Is it worth the extra $$

[U_Stormcrow]

Okay here is a question for which I will be kicked in the knickers....The Layer Pellet thing..

Pellets are just crumbles forced back together into a recognizable shape. It requires extra equipment and processes, which is why its often more expensive than crumble. The advantage is in waste - your birds are less likely to throw pellets far from the feeder than crumble, and are more likely to "discover" (and then eat) it after they've thrown it from the feeder. The other advantage is situational. Crumble tends to clog gravity fed feeders, and is more prone to clumping up in high moisture/high humidity environments. If those don't apply to you, that benefit isn't likely worth the extra cost.

I used pellet for quite some time in my early flock raising, mostly for the reduced waste, easier to clean up later aspects. and because I have gravity feeders (which I no longer use, except in emergency/planned absence.

Now, because farmers as a lot tend to be frugal, smart, and practical - or they don't stay farmers long - someone long ago discovered if you make crumble wet, not merely damp - you can create an oatmeal-like consistency that greatly reduces waste (but still isn't suitable for gravity feeders). That's what I do now. More often than not, mine ferments, as I make three five gallon buckets at a time, and usually run thru them in about a week - that has other asserted benefits in availability of B vitamins, but in any case, given my relatively hot environment, I found wet food or wet mash helped my flock's **apparent** health overall. That's an anecdote, not data.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

In theory, organic is the way to go. In practice, it's a lot more complicated and difficult.
Mary

Pragmatically, the acreage does not exist to support current populations with a 100% USDA-certified Organic supply, and further, would greatly increase carbon inputs into the cost of production and transportation, to say nothing of the opportunity cost of alternative uses to the land that would have to be clawed back and repurposed for food production.

The alternative and promising space efficient method is hydroponics/aquaponics, but those are chemically heavy methods of production in order to produce so much in such small spaces, and have constant (if moderate) energy use requirements as well. Solar helps, but has high requirements in trace heavy metals and relatively short lifespans, which is an issue for hazardous waste disposal.

If there was an easy answer, we *probably* would have embraced it already - but there is no perfect solution outside of science fiction/fantasy. Life is a series of trade offs, a careful balancing act.

 

[Geena]

I’m sorry, but I disagree. I haven’t used pesticides or fertilizers in my garden EVER and we have a bountiful harvest every year.
There are lots of natural alternatives that allow you to have a successful garden.
We have pests also, and lose some crop to them, but overall, a handful of veg that we throw to our chickens are well worth knowing that my food is safe to eat and no poisons had to be used.

I’ve attached one or Elliot Coleman’s “organic gardening” books. He’s written several and is viewed as an expert on the topic. He continues to run a successful business and farm in Maine all growing organic crops.
The other photo is mid summer bounty from my organic vegetable patch.
It is possible. Try it for yourself.

I didn't say it couldn't be done in a home garden, as I stated we also grow our own vegetables without using fertilizers and pesticides, and have for many, many years. If you haven't occasionally suffered almost complete loss of some crops, then you are either using some sort of pesticides or you just haven't been gardening all that long.
Anyway, my real point was that "organic" farmers DO use pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics etc. from this list of Allowed and prohibited substances

 

[Red-Stars-in-RI]

Organic growing doesn’t NOT use inputs (fertilizer, pesticide)...it uses organic inputs.

Fertilizer from kelp, fish meal, compost, etc. instead of petroleum. Pesticides that are naturally derived and (hopefully) less likely to affect non-targeted species like pollenators.

 

[PhillyDelcoChix]

Large scale organic farming is more difficult and expensive, which is why those products cost more. There are trade-offs that happen, some very good, and some not so much. Food costs are very low in the USA related to income, compared to so many other countries, and compared to 'the good old days' here. Why? Large scale farming! Those of us who can have a garden and grow at least some of our own food are lucky, in a society where 95% or more of the population are city dwellers!
In theory, organic is the way to go. In practice, it's a lot more complicated and difficult.
Mary

Mary are you aware farming was “organic” prior to the 1950s? Chemical companies needed to continue to sell their chemical weapons used during the vietnam war. Dow Chemicals being one of the worst. These “pesticides” were approved by the president at the time, being a friend to some of these chemical companies.
The bottom line is you’re paying more to compromise the health of everyone involved when using these poisons: the farmer spraying the fields, the people living within breathable distance of the spraying, the animals living in their natural environment, and finally the consumer.
Large scale organic farming is already being done all over the world, and had been since the 50s. Telling ourselves the story that “we need pesticides and fertilizers” just isn’t accurate. And the time and effort to grow our food in a safe and sustainable way is far more important that producing more chemical sprayed food than we need or want.

 

[PhillyDelcoChix]

Organic growing doesn’t NOT use inputs (fertilizer, pesticide)...it uses organic inputs.

Fertilizer from kelp, fish meal, compost, etc. instead of petroleum. Pesticides that are naturally derived and (hopefully) less likely to affect non-targeted species like pollenators.

True. And I use these in the form of compost.
I’m referring to chemical fertilizers.

 

[Red-Stars-in-RI]

True. And I use these in the form of compost.
I’m referring to chemical fertilizers.

With a little luck, you’re either creating your own compost or getting it nearby.

“Certified Organic” is one element...but there are others...locally produced, grass-fed, intensively farmed (hydroponic, mob grazing) etc. that are all things to be considered.

 

[Geena]

Mary are you aware farming was “organic” prior to the 1950s? Chemical companies needed to continue to sell their chemical weapons used during the vietnam war. Dow Chemicals being one of the worst. These “pesticides” were approved by the president at the time, being a friend to some of these chemical companies.
The bottom line is you’re paying more to compromise the health of everyone involved when using these poisons: the farmer spraying the fields, the people living within breathable distance of the spraying, the animals living in their natural environment, and finally the consumer.
Large scale organic farming is already being done all over the world, and had been since the 50s. Telling ourselves the story that “we need pesticides and fertilizers” just isn’t accurate. And the time and effort to grow our food in a safe and sustainable way is far more important that producing more chemical sprayed food than we need or want.

But we DO absolutely need pesticides and fertilizers to be able to grow enough food to feed the billions of humans that inhabit this earth. That is accurate factual information. Anything that kills pests is a pesticide, anything that nourishes plants is a fertilizer. The only question is which fertilizers and pesticides do we use or not.

Chemicals were most certainly used in farming prior to the 1950s. It would be fantastic if we could produce enough food for the masses without the use of any chemicals, but that's just not possible. To think otherwise is just plain silly IMO.

 

[JCinNM]

I wonder if someone could set up a survey of all the different brands, and include cheapest, organic, etc.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Organic growing doesn’t NOT use inputs (fertilizer, pesticide)...it uses organic inputs.

Fertilizer from kelp, fish meal, compost, etc. instead of petroleum. Pesticides that are naturally derived and (hopefully) less likely to affect non-targeted species like pollenators.

I said "carbon inputs". Its a term of art.

This is a map of US Farmlands, courtesy USGS, circa 2015. Its about 166 million hectares, or roughly 410 million acres.

At the same time (roughly, 2016), a staggering (I'm being facetious here) 4.1 million acres was reported to be growing organically in 2016, or about 1%.

According to a green friendly website, that (much less granular) map looks like this:

You will no doubt notice that most of those areas do not conveniently border kelp farms, sources of fish meal, or compost beyond their own agricultural waste, which many non-organic farms already make use of. Neither are they, in the main, close to large population centers, particularly on the East Coast.

All the fuel costs of transporting those soil supplements, like kelp, meal, and organic compost to the locations being farmed are "carbon inputs", likewise with the cost of transporting their goods towards the population centers. Places like Wyoming, Colorado, Utah have relatively large percentages of their farming turned over to organic production compared to farmland in their state overall, or their populations - they are further from the population concentrations (and generally lacking in water, too) than more traditional farmlands, better suited to growing. Thus, larger transportation costs "carbon inputs". Getting water to those locations? Also a carbon input.

Its simple math. The individual farm can't be considered in isolation, the entire system has to be measured as a whole. Just as the costs of digging up huge quantities of earth to refine for the trace rare materials used for solar cells must be considered, or the storage of spent uranium rods following use as nuclear fuel. Just as the costs of locating, pumping, storing, transporting, and burning carbon must be considered.

Calling this an elephant only tells part of the story.