 210 lbs in ideal conditions.

Price is a mere $2,850

I think you could easily make a nice one for $850 and after completed still have enough to buy Kobi steaks for two.

You might even make one for less using salvage.

http://www.cropking.com/fodder


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

OK .... oops the system uses only *PLAIN WATER* .... so no dissolved fertilizer to feed .... just sprout and grow

Here is a good video showing the 7 day growing cycle. This man is growing indoors with lights instead of in a greenhouse .... but he demonstrates how to grow

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ElmU6u6_TA[/ame]


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Johnny, 

What is your take on the wading around in water? I dug a little farther. He's published his own book, "Leverage Garden." 

He says he keeps 11 1000 lb calves that heat a 2700 square foot greenhouse.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Judy in IN said:


> Johnny,
> 
> What is your take on the wading around in water? I dug a little farther. He's published his own book, "Leverage Garden."
> 
> He says he keeps 11 1000 lb calves that heat a 2700 square foot greenhouse.


I have some issues with the OP video ..... some issues with what was said. Also I have had newspaper people and local TV to report on my farming ...... you tell them exactly what you are doing .... they take notes ..... and then when they report to the public they screw it all up.

I will think on this and get back with you here


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

It should be a sin to spoil cows like this :grump:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=tCAo4EhdXuc


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Ok, I just got off the phone with Marcel. I'm going to order his book. If anyone would like his contact info, pm me.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Well I have observed the OP video with Marcel and have watched about 6 other similar youtube videos.

Marcel is using *mineral nutrients* in his sprayed on water. The others are using plain water. Marcel is advertising an organic veal product .... so fertilizer in the water must be organic ???? The color of his fodder is generally greener than on other videos and his height is 6 inches on top of a root mass which might be an inch thick..... so he probably is getting more growth. He states protein doubles from what the grain was. He states that 70# of Barley grain produces 500# fodder in 7 days and if left grow two more days would produce about 600# but protein goes down after day 7. 

One must consider that the Barley grain is dry and the fodder is green and full of moisture. To know if there is any gain in carbohydrate due to photosynthesis the fodder would need to be dried and weighed and compared to the dry weight of the Barley.

I would also like to know if there is any change in TDN (total digestible nutrients) between the grain and the fodder.

----------------------------------

*Methane*

There is two types of decomposition, anerobic and aerobic. The first one happens when there is no oxygen and the second when there is oxygen. Anerobic produces methane gas which is the same as natural gas. The cow rumen is somewhat like an anerobic digester. A compost heap is an aerobic digester and produces CO2 gas. The exhale of a cow produces CO2 from the lungs (CO2 is also the product of respiration... along with H20) and methane from the rumen.

The OP video stated methane gas helps plants grow. If there is a slight natural gas leak in a gas heated greenhouse the methane will harm the plants. Methane leaking from a landfill will stunt the growth of plants growing on the landfill. Sooooooo there is a problem here. However cows also are producing CO2 and elevated levels above what is normal produces more rapid growth in plants in a greenhouse without ventilation. In winter when ventilation is off, some greenhouses use CO2 generators to artificially raise the CO2 levels.

Sooooo ..... seems like cows are producing beneficial heat and two gases one of which is beneficial and the other potentially harmful. The cows will also produce water vapor and so the air will probably need to be vented for a period of time during the day when fresh air is warmer. So maybe methane build-up is not an issue especially if you ventilate .... but if you ventilate you blow out your elevated CO2 levels

I will continue to investigate this. Judy will be reading the book.

Shortly I will post with ideas for doing this small scale on shoestring budget....... Stay tuned !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## aart (Oct 20, 2012)

I wonder about the wading thru the water too. Look forward to reading more about this.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Well ...... its not looking like fodder feeding is such a great idea. Controlled scientific experiment on feedlot calves suggests no advantage.

Calves fed barley grain compared to calves fed the same amount of barley grain in fodder form shows no advantage.

Also fodder in *NO* way substitutes for roughage .... you still must feed hay

jast.journals.modares.ac.ir/jufile?c2hvd1BERj00MDg= (copy and paste into browser for scientific study)

:grump::grump::grump:

I am surely glad I did not buy that Crop King outfit for $2,850 :rock:

I knew of this system 30 years ago and always wondered why it never caught on if it was such a great idea.

:flame::flame::flame:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Marcel is feeding veal ........... maybe this method could have an advantage as far as quality of meat ???????????


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

I read that growing fodder doubles the weight of the grain on a dry-matter bases. That is, 5 pounds of dry barley, soaked and sprouted for 7 days, then dried again produces 10 pounds of feed. Additionally, the feed produced is 90% digestible as opposed to the 30% digestibility of the dry barley grain. Where did you find the study that showed no advantage?


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

Additionally, everything I've read does NOT claim that sprouted barley replaces hay in animals that use hay (ruminants, horses). It replaces the grain ration, and it reduces the level of quality needed in hay. So when using barley fodder you can feed a hay of lower quality and no grain at all. When feeding monogastrics such as chickens or hogs, no hay is necessary. This is just what I've read, no personal experience here.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

The link I refer to in post # 17 Does acknowledge that this was only one experiment and that other feeding scenarios could yield different results. Their fodder increases in weight by 4.5%. The fodder in the OP by 7% and others on youtube report 6% and there are many factors influencing that.

The scientific study noted that the weight of the dried fodder was less than the dry barley .... which is troubling ..... but their barley fodder only gained weight by 4.5%. 


Sooooooooooooo there is a need to look for other scientific studies.

One Australian manufacturer has a FAQ on their site and they said fodder is not a substitute for roughage ...... but when feeding fodder a lower quality roughage can be substituted

http://www.fodderfactory.com.au/faq


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Laura Jensen said:


> I read that growing fodder doubles the weight of the grain on a dry-matter bases. That is, 5 pounds of dry barley, soaked and sprouted for 7 days, then dried again produces 10 pounds of feed. Additionally, the feed produced is 90% digestible as opposed to the 30% digestibility of the dry barley grain. Where did you find the study that showed no advantage?


Copy and paste into your browser
jast.journals.modares.ac.ir/jufile?c2hvd1BERj00MDg=

.... read my last post (you and I were posting here at the same time)

......... I will look for some other studies .... and post them here also

If there is an increase in digestibility from 30 to 90 % .....it is not mentioned in the research article .... I have been looking for reports of changes in TDN

I question that a milled barley would only be 30% digestible in a ruminant animal

...... but I am no expert here .... But I realize we need to distinguish between ruminant and non rumin animals when we discuss digestatibility.

Many fodder users on youtube report a big savings when they started using fodder.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Laura Jensen said:


> Additionally, everything I've read does NOT claim that sprouted barley replaces hay in animals that use hay (ruminants, horses). It replaces the grain ration, and it reduces the level of quality needed in hay. So when using barley fodder you can feed a hay of lower quality and no grain at all. When feeding monogastrics such as chickens or hogs, no hay is necessary. This is just what I've read, no personal experience here.


Yes ..... this makes sense


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Laura Jensen said:


> I read that growing fodder doubles the weight of the grain on a dry-matter bases. That is, 5 pounds of dry barley, soaked and sprouted for 7 days, then dried again produces 10 pounds of feed. Additionally, the feed produced is 90% digestible as opposed to the 30% digestibility of the dry barley grain. Where did you find the study that showed no advantage?


My background is in plant sciences and not livestock. I have been examining many DIY and commercial fodder producing equipment on the internet. Some production is done indoors with a minimal amount of lighting. Some greenhouse production is done on shelves placed close together greatly restricting sunlight. Others like in the OP look like they are allowing more light to reach the plants. Also the top shelf and possibly the higher shelves in these greenhouse units should intercept more light and thus will permit a higher rate of photosynthesis..... which would produce a greater increase in dry matter.

So there are many variables including the quality of the barley grain.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Here is a report from Iowa State University. Easy to read

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=ans_air


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Here is a report from Iowa State University. Easy to read
> 
> http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=ans_air


If I read it right, it would appear that a pound of this barley fodder (when dryed) costs about 40 cents to produce and a pound of alfalfa of nearly the same nutritional value cost about a dime. If this is the case it appears that there is no such thing as a free lunch.... not even for cows.


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Duplicate.


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

When I spoke to him on the phone, Marcel told me that the fodder doesn't completely replace hay. He told me I'd still have to feed 15% of their ration in hay. So, fodder stretches your hay in a drought or in winter.

Over on the Family Cow forum, there are a lot of people feeding fodder. The big problem seems to be finding barley after the drought. The only thing this guy is doing differently is using his cattle as a heat source.

I've been in some old-style milking parlors where the cows stayed in during the winter. Those were nice toasty places.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Judy in IN said:


> Johnny,
> 
> What is your take on the wading around in water? I dug a little farther. He's published his own book, "Leverage Garden."
> 
> He says he keeps 11 1000 lb calves that heat a 2700 square foot greenhouse.


I don't have a problem with the floor water as long as my muck boots are not leaking

If you go barefoot in the summer that floor water would be cool

As for practical purposes there are some issues with growing fodder in a "barn" and the wet floor would keep the dust down .... there would be mold spores in the dust and there is mold spores in the hay .... the amount of spores depends on harvesting conditions etc ..... but feeding hay where you are producing fodder should be af a concern in preventing mold.

... Marcel published a book .... but in his video he has yet to sell any veal from this "experiment" ??????????
However he says he has been experimenting with fodder for 9 years so this must be his first "veal" experiment ???

1000 lb calves ????? .... those are some big calves !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

I agree that those are some big calves! I've got 6 dairy heifers that could be heating a greenhouse this winter, though. Marcel said they could
easily heat a 500 square foot greenhouse, which is what I'm building. 

There are a lot of people growing fodder, but it seems to be water wasteful. I'm wondering if an aquaponic system would work better.


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

Here's a REALLY interesting and detailed article: http://www.qcl.farmonline.com.au/files/48/20/01/000012048/Hydroponicfodder.pdf .


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

New still in the box Crop King fodder sprouting equipment for sale. Paid $2,850 will sacrifice for $2,350. My loss is your gain. I was going to save some money on feed but decided to sell the farm instead :gaptooth:


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

I'm going to wait until I've read this book before I buy anything else. 

I already have the greenhouse panels, a pump, tank, heifers, and lumber.

I know I'll have to buy a timer. I'm thinking hoses and T-jet spray nozzles too, but we'll wait and see.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The link I refer to in post # 17 Does acknowledge that this was only one experiment and that other feeding scenarios could yield different results. Their fodder increases in weight by 4.5%. The fodder in the OP by 7% and others on youtube report 6% and there are many factors influencing that.
> 
> *The scientific study noted that the weight of the dried fodder was less than the dry barley .... which is troubling* ..... but their barley fodder only gained weight by 4.5%.
> 
> ...


As a simple farmer, who has grown barley for 20 years, and grown thousands of acres of it, I can tell you that once sprouted, then dried to a safe storage moisture content, the barley will lose weight quite dramatically. I know this from several wet harvests. Barley is very susceptible to sprouting in the field in a wet spell, and I have had barely sprout in the heads as it stood in the fields under some conditions, and grow two inch roots. The barley loses weight in a fairly dramatic fashion. 


Now, for the feed to actually multiply in weight, more than simple water is needed, something must be added for the seed to sprout, and hence grow in weight. Fertilizer of some kind must be added. I think for the weight to increase in 7 days, in the dramatic fashion some have said, they are either fertilizing it heavily, which defeats the purpose, forgetting conveniently to use dry equivalent weights, or simply making stuff up. Once the seed sprouts, the roots and shoots draw from the seed weight very rapidly. And the top growth of a young barley plant is almost completely water. If minerals (fertilizer) is added, I can see a small increase in weight, but not very much after only 7 days. In 7 days after germination, barley would only have a maximum of two small leaves, and if you cut these off and dry them down, they literally disappear, as they are so high in moisture at that stage..

Though an interesting idea, It would be prohibitive cost wise for an average farmer to set up a system to feed a realistic herd size. You still have to buy the dang barley, and I can tell you it does not magically increase in weight in just 7 days..


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Laura Jensen said:


> I read that growing fodder doubles the weight of the grain on a dry-matter bases. That is, 5 pounds of dry barley, soaked and sprouted for 7 days, then dried again produces 10 pounds of feed. Additionally, the feed produced is 90% digestible as opposed to the 30% digestibility of the dry barley grain. Where did you find the study that showed no advantage?


It is impossible to increase weight by sprouting seeds for a few days...The weight actually would drop.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

And the other thing: Because of the lowered dry matter weights, gains in protein etc., are only increased on a dry matter basis, because, voila, there is LESS dry matter in barley after sprouting occurs. There is not any net gain in feed value, except on paper. These dubious claims are actually fairly unfortunate, because once again, people are taking advantage of others. Frankly, that ticks me off...


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

The video finally worked for me. Marcel is not being very honest with you, Judy. I would save my money and not buy his book. He said in that video that he seeds 70 lbs of barley and harvests 500 lbs of fodder. How much of that wet feed is water? Sprouting seeds lose weight in a dry matter equivalent manner. sorry to tell you, but on a dry matter basis, he is omitting some serious facts. It also mentions the seed is sprayed with nitrogen, etc. I wonder what his source of nutrients is, that are easily water soluble. Something with the guy does not ad up.

A guy it seems, will do anything to sell a book.


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

farmerDale said:


> And the other thing: Because of the lowered dry matter weights, gains in protein etc., are only increased on a dry matter basis, because, voila, there is LESS dry matter in barley after sprouting occurs. There is not any net gain in feed value, except on paper. These dubious claims are actually fairly unfortunate, because once again, people are taking advantage of others. Frankly, that ticks me off...


This was actually backed up in study after study after study cited in the paper I linked to above. Based on that seriously in-depth paper, I think I'm all done considering barley fodder at this point. Thank you, FarmerDale for confirming the information from the standpoint of a barley producer!


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

farmerDale said:


> He said in that video that he seeds 70 lbs of barley and harvests 500 lbs of fodder. How much of that wet feed is water? Sprouting seeds lose weight in a dry matter equivalent manner. sorry to tell you, but on a dry matter basis, he is omitting some serious facts. It also mentions the seed is sprayed with nitrogen, etc. I wonder what his source of nutrients is, that are easily water soluble. Something with the guy does not ad up.


 For storage of longer than nine months, a moisture content of no more than 12.5% is recommended for barley, leaving 87.5% dry matter. 87.5% of 70 pounds is 61.25 pounds, so Marcel is using barley seed at the rate of 61.25 pounds dry matter to produce 500 pounds of fodder. Time and again in the paper I cited, a dry matter percentage of 12% was used for barley fodder. That is, of the barley fodder fed, 88% of the weight was water and 12% was dry matter. Guess what 12% of 500 pounds is? 60 pounds. The missing 1.25 pounds of dry matter backs up what the studies and FarmerDale have said, namely, that there is a loss of dry matter once the grain is sprouted. Isn't that interesting?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Yes this is a deception..... and interesting that so many producers of fodder equipment make such exaggerated claims.

Thanks Laura for that summary which was well supported with references. 

Marcel claims a 50% increase in protein ? He claimed carbon gasses from the cows increased growth of barley. Laura's link states that chloroplasts form on the 5th day. Increased CO2 levels will make photosynthesis more efficient but photosynthesis will not occur until these chloroplasts are formed in cells within the new barley growth. So you only have day 6 for photosynthesis to occur and at that point you have carbon (dry weight) losses to make up for before you could actually increase the dry matter. 

(chloroplasts are sites in plants where photosynthesis occurs )

The methane is not going to help growth either but evidently not building up to levels dangerous to plants... I see Marcel had some potted plants in the barn also which would serve as indicator plants for methane since barley leafs-out about the second day and fed by the 7th.... so that short time span might not be long enough to show visual symptoms of methane toxicity.

So about only advantage is vitamin increase .... but the ruminant gut makes vitamins also.....

One study did show better condition of the coat compared to control cattle. Would a better coat be a sign of a healthier animal in any way ?????

One other thing .......... the dramatic growth of the barley sprout is fueled by carbohydrate stored by the grain. That surplus is gone by day eight and laura's link states that at that point growth rate will slow being similar to growth of the grain in the field. So............ there really is no chance that you could have a dramatic gain in dry matter even if you kept growing for additional days beyond 7.


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

I think the difference is that you won't see corn falling out of the back of your cow. The digestibility has got to account for the improvements.

I'm not as concerned with the savings as I am with the chance to get away from RR feeds. The heat generated would also make it possible to keep an aquaponics setup going through the winter.

If it were possible to heat the greenhouse with cattle and sun, keep raising lettuce through most of the winter ( $1.99 a head right now ) AND keep the fish from freezing, it would still be attractive to me.

The downside of fodder for me is having to be there every day. If you plan on a vacation, you'd have to train someone to keep it going while you were gone.

I've never regretted buying a book of any kind.

The problem I'm having is FINDING barley! It's a corn/soybean/maybe a little wheat world around here.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Wow. In my haste to reply and save Judy a few dollars, or maybe much more than that, I missed the link by Laura last night. I am glad it confirmed my thoughts. I often spout off from experience, and forget, or am not adept enough, or have little time, to look up links to confirm those experiences. I am glad to see I was not out to lunch too badly.

My first impression of the guy when I watched the video, and checked him out further, was almost 100% bang on. I know physical appearances are not supposed to matter, but sometimes it does. But the substance, or lack of, in the words is most evident in ones demeanor. When they say things like, "I don't use antibiotics, etc." , they are falsely implying antibiotic use is general in beef production by other producers, and this is simply not true. But it captures the imagination of the consumers he will cater to, and implies his beef is better than a guy feeding his beef plain barley seed, because he is implying that they are using antibiotics. I personally know of no local farmers who use any antibiotics as a rule of course. So when things like this are stated, it always makes me question strongly ANYTHING else the person says. Because of that one white lie, one must ask what else he is lying about... At least I do. 

I hope to heck this guy did not get a grant from taxpayers to build up his setup, which would not help anything, except his bottom line...

The one thing I do like, but is hardly rocket science, and was used in 1930 on this farm, is the use of the animals to heat the indoor area. THAT is a good thing.

But adding 400 lbs of water to barley, and selling the extra water to others at double the dry matter price, is a scam, and a rip off. Approaching beurocrats who have little farming clue, and doing it at a time when "being green" is all the rage, in an effort to capture taxpayer money, to save ones farm from what appears to be certain financial ruin, is plain nasty.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Judy in IN said:


> I'm not as concerned with the savings as I am with the chance to get away from RR feeds.
> 
> The problem I'm having is FINDING barley! It's a corn/soybean/maybe a little wheat world around here.


Barley, sprouted or not is not rr, nor is wheat. I imagine barley would be tough to find for you in a corn/soy area...

I wish you luck in finding some. I always see these posts on here from people in other regions who need certain products, and wish to heck I could provide them more easily... I could sell you folks grain for half the price or often much less than what you pay for wheat in new york for example. Someone is paying 42 bucks a bushel for wheat in new york!!!! I am sure I could get it there for 2 bucks a bushel, on top of my price of 8. For 10 bucks a bushel, I could send you all the wheat/barley, or whatever you desire!!! The trouble comes though, when the load of 1600 bushels gets to your place. lol!

I am going to look further into this market, I am sure it could be made to work. And my buddy at the receiving end would stand to make a lot of money doing nothing but bagging and selling the products at prices that make my head spin. A win win win for everyone involved. Win for me the farmer, with higher prices in my pocket. A win for the receiver, for his inherrent markup, and a win for the consumer, for a steady supply of more economical product.

Anyone down there have a grain bin and an auger??? Lets make a deal!!!

:happy2:


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Well dang, darn, durn, and drat! I had seen these fodder systems and was all gung ho to give it a try with a DIY set up. I believed the marketing hype and it looked like such a neat way to produce high quality feed for less $$$. 

Score 1 for HT and you knowledgeable folks. Your time into investigating and providing your results is very much appreciated. I have too many things to spend money on and too little time to create projects that don't add value. You saved me from my enthusiasm and ignorance.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

CesumPec said:


> Well dang, darn, durn, and drat! I had seen these fodder systems and was all gung ho to give it a try with a DIY set up. I believed the marketing hype and it looked like such a neat way to produce high quality feed for less $$$.
> 
> Score 1 for HT and you knowledgeable folks. Your time into investigating and providing your results is very much appreciated. I have too many things to spend money on and too little time to create projects that don't add value. You saved me from my enthusiasm and ignorance.


Hey I am disappointed also .... I was going to extensively tweek this thing with more of a passive solar designed building .....and incorporate many other Ideas.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Here in Pennsylvania we have many old bank barns. They have a foundation with usually cement floor and a second level with plank floor. One side has earth banked up so that you can drive equipment onto the 2nd level floor. The second level usually has a grainery and hay mows along with space to store equipment.

My grandfathers barn had on the lower level a row of stanchons (20) and a row of box stalls (6) and enough room for a tractor with spreader to pass between. With one side banked with earth and hay stored above .... you had significant insulation from the cold when the barn was full of cattle.... on a cold day it was warm in there.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Judy in IN said:


> I think the difference is that you won't see corn falling out of the back of your cow. The digestibility has got to account for the improvements.
> 
> I'm not as concerned with the savings as I am with the chance to get away from RR feeds. The heat generated would also make it possible to keep an aquaponics setup going through the winter.
> 
> ...


Well I like these integrated agriculture projects where the output of one entity becomes the input to another and everything works together to improve efficiencies. I suggest you start another thread which would detail your "dream project" .... and explain what assets you have to work with .... and let us provide our feedback. Collectively there is a lot of knowledge and experience here which you could draw on to help make your project a great success.


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

farmerDale,










When can you get here? 

Seriously, I know barley and wheat are not RR crops, but I've heard some farmers spray it with Roundup right before harvest; I assume to get rid of green spots in the field. Those seeds won't sprout.


----------



## Appalachia (Jul 11, 2012)

I have ZERO experience with this, but I understood the benefit to the sprouted fodder to be in digestibility to the animal.

Obviously you're not going to get something for nothing.... You are letting the seed convert to a sprout using it's own stored energy giving it only water and a small amount of light, so there can't be any (appreciable) difference in calories available.

However if the ruminant animal can better digest the nutrition that is there because it has been converted to a more digestible form, that should be a net gain of nutrition converted to the animal.

Am I wrong there or missing something?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Appalachia said:


> I have ZERO experience with this, but I understood the benefit to the sprouted fodder to be in digestibility to the animal.
> 
> Obviously you're not going to get something for nothing.... You are letting the seed convert to a sprout using it's own stored energy giving it only water and a small amount of light, so there can't be any (appreciable) difference in calories available.
> 
> ...


The change is very marginal. Sometimes people also confuse palatability for digestibility as well.

Look at the numbers in Laura Jensen's awesome find. There is simply not much difference between either feeding barley grain, or sprouted barley. 

In my opinion, when something performs better 25% of the time, dead even 50% of the time, and worse 25% of the time, it is not worth the effort in the long term to work like you must to sprout and feed grain.


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

Appalachia said:


> I have ZERO experience with this, but I understood the benefit to the sprouted fodder to be in digestibility to the animal.
> 
> Obviously you're not going to get something for nothing.... You are letting the seed convert to a sprout using it's own stored energy giving it only water and a small amount of light, so there can't be any (appreciable) difference in calories available.
> 
> ...


I thought the same thing, especially with regard to pigs. With them being monogastric, you would think that the increase in digestibility would make a big difference in pigs as opposed to, say, ruminants, that can make use of about any plant material with enough time. However, to my surprise, the study showed no benefit in feeding barley fodder to pigs over ground barley. Strange, but there it is.


----------



## Appalachia (Jul 11, 2012)

Hmmm well I looked at the study a little more closely. 

It just seems like it would have to be more nutritious for an animal designed to eat grass (i.e. a cow) to eat the sprouted grain as opposed to the cracked grain itself. But I supposed the numbers don't lie.

One thing I didn't see accounted for in the listed studies was overall health of the animal (maybe I missed it). Probably not a huge concern for the large dairy farmer (referring to long term health), certainly not a major concern for a typical feedlot operator, but a major concern for a hobby farmer that wants to milk the same cow for 10 years.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Appalachia said:


> Hmmm well I looked at the study a little more closely.
> 
> It just seems like it would have to be more nutritious for an animal designed to eat grass (i.e. a cow) to eat the sprouted grain as opposed to the cracked grain itself. But I supposed the numbers don't lie.
> 
> One thing I didn't see accounted for in the listed studies was overall health of the animal (maybe I missed it). Probably not a huge concern for the large dairy farmer (referring to long term health), certainly not a major concern for a typical feedlot operator, but a major concern for a hobby farmer that wants to milk the same cow for 10 years.


One of the studies showed the fodder fed cows having a better coat than the grain fed. You do raise a point here.... and one not so easily confirmed in a scientific study.

Homesteaders who are in it for the lifestyle may have something to gain from fodder feeding. Also you can save on feed buying whole grains ... which you mill or sprout .... both take time and equipment.


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

Well, I finally got time to read that study. It seems fodder only makes sense when there's a drought, hay is high, feed is high. 

I just get the feeling that these studies are trying to force a round peg into a square hole. They take a dynamic, living food full of enzymes and pre-proteins, then dry it down so they can compare it to a dry feed. Apples and oranges, people. Sometimes, people have trouble thinking outside the box. 

Calves have an inefficient digestive system. If sprouting grain helps that system, that's a good thing. 

I think this is my last post on this thread. If fodder is such a losing proposition, why are the dairies going for it? Those people don't have money to blow on gadgets. They must have seen the results from a fodder operation. 

We have a farm, but most of the acreage is in row crop. I have limited pasture. I have to BUY ALL of my hay AND feed. I'm betting with high hay prices and higher feed prices, fodder is going to look pretty darned good. I'm one who is always willing to think outside the box. Good luck to the rest of you.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> why are the dairies going for it?


Because it's the latest greatest thing. A common happening in the dairy business.
Bodmin Nu-puls was supposed to be the next great idea and lot of farmers installed them in the late 70's early 80's only to find their milk production plateaued and no matter what they were unable to raise it beyond a certain point because the milking equipment was limiting them.


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

I'm only reading with half my brain right now (two kids under two leaves me with little to work with, lol) but is it actually a bad thing for a certain percentage of the sprouts mass to be water? (I think I read that right.) I mean, if I were to do this system on a small scale for my rabbits, and they need lots of water, wouldn't this be almost a two for one, in addition to rough forage?


----------



## Laura Workman (May 10, 2002)

PistolPackinMom said:


> I'm only reading with half my brain right now (two kids under two leaves me with little to work with, lol) but is it actually a bad thing for a certain percentage of the sprouts mass to be water? (I think I read that right.) I mean, if I were to do this system on a small scale for my rabbits, and they need lots of water, wouldn't this be almost a two for one, in addition to rough forage?


It's absolutely not a bad thing, as long as you take the water percentage into account when calculating the needs of your stock. Also, when feeding large stock, there are easier ways to handle water.


----------

