The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on Scottish Government response to the section 35 order judicial review. Members will be aware that some of the content of the statement is in the public domain following media coverage. I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber. Members, I would be grateful if I could make my remarks. I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber. Ministers are answerable and accountable to the Parliament for their actions in their ministerial capacities and it is essential that members, as elected representatives of the people of Scotland, have the first opportunity to hold ministers to account and for that reason announcements must be made here first. Having considered the content of the statement, I consider it important that I allow it to go ahead in part and I would invite the Cabinet Secretary to focus on those matters that are not already in the public domain. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary. Before I begin my statement, let me respond to your comments. Media speculation on the decision in relation to section 35 is deeply disappointing and regretful. I am aware that the Deputy First Minister responded to direct questions put to her and, while she did not confirm or deny of the Scottish Government intended to appeal the decision, she recognised that the Government's position was inferred by the comments made. She and Noey meant to pre-empt the statement today and I know that she has written to you to apologise for comments she made in response to the direct questions put to her in interviews on the budget. I would also like to apologise to you and the chamber for the discussions between myself and your office, Presiding Officer. It did lead to the late arrival to Opposition spokespeople for which I genuinely apologise for that. Let me now return to my reduced statement. One year ago, the Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill after much discussion and careful consideration. Not everyone agreed with the bill, some strongly opposed it, but the will of the Parliament was clear. Two thirds of the chamber voted to pass the bill with all members of all parties voting in favour. Within four weeks, the Secretary of State for Scotland blocked its submission for royal assent with the first-ever use of a section 35 order. The Scottish ministers petitioned for a judicial review as it was clear to us that allowing this unprecedented veto and a decision of this Parliament to go unchallenged would undermine the Holyrood's democratic will and, by extension, the will of the people that we are sent here to represent. First, let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government remains committed to supporting and empowering the LGBTQI plus community, including trans people. We will continue to build on our work across government to strengthen this. We work closely with the LGBTQI plus stakeholder group and third sector organisations to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience help to improve outcomes for those communities. We are also delivering the non-binary equality action plan to improve conditions for non-binary community in Scotland, and the plan includes actions already under way such as meaningfully including non-binary people in decision making. We remain committed to consulting on an ending conversion practices in Scotland for both sexual orientation and gender identity, and detailed proposals for legislative change will be published early in the new year.  We remain committed to our work with NHS Scotland to improve access to and delivery of gender identity healthcare. We are working closely with people with lived experience, organisations representing trans people and NHS Scotland to implement the actions in the 2021 NHS Gender Identity Services strategic action framework. We have established a national gender identity healthcare reference group and commissioned a range of work, including robust collation and reporting of waiting times, a transgender healthcare knowledge and skills framework with training opportunities for NHS Scotland staff, a programme of research on long-term health outcomes for people who access gender identity healthcare and the development of national standards for accessing and delivery of gender identity healthcare. This work is well under way. We are also delivering the recommendations of the LGBTI inclusive education working group. The implementation group has, in partnership with COSLA, promoted effective delivery of LGBTI inclusive education in all Scottish schools, engaging with young people to seek their views and experience and are delivering improved learning environments for all children and young people. Before the end of the parliamentary year, we will bring forward a new human rights bill for Scotland. Let me now turn to the gender recognition reform bill specifically. The bill's reforms remain the Government's policy and, as we can see from the cross-party support for the bill, they remain what this Parliament would like to see enacted. However, the UK Government's intervention means that the bill cannot proceed to royal assent. It remains a bill passed by the majority of this Parliament and we will not be withdrawing it. There is a strong indication that any diversion of approach would be unacceptable to the UK Government, as Alistair Jack stated in the Westminster Parliament. In short, two different regimes create adverse effects. It is therefore impossible to see how progress can be made, particularly when the rules of this Parliament require that amendments at reconsideration stage are consistent with the bill's general principles, as agreed at stage 1. Nonetheless, our offer is still there. If the current UK Government is willing to work together on this, we will happily sit down with it. If a future UK Government is willing, we will do so with it, so that section 35 could be lifted and the bill progresses. It seems clear that the current Government will not do this and it remains to be seen what a future Government will do. Parliamentary discussion of the Scotland Act shows that section 35 power was always intended as a long stop or last resort and one that would never be needed. It was envisaged that the UK Government should raise issues at an early stage and that the two Governments should seek to resolve them. That is in black and white both in those devolution debates in the Westminster Parliament in 1998 and in the memorandum of understanding between Governments, but that is not how the Secretary of State for Scotland used the power. It is the Scottish Government's view that this UK Government and the Secretary of State see section 35 as a veto that it can apply to any legislation passed by this chamber that it disagrees with. To ignore the memorandum of understanding sets a very worrying precedent for the democratic powers of this Parliament. Regardless of people's views and opinions on gender recognition, that is a very worrying place for our Parliament to be. Due to the enchansagence of current UK Government, I am confident that any repetition of our offer to seek compromise would again be rebuffed. We will therefore focus on working with an incoming UK Government, which we hope will have more respect for devolution and is willing to work together, even when at some times we disagree. I recognise that many trans people will be disappointed by this decision. To them, I say this. The Scottish Government will never waver in our commitment to your rights. You deserve to be respected, included and supported. You are not a threat and you will always be able to live your lives free from prejudice and abuse and the type of Scotland that we all want to see. We will continue to work towards a society that is equal and fair and where people can live as they are, just as we will continue to protect the democratic powers of this Scotland's Parliament. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I will be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request to speak buttons. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments in relation to the late arrival of the statement. When Nicola Sturgeon said last year that this debate would be over by Christmas, I do not think that she meant this Christmas. The Scottish Conservatives repeatedly told the SNP Government that the gender recognition reform bill was fundamentally flawed. We warned all along that this would happen, but the SNP Government did not listen. Instead, they have spent time and taxpayers' money on a doomed legal battle to revive laws that the majority of the Scottish public do not want. Laws that undermine the rights and safety of women, girls and vulnerable young people. Women's groups were ignored throughout this whole debate, and I am delighted that their hard-fought campaign has been won. However, this whole debacle leaves the SNP's relationship with the Greens and Tatters. I am wondering whether the Greens will follow through on their threats and quit the Government after the announcement today. It might be a lot better for Scotland if they did. Cabinet secretary, we know that self-id has been a failed experiment that the Scottish public oppose. Can she outline whether lessons have been learned and if so, can she reassure women's groups that their concerns will be listened to in the future to prevent this sorry saga from ever happening again? I thank Meghan Gallacher for her question and the way for which she took my apology. I know that she and I have many crossed words, including yesterday, but I appreciate the way that she has responded to my remarks today. However, there were not amendments at stage 3 that would have prevented, I do not think, the secretary of state from taking a section 35 order. The reason I say that is because, as I mentioned in my original statement, he has been clear that he is concerned about a divergence and two systems being within the United Kingdom. On that basis, it is genuinely difficult to see how we could have a bill that could be approved by the secretary of state and in this UK Government. When it comes to listening to diverging opinions on this, I know that I appreciate in this Parliament and in wider society that there are a range of opinions on this issue. I fully appreciate that, but those were listened to. We may not clearly have agreed with those, but many ministers met groups that both agreed and disagreed with where the bill got to, and there were, of course, two public consultations. I would say, as well, on this issue, that this legal judgment is about, is about the use of section 35. The judgment does not take any position on the gender recognition bill itself and the merits thereof. That is why the Government will not be withdrawing the bill. I call Paul O'Kane. I add my disappointment to the late sight of the statement, but I also accept what the cabinet secretary has said in mitigation. From the beginning of the process of gender recognition reform in Scotland until now, six years down the line, Scottish Labour has striven to ensure that the gender recognition reform legislation is progressive and updates the system whilst upholding rights and protections for everyone. We sought to engage all parties, including the Government, from the beginning, raising potential issues, offering amendments and seeking repeated assurances that the legislation was secure in law. Indeed, the cabinet secretary will recall my own amendments this time last year and previous questions that I have raised on issues such as section 104 meetings between both Governments and calls to see the Government's legal advice. Ultimately, I recognise that this will be a difficult day for many people, simplifying the process for gender recognition has not moved forward, and I welcome the cabinet secretary outlining what further action the Government will take to support trans people in Scotland—something that I have been keen to raise each time we have had the opportunity to discuss the issue. I would appreciate in her answer if she would further outline how activity across Government will be co-ordinated so as to measure improvements particularly in healthcare. I recognise too that many women feel that the debate has dismissed their concerns and indeed a common view that the debate has become too polarised. The cabinet secretary has essentially said that the bill will remain in limbo after the smoke from the court wrangling between the two Governments clears. I also heard what the cabinet secretary said about willingness to try and work together. Does she recognise that the court has judged that the bill modifies the law as it applies to reserve matters? What analysis has the Government carried out in light of those parts of the judgment that could form the basis for any future dialogue with the UK Government on moving the process forward? I thank Paul O'Kane for his questions. With relation to the aspects on health, that is a very important issue that I recognise for the trans community and something that the Government has been working on already for some time. I think that it is important that I recommit the Government to that today. I have spoken about the gender identity services and the strategic action framework. That describes how we are working to improve access to and delivery of NHS gender identity services. Importantly, I think that we will continue, I know, to work with those, with lived experience to ensure that matters are improved for them, not just in the healthcare sector but in other aspects as well. He mentioned section 104. That is clearly a very different process and a technical process to ensure that bills can work correctly. Unfortunately, that would not have got a doubt of the situation again that we are in at the moment, because, as I said, already the Secretary of State has made his position clear on having two different systems, but we will continue to work with any Government on that issue. I think that it is very important that, right across Government, we work together to ensure that we are supporting the trans community in everything that we do, as well as continuing the work in delivering equally safe to protect women's rights and to protect them from violence, intimidation and discrimination. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This time last year, the majority of MSPs in this chamber voted to respect the right of trans women and men to self-identify in accordance with their human rights. The intervention of the UK Government to block this has defied the democracy of this Parliament and shattered the trans community. Can the Cabinet Secretary expand on the decision taken by the Government following the legal advice? It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the legal advice that the Government receives, but the judgment not to appeal or the decision not to appeal has not been an easy one. We have of course reflected on that legal advice and the policy advice covering a wide range of factors. I know that the legal process, the ongoing scrutiny that it brings, has taken its toll on the trans community. It is the Government's opinion that the worst possible outcome would be to draw this out still further and still not to be able to have a bill to enact. We want to avoid that outcome, and that is the reason why the Government has come to the decision that it has. When announcing the intention to take the UK Government to court eight months ago, the cabinet secretary told Parliament that they were very keen to be transparent as possible on the matter. Although the Scottish Government has abandoned this legal battle against the UK Government, can the cabinet secretary now say whether or not the Government will publish legal advice? Given that the Scottish Government has spent over £230,000 of taxpayers' money on the failed court action so far, will the Government also publish what estimated costs would have occurred by the Government if it had challenged its rolling? As I have already said, the Government does not publish its legal advice. Will the UK Government publish its legal advice about the court decision? It is a bit hypocritical for the member to suggest that the Scottish Government publishes advice, but I do not think that he would make the same call on the UK Government. Gently, when it comes to wasting public money on court cases, the UK Government has spent more than £2 million on a case to ensure that it can take some of the most vulnerable people—you might find this funny, Scottish Conservatives, but I certainly do not—to take some of the most vulnerable in our society, those who are persecuted right across the world and send them to Rwanda. It was worth £2 million, and you have the hypocrisy to come to this chamber and criticise the Scottish Government for standing up to the powers of this Parliament. It is a shame that Scottish Conservatives have once again shown that they have no interest in defending this Parliament or democracy, but are quite happy to defend the Rwandan policy on immigration. I want to acknowledge the harm that this arduous process, particularly the UK Government veto and court ruling, has had on trans people, their families and their friends. Can the cabinet secretary update the chamber on the significant impact that the section 35 order has had on devolution after being used in this way? Well, I think that Karen Adam is quite right to point out one day impact on the trans community in Scotland, but also, importantly, to talk about the impact on devolution. That is exactly why the Scottish Government took this case in the first place, because we recognised that the UK Government has, unfortunately, now a record of attempting to undermine devolution. This judgment absolutely is about how the section 35 was used with respect to the gender recognition, but it is important that we continue in the future also to challenge on section 35 orders. I accept the judgment. I accept that section 35 is part of the devolution process, but to have that being used in the way that it has is a worrying precedent for anyone that is genuinely interested in Scottish democracy. There is an emerging pattern of interference. There were no deliberate breaches, for example, of the Seoul Convention for the first 20 years of devolution. Since 2018, we have now seen it breached 11 times. That is what happens when power goes unfettered, and that is why we will continue the challenge of the UK Government if we choose to do so in the future on any section 35 that comes ahead. Clare Baker, to be followed by John Mason. A year on from the passing of this legislation, which is a sorry and salutary tale for the Scottish Government, it needs to accept and reflect on its level of responsibility, not just for this failed piece of legislation, but how its actions influence wider discussion on this complex and sensitive issue. In her discussion of upcoming work, the cabinet secretary did not refer to the upcoming cast review final report. Can I ask what plans the Scottish Government is making to respond to the cast review final report, which was due in the new year? Can I also ask if the national gender identity healthcare reference group is considering the delivery of gender identity healthcare for children and young people? I thank Clare Baker for her questions. I think that there is something that we all need to reflect on with the section 35 and the judgment on how this Parliament is treated. Regardless of how people's views were on gender recognition, there is an on-going issue that we now have over how section 35 has been ordered. Yes, clearly the Government will reflect. I would suggest that there is a time for reflection for all of us on this. On the cast review, the member will be aware that the on-going findings of the cast review and the implementation by NHS England are being closely considered by the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland. I would be happy to write to the member or, indeed, to get the minister more deeply involved in that, to write to the member on the specifics of that issue. The cabinet secretary knows that I was and am opposed to the bill, but Westminster should not be interfering in what is rightly Scotland's business. Is the cabinet secretary concerned that future UK Governments may just use a veto just because they do not like our legislation? I think that this is one of the examples where the member on a high refers to having completely opposing views on the gender recognition bill, but he is quite right to point to the significance for this on devolution itself. That was rightly also focused on by Mark Drakeford when he said that the UK Government's decision to use the powers that have never been used in the history of devolution is a very dangerous moment. The point that I was trying to make to Claire Baker earlier on is that this is a turning point in devolution and it is up to all of us to reflect on what we do about that. The Government has taken this matter to court. We absolutely, as I said, accept the judgment of the court on this and will not appeal, but I do think that there is a worrying habit, can I put it, that the UK Government has about interfering in devolution, and I do fear that that habit may increase in the future. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. This bill commanded support from members of all five parties across this chamber, because it sought to allow trans people to be recognised for who they are without trauma in the legal architecture that underpins their lives. Many trans people suffer discrimination in Sigma every day. This process will have harmed them further and left them feeling let down and exposed. That is a great shame, and a humane approach to gender recognition is a problem that remains unresolved. They are now looking to us for meaningful progress against the other barriers that stand between them and equality, such as a ban on conversion therapy and ready access to trans inclusive healthcare. The cabinet secretary touched on some of those in her remarks, but to reassure those watching us today who are hurting, will she commit to a meaningful timeline of action and regular reporting to Parliament on each of those areas? Absolutely. Alex Cole-Hamilton is quite right to begin his remarks by saying that trans people simply want to be accepted for who they are. We should all be able to say that about all of our members of society. I appreciate that they feel let down, they feel exposed and they will feel vulnerable. There is a responsibility. I feel very heavily on me and my Government to ensure that we move forward with whatever we can do right across Government on this issue. I give one example of that. We have already discussed healthcare, but I give one example again on conversion therapy. We had fully intended to have that consultation out on the end in conversion practices bill by the end of the year, but we listened to stakeholders' concerns, both from faith groups and from LGBT groups, about the fact that they wished that to be in the new year, particularly because there is a time over Christmas and the new year that people may be feeling particularly vulnerable and may not have support services available. That consultation is ready. It is absolutely ready to be launched right at the beginning of the new year when Parliament returns. He has my absolute assurance on that that the minister will be taking that forward in due course. Either she or I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that in further detail. We have much interest. I would be grateful if we could have short and concise questions and responses to get as many members in as possible. I call Evelyn Tweet to be followed by Russell Finlay. Following the court's decision on the use of section 35 to block the GRR bill, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that devolution is fundamentally flawed and that only full independence can ensure that Scotland's democratic decisions are implemented? I hear groans from that, and they affirm that once again. Let me be very clear, Presiding Officer. If the Scottish Conservatives do not want the conclusion to be that we need independence to ensure that the will of the Scottish Parliament is recognised, they also have to reflect on the fact that section 35 is a part of the devolutionary set-up. However, how it is used is very important to how this Parliament feels it is being treated and the respect that this Parliament is given. Anyone who is interested in getting devolution to work, which allegedly the Scottish Conservatives do, would also want to reflect on the use of section 35 as it goes forward and prove us wrong. Prove that there is a way to get devolution to work, because until then, the member is quite correct that only with independence will we have Scotland's democratic decisions implemented. Women across Scotland were told that their views were not valid. I applaud their hard-won victory with the SNP's dangerous GRR bill in the bin where it belongs. However, I would like the cabinet secretary to explain why female prisoners are still being used as guinea pigs in the SNP's gender self-id experiment.  Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, this bill is not in the bin and it awaits an incoming UK Government that has more respect for devolution. I also point out to Russell Findlay that the examples that he gives are under a gender recognition certificate process that is there throughout the UK and that is also there for many, many years. What has happened within the Scottish Prison Service has nothing to do with gender recognition certificates and he should not conflate the issues. He will also be well aware of the recent Scottish Prison Service policy on this and I would refer him if he is genuinely interested in the safety of women and transgender prisoners to look at that in detail. Maggie Chapman, to be followed by Ash Regan. The court ruling 12 days ago came as a bitter blow to trans people across Scotland. I know many of them are feeling very hurt and vulnerable right now and they now have to wait indefinitely for the reforms that the legislation we passed here overwhelmingly 12 months ago would have delivered. Trans people are targets just because of who they are. Given that their lives have been and continue to be weaponised as part of a toxic culture war, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to trans people who need some hope, some clear demonstration that they matter and that we value them? I thank Maggie Chapman for her question and put on record my thanks to her for all the work that she has done on this issue over the years and I look forward to continuing to work with her as we move forward to protect and enhance the trans rights. It is very important that we provide the reassurances that she asks for. I hope that my words today in some way go to reflect my concern over the trans community's vulnerability at this difficult time and the Government's commitment on this issue. I call Ash Regan to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Last year, the Scottish Government told us that it is just a small admin change. It grants no new rights. It does not interfere with the operation of the Equality Act. Safeguards are not required. No evidence of harm to women, all of which were wrong. This sorry and sad episode has created a culture where women were dismissed as transphobes and bigots. The Scottish Government failed in its duty to analyse the potential impact on women and they misled this Parliament. They must provide clarity on next steps, as this bill must never be implemented. I renew my calls for the Government to apologise, as their conduct has fatally undermined public trust in Government and they have no one to blame for that but themselves. I would say to the member that although the Scottish Government introduced this bill, it was passed by Parliament. This is now Parliament's bill and this Government will protect the will of Parliament in any way that we can. As I have said before, this judgment was about how the section 35 was used with respect to GRR. It did not discuss the merits of the bill itself and it is very important that those two items are not conflated. I fully welcome the Scottish Government's on-going commitment to LGBTQ people and hope that the trans community will be offered their relevant support in the days and weeks following those events. Can the cabinet secretary share further information on the reason behind the Government's decision not to appeal? As I have laid out already in some of my answers, the decision for that was one for the Government taking a view of not just the legal advice but the policy advice that we had. Reflecting on that and reflecting on our views that to carry that process on would impact again negatively on the trans community. We feared that the bill, because of the Secretary of State for Scotland's transagence on the issue, would still not be able to pass. It is for those reasons that we chose not to appeal. The Scottish Conservatives warned time and time again that the SNP green gender self-id bill threatened women's single sex spaces. That was proven by the case of Isla Bryson and would have impacted on equality laws right across the United Kingdom. If the SNP was so caring of the impact of its GRR bill on vulnerable women, why did it vote against those key amendments? I fully respect that the member and I have very different opinions on this bill. I appreciate that there are different views on this bill. However, I am very firm once again on my opinion that we can improve the rights of trans people in our society—one of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in our society—while ensuring that we protect women's rights as well. I would make the point that there are no amendments that came forward at stage 3, even if the Government had accepted all of them, that would have prevented at stage 35, based on the Secretary of State firmly believing, as he has said in the House of Commons, that he does not believe in having two systems within the United Kingdom. On that basis, that is where we run into an intractable problem, but that is why we will continue, yes, to support trans rights, but also always to support women's rights and protect women from discrimination. I call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Douglas Ross. Regardless of the various views of the General Recreation Reform Bill, I think that we can all agree that it did not quite work out as intended. Indeed, it has left sour relationships across multiple groups in our society. Our job is simple to scrutinise and pass good, competent law at best value to the public purse. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary outline what specific review processes the Scottish Government plans to undertake on its role and the outcome that we have here today? I would say to the member that we are in danger of conflating a judgment that was based on the use of the section 35 order on gender recognition bill, on the merits of the gender recognition bill itself. The bill, as it was passed by the vast majority of this Parliament, remains a bill that the Government would like to see implemented. Of course we will reflect on that judgment, of course we will, but we will also very important reflect on the use of the section 35 order and how that impacts on the devolutionary process, because that is what the judgment was all about. Douglas Ross. The cabinet secretary has spoken a lot today about diverging views and having respect. Many women and girls oppose the SNP green legislation to protect their rights and safety. Therefore, on behalf of the Scottish Government, will she thank them for everything she did during the course of the passage of this bill for standing up for those freedoms? There were obviously diverging views within the Scottish Conservatives on this bill, as well as members of Douglas Ross's group voted for it, and the majority I accept voted against. What I would say is that every single member of this Parliament—I have no doubt, Presiding Officer—respects the rights of women and respects their needs for protection against discrimination and violence. That is something that this Government and this Parliament have already demonstrated on many occasions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. That concludes the ministerial statement. Throughout the previous statement, the cabinet secretary made reference to the fact that there were no amendments presented at stage 3 that would have not resulted in diversions from UK legislation. There were, but they were presented in my name. I thank Ms Webber for her contribution. I do not believe that it is a point of order, but it is on the record. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the Trusts and Successions Scotland Bill. I will allow a couple of minutes for front benches to organise themselves.


My background is in biochemistry, cell biology, immunology, bacteriology, and cows. And I'm going to start talking about grass and how it affects the cow. But you first need to know how that grass grows. And then I'll talk about the effects. I'll probably have to take this mic with me. So I'm going to draw my grass plants here. I hope you can all see this. And here's the sun. I draw an excellent sun. And the grass plant takes in carbon dioxide in through pores called stomata. Now, this is not an energy source. You put out fires with it. OK? Next, of course, the plant takes up water up into the plant. And water is not an energy source. You put out fires with it. But with photosynthesis, from the sunlight through photosynthesis, breaks this water molecule down, releases the oxygen into the air, and then combines the carbon dioxide with the water to make a sugar, or starch, or fat, or fiber on and on. So the problem with this situation here is sometimes you have a cloudy day. So the amount of sugars, starches, fats that are produced by the plant are limited. Another limiting factor is if we don't have very much moisture. Like we had this last year, we have a drought. We have a problem with making sugars. So I'm going to put up my sugar here. Sugar is just a carbohydrate, or carbon-hydrogen-oxygen chain, carbohydrate. And that's what you're making is a bunch of simple sugars, which then will get complexed into making fats, which will have more energy, less oxygen. Then you'll also make proteins, and then cellulose, and hemi-cellulose, and on and on. So here we have this grass plant growing. And we have, let's say, plenty of sun and plenty of moisture. And so the energy is going to be quite nice. But here's one of the things you've got to look for if you're grazing a cow on it. If you're grazing an animal, you have to worry about the amount of energy compared to the amount of protein. If you have a diet that's excessive in protein, you'll end up with a thin cow that doesn't give much milk or meat. So you must graze the top part of the plant because that'll have the most energy. Because the energy from the sun doesn't come down here and go in down here. It hits in the top parts of the plant mostly. OK? So if you analyze this, the energy content in this top third will be higher. Now this is important on people that are growing vegetables too. So if you're in the vegetable market and you're trying to sell a sweet carrot or a sweet apple, this amount of sunlight and this amount of moisture is very important to have them equal. Also, carbon dioxide is very important. Everybody's worried about cutting down the amount of carbon dioxide. If you calculate the amount of carbon dioxide out here in the country, away from Washington DC or the big cities, you'll see we actually have a deficiency of carbon dioxide. So you could actually fertilize your pastures with carbon dioxide and increase the amount of grass production, which so that means we can go to Washington DC and New York and Chicago and St. Louis and we can have those guys pay us to take their carbon dioxide and bring it out here and then we grow more vegetables and more grass and then sell them feedback and we would get all the money and they could do whatever they do. Probably give us more laws and screw everything up. So no, but this is true. This study on carbon dioxide was done in Germany by some plant physiologists that we actually need to supplement. I think in greenhouses, they actually do this. But if you're going to give carbon dioxide to the plant in a greenhouse, first off, make sure you don't walk in there when you're filling it up because you'll have a hard time breathing. The next thing you want to do is only do it during the day. This carbon dioxide is not going to get converted to sugars and starches and release oxygen unless you have sunlight. Now, the next thing that occurs or can occur if you're grazing this plant and the reason I say graze the top third, not only for more energy, but I want a great deal of this grass material, not maybe 100%, but maybe 70% of it knocked down here on the ground. The reason is because one thing that we don't do is we don't deal with fertilizing this plant properly. If you want to increase the growth and multiplication of different species of grass, you have to feed not just the plant, but the microbes, the bacteria, the protozoa, the molds, the fungi, everything that's associated with this. The problem is nobody feeds the bacteria, the soil. We put some minerals on and it helps that grass plant, but it doesn't feed the bacteria. So now we're starting to see people put some milk on. That'll help feed them. We see people using fish syllables. The Indians did that for hundreds of years. We see molasses put on. Those things are starting to feed the bacteria in the soil, but you don't put on very much. Now, an example of nitrogen, which I haven't talked about yet, the air is 78% nitrogen, but it has to be fixed or attached to something to be taken up by the plant. Usually it's in the form of a nitrate, it's N03, and it's transported up into the plant by potassium. That's why when you see people feeding the plants a lot of potash or potassium chloride or potassium oxide, that potassium is used to transport nitrate up into the plant. Now, this isn't a protein yet. It's just a nitrate, so it can be a little bit dangerous to be eating if it gets up into the plant. Because if the nitrate comes up into the plant and there's not enough sunlight to make enough hydrogen or energy available to turn this into a sugar, and then after that it converts the nitrate into a protein. Let me put up a protein here. That's ammonia, NH2. Now I have an amino acid. That's my amino acid. There's a whole bunch of different kinds. But the only difference between a protein and a carbohydrate is this thing right here. So if I want to make this, I want to change that nitrate into that. I have to have a whole bunch of carbon and hydrogen. That means I have to take that and break down the water, and then I have my carbon and hydrogen and oxygen to make my sugar, and then to make the protein. But if I don't have enough sunlight or I don't have enough water, that does not get done. Now, also, we all are focused on using legumes to fix nitrogen in the soil from rhizobia that are associated with that alfalfa or clover plant. But there are other organisms in nature that are not associated with a plant. One of them is called azodobacter. Azodobacter doesn't care about what plants are growing out there. And if you can feed them, that's the problem. If you feed them, they will actually take nitrogen from the air and make all the nitrogen available to grass plants that you need. Now, there's more than just azodobacter. There's three or four more that do that. But to do that, you have to feed that organism. So what do bacteria eat? Well, what does your cow eat?  So what you need to do is feed the bacteria out here in the soil with the same food that you give the cow, grass, hay, maybe corn, maybe corn silage. You could use any of those, any plant material. But no, we come along and we have mowers that just chop it off right here.  And we make 47 cuts. So there's nothing left at the end. And after we get done making all those cuts and we run the cows out there to chew it down to the dirt. Well, what did you leave for the bacteria? There's another problem besides food for the bacteria. If you have open spaces here on the ground, the sunlight is antibacterial. And you will nuke them. You'll kill the bacteria because of the excess sunlight. Another thing that occurs is drying. You have nothing to trap the moisture. So if you knock some of this plant material down on the ground, then you can trap some more moisture. So this drought doesn't really become a problem. You have a food source for organisms to grow and multiply and to feed the plants. Now another thing that you need to be involved in with this is when you do knock some of these plants down with an animal, some of that material is going to come back up again and start growing. And some of it will be knocked down here permanently, especially if you had just had a rain and they knocked a lot of it down on the ground. And the recovery, if you've got a small area that you put the animals in for too long a period and it became kind of a mud hole and then you moved them on, that area where you made it such a mud hole, if a recovery period is long enough, will be the best, the best, tallest grass that you've ever seen. But it takes some recovery period to be able to grow it back. So I don't worry about animals pugging something up or stomping on it. And now, so we got this stuff knocked down. Another thing why you only want to eat the top third of the grass plant is now you have this much grass plant, some of them that are still growing that haven't been knocked completely down on the ground, that's going to collect sunlight. If you only eat the top third, this grass plant that we ate to here compared to one that we ate clear down there or made hay off of, which one is going to grow back faster? Well, this one, very obvious. So that means if I'm rotating animals around, I can come back to this grass plant and it will have recovered where this one's still down here. So what you end up doing is making more and more tons per acre. I used to believe that you could easily do three times more tons of grass per acre, three times by doing this. And I found out I was wrong. It's more like eight to 10 times. You've probably heard of Ian Mitchell-Innis, which in 97 I went over there. And he used to have this tall native grass that's probably 15 foot tall. And they would burn every year because it was so lignified that the animals couldn't eat it. And so to get animal performance, he would set a match to it. And I said, well, if you keep it in a vegetative state, then you never have to worry about that.  But he says, I can't get around my whole property before this has already more than recovered. And so it gets too mature for me. So I told him, well, sell half your farm. Then you can get around. And I didn't know that that was not something you said in South Africa. And so we didn't get along very well. But I learned about three or four years later that he leased out two thirds of his farm and started grazing this way. And now has increased the animal numbers eight times over what he had before. Now that's like buying eight more farms. And he still only got one third of the acres. Now that's pretty amazing. I didn't know that was possible. But I think Greg's doing it. And Doc Kincaid's doing it. And it works quite nicely. So let me see if I can get rid of this. I've got some more drawings. Now when we're feeding a cow and a little later this afternoon, right after this one, I'm giving a talk over there about ration balancing. And I'll talk about carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. But first I'm kind of doing things a little backwards. Here's my rumen. And if I have a diet on a cow that's high in energy and low in protein, I get a fat cow that doesn't give very much meat or milk. All right, if that's what you're hunting for is a lot of back fat. But remember, it takes two and a fourth times more energy to put on a pound of fat than it does a pound of meat. So it's very inefficient to put an animal in a feedlot situation on a high-grain ration and 10% or 12% protein. And it costs a huge amount of money. So let's look at what happens then if you have protein in excess of energy on a diet. We're putting them out on this lush green pasture, maybe some wheat pasture. First off, we have to remember my carbohydrate here. And I know many of you have already taken chemistry a bunch. But a lot of the people I deal with have only eighth grade education. So making something exact just doesn't help. So here's my carboxylic group, which they don't care about. And here's my amine group, which they don't care about. Now, what happens in the rumen if I have too much protein? And this is why I want to raise the top third, because it has less protein and more energy. If I have a protein excess diet, the bacteria are the ones that make the determination. The cow doesn't have a choice. So what they will do is they will deaminize that protein, in other words, they take a bite, and they spit that ammonia out. Oh, here it is. And ammonia is a gas. Can you think of what happens if you get a whole bunch of this gas in here? How about if we have an oily substance, because we're on clover or alfalfa, and oils float on top of water and traps the gas? Those are called saponnins. Traps the gas, so there you get your frothy bloat. Now, you can use an anti-foaming agent to cut that surface tension. You could use vinegar, an acetic acid that'll make an ammonium acetate, which is a neutral salt. So if you get an animal with bloat, get a quart of vinegar, and drench them. That's a quick way to take care of the problem, unless you have an anti-foaming agent on hand. All right, now, another problem with an ammonia. That's the bloodstream, by the way. You notice I'm very good with my physiology and have all the right things. You notice right in behind this rumin, just so you know, I know there's some more stomachs. But I'm not interested in them right now. Oh, one thing more, ammonia is an alkaline substance. So if we're trying to keep fermentation proper, we'd like to have a pH somewhere around 6, 5 to 7. Yes, it gets more acid with fermentation, because the bacteria use an organic acid to digest things. They don't have teeth. But the more acid you make it, the more closer to acidosis you get. Also, if you give too much protein, more alkalosis conditions, and you will depress the growth of multiplication of bacteria. OK? So what happens is this ammonia, which is a gas, and the rumin wall is gas permeable, this ammonia is going to go right in and jump right into the bloodstream. And to transport it, it will be transported by the red blood cell, which we call met hemoglobin now. Your doctor checks you for bun or blood urea nitrogen level. OK? That's one way that you could do the same thing on a cow. All right? Now, the problem is, those are lungs. Look like lungs, don't they? OK. And the bloodstream is going up here. Yeah, it goes through some other things. We'll get to them here in a minute. But the purpose of the lungs is to transfer oxygen in and carbon dioxide, which is a waste material, out of the cell. So we've got all this ammonia in here. Now, we can't pick up carbon dioxide because the hemoglobin has been attached with an amine group or with ammonia. And we can't get oxygen into the bloodstream because we got too much ammonia. Now, what that means is you have cows in the summer on this lush green pasture, standing under a tree going, and you guys say it's because it's too hot. Maybe not. Maybe it hasn't got a dang thing to do with the heat. Oh, well, it does a little bit. Because if you know your gas laws, when you have higher temperature, the oxygen molecules are farther apart. OK, that is a problem. But I've seen it happen when it's only 60 or 70 degrees out there. So I don't want to hear about heat. I know what it is. Now, you can use a way to test this. You can test the blood urea nitrogen level. Another way you could do it is this bloodstream is going to go through the liver and the kidneys. And it's going to flush some of this ammonia out, depending on how much you're feeding that cow as to how much you will end up with. But now you can have urine urea nitrogen. You can actually check the pH of the urine of the animal. And if the pH is 7, everything's pretty good. But if it's 8 or 9, then that means that you're filling the system with ammonia. And those cows are going to stand over there under that tree, breathing really hard and salivating. And their performance will be terrible. All right, so this is a way to check it. When the pH reaches 9 in that urine, you're not going to get a cow bread. I don't care what you do. You're just not going to get a cow bread. A lot of people will blame it on the heat again. Now, heat does cause a problem when it's hot enough, but it's 70 degrees. So if you've got a breeding problem, part of it may be an excess of protein. And you can just check the pH. It just gets you some pH paper that runs from 4 to 9, and just dip it. Don't dip it on the soil, because the soil will give you incorrect pH rating, but on a blade of grass or on a rock. Or if your kid's fast enough, give him a cup. It doesn't matter. They have to be pretty fast. But if they're like my cows, you'll be standing out there for days waiting for one to urinate. And then you get in the truck, and then they do it. That's how it works. Just excellent at that. The problem with the liver and the kidneys, why it doesn't flush it all out, is it's only capable of flushing so much. Ever seen a filler that didn't plug up? No, it's such thing. They all plug up. This doesn't really plug up. It just can't get rid of the volume of nitrogen that can be available to the animal. All right? Now, I'm going to put down here. This is the intestinal tract. The last three feet before it falls out of the ground called manure, that's where a lot of it, a lot of the fatty acids, the amino acids and the vitamins and everything gets absorbed into the bloodstream. Only trouble is, if we have too much ammonia, the blood urea nitrogen level is too high, then we're going to inhibit some of the uptake. That's where the problem with breeding comes in. If you've got a protein XS, you can't absorb phosphorus. It's just not going to happen. But nobody associates protein XS with being a problem. But it is a huge problem. So you inhibit some of the uptake. Another place that you can check it, if you're a dairyman, you can check the milk urea nitrogen level. All right, so that's probably a bad Wisconsin cow, since I'm from Wisconsin, I can say that. I think I know some guys that have that cow. Anyway, you can check the milk urea nitrogen level. I can spell it right. We want the milk urea nitrogen level to be somewhere between 9 to 12 milligrams per deciliter. If you get, yeah, you can survive if it's 14 or 15. But once it gets above that, then what happens is the cow starts getting thin and thin, and she won't breed back. Happens a lot. And that's when they're trying to get this cow to peak very well, so they feed a huge amount of protein. And they give 150 pounds of milk a day, but then they drop like a rock. And that's because the liver and the kidneys finally couldn't take it anymore, and so they shut down. And so the production drops. I'll give you another example of that for beef people. Wheat pasture cattle. Wheat pasture cattle, they take these 300, 400 pound calves and they put them out on this lush wheat that's probably this tall. If you test the whole plant, it runs about 24% protein. And if it was a little more lusher, if you've got crazy with the fertilizer or with putting a lot of manure on it, it can be a lot higher in that. And sometimes it's not a true protein, it's actually a nitrate. That's when you see cows on their back doing push-ups. No, I won't say it the way. Well, they're dead, OK? So you don't want a huge nitrate problem. All right, so we have this protein. So you put these cattle out there, and they put them out there on this wheat pasture for 100 days, OK? And the national average, according to whoever does all that calculating, says that the 100-day period, the national average gain will be 1.9 pounds a day. That's just automatic. You put them on wheat pasture. That's what they gain. If you take those calves off at 50 days in William, you will see that they have been gaining anywhere from 5 to 6 pounds a day for the first 50 days, OK? I've done it a bunch of times. 5 to 6 pounds a day every day for 50 days. So the question is, oh, by the way, they call it compensatory gain, OK? It's just not real. So if that's true, then what did they have to gain the last 50 days to end up 1.9? They had to lose weight. I call all that compensatory loss. In other words, so what should you do? What you should do is take the calves in there, put them in there for 50 days, sell them, get another bunch, and do it again. I actually have people that do this now. Well, I don't know them. I just know that they've done it, wrote me back, and said, well, that's what we're doing. Now, could you extend that rate again at 4 or 5 pounds a day longer than 50 days? Yes, you could. But what you would have to do is you would have to lower the protein of the diet and replace that energy with an energy source, OK? And you could extend it. But that's a greater cost. So is it cost effective? I don't know. You guys have to figure that out. But I do know that if you just want to make a quick turnaround, bring them in for 50 days and sell them and get another 50, OK? All right, I lost my, yeah. Yeah, the reason they don't gain anything in the last 50 days is because the liver and the kidneys can't flush out the ammonia. And so you're blocking intake of food, fatty acids and other amino acids and vitamins and everything. And so the rate again will drop. That's why dairymen feed a high protein diet to push the cow to a higher peak. And then when they, what they'll do is they'll get up there maybe 150 pounds of cow a day. And then they drop. And then they lower the extra protein that they give the cow. They drop the extra feed because now they can no longer afford it. Then what happens? Then the cow comes with the second peak. It's not as high as the first, but she comes up in milk production. All right, so they raise the protein extra that they give the cow. Then what does the cow do? She drops down in milk. When are you going to figure it out? Duh. Every time I feed extra protein, the cow comes down in milk. It's because the bacteria in the rumen don't care about you guys. And what they care about is energy to grow a mold place. So they'll use protein for an energy source. So if you're feeding soybean meal to an animal out on pasture, how dumb is that? Check the pH of the urine and see if they need that protein. Then ask yourself, when it's a pH of 8 or 9, those bacteria using that protein for a source of energy? Probably. So you could save a lot of money. Now, of course, it could help. The problem is you've got to remember the natural instinct of an animal. The natural instinct of an animal is to live from today until tomorrow.  They don't have to have protein. They don't have to have vitamins and minerals. They just have to have energy to live from today and tomorrow.  So if I have a bunch of animals out here on lush green spring grass that's anywhere from if you've got clovers or alfalfa with it or some of these others, it might be as high as 37% protein. If I have them on that and I put out some, let's say, straw or mature grass hay to dilute that protein down, they're not going to eat very much of it. The reason is because the energy in the green grass is higher than it is in the mature grass. So why would you want to eat it? But they will eat some, and it will help dilute down. The other thing is if you eat the top third of the plant, instead of the whole plant being 24% protein, that top third might be 16. But it'll be higher in energy. If you watch the animal graze, you turn them out there rather than running away real quick and watch them, they don't stand in one place and eat the grass all the way down. They never do that. They just eat the top third. They just take a bite, and then they move on. The only time they'll eat more is if you leave them in there for a long period of time and then they will come back and attack that plant again. And every time they do that, the energy is going down and the protein is going up. So you need to rotate them animals and keep them off that.  Some of it may be because there was some manure there before. So the nitrate levels are high, or the potassium levels are high. Something is high, something that they don't like. So don't worry about those grass plants that they don't eat. Don't worry about if one of them is a thistle. Don't worry about those. Those are fertilizer. Those feed those bacteria down here in the soil to make more nitrogen or fix more nitrogen and also make some of that rock fertilizer that you have down there in the form of calcium carbonate or other minerals in the soil that are not available. They'll use that organic acids will then help dissolve some of those to make those elements available. So you don't have to go to the store and buy so much lime or potash or whatever. So you can eliminate a lot of your fertilization programs whether you want to or not by the way you graze. So sometimes I forget where I'm at. Yeah, that's a great idea because that's what they'll go to first. They'll eat that and you help dilute down the protein. But oh, I'm sorry. I don't think about this stuff very much. What about before you give them their next break of grass, you feed some dry hay then? Because the high energy grass that they ate is already gone, then they're more likely to eat the grass hay that's not quite as high in energy as the grass. But higher, it might be a little bit, it won't be as high as that first third, but it might be as good as the second. And then you help dilute that protein. It seems kind of silly to be feeding some hay on green grass. But I'm not talking about feeding a lot of hay. I'm talking about a pound or two. Yes. Yeah, you could increase your speed of rotation. That's true. Rather than putting them in there in this one section for one day, maybe you put them in there for six hours. Or maybe you make the area larger. But if you make the area larger, then you don't get as much animal impact to knock this grass down to help feed the bacteria and the worms and everything that's involved in the soil. And you need to have that grass on the ground because bacteria don't have any legs, and they don't jump up there and eat it. It has to be knocked on the ground for them to eat. Same thing with the worms. They get out in the sunlight and they're history. So it's a good idea to have that knock as much down on the ground as you can possibly get. This year was a really good year to find out if somebody was grazing properly. If you were management intensive grazing and you're grazing it down to this short, come about the middle of June, you didn't have any grass. You didn't have nothing. All you had is dirt. Everybody in my country, we had a bad, bad drought. We had a half inch of rain in May, and then we didn't have any moisture, any rain, till the end of July. None.  All right, and hay's free, right? Oh yeah.  The cows will only eat it if they're starving. I grazed not properly, but I grazed eating the top third and knocking stuff down. I'm not there a lot, so I can't do it properly. I never fed any hay at all. I had grass. I still have grass. I'm feeding some corn stalks now, and I'll tell you the reason why I'm feeding some corn stalks. I put out a bale for about a week, and it's only about 40 head. The reason I do in that is because we've started getting rain. So now I got a bunch of light green grass, and the days are getting shorter, so the energy's lower, but the nitrogen's there, and the cows are getting loose, and I needed something to dilute that protein excess down, so I put out corn stalks, and they'll go over there and just tear them things up. And the manure doesn't get so, and it'll extend my grazing. So I don't have to worry about feeding hay until I get over a foot of snow, which I'll eventually probably get. Last year I didn't. We could have grazed all year last year, and never fed a bale of hay. It was really nice, but that doesn't happen all the time. So, okay, you had a question. Oh, on stalker cattle, on that wheat pasture, he was talking about putting out that bale of hay or bale of straw to dilute that protein down. That's exactly what they should do. They could increase the energy of that straw so that they ate more by putting maybe some molasses on it, or, you know, and that'll help dilute the protein. That'll entice them to eat a little more, but there's an expense in that. So if I put out mature grass hay, some Bermuda grass hay from down that country in Texas or in the South, if I put that grass hay out there, they're gonna eat maybe 10% of their diet in mature grass hay, and that'll extend that 50 day period, probably another 10 days, just by doing that. So now you can get four or five pounds a day by putting out that Bermuda grass or mature grass hay. That'll extend it another 10 days, and they're not gonna eat that much hay, probably 20 or 30 cents worth, but for another five pounds a day gain for another 10 days, it's well worth it to do it. So you kind of have to worry, you know, most people don't do it, but you have to worry about the excesses more than you do the deficiencies. And one of the worst deficiencies for grazers is protein. The next most deficient, or I'm sorry, excessive element will be potassium, because remember, potassium transports nitrogen up into the plant, and if you look at the cell of the body, whether it's yours or whether it's a cow's, it doesn't matter, potassium controls the osmotic pressure inside of a cell, and sodium controls the osmotic pressure outside of the cell. All right, if you have a diet that's high in potassium, I've seen some of these grasses and pastures and haze run anywhere from two and a half to 4% potassium. The requirement of the animal is 0.93% potassium. So you've got anywhere from two to 4% excessive amount of potassium. The sodium content, the requirement's 0.24%. If you look at an analysis of grass, the requirement is, well, no, the requirement's 0.24, but what's in the grass is less than 0.01%. So it's almost non-existent, okay? One of the ways you take care of that is with salt, okay? Salt is, of course, only one-third sodium and two-thirds chloride. So you may end up with a chloride excess before you got rid of bringing the sodium up high enough to counteract that potassium. Now, what happens if you have that situation is now you can, the pressure gradient inside the cell is greater than outside, so you will get leaking of the cell, fluids out of the cell. In dairy cows, they call it utteredema. They start milking two weeks before they've even calved. In the high country, they call it brisket disease. I've even seen it in people with horses that feed alfalfa hay. Don't ever feed alfalfa hay to a horse. It's a terrible thing to do to them. Too much protein, too much potassium. It's very, very hard on them. It's no wonder that they don't have any triple crown winners anymore because they feed them all that nonsense and they get the ration terribly wrong. But what happens is now we're getting fluids leaking out because the pressure inside is greater than outside to hold it in, but we still are able to get food in across that potential because of what they call the sodium potassium ATP pump. So this ATP forces or pumps food into that cell because of the pressure being greater, but you get this leaking problem and you'll get problems with swelling in the lower extremities in the udder region. If you have dairy cows, the big problem nowadays is what they call strawberry wart or hairy wart or foot abscesses, almost always in the back legs or the back feets where they get that. It's all caused by a potassium excess. All you have to do to counteract that is feed them some bacon soda, bring the sodium level up to counteract that excess of potassium or dilute the potassium and quit spending the money. So there's a couple of ways you can deal with that. All of this sort of thing also pertains to a grass plant. You know, for instance, in those grass plants, the cell of the grass plant also makes what they call ATP, adenicine triphosphate, and the ATP is the energy in the cell to make more cells. So if you're short of ATP, you don't get performance. Okay, well, there's other elements that are involved also, but ATP is one of the main ones in the cell of the body and in the cell of the plant. So that means if I don't have enough phosphorus, I can't make much energy. So I never did understand why everybody focused on a high calcium fertilizers and they didn't bother with phosphorus. You know, we do a lot of analysis. We have a Elementor, it's a carbon hydrogen oxygen, nitrogen analyzer, and hydrogen is what determines how much energy something really has. Pure carbon supplies about 9,000 calories per gram, but hydrogen supplies about 25,000 calories per gram, and pure carbon doesn't burn. That's what they have, call a diamond. All right, so it must be fixed or attached to hydrogen. So if you can increase the hydrogen content of something then more of the carbon is available to be burned. Now, so if I'm making some ATP in this plant and I have to have this phosphorus, but I have too much calcium in the soil or even in the system of the animal, I'm going to prevent the uptake of phosphorus. So I have a problem with the way people fertilize a little bit because they have some terrible excesses and which means you have to buy more products to overcome those and also your energy in your plant material is lower. In the 1960s, the hydrogen content or energy content of corn used to be 7.1% hydrogen. This last year's corn and this year's corn, the hydrogen content is running 6.81. Now it doesn't sound like a very big amount, but if you're talking about 25,000 calories per gram, that's a huge amount of calories we lost in this corn crop that we're using. Now what caused that? Genetics, I don't know, genetic modification, I don't know. I just, fertilization programs, I don't know. Something caused the energy to drop. Let's look at alfalfa hay. Alfalfa hay used to run 6.25% hydrogen. Now we're lucky to get it at 6% hydrogen. So we're doing something incorrect to get the energy up in these grass plants or legumes or seed heads, whether it's corn or whether it's oats or whatever, because we're losing energy pretty fast.