4 ms·

Joel Salatin is one of the first people that comes to mind after reading the article. He might not rub you the right way (as he's an evangelical Christian, etc

Joel Salatin is one of the first people that comes to mind after reading the article. He might not rub you the right way (as he's an evangelical Christian, etc) but he sure does seem to have some interesting ideas about raising cattle in a natural way that's also highly productive. His way of farming seems to be about 4x as land efficient as his neighbors (if you believe him, I tend to) which is a big deal. It also seems to be relatively low input (not buying lots of feed) and low capital; he uses mostly cheap electric fence. If I sound like a fanboy it's because I'm leaning that way. It really feels like he's "hacking" farming and I have a big appreciation for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzvtM-Wo4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzvtM-Wo4c

m_coder 12y ago
He isn't done 'hacking' either. He brings younger people to teach them what he knows and to learn from them and their ideas.
have_humility 12y ago
A BBC Horizons documentary with subtitle "How to Feed the Planet" (popsci--I'm aware) was posted to reddit a few months ago. The conclusion, IIRC, suggested that even the best hacks in beef farming don't hold a candle when compared to approaches that lean more heavily towards transitioning away from beef to other types of meat, especially chicken.
- msandford 12y ago
  Cattle have a FCR of between 5 and 20 or so. Chickens more like 2ish. If beef is bad because it takes 20 units of food to make one unit of beef and you have a way to make 4x the units of food per acre, then your effective FCR (relative to traditional methods) drops from 20 (at the worst) to 5. If it was at 5 then your effective FCR could be as low as 1.25 If it was more in the middle at say 10ish then the effective FCR could be at 2.5 which is pretty respectable. This is made better because you're also getting eggs from the sanitizing chickens and meat from the broiling chickens that are all making multiple passes over the same land at different times. This is of course predicated on grass fed beef with the farmer taking a substantial interest in raising as much grass as possible (sanitizing chickens and paddock system). It's not a lot of work, but it does take more effort than just throwing grain at cows in a feedlot.
  - have_humility 12y ago
    I don't know what a sanitizing chicken is, and apparently neither does Google. I assume from context it means chickens bred to lay eggs?
    - msandford 12y ago
      In this case it's chickens which get carted around a few days behind the cows. Cows eat grass. Cows poop on field. Flies lay eggs in poop. Eggs hatch into maggots, which eat poop. Chickens dig through poop looking for maggots. This spreads the poop out and gives the chickens an excellent source of protein. Cow poop is actually a good fertilizer for grass, but it's too concentrated normally. The chickens spread it out to a more reasonable concentration and produce eggs in the process.
- gadders 12y ago
  How are they farming the chickens? Free range, or in broiler barns?
  - have_humility 12y ago
    I'm not going to rewatch it, but the facility they visited used uncaged chickens housed in a barn. If you're making a point about the ethics of it, note that even the concepts of "intensive farming" and "humane treatment of animals" aren't mutually exclusive.
    - gadders 12y ago
      Agreed. But broiler barns and cows in fields isn't a fair comparison.
Inception 12y ago
I am also a big fan of Salatin, though I'm not convinced his method is the answer to our problem. Not because I don't think it works, but rather because his approach doesn't currently fit into our food system. He has stated that he has no intention of scaling up and only sells to consumers in his region. This means that we would need thousands more operations like his to meet our current demand and I just don't see that happening. There aren't enough incentives for farmers to make the switch and I feel confident saying that Salatin's approach requires a lot more work than most of our farmers are used to these days. Not to mention we live in a society that demands fast, cheap, convenient food. It's easier to walk down the street to Whole Foods than it is to find a local farm in your area, figure out what's in season, and then figure out how to obtain it. Whole Foods isn't even cheap by most people's standards and buying directly from a local farm is going to be even more expensive. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the food system return to local communities! I just don't think society is willing to change...yet. On the other hand, gardens seem like they would be much easier to integrate into society today. We can obtain far more calories per acre growing food than we can raising it and most people have the capacity and space to grow something, e.g., window sills, rooftops, backyards, empty lots, etc. This still doesn't really get around the problem though because it doesn't address the demand for meat. I have and will continue to advocate in favor of reducing demand. This seems like the most logical choice given our current situation. EDIT: Just wanted to add: Support local farms!!
- msandford 12y ago
  The way I read it is that he's not trying to become a mega-corp. I suspect that he knows that's the fastest way to ruin what he's doing; getting big would mean that the company grows faster than the culture and new folks might be tempted to cut corners, etc. I also think he's more interested in seeing thousands of independent farmers have some control over their own destiny rather than getting caught up in the commercial debt cycle that a lot of them tend to. You wouldn't need all the farmers in the US to convert to his methods, since he's far more productive per acre you could have 1/4 of the acreage (and presumably 1/4 of the farmers) that are used in conventional farming and still produce the same output. Given that he uses very little in the way of inputs and sells higher priced outputs (free range chickens, grass fed beef, etc) it's entirely likely that he's far more profitable than traditional farms. That kind of competitive advantage might make it possible for start-up farms to grow and slowly buy out retiring farmers so that no tremendous upheaval is necessary for new ideas to become the norm.
dbg31415 12y ago
This was good, thanks for posting.

m_coder 12y ago

He isn't done 'hacking' either. He brings younger people to teach them what he knows and to learn from them and their ideas.

have_humility 12y ago

A BBC Horizons documentary with subtitle "How to Feed the Planet" (popsci--I'm aware) was posted to reddit a few months ago. The conclusion, IIRC, suggested that even the best hacks in beef farming don't hold a candle when compared to approaches that lean more heavily towards transitioning away from beef to other types of meat, especially chicken.

msandford 12y ago
Cattle have a FCR of between 5 and 20 or so. Chickens more like 2ish. If beef is bad because it takes 20 units of food to make one unit of beef and you have a way to make 4x the units of food per acre, then your effective FCR (relative to traditional methods) drops from 20 (at the worst) to 5. If it was at 5 then your effective FCR could be as low as 1.25 If it was more in the middle at say 10ish then the effective FCR could be at 2.5 which is pretty respectable. This is made better because you're also getting eggs from the sanitizing chickens and meat from the broiling chickens that are all making multiple passes over the same land at different times. This is of course predicated on grass fed beef with the farmer taking a substantial interest in raising as much grass as possible (sanitizing chickens and paddock system). It's not a lot of work, but it does take more effort than just throwing grain at cows in a feedlot.
- have_humility 12y ago
  I don't know what a sanitizing chicken is, and apparently neither does Google. I assume from context it means chickens bred to lay eggs?
  - msandford 12y ago
    In this case it's chickens which get carted around a few days behind the cows. Cows eat grass. Cows poop on field. Flies lay eggs in poop. Eggs hatch into maggots, which eat poop. Chickens dig through poop looking for maggots. This spreads the poop out and gives the chickens an excellent source of protein. Cow poop is actually a good fertilizer for grass, but it's too concentrated normally. The chickens spread it out to a more reasonable concentration and produce eggs in the process.
gadders 12y ago
How are they farming the chickens? Free range, or in broiler barns?
- have_humility 12y ago
  I'm not going to rewatch it, but the facility they visited used uncaged chickens housed in a barn. If you're making a point about the ethics of it, note that even the concepts of "intensive farming" and "humane treatment of animals" aren't mutually exclusive.
  - gadders 12y ago
    Agreed. But broiler barns and cows in fields isn't a fair comparison.

Inception 12y ago

I am also a big fan of Salatin, though I'm not convinced his method is the answer to our problem. Not because I don't think it works, but rather because his approach doesn't currently fit into our food system. He has stated that he has no intention of scaling up and only sells to consumers in his region. This means that we would need thousands more operations like his to meet our current demand and I just don't see that happening. There aren't enough incentives for farmers to make the switch and I feel confident saying that Salatin's approach requires a lot more work than most of our farmers are used to these days. Not to mention we live in a society that demands fast, cheap, convenient food. It's easier to walk down the street to Whole Foods than it is to find a local farm in your area, figure out what's in season, and then figure out how to obtain it. Whole Foods isn't even cheap by most people's standards and buying directly from a local farm is going to be even more expensive. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the food system return to local communities! I just don't think society is willing to change...yet. On the other hand, gardens seem like they would be much easier to integrate into society today. We can obtain far more calories per acre growing food than we can raising it and most people have the capacity and space to grow something, e.g., window sills, rooftops, backyards, empty lots, etc. This still doesn't really get around the problem though because it doesn't address the demand for meat. I have and will continue to advocate in favor of reducing demand. This seems like the most logical choice given our current situation. EDIT: Just wanted to add: Support local farms!!

msandford 12y ago
The way I read it is that he's not trying to become a mega-corp. I suspect that he knows that's the fastest way to ruin what he's doing; getting big would mean that the company grows faster than the culture and new folks might be tempted to cut corners, etc. I also think he's more interested in seeing thousands of independent farmers have some control over their own destiny rather than getting caught up in the commercial debt cycle that a lot of them tend to. You wouldn't need all the farmers in the US to convert to his methods, since he's far more productive per acre you could have 1/4 of the acreage (and presumably 1/4 of the farmers) that are used in conventional farming and still produce the same output. Given that he uses very little in the way of inputs and sells higher priced outputs (free range chickens, grass fed beef, etc) it's entirely likely that he's far more profitable than traditional farms. That kind of competitive advantage might make it possible for start-up farms to grow and slowly buy out retiring farmers so that no tremendous upheaval is necessary for new ideas to become the norm.

dbg31415 12y ago

This was good, thanks for posting.