Talk:Fodder

"Hydroponics" section

I think the section about hydroponics should be deeply expanded. I believe that this information would be very interesting to divulge more about, and that section is simply lacking... (Unsigned comment by User:74.38.108.252 06:01, 28 November 2006)

I've just deleted additions about sprouted fodder (made by User:121.45.204.42). Apologies if this seems abrupt... I don't disagree that a section on sprouting is useful, nor that sprouted fodder might have nutritional benefits, but the additions were not appropriate:

• Far too much detail. There is no need to include every detail of the research, just a summary of the facts. For instance, most of the added material would be covered by "sprouted grains develop larger amounts of some nutrients than the equivalent amount of dormant grains. These nutrients include [list of nutrients] ([references])".

• References. Names and dates on their own are not enough – it must be possible to look up the paper solely from the information given in the article. The usual wiki method is to include a full reference in a reference bracket after the information it supports, then a <references/> tag in a References section at the end – the software will do the rest. If the reference is available online, the URL can also be linked. References need to be verifiable sources, not just statements published somewhere – for example a "naturopath and herbalist", however well respected, is not a suitable source for scientific information on nutrition. Even if what she says is true and is supported by scientific research, we need the original sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of what to do and how to do it. I'm happy to help with this: post a request on my talk page.

• Marooning of {{fact}} tag. I put this tag in, asking about the weight ratio, which appeared to given as a misleading wet weight (thus counting the huge amount of added water). The new information was inserted between this tag and the item it questioned, marooning the tag irrelevantly at the bottom of the page. I've now removed both the misleading claim and the tag. The dry weight will presumably actually reduce somewhat, as sprouting will use some of the seeds' resources. An increase in weight is not a proposed advantage of feeding sprouted grains, and so in fact a weight comparison is not relevant.

• "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV). Need to be careful that information does not appear to promote a particular activity, but remains factual and balanced. In this case I don't think the additional information itself did appear particularly biassed – but the omission of negative information on this method of fodder preparation could be seen as unbalanced. For example, how are some obvious disadvantages overcome? Eg spoiling, limited availability of water in dry climates, loss of energy content, increases in harmful toxins or other metabolites, increase in bulk (leading to reduced capacity for other fodder or forage), limitations on which seeds are usable, contribution to unsustainable livestock rearing methods, need for expensive infrastructure etc etc.

• "In the past ... however in recent years..." (in lead para). Hay, pellets etc are not "in the past", just because sprouting is now used by some. Those methods will continue to be used (for example there would be no practical, nutritional or economic benefits in feeding sprouts to my own cattle, as they eat cheaply available and local conserved grass, when they are not foraging for themselves.)

• "Hydroponics" term. Hydroponics is growing the plant in a soil-less medium, using water with added nutrients. Sprouting is only the germination of seeds by the addition of water – the seeds will actually have been grown in soil. (No mention of sprouting in Hydroponics.) Not sure what "recent advances in hydroponics" are – these need explanation. (How is sprouting for fodder different from well-established methods of sprouting for bean sprouts or for malt?) I don't think "hydroponics" is the right term, and if I'm right, this section needs another title.

• Heading. Got broken in edit – mended. --Richard New Forest 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional definitions

Would like to see a definition for : "cannon fodder" and "tabloid fodder". (Unsigned comment by User:70.45.97.20 23:00, 8 February 2007)

Merge with Animal feed

There have been no comments on this proposal, so I have implemented it, incorporating relevant text from Animal feed and converting that page to a disambig leading here and to Forage. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

File:African boy transporting fodder by bicycle edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:African boy transporting fodder by bicycle edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 6, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A Tanzanian boy transporting fodder on a bicycle. "Fodder" refers particularly to food given to domesticated livestock, rather than that which the animals forage for themselves.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Eggshell & bran

In the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries: Leaflets Nos. 1 to 100/101 to 200 (ref=http://www.abebooks.co.uk/search/sortby/3/an/Board+Of+Agriculture+/tn/+Leaflets ), it is described that (grinded) eggshell and bran together with weed/greens & maize is a suitable fodder. Eggshell & bran makes sense as calcium will probably need to be provided in great quantities (chickens lay allot of eggs). Also, it's possible that with "bran" they only mean the husks of the grain, again a nutient that is otherwise wasted. Add to the article, could be useful info for sustainable chicken farms. 91.182.187.164 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Broaden the definition of fodder

Fodder is defined here as an agricultural product that is provided to domesticated animals. Agriculture, in turn, is defined in terms of cultivated plants. However, tissues from non-cultivated or wild plants are sometimes gathered by people and fed to domesticated animals. In the Indian Himalayas, for example, villagers hike into forest, climb trees, and cut twigs and foliage from oak trees that are then carried back to the village and fed to domesticated cattle. This is not forage, because the animals do not graze it themselves. It is better considered as a type of fodder. I suggest broadening the basic definition of fodder to include either agricultural (cultivated) or wild plant materials that are gathered by people and fed to domesticated animals, and to include the example of oak twigs and foliage from the Indian Himalayas in the examples of types of fodder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profwsc (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you are correct. At least gorse, oak, holly and seaweed were cut traditionally as fodder in Britain. Arguably meadow hay is also wild plants (they have never been seeded), albeit growing in an artificially managed environment. Would you like to correct the article? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article is sort of general, I'd favor expanding the meaning over splitting into two even weaker articles, personally. However, as I am not going to actually do any work on this in either direction (grin), I'll defer to the consensus of others, but this is my view. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree – the source of the fodder is of less importance than what it is and how it's used. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly when you look at how it's linked in other articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fodder plants in india

In india fodder plants are grown in between the rabi season and kharif season during the month of march. This season is known as Zaid season. Mohit Fajge (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)