If this has been known for years and nobody's trying to implement it, surely there's a catch?
If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
People still have this weird view of farming that it's like Johnny Goodguy and his family taking care of a small herd. While that exists still, Johnny is also tracking every input and outcome and optimizing daily.
The data collection and use in Ag would astound people.
The 60% claim is "in comparison with pastures without the use of nitrogen fertilization." And of course only applies to the region and cattle breed they studied, not to mention only cattle raised on pasture in the first place.
It's not claiming to be a magic growth tonic for all cattle. Though I agree the title is a bit exaggerated and invites misinterpretation.
If so, can both organisms survive in all the climates where cattle is raised?
Every region could have different species that work best. The finding of this study, as I understand it, is identifying this foreign species that happens to work well for the location and agricultural needs.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
> "Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
The risks associated with over-grazing something like this makes me think it would be ill-suited for anything but management intensive rotational grazing type operations. And even then it seems a bit risky.