Farm science.

yosemitesam1

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

A very good paper on the benefits of the paddock or rotational system of grazing over the “let ‘em wander system”.

However the paper falls short in an Irish intensive grazing system because the research was on organic grassland that had not received any fertilizer or pesticides (inc herbicides I’m assuming) for greater than seven years, and for the duration of the study. The sward was predominantly alfalfa (lucerne) with a mix of cold season grasses...

The feedlot results assumed soil erosion/ degradation and the use of organic manure and artificial fertilizer...


Firing out a hospital pass to modern technology won’t, imho, fix our current issues with environmental pollution. Modern technology is outstanding in fairness but asking it to cure the ills of an ailing planet is asking too much...
Seawater and other magic potions are only deflecting the discussion.

Look up Richard Teague grazing down the carbon, I think we can take that rewarding productivity without driving the system through artificial inputs is a good thing. But they'll always be able to show better results as they've ha to the cow versus cows/ha to spread emissions over.
Another plus of that is that biodiversity will be increased as a byproduct.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

There's a hell of a lot that people need to learn about growing grass and what the grass actually needs to grow.

You'll know from reading my posts that I largely paddle my own canoe when it comes to growing grass and I'll take any information I can and try it out for myself.
Life's too short not to is my motto.

I alluded to Albrecht before and I'm beginning to firmly believe he had the soil science and ratios for the different elements worked out for grass.
Then I take a little bit from Elaine Ingham too when she mentions that a plant needs every available element in small portions to grow properly. It's kind of how I went down the road I'm going.

I got soil samples done across the whole farm lately using the Albrecht testing system and you can see the difference in fields where the ratios are off.

This day of depending on something wholey out of a bag is gradually changing for me. It might take me a lifetime to perfect and have the perfect soil but I'll enjoy the journey.

Just a little on what I've done and the results. All the land came back low in Boron on the Albrecht soil test for grass.
The fields that are lowest for boron have the worst and most burnt grass atm. There's one especially so that's high in calcium and low in Boron.
Now I've spread dolerite dust on all the land now but the best so far is the reseed that got 3t tilled into it. Dolerite would contain all the elements on earth including all the heavy metals. Now Ingham would tell you that soil needs these as well in small proportions for a healthy soil and healthy plant. Most people would gawp if you told them that but yet have no fear of eating a fish which is full of every available element from it's environment including the heavy metals.
Now a guess from me would be that dolerite could be harmful if your soil is high already in Boron but if it's low then I see no harm.
Back to the reseed I'm grazing it away atm and it's as green as anything with no sign of burning. I believe the dolerite has been an awful help to the grass. I did spread slurry on it just on the opening date as well but from looking at neighbours reseeds who spread at the same time. Their's have gone back and mine haven't.
I'm going to reseed more land this year and plan on spreading 5t/ac and tilling in based on the soil sample results for that field.
I believe I have hit on something that suits my soil. The soil here would I'd classify as a hungry soil, high in potash low in phosphorus low in Boron high in magnesium usually low in calcium but depends on your liming applications and if near marl low in sulphur.

A perfect soil for grass I'd classify that must be near perfect and naturally formed is soil near galbally and soil south of adamstown co.wexford. This is soil formed from volcanic intrusions to the surface. This belt actually runs and pops up from Waterford to north Wexford. This soil in theory should be full of every available element like I mentioned. I can guarrantee you though that it's a miracle to look at this land now where other grass on land is burning back and theirs stays green for longer.
There's a lot more I believe to soil than fertiliser yosemitesam.
Anyway ramble over.:p

I don't know about much of that but would be wary of following any exact targets. As long as anything isn't way off, try and get soil biology to balance it off, as it knows better than we do what it needs would be my thinking.

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

I don't know about much of that but would be wary of following any exact targets. As long as anything isn't way off, try and get soil biology to balance it off, as it knows better than we do what it needs would be my thinking.

If the elements are not there in the first place no amount of biology will introduce or produce those elements out of thin air.
I've come from a base of having land in my youth that was near enough organic with poor animals and poor crops to what I'm currently trying to work towards. The stock are now getting mineral supplements and thriving and the hope is that by trying this out that the land is getting mineral supplements too and hopefully in the near future the stock will be getting adequate minerals through the grass.

I'd have a poor view of some organic growers. There's a landowner near me from mainland Europe and he's a committed organic grower but year on year since he bought the land it's all gone backwards. He doesn't soil test. Spreads no lime. Sets the ground but won't allow a stake to be drove in case it kills a worm. It's just terrible looking at the land now. All white grass with no feeding and poor stock on it now. According to him this ground is full of life but I'd know well enough there's 10 times more life and diversity in my soil with all the different bacteria. Now that's a poor example of an organic farmer/landowner. He might have got a get out of jail free card if he had better soil than what's in this area but atm it's not working out for him.

blue5000

feargale wrote: »

I'm off cow's milk, butter, cheese etc.. Can anybody tell me if there is goat's butter and where it can be got? Thanks.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057020595&page=84

Buford T. Justice XIX

feargale wrote: »

I'm off cow's milk, butter, cheese etc.. Can anybody tell me if there is goat's butter and where it can be got? Thanks.

Never heard of goats butter on sale here but Supervalu have a good selection of niche products from sheep and goats so maybe they might have something there?

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

If the elements are not there in the first place no amount of biology will introduce or produce those elements out of thin air.
I've come from a base of having land in my youth that was near enough organic with poor animals and poor crops to what I'm currently trying to work towards. The stock are now getting mineral supplements and thriving and the hope is that by trying this out that the land is getting mineral supplements too and hopefully in the near future the stock will be getting adequate minerals through the grass.

I'd have a poor view of some organic growers. There's a landowner near me from mainland Europe and he's a committed organic grower but year on year since he bought the land it's all gone backwards. He doesn't soil test. Spreads no lime. Sets the ground but won't allow a stake to be drove in case it kills a worm. It's just terrible looking at the land now. All white grass with no feeding and poor stock on it now. According to him this ground is full of life but I'd know well enough there's 10 times more life and diversity in my soil with all the different bacteria. Now that's a poor example of an organic farmer/landowner. He might have got a get out of jail free card if he had better soil than what's in this area but atm it's not working out for him.

Whether the land is managed organically or not isn't the point, it's whether or not the management allows that the system can move toward be someway self reliant (or close to) and not on high levels of artificial inputs.

Upstream

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Whether the land is managed organically or not isn't the point, it's whether or not the management allows that the system can move toward be someway self reliant (or close to) and not on high levels of artificial inputs.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057821585/
This presentation by Gabe Brown covers the same points. Well worth a look. Bad organic farming is not much better than conventional farming. Good organic/semi organic farming in nature's image and putting soil health first is the way to go.

blue5000

Would I be right in thinking that all the snow that originated over Russia, Poland etc. would have a lot more Sulphur in it than our normal rain from the Atlantic?

Brown Podzol

blue5000 wrote: »

Would I be right in thinking that all the snow that originated over Russia, Poland etc. would have a lot more Sulphur in it than our normal rain from the Atlantic?

I think that snow originated initially from streamers coming in off the Irish Sea and Emma came from Biscay over south west England.

Say my name

Article from nature.com detailing the benefits of spreading basalt dust on agricultural land. It lists the various types of rock that are of most interest. The carbon capture and increased crop growth is a bonus.
I spread mine just to see would the added nutrients make a difference to grass growth and milk composition.
But the added benefits are certainly welcome. Just have to see what happens this year for me when the weather picks up.

Article here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y

Edit: actually that'll cost ye.
Here's a round about way to get access.

Cliff Crego (@cliffcrego) Tweeted:
READ: UPDATE on Dr James Hansen’s et al interesting new article, “Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security”

“Rock Dust in Farming Redux” pdf https://t.co/CFk9h8Y0H2

#climatecrisis #biochar #notill #ag #organic #ethics #keepitintheground

https://twitter.com/cliffcrego/status/966380353496723456?s=17

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Article from nature.com detailing the benefits of spreading basalt dust on agricultural land. It lists the various types of rock that are of most interest. The carbon capture and increased crop growth is a bonus.
I spread mine just to see would the added nutrients make a difference to grass growth and milk composition.
But the added benefits are certainly welcome. Just have to see what happens this year for me when the weather picks up.

Article here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y

Edit: actually that'll cost ye.
Here's a round about way to get access.

Cliff Crego (@cliffcrego) Tweeted:
READ: UPDATE on Dr James Hansen’s et al interesting new article, “Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security”

“Rock Dust in Farming Redux” pdf https://t.co/CFk9h8Y0H2

#climatecrisis #biochar #notill #ag #organic #ethics #keepitintheground https://twitter.com/cliffcrego/status/966380353496723456?s=17

Sci-hub.tw ;-)

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Sci-hub.tw ;-)

Thanks.

Forgot about that one.

yosemitesam1

https://newfoodeconomy.org/farmers-food-companies-regenerative-organic-certification/

feargale

Hi,
Could any of you give me a few easy agricultural questions for a pub quiz? The competitors are mostly townies who couldn't distinguish between a goat and a sheep. 5 or 6 would be great. Thanks.

Mtx

How do you make money from sucklers? (That'll test them!)
Seriously,
How many acres are in a hectare?
What is a stirk?

Say my name

feargale wrote: »

Hi,
Could any of you give me a few easy agricultural questions for a pub quiz? The competitors are mostly townies who couldn't distinguish between a goat and a sheep. 5 or 6 would be great. Thanks.

Who's the minister for agriculture?
In what county is the National Ploughing Association headquarters located?

Genghis Cant

Q.
Which chicken breed shares it name with a brand of vacuum cleaner?

A.Vorwerk

Buford T. Justice XIX

Here's an interesting comparison of Glyphosate and Copper Sulphate. Looks like Roundup may be a safer product to use...

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/20/far-more-toxic-than-glyphosate-copper-sulfate-used-by-organic-and-conventional-farmers-cruises-to-european-reauthorization/

Siamsa Sessions

Saw an interesting Tweet earlier this week re offsetting Ireland's dairy expansion via hedgerows and wild flowers; as in, how many metres of hedge would you need to plant to balance out the impact of a dairy cow?

I'm guessing we're talking about carbon sequestration here. And the question is how much hedgerow do you need to sequester the emissions generated by a cow.

Anyone have any figures or look at this previously?

yosemitesam1

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Saw an interesting Tweet earlier this week re offsetting Ireland's dairy expansion via hedgerows and wild flowers; as in, how many metres of hedge would you need to plant to balance out the impact of a dairy cow?

I'm guessing we're talking about carbon sequestration here. And the question is how much hedgerow do you need to sequester the emissions generated by a cow.

Anyone have any figures or look at this previously?

You'd need a lot!
Excluding soil emissions it's roughly a kilo of co2/l milk. A cubic metre of timber has about .7-1t of co2 equivalent depending if it's hard or soft wood.
There's roughly a 45-30-25% split between methane, nitrous oxide and co2 under the current weightings.
There would be about 100-150 t/ha more of co2 stored in less intensively managed grassland than intensive due to healthier soil, but even if that was acknowledged we should be using different weightings to the current ones. Methane is rated at 28 times that of carbon dioxide when it's effect on temperatures is only between 0.25-4 times that of carbon.
If that was changed a more sustainable system would be unquestionable but the current system puts such a weighting on methane (which takes the pressure off big business and developed countries) that the easiest approach taken by the likes of teagasc is to intensify further and not acknowledge the negatives of the system as they are merely carrying out a box ticking excercise.

Siamsa Sessions

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

You'd need a lot!
Excluding soil emissions it's roughly a kilo of co2/l milk. A cubic metre of timber has about .7-1t of co2 equivalent depending if it's hard or soft wood.
There's roughly a 45-30-25% split between methane, nitrous oxide and co2 under the current weightings.
There would be about 100-150 t/ha more of co2 stored in less intensively managed grassland than intensive due to healthier soil, but even if that was acknowledged we should be using different weightings to the current ones. Methane is rated at 28 times that of carbon dioxide when it's effect on temperatures is only between 0.25-4 times that of carbon.
If that was changed a more sustainable system would be unquestionable but the current system puts such a weighting on methane (which takes the pressure off big business and developed countries) that the easiest approach taken by the likes of teagasc is to intensify further and not acknowledge the negatives of the system as they are merely carrying out a box ticking excercise.

Thanks - great to get some numbers and context around this.

Can I try to get some bits straight in my head and make some general assumptions:

* Average between hard and soft wood = 0.85t (or 850kg) of CO2 per m3
* Average cow produces 5,000l per annum (IFA figures), so 5,000kg of CO2
* 1 cow needs 5,000/850 = 5.88m3 of timber to balance out CO2 emissions

Given how much timber you need to make up 1m3, that seems like a lot of forestry, never mind say hedgerows, to capture the carbon of one cow.

There's lots of ifs and buts in the above, but would it be safe to say they're ball-park figures nonetheless?

And that's before looking at the weighting of methane vs CO2.

yosemitesam1

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Thanks - great to get some numbers and context around this.

Can I try to get some bits straight in my head and make some general assumptions:

* Average between hard and soft wood = 0.85t (or 850kg) of CO2 per m3
* Average cow produces 5,000l per annum (IFA figures), so 5,000kg of CO2
* 1 cow needs 5,000/850 = 5.88m3 of timber to balance out CO2 emissions

Given how much timber you need to make up 1m3, that seems like a lot of forestry, never mind say hedgerows, to capture the carbon of one cow.

There's lots of ifs and buts in the above, but would it be safe to say they're ball-park figures nonetheless?

And that's before looking at the weighting of methane vs CO2.

Ye those figures would be roughly right excluding soil carbon losses which aren't acknowledged, but would add at least .2-.4kg/l.
The problem with forestry also is that it only offsets emissions as long as the wood isn't harvested, over the next 10-15 years forestry will change from a sink to a source of carbon as the increases in planting done in the 90's starts to mature. All the government is looking to do is try to kick our problems down the road as commercial forestry isn't a solution and no one would plant if there was never going to be harvesting.
If the weighting on methane was changed, it would mean that emissions from a low input system would be almost non existent. Even if soil carbon losses were acknowledged from intensive systems it would make lower input systems much more attractive from an emissions point of view. Methane production per l would be higher but nitrous oxide could be eliminated as would soil c losses and co2 emissions would also be reduced.
There isn't really the desire to change any of the current system in teagasc only try to make all the existing bits "better"...

yosemitesam1

From teagascs on farm grass evaluations. Not really sure is there anything to take from it bar persistency+dmd

Buford T. Justice XIX

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

From teagascs on farm grass evaluations. Not really sure is there anything to take from it bar persistency+dmd

Nothing there, yosemite?

yosemitesam1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Nothing there, yosemite?

Think it's there now

Siamsa Sessions

Some bedtime reading: http://www.agroecology-europe.org/new-articles/

All articles/publications relate to agroecology, and given the apparent environmental direction of the new CAP, they might be a sign of things to come?

Buford T. Justice XIX

A little bit about Honeybees and their non decline recently.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/17/honeybee-population-isnt-crashing-and-seed-pesticides-are-not-driving-health-problems-and-heres-why/

Basically, they claim that in a top 10 reasons for worry about bees, neonics and other pesticide losses come in at 11.

Say my name

Not a result but a 5 year trial about to begin in Canada examining the effects of feeding biochar to cattle.

http://www.betterfarming.com/digdeep/building-better-soil-biochar

Buford T. Justice XIX

I found this last night, a Chinese study about how different crop farming types influenced the social behaviour of those groups when they migrated to cities for work.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/china-coffee-shop-habits-show-cultural-differences-tied-farming?tgt=nr

Say my name

A bit of an interesting one.
Here's a brand spanking new idea about applying crushed basalt rock to farmland to
A) improve crop yields.
reduce the need for crop protection sprays because of more healthier plants from the increased trace elements and carbon.
C) Pull increased carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as the soil bacteria, roots, rainfall break down the basalt.
D) Save the world from climate change.
I'll add but it's not on this link.
E) Decrease N2O emissions from soil by 40%.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-enhanced-weathering-could-slow-climate-change-and-boost-crop-yields