"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..

RushesToo

Member
Location
Fingringhoe
Anyone have any thoughts on stock that are adapted to farms that are deficient in trace elements?
We are low iodine here according to soil and forage samples (haven't done any blood tests yet) but it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.
Looking back over the years I think it has caused problems like dopey calves that wouldn't suck maybe a few dead lambs because of it but not many. But we didn't know what it was until I read about iodine deficiency on here (believe it or not we didn't have any internet till a few years ago so finding things out was hard work) accepted it as normal and culled any problems. Now we don't have any typical iodine deficiency looking problems. Cows get in calf, ewes and lambs are performing as I'd expect. So did I cull my way out of a trace element deficiency? I will add that we never had awful trouble enough to go to a vet for just a few calves every year that wouldn't suck and everyone round here moans about that. Odd lambs that appeared never to get up if born alive but again not many.
It used to be well known around here not to buy any sheep from where there were either lead or copper mines because the sheep born there wouldn't thrive and possibly would die if they came from there to anywhere else. So I'm guessing that they would be adapted to thrive off high levels of those minerals could the same thing happen in reverse?
I've been meaning to get some minerals into my stock to try and improve the low levels but if there isn't a problem I might just be spending on something that I don't need?
@hendrebc I think you culled well for stock that excreted TE's too easily. The lore around don't buy from mining area proves it.
Only you can work out if the continued cost of bolusing with TE's pays or not.

Have to say that is a difficult one. Pete sprays seaweed stew which probably does the same thing as a bolus. @Kiwi Pete ?
 
As above - the answer lies in the animal?
I would think very carefully about what I was shaping in regards to breeding animals, not so much when it comes to fattening stock.

Intervention can greatly alter our perception of reality, especially when it comes to selecting the best animals for the purpose - unless that's where you want to take your flock...?
There's a great divergence of opinion on this topic, you can soon create a need for intervention, to put it bluntly.
I'm sure I've told you before about being wary about bolusing my breeding ewes? I might get another 15% on my scanning which seems to be the norm according to everyone who starts (I don't think I would) but then I'd have all these ewe lambs being kept that wouldn't exist without the extra iodine or whatever so presumably they would need more iodine to thrive as they go into the breeding flock. Then they would need iodine supplement to keep going and they would make more lambs that need more iodine and it could snowball till none of me sheep can function without any iodine supplement and they might even need more and more of it as time goes by?
I'm not sure I want to get on that treadmill.
 
@hendrebc I think you culled well for stock that excreted TE's too easily. The lore around don't buy from mining area proves it.
Only you can work out if the continued cost of bolusing with TE's pays or not.

Have to say that is a difficult one. Pete sprays seaweed stew which probably does the same thing as a bolus. @Kiwi Pete ?
It depends who you ask - some people are extremely sceptical about the virtues of adding amendments from the ocean.
But then most of those individuals are also relating "trace" amounts back to their tonnes of other inputs, inputs that are often working against one another.

If I was using synthetic NPK, then that's going to undo anything that biological amendments are aiming to do, namely improving the health of the community.

My "product" costs so little, that I can't ignore its value - would I shell out thousands per year without question, definitely not.
Yes, it takes ten hours per year, again it's a relatively small price to pay compared to most health programmes in use - I would rather spray an 18 metre bout than work a bolus or dosing gun, or lug bags around.

I do wonder if it's the reason for the high cobalt, landbased plants are genetally low in cobalt and B vitamins compared to aquatic plants.

Having watched that Zac Bush video, I do wonder if supplying ALL the amino acids in such an available form, helps the food become medicine again?
 
I'm sure I've told you before about being wary about bolusing my breeding ewes? I might get another 15% on my scanning which seems to be the norm according to everyone who starts (I don't think I would) but then I'd have all these ewe lambs being kept that wouldn't exist without the extra iodine or whatever so presumably they would need more iodine to thrive as they go into the breeding flock. Then they would need iodine supplement to keep going and they would make more lambs that need more iodine and it could snowball till none of me sheep can function without any iodine supplement and they might even need more and more of it as time goes by?
I'm not sure I want to get on that treadmill.
At least you are aware of the treadmill - many are still counting their steps and wondering where the summit is
 

Henarar

Member
I'm sure I've told you before about being wary about bolusing my breeding ewes? I might get another 15% on my scanning which seems to be the norm according to everyone who starts (I don't think I would) but then I'd have all these ewe lambs being kept that wouldn't exist without the extra iodine or whatever so presumably they would need more iodine to thrive as they go into the breeding flock. Then they would need iodine supplement to keep going and they would make more lambs that need more iodine and it could snowball till none of me sheep can function without any iodine supplement and they might even need more and more of it as time goes by?
I'm not sure I want to get on that treadmill.
After a couple dryish years I wouldn't think you will see serious problems with iodine deficiency in cattle or sheep for that Matter if you haven't seen it before, apparently there is a link between ground conditions, compaction, lack of aeration, capping more often see in wet conditions and iodine deficiency, as you know following a lot of the ideas in this thread should help with that.
All that said if you do get serious problems with iodine deficiency in your cattle you will want to do something about it no matter how short term the solution is cos it will be that or go broke as you can't make money with dead calves
 
After a couple dryish years I wouldn't think you will see serious problems with iodine deficiency in cattle or sheep for that Matter if you haven't seen it before, apparently there is a link between ground conditions, compaction, lack of aeration, capping more often see in wet conditions and iodine deficiency, as you know following a lot of the ideas in this thread should help with that.
All that said if you do get serious problems with iodine deficiency in your cattle you will want to do something about it no matter how short term the solution is cos it will be that or go broke as you can't make money with dead calves
It would have been about 10 years since we saw any number of anything that would look like iodine deficiency. I think I had to put about half of the claves on the teat the first time and then a few of them would have been put on for about a week. But we had always had the odd one and it just got a bit worse every year till I started getting more picky about which heifers were kept from which cows and getting rid of the cows that seemed to be worse for it. I know now that some iodine would probably have fixed it but didn't then. Haven't had any dopey calves for a long time now. Changing the bull has helped as well though.
With the sheep any that lost their lambs would have been culled so it was nipped in the bud pretty damn quick. But I never had a lot of those so the deficiency can't have been that bad compared to some because I know some who lose a hell of a lot when they first find out they have a deficiency.
I think I might do some blood tests and then if it's needed give the ewes that will be going to the terminal sires a bolus or something to correct the levels for some extra lambs. But I won't do the ones I breed replacement ewe lambs from just in case it affects them. If there is a massive jump in scanning and weaning % then I might have to do all of them. Can't see it happening though we usually scan about 170% and could manage them better pre tupping than we do. I think better management would make more difference than a bolus would.
 
I'm sure I've told you before about being wary about bolusing my breeding ewes? I might get another 15% on my scanning which seems to be the norm according to everyone who starts (I don't think I would) but then I'd have all these ewe lambs being kept that wouldn't exist without the extra iodine or whatever so presumably they would need more iodine to thrive as they go into the breeding flock. Then they would need iodine supplement to keep going and they would make more lambs that need more iodine and it could snowball till none of me sheep can function without any iodine supplement and they might even need more and more of it as time goes by?
I'm not sure I want to get on that treadmill.

@hendrebc you may be over emphasising the treadmill effect. You possibly have a point if you run a completely closed flock. That is; only males used for breeding are the best performers out of your own flock and definitely not bought in. This is what happened on the Island of Texel, where the Texel breed from there has adapted to low copper. But if you are buying in new sires for your flock, they will have at least 80% of the influence on your flock's ability/inability to produce in the face of a mineral deficiency. Not 50% as people assume because the sire is half of an animal's make up, but because rams mate many ewes and may be used over successive years. That leaves little room for you to gain much in selection from culling ewes only.

I suggest you may be limiting your ability to convert pasture grown into saleable production worth many times more than the cost of treating a deficiency. I say this on the basis that most moist areas of the UK have a very fast spring growth curve which in most years is difficult to control pasture quality. By restricting stock grazing power (less 15% of lambs) by compromising stocking rate at that crucial time of the year will certainly compound pasture digestibility problems hence animal performance. Furthermore, farm fixed costs still occur whether one uses the pasture or not. i am not saying this is your case, as your farm may be very different from the norm.
The treadmill occurs when farmers try to push nature to grow more DM by adding large and expensive quantities of macro elements. Correcting TEs is peanuts compared to truck loads of nitrogenous fertiliser over the entire growing season.
 
@hendrebc you may be over emphasising the treadmill effect. You possibly have a point if you run a completely closed flock. That is; only males used for breeding are the best performers out of your own flock and definitely not bought in. This is what happened on the Island of Texel, where the Texel breed from there has adapted to low copper. But if you are buying in new sires for your flock, they will have at least 80% of the influence on your flock's ability/inability to produce in the face of a mineral deficiency. Not 50% as people assume because the sire is half of an animal's make up, but because rams mate many ewes and may be used over successive years. That leaves little room for you to gain much in selection from culling ewes only.

I suggest you may be limiting your ability to convert pasture grown into saleable production worth many times more than the cost of treating a deficiency. I say this on the basis that most moist areas of the UK have a very fast spring growth curve which in most years is difficult to control pasture quality. By restricting stock grazing power (less 15% of lambs) by compromising stocking rate at that crucial time of the year will certainly compound pasture digestibility problems hence animal performance. Furthermore, farm fixed costs still occur whether one uses the pasture or not. i am not saying this is your case, as your farm may be very different from the norm.
The treadmill occurs when farmers try to push nature to grow more DM by adding large and expensive quantities of macro elements. Correcting TEs is peanuts compared to truck loads of nitrogenous fertiliser over the entire growing season.
I readily admit I don't know what I'm talking about here it's just something I've been thinking about after reading things on here. Hence bringing the subject up while someone who would likely know is paying attention ;)
I've read a few on here saying that their deficiency is getting worse and worse and that they started with one bolus pre tupping. Then go to 2 boluses a year after seeing a difference. Then they have to start drenching with minerals to boost levels at the same time as bolusing to lift levels and a bolus to maintain them, then after a while longer have to drench to boost levels before any stressful times like weaning or lambing or they start seeing symptoms again. There is at least one person on here has admitted to dosing every few weeks to keep deficiencies away even though everything was bolused and their deficiency seemed to be getting worse and worse all the time. But it's the same soil under the same management how would it still be getting worse with more minerals added unless the extra supplementing had affected the sheep somehow. There might be something else going on too that I don't know about though. But that's how I came to thinking it might be a treadmill once you get on.
I'll probably stick to the plan and do the ones that go to a terminal sire this year and see if it makes a difference. I did last year and didn't see any difference at all but it was a bad year for trials because it was so dry and ewes were in poorer condition that I'd have liked going to the rams.
 
I readily admit I don't know what I'm talking about here it's just something I've been thinking about after reading things on here. Hence bringing the subject up while someone who would likely know is paying attention ;)
I've read a few on here saying that their deficiency is getting worse and worse and that they started with one bolus pre tupping. Then go to 2 boluses a year after seeing a difference. Then they have to start drenching with minerals to boost levels at the same time as bolusing to lift levels and a bolus to maintain them, then after a while longer have to drench to boost levels before any stressful times like weaning or lambing or they start seeing symptoms again. There is at least one person on here has admitted to dosing every few weeks to keep deficiencies away even though everything was bolused and their deficiency seemed to be getting worse and worse all the time. But it's the same soil under the same management how would it still be getting worse with more minerals added unless the extra supplementing had affected the sheep somehow. There might be something else going on too that I don't know about though. But that's how I came to thinking it might be a treadmill once you get on.
I'll probably stick to the plan and do the ones that go to a terminal sire this year and see if it makes a difference. I did last year and didn't see any difference at all but it was a bad year for trials because it was so dry and ewes were in poorer condition that I'd have liked going to the rams.

In regard to your point that many TEs deficiencies are getting worse with time: I completely agree, but must ask the philosopher's question "why is this so", before assuming anything. So lets list a few things that have changed in sheep and cattle farming since WW2:
  • Productivity in animal output has increased per hectare.
  • Much more use of common breeds vs reliance on developed local breeds adjusted to local deficiencies.
  • A very significant increase in pasture production (DM/ha) in all seasons.
  • Wide use of concentrated fertilisers, especially N.
  • Regular reseeding with pasture cultivars expressing increased seasonal production.
  • More species uniformity in sown pastures and weed control technologies.
  • Increased use of bought in concentrate feeds where animal TE requirements are irrelevant to the arable grower.
  • Better equipment for spreading barn muck over a wider area of the farm encouraging more growth from previous avoided fields.
  • Environmental restrictions in many regions preventing wintering outside on roots etc. where more soil was ingested.
These changes (along with others which haven't yet come to my mind) have all occurred while the formation of soil continues along at a similar rate as its has always gone. That is the interaction of plants, microbes and weather chemically breaking down the parent material, rock, or clays etc. thereby adding depth to the root zone if cultivation does not occur. The release of TE's from the very slow breakdown of the parent material will probably be insufficient nowadays given the technologies we have to grow much more DM than those decades when farming was running at a slower rate.

A classic case of this occurred in NZ when a large tract of land in the Hakataremea Valley in South Canterbury was owned by the NZ Land Co. based in London. Following WW2 the manager reported rapidly declining lambing percentages, from historically around 100% to falling by around 10% per annum, a very spread out lambing and a large proportion of empty ewes. Lambing % declined to below 50%. In the early 1950s the manager sent the London office a telegram reporting that going on half of the flock was empty, so expect a worse lambing result. London got back with the directive to "stop the lambing".!!!!
Research was called in to make the initial discovery of selenium deficiency, which proved to be extremely widespread with almost 3/4 of NZ pastoral regions being responsive, as the naturally low levels were being depleted due to the parent materials being very low in all TEs. Over successive decades these regions have expanded with Te levels having to be monitored more closely now that productivity has increased so much (since 1990 kgs lamb output per ewe has doubled, milk solids up 32% per cow and beef up 4% per cow while stocking rates have increased across the board despite 3/4 of previous sheep and cattle lowlands going exclusively to dairying). The Haka. Valley now has animal performance equal to any other well developed NZ pastoral region now that deficiencies are corrected.

Reverting back to pre WW2 style farming and productivity may restore some balance with the natural release of TEs, but would it work with today's input costs and land values....I doubt it. Fix the problem but don't push the system too hard.
 
It can well support the costs, but it takes a serious shift in mindset to do so.
Selling meat is about the lowest returning activity that we do here, because that's the focus of so many - 'feeding the world'.

I ask, what the world is doing for me in return for me feeding it cheap lamb and beef, and the answer isn't forthcoming.

Therefore, running an extractive system that requires some quite expensive inputs (and damaging inputs) to produce cheap commodities, would have seen my business fail in the first year, and the next years...
That's really the folly of seeing things only in terms of production potential, which grips farmers and non-farmers alike.

As luck would have it, we have an economic farm surplus/ha of around 2.5x the NZ average, mainly because of a different course of action and a different focus - the bit that "you can't see, from over the fence".
Nothing really looks much different to what anyone else is doing, as Roy says it isn't "all about the long grass and no fertiliser" but facing several realities at once.
 
Last edited:

Treg

Member
Location
Cornwall
Anyone have any thoughts on stock that are adapted to farms that are deficient in trace elements?
We are low iodine here according to soil and forage samples (haven't done any blood tests yet) but it doesn't seem to be causing any problems.
Looking back over the years I think it has caused problems like dopey calves that wouldn't suck maybe a few dead lambs because of it but not many. But we didn't know what it was until I read about iodine deficiency on here (believe it or not we didn't have any internet till a few years ago so finding things out was hard work) accepted it as normal and culled any problems. Now we don't have any typical iodine deficiency looking problems. Cows get in calf, ewes and lambs are performing as I'd expect. So did I cull my way out of a trace element deficiency? I will add that we never had awful trouble enough to go to a vet for just a few calves every year that wouldn't suck and everyone round here moans about that. Odd lambs that appeared never to get up if born alive but again not many.
It used to be well known around here not to buy any sheep from where there were either lead or copper mines because the sheep born there wouldn't thrive and possibly would die if they came from there to anywhere else. So I'm guessing that they would be adapted to thrive off high levels of those minerals could the same thing happen in reverse?
I've been meaning to get some minerals into my stock to try and improve the low levels but if there isn't a problem I might just be spending on something that I don't need?
Growing up in a mining district it was known that some farms couldn't buy in stock because of high levels of arsenic, but stock already in the area were use to it.
 
In regard to your point that many TEs deficiencies are getting worse with time: I completely agree, but must ask the philosopher's question "why is this so", before assuming anything. So lets list a few things that have changed in sheep and cattle farming since WW2:
  • Productivity in animal output has increased per hectare.
  • Much more use of common breeds vs reliance on developed local breeds adjusted to local deficiencies.
  • A very significant increase in pasture production (DM/ha) in all seasons.
  • Wide use of concentrated fertilisers, especially N.
  • Regular reseeding with pasture cultivars expressing increased seasonal production.
  • More species uniformity in sown pastures and weed control technologies.
  • Increased use of bought in concentrate feeds where animal TE requirements are irrelevant to the arable grower.
  • Better equipment for spreading barn muck over a wider area of the farm encouraging more growth from previous avoided fields.
  • Environmental restrictions in many regions preventing wintering outside on roots etc. where more soil was ingested.
These changes (along with others which haven't yet come to my mind) have all occurred while the formation of soil continues along at a similar rate as its has always gone. That is the interaction of plants, microbes and weather chemically breaking down the parent material, rock, or clays etc. thereby adding depth to the root zone if cultivation does not occur. The release of TE's from the very slow breakdown of the parent material will probably be insufficient nowadays given the technologies we have to grow much more DM than those decades when farming was running at a slower rate.

A classic case of this occurred in NZ when a large tract of land in the Hakataremea Valley in South Canterbury was owned by the NZ Land Co. based in London. Following WW2 the manager reported rapidly declining lambing percentages, from historically around 100% to falling by around 10% per annum, a very spread out lambing and a large proportion of empty ewes. Lambing % declined to below 50%. In the early 1950s the manager sent the London office a telegram reporting that going on half of the flock was empty, so expect a worse lambing result. London got back with the directive to "stop the lambing".!!!!
Research was called in to make the initial discovery of selenium deficiency, which proved to be extremely widespread with almost 3/4 of NZ pastoral regions being responsive, as the naturally low levels were being depleted due to the parent materials being very low in all TEs. Over successive decades these regions have expanded with Te levels having to be monitored more closely now that productivity has increased so much (since 1990 kgs lamb output per ewe has doubled, milk solids up 32% per cow and beef up 4% per cow while stocking rates have increased across the board despite 3/4 of previous sheep and cattle lowlands going exclusively to dairying). The Haka. Valley now has animal performance equal to any other well developed NZ pastoral region now that deficiencies are corrected.

Reverting back to pre WW2 style farming and productivity may restore some balance with the natural release of TEs, but would it work with today's input costs and land values....I doubt it. Fix the problem but don't push the system too hard.
Yes I agree that more output of grass and meat would mean an increase in demand for trace elements. Out output isn't particularly high per hectare so the demand would be less. We are running mostly 30-40+ year old permanent pasture too so that would be less output as well.
I did go and tip some cheap powdered minerals I had lying around out for the ewes yesterday in readiness for tupping in a a couple of months so will see if they take to it. If not I'll give them something else.
 

Fenwick

Member
Location
Bretagne France
Quick update as to the 'hollistic management practices' we have put in place.

  • There is no obvious difference in the condition of either the cow herd or the meat heifers. Despite grazing some pretty tall grass.
  • Pasture looks visibily better when it is allowed to rest. I am convinced that we had an increase in sward production.
  • A number of pasture species were visible this year that were not previously. I think they were already there but this time they got noticed because they had the time to flower/seed.
  • Manure spread is far more even.
  • It has made it much easier to calculate how much forage we have ahead of us.
  • There is a lot more work involved (a lot of this is due to poor equipment and infrastructure). - Some of this time has been recovered by reducing the number of groups mixing steers cows and bulls together.
Despite all this we still ran out of grass for the cow herd on the 20th of august and had to use winter stocks. To be fair it has been the worst drought sin 1976 We've had 30mm of rain the last 3 months and two heat waves of 37C+. We still haven't had decent rain and we may not get much grass in the autumn push.

We have enough stocks for the winter because we baled a triticale/pea mix in June. Those using forage maize are generally faring much worse. If we had been using only grass we would have been stuffed. Rationally grazed or not.

Sowing drought resistant species such as plantain has really helped. We have put chicory in as well for next year.

The heifers which are on better soil and a longer rotation have not needed supplementary feed.
We have planed an extra 20 days grazing in the summer rotation for the cows next year.
I think we have not been leaving enough residual. So we may have to factor this in to the rotation times for next season.

It has been a big change for us this year, and all in all I'm pretty happy.
Next year we have big plans, many ideas coming from this thread, which is all very exciting.
 
In regard to your point that many TEs deficiencies are getting worse with time: I completely agree, but must ask the philosopher's question "why is this so", before assuming anything. So lets list a few things that have changed in sheep and cattle farming since WW2:
  • Productivity in animal output has increased per hectare.
  • Much more use of common breeds vs reliance on developed local breeds adjusted to local deficiencies.
  • A very significant increase in pasture production (DM/ha) in all seasons.
  • Wide use of concentrated fertilisers, especially N.
  • Regular reseeding with pasture cultivars expressing increased seasonal production.
  • More species uniformity in sown pastures and weed control technologies.
  • Increased use of bought in concentrate feeds where animal TE requirements are irrelevant to the arable grower.
  • Better equipment for spreading barn muck over a wider area of the farm encouraging more growth from previous avoided fields.
  • Environmental restrictions in many regions preventing wintering outside on roots etc. where more soil was ingested.
These changes (along with others which haven't yet come to my mind) have all occurred while the formation of soil continues along at a similar rate as its has always gone. That is the interaction of plants, microbes and weather chemically breaking down the parent material, rock, or clays etc. thereby adding depth to the root zone if cultivation does not occur. The release of TE's from the very slow breakdown of the parent material will probably be insufficient nowadays given the technologies we have to grow much more DM than those decades when farming was running at a slower rate.

A classic case of this occurred in NZ when a large tract of land in the Hakataremea Valley in South Canterbury was owned by the NZ Land Co. based in London. Following WW2 the manager reported rapidly declining lambing percentages, from historically around 100% to falling by around 10% per annum, a very spread out lambing and a large proportion of empty ewes. Lambing % declined to below 50%. In the early 1950s the manager sent the London office a telegram reporting that going on half of the flock was empty, so expect a worse lambing result. London got back with the directive to "stop the lambing".!!!!
Research was called in to make the initial discovery of selenium deficiency, which proved to be extremely widespread with almost 3/4 of NZ pastoral regions being responsive, as the naturally low levels were being depleted due to the parent materials being very low in all TEs. Over successive decades these regions have expanded with Te levels having to be monitored more closely now that productivity has increased so much (since 1990 kgs lamb output per ewe has doubled, milk solids up 32% per cow and beef up 4% per cow while stocking rates have increased across the board despite 3/4 of previous sheep and cattle lowlands going exclusively to dairying). The Haka. Valley now has animal performance equal to any other well developed NZ pastoral region now that deficiencies are corrected.

Reverting back to pre WW2 style farming and productivity may restore some balance with the natural release of TEs, but would it work with today's input costs and land values....I doubt it. Fix the problem but don't push the system too hard.
I have been mulling over a statement made i've Andre Vosin's "Grass productivity" ever since reading it: that modern grasses are scientifically bred in isolation and that their production is not tested against livestock performance. We (in this thread) have repeatedly noticed that cattle and sheep often prefer diverse permanent pasture to new "high productivity" grass reseeds. Could it be that many modern forage varieties actually contain less of key TEs ?
 
Perhaps I am right not to keep 10 %more cows to pay to reseed 10% per year as it will only lead to more problems
As always I think diversity in what they are eating will help not hinder
[/QUOTE
Well, the returns are just going to leap into your lap if you do.

Why go around your farm any more times than you need to, is the burning question I have.

With all these parasites and contagions passed on by grazing, removal of biomass by grazing, then why would you grow things that need grazed more often each year?

For lamb finishing, perhaps, suckler beef returns apparently pay for FA so there is little advantage to be bought?

'Going faster to stand still', springs to mind.
 
^^ this rush to keep the grass short for lambing was something that i discussed last year with greg judy - he was of the opinion that returning to the start once grass hits your desired heights/kgdm and dropping the rest of the round was good as the stuff that was dropped would gain added rest and could then be grazed in drought/wet/advers condtions and then might help the TEs i suppose.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
158,212
Messages
3,615,277
Members
39,956
Latest member
Tom Brazil

Creamy, untreated and in a glass bottle: Britain gets a taste for old-fashioned milk

  • 52
  • 0


Creamy, untreated and in a glass bottle: Britain gets a taste for old-fashioned milk

Written by Freya Herring

Dairy farmers cash in on a growing trend to replace both homogenisation and plastic with a revival of the traditional ways
“When the milk price crashed five years ago, we were in a bad...
Top