Farm science.

Say my name

Note : 2nd place after rice production.



The world is all about microbes from fertilizer to health.

Here's the rest of the article.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/gut-bacteria-could-be-key-producing-tastier-cow-s-milk

Buford T. Justice XIX

It looks like there may be potential to vaccinate cattle for TB with a new test able to identify the difference between vaccinated and infected cattle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190717142355.htm

Buford T. Justice XIX

For those interested in multi species awards, it appears that cutting may lead to higher yields and grazing to lower yields.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gfs.12440#.XUG3iv_GbLY.twitter
Early days yet though.

Say my name

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

For those interested in multi species awards, it appears that cutting may lead to higher yields and grazing to lower yields.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gfs.12440#.XUG3iv_GbLY.twitter
Early days yet though.

I would like a monkey and a turnip award please!

Pity the vampires have to charge for access to that article. I wonder does the diesel spent cutting it substitute for the increase in carbon gained in the increased growth?

Say my name

Here's a well put together review on the use of Biochar in animal feed and effects thereof and animal performance.



https://peerj.com/articles/7373/

ganmo

Say my name wrote: »

I would like a monkey and a turnip award please!

Pity the vampires have to charge for access to that article. I wonder does the diesel spent cutting it substitute for the increase in carbon gained in the increased growth?

you'll probably find most of the info here
http://www.asaireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bridget-Lynch-Connie-Grace-Sheep-ASA-meeting-21.01.16.pdf

Buford T. Justice XIX

I came across the article linked below earlier. It's a bit about the history of P research at Rothamsted in the UK. You'll have to download a pdf so its probably better read on a laptop.

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/0/0/jeq2019.02.0078

Say my name

An idea here for farms that have odour and emissions issues.
Saving that wasted nitrogen and sulphur from the atmosphere too.

https://vtdigger.org/2019/08/04/dairy-looks-to-ancient-technology-to-manage-manure-odor-runoff/

Say my name

A bit here on the Cold Plasma developments front in Ireland and it's applications in agriculture.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/health-welfare/qa-how-cold-plasma-could-help-reduce-reliance-on-antibiotics

https://twitter.com/SuzanneHigginsM/status/1162059891428790272?s=20


If this is developed into a farmer beneficial technology it could even mean farmers making and spraying their own nitrogen by cold plasma treating water.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Australian plant scientists have discovered a way of increasing photosynthesis in C4 plants by increasing the expression of a protein involved in the process. It could lead to large increases in efficiency if it can be used in plant breeding.

http://photosynthesis.org.au/discovery-of-a-bottleneck-relief-in-photosynthesis-may-have-a-major-impact-in-food-crops/

alps

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Australian plant scientists have discovered a way of increasing photosynthesis in C4 plants by increasing the expression of a protein involved in the process. It could lead to large increases in efficiency if it can be used in plant breeding.

http://photosynthesis.org.au/discovery-of-a-bottleneck-relief-in-photosynthesis-may-have-a-major-impact-in-food-crops/

Any high digestible, grazable C4 plants?

Say my name

alps wrote: »

Any high digestible, grazable C4 plants?

Sorghum.


https://twitter.com/KodyAesoph/status/1154588108496744448?s=20

Gawddawggonnit

Sorghum growing in Ireland?
That’ll take a fair bit of global warming before it happens.

Say my name

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Sorghum growing in Ireland?
That’ll take a fair bit of global warming before it happens.

Ah he's living in Cork!

gozunda

Say my name wrote: »

Ah he's living in Cork!

That's Cork near Fargo in South Dakota? I never knew ...

Say my name

gozunda wrote: »

That's Cork near Fargo in South Dakota? I never knew ...

Anything is possible in Cork.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Ah he's living in Cork!

You need at least 20-22c for c4 plants to keep up with c3 because it needs more power to run. The gains are made purely by c3 plant's efficiency dropping fast above that

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

You need at least 20-22c for c4 plants to keep up with c3 because it needs more power to run. The gains are made purely by c3 plant's efficiency dropping fast above that

Forage maize is a C4 isn't it and grown here?

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Forage maize is a C4 isn't it and grown here?

Ye but it's at the absolute limit

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Ye but it's at the absolute limit

I know it's probably in the southeast of England.
But it's grown and sold across the water for the money men gamekeepers.

http://www.brightseeds.co.uk/categories/30-sorghum

Buford T. Justice XIX

With all the talk of no till and cover crops, I came across this article on possible N shortages in crops due to cover crops not releasing the predicted N levels expected.
https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/4648226-soil-health-minute-nitrogen-release-or-not-cover-crops?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Say my name

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

With all the talk of no till and cover crops, I came across this article on possible N shortages in crops due to cover crops not releasing the predicted N levels expected.
https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/4648226-soil-health-minute-nitrogen-release-or-not-cover-crops?amp&__twitter_impression=true

I posted this in the biochar thread.

But it deserves to be in this thread.
There's loads in it. Whereas Buford your link describes their copybook c:n ratio as 30:1 they say it's less than 22:1.
They also give the optimum conditions for soil organic nitrogen release. Spoiler the warmer and wetter the soil the more nitrogen is released. Even up to and above 30c.
In the biochar bit. Plant growth was better with half rate fertilizer than biochar and full rate as the nitrogen applied in the full rate stopped the organic soil nitrogen release.

Anyways there's loads more in it.
Maybe print out some in case the link possibly might be taken down.
It's all in pdf form.

https://climateagriculturalsupport.com/presentations/

There might be the answer to the above cover crop question in it.

Say my name

https://twitter.com/lultimoalbero/status/1166268308435419136?s=20

Birdnuts

Say my name wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lultimoalbero/status/1166268308435419136?s=20

Shows the importance of our peatlands - time for the government to start appreciating them and stop grant aiding further destruction of them.

Say my name

Birdnuts wrote: »

Shows the importance of our peatlands - time for the government to start appreciating them and stop grant aiding further destruction of them.

Agree with that but it also shows we're ahead of other countries also with peatlands.
That image is I assume info from our new Copernicus land observing satellite. So it shows how our grassland is doing the job especially compared to other countries.
You can see the tillage areas of Ireland up through carlow, kildare and into louth on that image with the colour change where it still is mostly plough based tillage.

Upstream

Say my name wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lultimoalbero/status/1166268308435419136?s=20

Thanks to Say my name for posting this.
It shows Ireland has the highest carbon levels (in the top 20cm of soil) in the EU - it's like winning the Eurovision all over again

This is suprising when you consider that Ireland has the lowest forest cover of all European countries, according to Teagasc. Land cover here is 11% while over 40% of all land in the 33 member states is wooded.
Mind you, our hedges are probably not included in this and they probably have more biodiversity than our Sitka Spruce plantations

Our peatlands are one reason we scored so well, orignally 17% of Ireland was peatland, now less than a quarter remains intact

But as well as peatlands, we have the most pasture in Europe by a long long way, more than 67 per cent of the country is covered in natural grassland, followed by the United Kingdom with 40 per cent, the Netherlands at 38 per cent, Luxembourg at 37 per cent and Belgium at 32 per cent.

So is it time we had a more informed conversation about the role of grassland in sequestering carbon?

If I'm reading the study right, comparing Irish and UK soils, we sequester about 150 more tons of CO2 per acre than the UK

Below are my workings - please let me know if anything doesn't look correct.
From the survey
Irish soil 14.5% SOC per kg of soil
1 acre of soil to 20cm depth will have approx 810 tons of soil per acre (using bulk density of 1g/cm3)
For Ireland 810 * 14.5% is 117 tons of carbon per acre, *44/12 to get CO2 equivalent of 430 tons of CO2 per acre
For UK 810 * 9.5% is 77 tons of carbon per acre, *44/12 to get CO2 equivalent of 280 tons of CO2 per acre
A difference of about 150 tons of CO2 per acre :eek:
This is the same as the difference between a badly depleted tillage soil (SOC of 2%) and a more fertile soil (SOC 7%), again around 150 tons of CO2 per acre

Looking at this from a regenerative point of view this is where it gets interesting.

I took the average kg of beef produced on Suckling to Beef farms
613kg Liveweight Produced (kg/ha)
Source: 2017-Drystock-eProfit-Monitor-Book

And the average level of emissions across all farms was 11.9 kg CO2 equivalent per kg beef of live-weight produced
Source: Teagasc National Farm Survey 2017 Sustainability Report

Converting from hectare to acre, this gives a CO2 equivalent per acre of 2950kg
(11.9*613)/2.47

Now taking an extreme example, if a farmer took a worn out tillage farm with SOC of 2% and converted it to grassland and over time slowly raised the SOC to 7%, the beef produced would still be carbon neutral, even if it took 50 years, and there's a growing body of evidence that regeneratively managed beef on pasture can increase organic matter levels a much greater rate than this, at rates of somewhere between 1/4 an 1/2 a percent per year, thus making the beef a net carbon sync, and restoring the soil in between 10 and 20 years.

What are people's thoughts?

yosemitesam1

Upstream wrote: »

Thanks to Say my name for posting this.
It shows Ireland has the highest carbon levels (in the top 20cm of soil) in the EU - it's like winning the Eurovision all over again

This is suprising when you consider that Ireland has the lowest forest cover of all European countries, according to Teagasc. Land cover here is 11% while over 40% of all land in the 33 member states is wooded.
Mind you, our hedges are probably not included in this and they probably have more biodiversity than our Sitka Spruce plantations

Our peatlands are one reason we scored so well, orignally 17% of Ireland was peatland, now less than a quarter remains intact

But as well as peatlands, we have the most pasture in Europe by a long long way, more than 67 per cent of the country is covered in natural grassland, followed by the United Kingdom with 40 per cent, the Netherlands at 38 per cent, Luxembourg at 37 per cent and Belgium at 32 per cent.

So is it time we had a more informed conversation about the role of grassland in sequestering carbon?

If I'm reading the study right, comparing Irish and UK soils, we sequester about 150 more tons of CO2 per acre than the UK

Below are my workings - please let me know if anything doesn't look correct.
From the survey
Irish soil 14.5% SOC per kg of soil
1 acre of soil to 20cm depth will have approx 810 tons of soil per acre (using bulk density of 1g/cm3)
For Ireland 810 * 14.5% is 117 tons of carbon per acre, *44/12 to get CO2 equivalent of 430 tons of CO2 per acre
For UK 810 * 9.5% is 77 tons of carbon per acre, *44/12 to get CO2 equivalent of 280 tons of CO2 per acre
A difference of about 150 tons of CO2 per acre :eek:
This is the same as the difference between a badly depleted tillage soil (SOC of 2%) and a more fertile soil (SOC 7%), again around 150 tons of CO2 per acre

Looking at this from a regenerative point of view this is where it gets interesting.

I took the average kg of beef produced on Suckling to Beef farms
613kg Liveweight Produced (kg/ha)
Source: 2017-Drystock-eProfit-Monitor-Book

And the average level of emissions across all farms was 11.9 kg CO2 equivalent per kg beef of live-weight produced
Source: Teagasc National Farm Survey 2017 Sustainability Report

Converting from hectare to acre, this gives a CO2 equivalent per acre of 2950kg
(11.9*613)/2.47

Now taking an extreme example, if a farmer took a worn out tillage farm with SOC of 2% and converted it to grassland and over time slowly raised the SOC to 7%, the beef produced would still be carbon neutral, even if it took 50 years, and there's a growing body of evidence that regeneratively managed beef on pasture can increase organic matter levels a much greater rate than this, at rates of somewhere between 1/4 an 1/2 a percent per year, thus making the beef a net carbon sync, and restoring the soil in between 10 and 20 years.

What are people's thoughts?

Decent well drained land would have a bulk density of about 0.65 and even in the long term 5-6% soil organic carbon would be high for grassland. Multiply it by 3.something to convert to co2 equivalent. Will come in at a bit less than your figures.


If interest was given on stored carbon say 1%, it would also drive things more in the right way

Upstream

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Decent well drained land would have a bulk density of about 0.65 and even in the long term 5-6% soil organic carbon would be high for grassland. Multiply it by 3.something to convert to co2 equivalent. Will come in at a bit less than your figures.

Thanks yosemite, wasn't sure on the bulk density, saw a few figures mentioned and aimed for one in the middle. That will take the sequestration figures back by a third.

But regarding soil carbon levels there's probably scope to be a little on the high side. I got my soils tested for Organic matter when I was doing the soil tests for Glas and they were a good bit higher than that. The carbon levels were around 10% OC, (17% OM), (mostly clay soils). Probably down to nutrient management, they would get a good bit of slurry, but little to no bag NPK. I've spoken to some people in Organics with higher levels than that again so it is possible to have well managed soils with high levels of carbon.

Also Teagasc were following the IPCC methodology for CO2 equivalents and use 25 as the factor for methane emissions, I've read somewhere that 12 may be a more realistic number for pasture based livestock, so there's scope for the CO2 emissions figure to be lower as well, so that might help balance things out as well.

If interest was given on stored carbon say 1%, it would also drive things more in the right way

Definitely would help focus minds, possibly could be a good way to incentivise an environmental scheme.

yosemitesam1

Upstream wrote: »

Thanks yosemite, wasn't sure on the bulk density, saw a few figures mentioned and aimed for one in the middle. That will take the sequestration figures back by a third.

But regarding soil carbon levels there's probably scope to be a little on the high side. I got my soils tested for Organic matter when I was doing the soil tests for Glas and they were a good bit higher than that. The carbon levels were around 10% OC, (17% OM), (mostly clay soils). Probably down to nutrient management, they would get a good bit of slurry, but little to no bag NPK. I've spoken to some people in Organics with higher levels than that again so it is possible to have well managed soils with high levels of carbon.

Also Teagasc were following the IPCC methodology for CO2 equivalents and use 25 as the factor for methane emissions, I've read somewhere that 12 may be a more realistic number for pasture based livestock, so there's scope for the CO2 emissions figure to be lower as well, so that might help balance things out as well.


Definitely would help focus minds, possibly could be a good way to incentivise an environmental scheme.

Just be aware that converting an om measurement to organic carbon isn't accurate. The only accurate way is to measure it directly.
Your soil sounds nearly peaty and the conversion factor would probably be lower than a brown earth type soil. Heavy land probably has more potential for higher soc in the surface layers. Mine here is 5.95% compared to 4.4% on a neighbours more intensive farm.

Birdnuts

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Just be aware that converting an om measurement to organic carbon isn't accurate. The only accurate way is to measure it directly.
Your soil sounds nearly peaty and the conversion factor would probably be lower than a brown earth type soil. Heavy land probably has more potential for higher soc in the surface layers. Mine here is 5.95% compared to 4.4% on a neighbours more intensive farm.

More extensive farming stores more soil carbon in general - hopefully any schemes going forward to reward farmers for Carbon storage reflect that fact

alps

Birdnuts wrote: »

More extensive farming stores more soil carbon in general - hopefully any schemes going forward to reward farmers for Carbon storage reflect that fact

Organic matter is rising on intensive dairy farms that I know test for it. Maybe these are are abnormalities to the "in general" facts. Can a rise in organic matter percentage be considered to be a rise in carbon storage?

yosemitesam1

alps wrote: »

Organic matter is rising on intensive dairy farms that I know test for it. Maybe these are are abnormalities to the "in general" facts. Can a rise in organic matter percentage be considered to be a rise in carbon storage?

What you can see (but mightn't be happening), is om can rise while organic carbon storage falls. When om is more made up of roots as opposed to carbon locked into soil aggregates, there's less carbon per gram of om. Unless it's directly measured you don't really know what's happening.
Changes in bulk density with changing carbon levels changes total storage levels also.

Also ideally you want to take as deep a sample as possible, otherwise increases can be just down to more of the carbon being put into surface vs to depth.

Buford T. Justice XIX

A bit about genes responsible for carcase traits across different breeds.
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6071-9

yosemitesam1

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614235/recombinetics-gene-edited-hornless-cattle-major-dna-screwup/?utm_campaign=site_visitor.paid.acquisition&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=tr_social&utm_content=keywee_paywall_newaudiences&kwp_0=1380435&kwp_4=4284701&kwp_1=1796062&fbclid=IwAR25y4MWGkPxgJa_DA0gAJMAn7VZ9yCcOSHm6CQKR6KXZK2rB0IKs6ThAvo

yosemitesam1

https://onpasture.com/2019/10/21/new-discovery-on-the-mechanics-of-keeping-carbon-in-the-soil-and-what-it-means-for-your-pastures/

Fedlot

Forgive my ignorance in this area and I won’t take offense at being roasted out of it as some of the posters here are clearly very knowledgeable — I have a question / thought ,
It occurred to me that when it comes to carbon , (and nitrates ) that what we have is our lands and what they can produce as efficiently as possible —- if we produce an end product whether it be beef / milk/ grains / vegetables etc that our lands can support then it must be carbon neutral as we are merely recycling over a relatively short timeframe.
However, if we have to import a commodity such as feed / grains / fertilizer / fuel etc to support more production then the balance goes out of sync and we are then producing more than we can justify whilst being honest keeping our clean green healthy image .
Maybe this is just too simplistic , but should a carbon tax not be placed on these imports Eg feed from South America - fertilizer from Russia and Canada , as well as fuel imports as they are taking away from carbon storage somewhere else whilst we are also putting their waste onto our lands . ?
Would the result be that less production but a higher price would happen via of a range of products that would appeal to what future consumers want to see and which bord bia could genuinely apply a Irish quality standard to. ?
Don’t shoot as I’m no environmentalist and actually coming at this from the perspective of different sectors of agriculture working as a circular unit.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Fedlot wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance in this area and I won’t take offense at being roasted out of it as some of the posters here are clearly very knowledgeable — I have a question / thought ,
It occurred to me that when it comes to carbon , (and nitrates ) that what we have is our lands and what they can produce as efficiently as possible —- if we produce an end product whether it be beef / milk/ grains / vegetables etc that our lands can support then it must be carbon neutral as we are merely recycling over a relatively short timeframe.
However, if we have to import a commodity such as feed / grains / fertilizer / fuel etc to support more production then the balance goes out of sync and we are then producing more than we can justify whilst being honest keeping our clean green healthy image .
Maybe this is just too simplistic , but should a carbon tax not be placed on these imports Eg feed from South America - fertilizer from Russia and Canada , as well as fuel imports as they are taking away from carbon storage somewhere else whilst we are also putting their waste onto our lands . ?
Would the result be that less production but a higher price would happen via of a range of products that would appeal to what future consumers want to see and which bord bia could genuinely apply a Irish quality standard to. ?
Don’t shoot as I’m no environmentalist and actually coming at this from the perspective of different sectors of agriculture working as a circular unit.

I was hoping someone else would answer this:o

Trying to make it as simple as possible, Agriculture does produce approx 30% of Irelands greenhouse gasses, Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide and others.

What those figures don't mention is that Agricultures figures are gross figures while the other 70% are net figures.
Methane levels from Agriculture here will remain stable as long as animal numbers, and adult animals in particular, remain stable. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas but has a short life cycle, lasting 12 years on average, so any methane emissions are just replacing methane breakdowns for stable animal numbers.
Carbon Dioxide is taken in by the plants that the cattle eat so that's more or less in balance and the current push towards treated Urea as a nitrogen source will reduce that as a GHG source quickly.

Now, the transportation of various feeds and inputs and agricultures various outputs are also included in the above gross GHG figures. The latest findings seem to indicate that carbon sequestration in agriculture will more than cover the various GHG outputs from Agriculture.

The current debate is how much sequestration is occurring in soils and also hedgerows. These figures should rightly be allocated as a positive to the overall contribution of agriculture to GHG balances but I would expect that some if not most of those figures will be massaged into the overall Irish balance, rather that agricultures balance, similar to forestry.

And then you have the debate over the correct figures to use to determine methanes effect over time. There's a huge difference over allocating the effects over 20 years or 100 years but I have a load of more reading to do on that before I understand it, tbh.

One final figure to keep in mind, if overall carbon levels in the soils were to be increased by 2% in the next 10-15 years, we would sequester most of the CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution. In reality, agriculture could/should be paid for the carbon stored so the rest of the world can continue to live it up with reckless abandon.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Here's an interesting one. Wheat sown with certain fungi showed a yield increase which was maintained with increasing CO2 concentrations. Apparently, a lot of modern wheat varieties aren't as good as others at forming symbiotic relationships with fungi and newer varieties may be bred to include a better ability to form these relationships. An ability to reduce fertiliser needs due to this relationship is the driver of this research here.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4487/fungi_could_reduce_reliance_on_fertilisers

Say my name

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Here's an interesting one. Wheat sown with certain fungi showed a yield increase which was maintained with increasing CO2 concentrations. Apparently, a lot of modern wheat varieties aren't as good as others at forming symbiotic relationships with fungi and newer varieties may be bred to include a better ability to form these relationships. An ability to reduce fertiliser needs due to this relationship is the driver of this research here.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4487/fungi_could_reduce_reliance_on_fertilisers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_natural_farming

Buford T. Justice XIX

Time magazine has done an article on Ag carbon storage, not a whole lot of info in the article but encouraging to see it being discussed.
https://twitter.com/GHGGuru/status/1188992038026522625?s=19

yosemitesam1

https://onpasture.com/2019/11/18/why-grass-finished-beef-marbling-is-difficult/?fbclid=IwAR0zykJjtMSAJ7nqOtEMglYjt37Pk4TO_U-gO9XkVrS0PaqUMnqO43hvFwA

Interesting article on marbling

bogman_bass

Heard about an interest concept today. Full inversion ploughing. Basically one deep ploughing (60cm+) to turn up lower carbon soil that’s is better able to absorb carbon. Then don’t till again for another decade or more.
I haven’t really read this properly but a bit of reading for anybody that wants it

https://www.nzagrc.org.nz/user/file/1207/12101%20-%20Soil%20inversion%20for%20enhanced%20C%20storage.pdf

Water John

Ha, my contractor is ahead of them. Always trying to get him to plough light.
Is not the idea of using deep rooted plants doing it a different way?
Good to see various ideas being researched.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Interesting result from a multi species simulated grazing trial under drought conditions. Multi species awards performance under drought was nearly similar to monoculture ryegrass under normal conditions.

https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/study-finds-multi-species-grassland-mixtures-increase-yield-stability-even-drought-conditions/

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Interesting result from a multi species simulated grazing trial under drought conditions. Multi species awards performance under drought was nearly similar to monoculture ryegrass under normal conditions.

https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/study-finds-multi-species-grassland-mixtures-increase-yield-stability-even-drought-conditions/

Jesus wept.

What a load of shyte.

148multi

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Jesus wept.

What a load of shyte.

Can you explain the s***e bit.

Gawddawggonnit

148multi wrote: »

Can you explain the s***e bit.

That information is as old as Methuselah with research that has been independently trialed and indeed proven in commercial use.
Reminds me of the Dáil printer...for €100k an hour I could (and thousands more) give better insight into multi-species benefits in pasture swards. No mention was made of the newer fesque and cocksfoot varities etc?
Nice work if you can find it, and closer to home than NZ. One can see how close the Swiss land and climate is to the massif of Kilkenny or the high alps of east Cork...
Teagasc would be better employed paying for new research and not rehashing something that’s researched to death...

Buford T. Justice XIX

A small trial result on the introduction of chicory and plantain to an existing sward and a bit about management changes needed to facilitate good establishment.
https://www.foodandfarmingfutures.co.uk/PrestoMobile#/details/ZWVhNzBlY2QtZWJjNi00YWZiLWE1MTAtNWExOTFiMjJjOWU1LjIxNjgz

Buford T. Justice XIX

A little piece about the domestication of yeast.
https://qz.com/1765701/the-strange-scientific-history-of-cheese/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

yosemitesam1

https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

Breakdown of US meat consumption