Re: [compost_tea] tea for pasture

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:08:39 -0800
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:38:54 -0800 (PST), Robert Norsen
<bnbrew_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks Dave.  I did not see the second report you detailed  = in your message.
>  It does quiet down the fantastic difference.

Funny, you replied to it. I suspect that you just didn't really read
it and assumed that it was the same information as earlier.

Bob, please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you over ACT.
I am not. I just believe that you jump to conclusions that should not
be rushed into.

>  However a 30% difference with
> the other advantages - if those advantages held up with the final repo= rt,
> seems to make ACT treatment a good investment for
> the rancher. 

Yes it would, and I believe that I said as least as much.

But a one off experience, with no control, and many other acknowledged
differences in the raising of the beef is only hopeful information, it
is far from conclusive.

It is not time to do a hard sell on the information, it is time to
carefully use it to get others to run their own tests. They too can be
unscientific "tests" just like Betsy's, and they will be fo value= too.
But you need to at least show a trend, and ACT needs to be the single
common input.

> In the final report, Dave, did the advantges in
> 1 - grass fed - no Mad Cow possible.

Grass fed does not require ACT. The only red meats that I buy (other
than sausage) is grass fed beef, bison and elk. I doubt much of it is
fed on ACT sprayed pasture.

Feeding the cattle grain will not give them Mad Cow either.

Oh yeah, if any inputs to your compost or tea contain mad cow, you
could very easily transfer that to your grass through application of
the ACT. There has been lots of discussion on that over on the USCC
list over the last few weeks.

Anyway, it isn't much of an issue in the US, unless the calf has mad
cow when it is brought here, which can certainly happen to those that
are raised on grass as well as those that are raised on grain.

Any which way, I don't see how this argument relates to being pro-ACT
other than very peripherally.

> 2 - High Omega 3

Happens with all grass fed. Might be higher with ACT, but more info is need= ed.

> 3 - High CLA

Happens with all grass fed. Might be higher with ACT, but more info is need= ed.

>  Stay as high as in the initial report?

Read all the differences between the year that she was comparing to
and the ACT year. ACT was just one of a list of differences.

> And, Dave did you compute the ranch advantafe and the ecological savin= gs
> that can result when grass finished beef is marketed at "as good = ( or
> better)"
> as grain finished beef?  Bob

No need to compute that. My argument is not with that. I am in favor
of grass fed, just as I am in favor of ACT use.

I am not in favor of using bad data or excessive sales pitches to
convince people. I think Betsy's report speaks well for itself, and is
far more believeable than a claim of a 700% increase in growth with no
qualification.

Dave


>
> David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or, instead of trusting Bob's incorrect numbers, you can go read the > report straight from the rancher's keyboard.
>
> htt= p://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/message/9547
>
> She got what just about anyone would consider incredible results, but<= BR> > they were not in the range of a 300-700% improvement. It was more
> along the lines of a 30% improvement.
>
> The growth rate for a few months was as high as Bob said, but for the<= BR> > entire year, it was under 2 pounds:
>
> "Guess you better load up and come to Texas and see our big boys!= But let me
> clarify: we use Tru-scale scales to weigh the animals â€&= quot; and in 2003 our
> 'big
> boys' that we planned to harvest gained 3 lbs ADG between January 2003= and
> March 21, 2003; that increased to 3.8 ADG as of April 24, 2003. (and y= es, in
> those averages we have some in the 4 and 5 lbs a day category â= €" I never
> dreamed that was possible with just grass). Obviously we didn't mainta= in
> that rate of gain through the summer or for their entire lives but we = did
> come in a little less than 2 lbs for the year. Did better than we have= ever
> done."
>
> So Bob caught the part where she mentioned the higher weight period, > but glossed over the yearly average.
>
> He also seems to have missed the following paragraph where she
> corrects the 1/2 pound mistake. It should have been 1.5 pounds:
>
> "Previous to converting from conventional to sustainable, we were= putting on
> less than 1.5 lbs ADG (sorry Elaine if I told you .5 ADG ââ‚= ¬" my mind and
> mouth don't always sinc) for our young animals that were grazing and > getting a little corn to help them along."
>
> There is no mention of whether this is the same period as the 4-5
> pounds or the 2 pounds for the year. Lacking that information, it is > best to assume that it is for the year.
>
> A 30% increase is still quite respectable, and a lot more believeable.=
>
> She also credits many other changes in their handling of the
> livestock. So this is certainly not a side by side test of ACT. It
> *IS* a very good testimonial.
>
> This is why I don't like sales and marketing speak. It is never the > whole truth.
>
> Print out that message that I referenced and show it to your friend. > Try and get them to run an experiment and report back with the
> results.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> ADVERTISEMENT


>  ________________________________
>  Yahoo! Groups Links

> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.y= ahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
>  
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>  
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Spons= or
ADVER= TISEMENT


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sun Feb 13 2005 - 15:53:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:46 EST