How I eliminated my rushes naturally

taxusbaccata

I heard from many farmers that the only way to get rid of rushes is to spray and top them. I purchased 10 acres of long historically grazed fields which was having problems with rushes.

I would never use these toxic chemicals to damage the bacteria and fungi that keep the soil healthy aiding grass and other plants so I approached it logically... What do rushes need to survive? Wet and saturated soil. I observed that rush seeds actually germinate in water. I suspect that saturated soils have a thin film of water creating a surface "microlake" effect.

I observed the flow of heavy rain water over my fields, took photos and in the spring I used a small 3T digger to create a very gentle shallow drain with the front blade. It worked perfectly as it channeled the rainwater runoff into the pond I had dug. The next few month I noticed all the rushes were dying off.

EDIT: I made the drain along the path the water took naturally.

IMO chemical sprays are a complete waste of money and damage our soils. They only cause a transient set back to the rush plant before it takes off again. But the marketing power of chemical companies is great.

I am planting a boundary range of native trees to help with water and other soil health issues. The leaves they drop are fantastic for topsoil nutrients and their root complexes aid hugely with soil drainage.

Sam Kade

I read somewhere that rush seeds can lie dormant for 100 years and sure enough when I said it to a forester he said they cut trees in a very old forest and within a year the rushes were back as strong as ever.

IH784man

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I heard from many farmers that the only way to get rid of rushes is to spray and top them. I purchased 10 acres of long historically grazed fields which was having problems with rushes.

I would never use these toxic chemicals to damage the bacteria and fungi that keep the soil healthy aiding grass and other plants so I approached it logically... What do rushes need to survive? Wet and saturated soil. I observed that rush seeds actually germinate in water. I suspect that saturated soils have a thin film of water creating a surface "microlake" effect.

I observed the flow of heavy rain water over my fields, took photos and in the spring I used a small 3T digger to create a very gentle shallow drain with the front blade. It worked perfectly as it channeled the rainwater runoff into the pond I had dug. The next few month I noticed all the rushes were dying off.

IMO chemical sprays are a complete waste of money and damage our soils. They only cause a transient set back to the rush plant before it takes off again. But the marketing power of chemical companies is great.

I am planting a boundary range of native trees to help with water and other soil health issues. The leaves they drop are fantastic for topsoil nutrients and their root complexes aid hugely with soil drainage.

Sounds interesting,any photos?

jaymla627

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I heard from many farmers that the only way to get rid of rushes is to spray and top them. I purchased 10 acres of long historically grazed fields which was having problems with rushes.

I would never use these toxic chemicals to damage the bacteria and fungi that keep the soil healthy aiding grass and other plants so I approached it logically... What do rushes need to survive? Wet and saturated soil. I observed that rush seeds actually germinate in water. I suspect that saturated soils have a thin film of water creating a surface "microlake" effect.

I observed the flow of heavy rain water over my fields, took photos and in the spring I used a small 3T digger to create a very gentle shallow drain with the front blade. It worked perfectly as it channeled the rainwater runoff into the pond I had dug. The next few month I noticed all the rushes were dying off.

IMO chemical sprays are a complete waste of money and damage our soils. They only cause a transient set back to the rush plant before it takes off again. But the marketing power of chemical companies is great.

I am planting a boundary range of native trees to help with water and other soil health issues. The leaves they drop are fantastic for topsoil nutrients and their root complexes aid hugely with soil drainage.

Your 100% right chemical sprays when dealing with hard rushes are useless, the only way they're got rid of here involves digging up the bastards and drawing away

taxusbaccata

Yes the soil has a seed bank which it activates if the soil becomes exposed/eroded - this has been described as the soil bandage. I've heard the rush seeds can be dormant for 70 years or so. Nature will activate whatever seeds the conditions suit. I have changed my opinion of these "weeds" as they are apparently very beneficial. Tap root "weeds" such as Dock actually draw up nutrients from the subsoil and as the plant dies back naturally the minerals are released into the topsoil. The young plants are very nutritious to livestock who graze them. Apart from Foxglove and Ragwort almost all weeds are edible by livestock and indeed humans. Nettle in particular contains the broadest range of soil minerals of all field plants.

Sorry IH784 no photos from before. Jaymla I will probably have to remove the dead straw rush corpses - might just top them and see if they disappear.

alps

Might be as good a place as any to throw it out.....we've always sprayed swards with roundup before reseeding, and don't plough anymore. A French group here recently were horrified at our use of roundup, our advisor is uneasy about it, and other contributers here are also against its use because of its lingering effect in the soil..

Taxus, have you any opinions on its use or how reseeding could be o pleated without it?

Concerned lately when in conversation, a ducking hatcher said that his checks would die if they were ever fed a cereal that had been sprayed with roundup prior to harvesting. However we will have seen grain this past harvest, sprayed with roundup to help get the harvest completed, went on to sprout in the field.

yosemitesam1

alps wrote: »

Might be as good a place as any to throw it out.....we've always sprayed swards with roundup before reseeding, and don't plough anymore. A French group here recently were horrified at our use of roundup, our advisor is uneasy about it, and other contributers here are also against its use because of its lingering effect in the soil..

Taxus, have you any opinions on its use or how reseeding could be o pleated without it?

Concerned lately when in conversation, a ducking hatcher said that his checks would die if they were ever fed a cereal that had been sprayed with roundup prior to harvesting. However we will have seen grain this past harvest, sprayed with roundup to help get the harvest completed, went on to sprout in the field.

Before herbicides 3+ runs of the plough would have been carried out. One spray of glyphosate would have a much smaller effect on soil structure and biology than repeated cultivations.

jimini0

I will be trying to reclaim some land this spring. Its bad with rushes like most of my land. My biggest problem is drainage its low lying land with a river running along side. That floods when there is a lot of rain or with high tides. My plan is to get a machine in and clean open drains and open other drains and fill with stone. Then mole plough tru the stone drains to the open ones. Hopefully that will help drainage then I can tackle the rushes and lack of grass I do not intend on using any weedkiller.

taxusbaccata

jimini0 wrote: »

I will be trying to reclaim some land this spring. Its bad with rushes like most of my land. My biggest problem is drainage its low lying land with a river running along side. That floods when there is a lot of rain or with high tides. My plan is to get a machine in and clean open drains and open other drains and fill with stone. Then mole plough tru the stone drains to the open ones. Hopefully that will help drainage then I can tackle the rushes and lack of grass I do not intend on using any weedkiller.

I would recommend shallow open drains - closed drains with stones and especially perforated plastic pipes will always block.

taxusbaccata

alps wrote: »

Might be as good a place as any to throw it out.....we've always sprayed swards with roundup before reseeding, and don't plough anymore. A French group here recently were horrified at our use of roundup, our advisor is uneasy about it, and other contributers here are also against its use because of its lingering effect in the soil..

Taxus, have you any opinions on its use or how reseeding could be o pleated without it?

Concerned lately when in conversation, a ducking hatcher said that his checks would die if they were ever fed a cereal that had been sprayed with roundup prior to harvesting. However we will have seen grain this past harvest, sprayed with roundup to help get the harvest completed, went on to sprout in the field.

Hi Alps,

I would be very much against Glyphosate and other herbicides. It has a half life of about 70 days which would mean it would take >1 year to get to a <5% its original dose. It has been designated, at the rage of Monsanto and its shareholders in positions of power, as probably cancer causing by the WHO. I feel we will look back in 10 years at our madness using this stuff. The French have banned its use. If the public knew how much of it is in our foods they would Boycott Irish grains overnight.
A case can be made for Glyphosate use re erradication of agressive invasive species such as Japanese knotweed but for regular use is a really bad idea.

I think we need to completely change our perception of non grass plants in our fields. A mono-culture of pure perennial rye grass (and even some clover) is not possible without huge energy inputs and chemical damage. It is a goal that the agrichemical industry pushes on us. The naturally occurring poly culture of grass, sorrel, dock, dandoline etc are actually quite beneficial to soil and livestock (as above).

Chuchote

Is it possible to breed fish in open drains in Ireland?

jimini0

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I would recommend shallow open drains - closed drains with stones and especially perforated plastic pipes will always block.

The water table is very high. So shallow open drains will be no good. Plus the cattle only walk through those and eventually close them up. I have big open drains that have been there since they were dug by hand.
My plan of the stone only drains is so I can use the mole plough. I'm going to try it out on one 3 acre section and see how I get on.

pedigree 6

Can I ask the op what does roundup do to soil and what proof have you rather than heresay?

Have you been farming for long?

What quality is your hay or silage?

Did you soil test and what class of soil was in this field?

Was this your first time at land drainage or have you done it before?

Did you do this drainage job yourself or employ a drainage contractor?

Regards Pedigree.

Waffletraktor

taxusbaccata wrote: »

Hi Alps,

I would be very much against Glyphosate and other herbicides. It has a half life of about 70 days which would mean it would take >1 year to get to a <5% its original dose. It has been designated, at the rage of Monsanto and its shareholders in positions of power, as probably cancer causing by the WHO. I feel we will look back in 10 years at our madness using this stuff. The French have banned its use. If the public knew how much of it is in our foods they would Boycott Irish grains overnight.
A case can be made for Glyphosate use re erradication of agressive invasive species such as Japanese knotweed but for regular use is a really bad idea.
.

Why would you think one of the safest herbs around is dangerous? I invite you to read up on other, potentially cancer causing products like coffee. The scientific regulatory bodies deem it safe over the rent a mob drummed up by a dislike for big business and people who's paycheck depends on glyphosate being worse than liquid syanide.
The fact you need to eat 240 loaves of standard white bread a day to reach what has been designated the max daily dose of glyphosate when preharvest desication was used to the reccomended level.

Chuchote

Curiosity prompted a quick google, avoiding biased (either way) sites as much as possible:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organizations-new-q-a-on-glyphosate-confirms-toxicity-of-round-up/5513497

World Health Organization’s New Q & A on Glyphosate Confirms Toxicity of Round Up

World Health Organization’s New Q & A on Glyphosate Confirms Toxicity of Round Up…
ate last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, issued a report that classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, as a “probable” cause of cancer. Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide on earth. In 2012, at least 283.5 million pounds were sprayed on American farmlands, according to the U.S. Geological Survey…
But how concerned should we be, exactly? Scores of studies have been carried out over the past forty years and they have found no connection between glyphosate and cancer.

The other point of contention is bees; whether glyphosate is the agent that is killing the world's bees is in question. The jury's still out - but Cuba, which has farmed organically for the decades since the American embargo, is now making a fortune from its lavish production of organic honey…

_Brian

Local beekeeper here doesn't believe its roundup.
We don't live in an intensive farming area, very very little roundup being used as absolutely no cereals nor ploughing being done.
Yet he's been suffering coloney collapse over the winters.

taxusbaccata

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Can I ask the op what does roundup do to soil and what proof have you rather than heresay?

Have you been farming for long?

What quality is your hay or silage?

Did you soil test and what class of soil was in this field?

Was this your first time at land drainage or have you done it before?

Did you do this drainage job yourself or employ a drainage contractor?

Regards Pedigree.

https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-report.pdf
3 years.
Seems good quality but I have not seen the range of bad to excellent.
Heavy clay soil.
Have not tested yet as not required as yet based on good productivity end points.
First time, never did before.
I did it myself.

taxusbaccata

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Why would you think one of the safest herbs around is dangerous? I invite you to read up on other, potentially cancer causing products like coffee. The scientific regulatory bodies deem it safe over the rent a mob drummed up by a dislike for big business and people who's paycheck depends on glyphosate being worse than liquid syanide.
The fact you need to eat 240 loaves of standard white bread a day to reach what has been designated the max daily dose of glyphosate when preharvest desication was used to the reccomended level.

I understand that people who use glyphosate and similar agents will defensively backlash against anyone who questions its potential for damage.

There is a war going on within regulatory bodies mainly in the US over glyphosate safety reporting. There are so many vested interests involved who profit from this product and company that objective regulation is the victim.
Saying coffee is as toxic as glyphosate is at best disingenuous. As regard to one of the safest herbicides around that was said also about thalidomide. You must ask why France any other countries are banning it. It would be expensive to rent 66 million French people who are jealous of big business.
In fact the contrary is true. Only Monsanto has the funding to buy off people and this they spend alot on. In India where thousands of small farmers have died by suicide due to Monsanto strategies their PMs election campaign was heavily funded by Monsanto. Important to note that there are no global anti Microsoft or Unilever days. https://www.rt.com/news/343917-global-march-against-monsanto/

A good article regarding Monsanto and US politics:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422?mc_cid=c0b70cf268&mc_eid=9672eb134c

Anyway - the rushes dont seem to be returning.

Chuchote

_Brian wrote: »

Local beekeeper here doesn't believe its roundup.
We don't live in an intensive farming area, very very little roundup being used as absolutely no cereals nor ploughing being done.
Yet he's been suffering coloney collapse over the winters.

It's very hard to know what this Aids of the bee world comes down to. The replacement for glyphosates may be worse.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-is-killing-americas-bees-and-what-does-it-mean-for-us-20150818

While honeybees are not native to North America, they were deemed important enough to be packed up by the Pilgrims, and crossed the Atlantic around 1622 (according to Thomas Jefferson, the Native Americans referred to them as "white man's flies"). Today, bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food you eat and are an agricultural commodity that's been valued at $15 billion annually in the U.S. alone. They are a major workforce with a dogged work ethic — bees from one hive can collect pollen from up to 100,000 flowering plants in a single day, pollinating many of them in the process. Americans wouldn't necessarily starve without them, but our diets would be a lot more bland and a lot less nutritious.
By the time Doan got that call from his wife in January 2014, his hives had dwindled from 5,600 in 2006 to 2,300 in 2008 to a mere 275, most of which he now feared were dead. Even the hives that did survive had to be coaxed and coddled. Rather than finding their own food, they needed to be fed. Instead of averaging 124 pounds of honey per hive, they averaged nine.
At first, Doan blamed himself. "Before 2006, basically you couldn't do anything wrong," he says. "Very seldom did you lose bees unless you were a really bad beekeeper. If you lost one hive a yard, that was a lot."

Doan never really considered the possibility that the fault might not be his own until scientists at Penn State who had been testing his bees told him of news coming out of France that pointed the finger at a relatively new class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, or neonics.

taxusbaccata

Glyphosate may affect the beneficial bacteria of bees as it does in humans, but maybe not. It does cause great damage to their food supply as it kills of their nectar and pollen supplies from field wild flowers. Being insects of course, of greater concern for bees are insecticides (insect killers). Natural predators for crop harming insects are not present due to die-offs from other causes including chemical use. The natural food web is dismantled at several points. We are drifting very much off topic.

Waffletraktor

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I understand that people who use glyphosate and similar agents will defensively backlash against anyone who questions its potential for damage.

There is a war going on within regulatory bodies mainly in the US over glyphosate safety reporting. There are so many vested interests involved who profit from this product and company that objective regulation is the victim.
Saying coffee is as toxic as glyphosate is at best disingenuous. As regard to one of the safest herbicides around that was said also about thalidomide. You must ask why France any other countries are banning it. It would be expensive to rent 66 million French people who are jealous of big business.

A good article regarding Monsanto and US politics:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422?mc_cid=c0b70cf268&mc_eid=9672eb134c

Coffee, at a hazardous intake levels are bad for you just like exposing yourself to every other compound for ingestion beyond safe limits of which glyphosate is also under in recommended dosages. That's the thing that you don't get, it's the amount of residue that is deemed safe to exposure over a long term and the regulatory bodies deem current amount as very safe. Did the US DA not recently double the residual amounts allowed into the foodchain in the last year or 2?
To say users of pesticides get a little defensive is a little disingenuine coming from someone who thinks they know best and will be least affected, unless you have specific botanical bio-chemistry background you've yet to disclose? Regulation based on science, not views/grudges/miss information. Opinion isn't fact.

Something that has been used activelly for 40 years, once at the recommended levels have shown up no greater danger to the food chain than coffee and all we get is the usual misss-information by people who's paycheck comes from their products being liquid poison. Do we get the same crap for Syngenta/Bayer aswell? I would suspect since neonics were banned and the inevitable increase in pyrethroids and their now inevitable breaking down has had more an effect on beneficials than glyphosate. No-til farming has by a country mile the highest users of glyphosate and will steamroll you into the ground if you suggest anything but that they are whats best for increasing flora/fauna populations, funny that but you won't read that in any soilassociation publications as they are like the rspb looking for the next mug to buy dinner. Those least affected seem to know what's best for everyone :rolleyes:

pedigree 6

taxusbaccata wrote: »

https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health-full-report.pdf
3 years.
Seems good quality but I have not seen the range of bad to excellent.
Heavy clay soil.
Have not tested yet as not required as yet based on good productivity end points.
First time, never did before.
I did it myself.

Have you any pictures?
I'm genuinely interested as I have done a small bit of drainage on my farm.

I always like to see new things being done.

I'll stick up some pics of the job we got done on our farm later for you, if you want??

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Local beekeeper here doesn't believe its roundup.
We don't live in an intensive farming area, very very little roundup being used as absolutely no cereals nor ploughing being done.
Yet he's been suffering coloney collapse over the winters.

The grandfather was keeping bees back in the 40's and winter losses were just a part of keeping bees back then. It wasn't really a big deal if they'd large losses as there was a large wild bee population to increase numbers from (the varroa mite has since killed off most of the wild population since making it harder to make up for losses and has increased the amount of viruses etc).

yosemitesam1

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I understand that people who use glyphosate and similar agents will defensively backlash against anyone who questions its potential for damage.

There is a war going on within regulatory bodies mainly in the US over glyphosate safety reporting. There are so many vested interests involved who profit from this product and company that objective regulation is the victim.
Saying coffee is as toxic as glyphosate is at best disingenuous. As regard to one of the safest herbicides around that was said also about thalidomide. You must ask why France any other countries are banning it. It would be expensive to rent 66 million French people who are jealous of big business.
In fact the contrary is true. Only Monsanto has the funding to buy off people and this they spend alot on. In India where thousands of small farmers have died by suicide due to Monsanto strategies their PMs election campaign was heavily funded by Monsanto. Important to note that there are no global anti Microsoft or Unilever days. https://www.rt.com/news/343917-global-march-against-monsanto/

A good article regarding Monsanto and US politics:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422?mc_cid=c0b70cf268&mc_eid=9672eb134c

Anyway - the rushes dont seem to be returning.

The biggest joke about all those anti monsanto/glyphosate campaigners is that there has been plenty of proper toxic chemicals like chlorpyriphos and many other chemicals like nematicides that they never suggest should be banned even though they're many times worse to health, environment and soil.

Welding Rod

Lads with sandals always know best what to do with the land.
The poor mullakers with boots and wellies don't know anything.

Signpost

A lad mad into wildlife here was onto me that using a fist of salt into the heart of the rush will kill it. Would normally do a bit of licking most springs but going to pull out one field and try the salt this spring and see. Be stupidly time consuming but if it reduces chemical's I'd consider just paying some young lad to do it! I'll report back when I've it done

Chuchote

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The grandfather was keeping bees back in the 40's and winter losses were just a part of keeping bees back then. It wasn't really a big deal if they'd large losses as there was a large wild bee population to increase numbers from (the varroa mite has since killed off most of the wild population since making it harder to make up for losses and has increased the amount of viruses etc).

Yeah, but large losses and large losses… again, the piece about US bee loss:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-is-killing-americas-bees-and-what-does-it-mean-for-us-20150818

It was long after the day when he'd gone out to check his bee yard and discovered that of the 5,600 hives he kept at the time, all but 600 were empty.

(snip)

it had been good money; in the 1980s, a thousand hives could earn a beekeeper between $65,000 and $70,000 a year in honey sales alone, not to mention the cash coming in from leasing hives out to farmers to help pollinate their fields

(snip)

By the time Doan got that call from his wife in January 2014, his hives had dwindled from 5,600 in 2006 to 2,300 in 2008 to a mere 275, most of which he now feared were dead

gerryirl

im lost but I have found rushes dont like roundup or mortone that much

Bass Reeves

Rushes were never the issue 50+ years ago that they are now. First issue is N apllication. Rushes love nitrogen. Next is ph lime is essential in the control of rushes. Yet Teagasc and JK are against bag lime. On wet land applying lime is a hard job and heavy machinery fooks up soil structure. I think on heavy rushy land that bag lime is only choice to preserve soils structure and drainage and keep pH in check. In wet land you are limited to when you can spread lime often you cannot get in in spring or late autumn. So get pH right.

Then P&K you need these right. Traditionally P was spread in the form of slag on this type of land you need to spread it every year and keep it at level 3 or touching 4. Spread it early in the year in April or May. Finally rushes hate topping and continuous topping weakens rushes (and a lot of other weeds) as well if your are lucky enough to top rushes in the autumn and you get a bit of frost in the early winter like this year the frost weakens/kills the roots.

I am coming to the conclusion that we are chasing production too much. This idea of crop perfection is addictive and maybe we need to step back. I am not totally against gysophate or weedkillers. But the chasing of production adds a huge workload and I fail to see the profit often. That is not to say we should go back to a cow/Ha either. I really think that the only winner with intensive production are miller's,co-op and food processor's. On grass production I am really thinking about a grass Harrow to reduce weed infestation. I think aphid's sprays and they are being now used more often are not helping bees.

pedigree 6

gerryirl wrote: »

im lost but I have found rushes dont like roundup or mortone that much

Ah Here before this descends into much more chaos i'll show the job that I got done 6 years ago.

Forgive the picture quality on this one.:rolleyes:












Happy auld people who never thought they'd ever see the day.:pac:

Birdnuts

I often wonder does spending large amounts of money and effort in maintaining drainage of marginal farmland in natural flood plains make much sense at all in terms of economics, environment, flooding issues etc.. If the CAP is moving away from supporting production at any cost then the money should be spent supporting farmers with land in these marginal areas to allow flood plains to fulfil their natural functions again. I see it around my own place in the West with some lads spending a significant amounts of money on drainage/maintainance of poor/marginal ground with little payback in terms of market returns in terms of beef/sheep in particular. Indeed without the SFP I doubt their would be any return at all.

amacca

Signpost wrote: »

A lad mad into wildlife here was onto me that using a fist of salt into the heart of the rush will kill it. Would normally do a bit of licking most springs but going to pull out one field and try the salt this spring and see. Be stupidly time consuming but if it reduces chemical's I'd consider just paying some young lad to do it! I'll report back when I've it done

Try this on a couple of test clumps of rushes as well as long as they are not completely waterlogged boggy soil and a load of rain is not forecast directly after.....for comparison sake....warning its work intensive but strangely satisfying/addictive

cut the clump right down to ground level...then cut a little deeper so a saucer/bowl shaped depression is created......add liberal quantities of lime (or at least fill up the depression) and also add a light dusting around the margins

leave and come back in the next growing season to marvel triumphantly at what the once proud rush clump has been reduced to and the nice lush green and much less obnoxious grass that has replaced it.

pedigree 6

What I did was in the first year I topped most of the field (where I could travel) with an abbey topper in the lowest gear on the tractor and then I could mostly spot and stop for any big stones.
So then the next year I got a drainage contractor in to dig, pipe and stone the field. When that was finished I sprayed the field with Roundup. Then I got the field covered in dung and ploughed. But it was getting too late in the year to reseed so I had to leave it till the next year.

Then the next year some rushes were coming back again. So I sprayed again with roundup before I touched it at all the disc harrow. It was lucky I left it as the soil over the drains sank a bit over the winter and I was able to level off the field properly and get the surface fall right to the open drain.

Then I finally got the field sowed with grass seed (Kintyre and Aberchoice).

That was finished six years ago (how time flies) and here it is this afternoon.


There's no way I could have got this field like this without Roundup.

This is across the ditch and shows what our field used to be like.

gerryirl

what are them 2 standing up doing nothing for ... time is money

seriously though that is a super job you done there. Was it many acres, what do you think it cost you

pedigree 6

gerryirl wrote: »

what are them 2 standing up doing nothing for ... time is money

seriously though that is a super job you done there. Was it many acres, what do you think it cost you

7 acres altogether but 5 really wet and covered in rushes.

It was cheaper than buying land.:p

Buford T. Justice XIX

pedigree 6 wrote: »

7 acres altogether but 5 really wet and covered in rushes.

It was cheaper than buying land.:p

That's a super job, P6.

valtra2

pedigree 6 wrote: »

7 acres altogether but 5 really wet and covered in rushes.

It was cheaper than buying land.:p

Them are a great crowd to drain.

kevthegaff

I have rushes at the bottom of a hill, was wondering would I be better off using a dozer and pulling down some of the hill as there's a hollow at the bottom Iykwim, is it feasible?

pedigree 6

kevthegaff wrote: »

I have rushes at the bottom of a hill, was wondering would I be better off using a dozer and pulling down some of the hill as there's a hollow at the bottom Iykwim, is it feasible?

I don't think anyone here could tell you without looking at the job.

Could you just pipe it from the hollow to an open drain and then level off/make a fall on the whole area to the open drain.

Is it feasible? I'd say so but hard to tell from here.

A drainage contractor will be able to tell you more and get falls and pipe depth right (so pipes wont block) and know what way to deal with the soil type.

CloughCasey1

That is some job Pedigree 6. Would do ya good just looking at it.☺

MasFer

taxusbaccata wrote: »

What do rushes need to survive? Wet and saturated soil.....The next few month I noticed all the rushes were dying off.

I,m reclaiming some land too. I made a new drain which passed through a previously wet area heavy with rushes. I also noticed rushes dying off and haven't come back yet.

Willfarman

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rushes were never the issue 50+ years ago that they are now. First issue is N apllication. Rushes love nitrogen. Next is ph lime is essential in the control of rushes. Yet Teagasc and JK are against bag lime. On wet land applying lime is a hard job and heavy machinery fooks up soil structure. I think on heavy rushy land that bag lime is only choice to preserve soils structure and drainage and keep pH in check. In wet land you are limited to when you can spread lime often you cannot get in in spring or late autumn. So get pH right.

Then P&K you need these right. Traditionally P was spread in the form of slag on this type of land you need to spread it every year and keep it at level 3 or touching 4. Spread it early in the year in April or May. Finally rushes hate topping and continuous topping weakens rushes (and a lot of other weeds) as well if your are lucky enough to top rushes in the autumn and you get a bit of frost in the early winter like this year the frost weakens/kills the roots.

I am coming to the conclusion that we are chasing production too much. This idea of crop perfection is addictive and maybe we need to step back. I am not totally against gysophate or weedkillers. But the chasing of production adds a huge workload and I fail to see the profit often. That is not to say we should go back to a cow/Ha either. I really think that the only winner with intensive production are miller's,co-op and food processor's. On grass production I am really thinking about a grass Harrow to reduce weed infestation. I think aphid's sprays and they are being now used more often are not helping bees.

I disagree on the nitrogen bass.. Heavy land around here and leaving aside drainage the cleanest land is the land that gets the most nitrogen.

Bass Reeves

Willfarman wrote: »

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rushes were never the issue 50+ years ago that they are now. First issue is N apllication. Rushes love nitrogen. Next is ph lime is essential in the control of rushes. Yet Teagasc and JK are against bag lime. On wet land applying lime is a hard job and heavy machinery fooks up soil structure. I think on heavy rushy land that bag lime is only choice to preserve soils structure and drainage and keep pH in check. In wet land you are limited to when you can spread lime often you cannot get in in spring or late autumn. So get pH right.

Then P&K you need these right. Traditionally P was spread in the form of slag on this type of land you need to spread it every year and keep it at level 3 or touching 4. Spread it early in the year in April or May. Finally rushes hate topping and continuous topping weakens rushes (and a lot of other weeds) as well if your are lucky enough to top rushes in the autumn and you get a bit of frost in the early winter like this year the frost weakens/kills the roots.

I am coming to the conclusion that we are chasing production too much. This idea of crop perfection is addictive and maybe we need to step back. I am not totally against gysophate or weedkillers. But the chasing of production adds a huge workload and I fail to see the profit often. That is not to say we should go back to a cow/Ha either. I really think that the only winner with intensive production are miller's,co-op and food processor's. On grass production I am really thinking about a grass Harrow to reduce weed infestation. I think aphid's sprays and they are being now used more often are not helping bees.

I disagree on the nitrogen bass.. Heavy land around here and leaving aside drainage the cleanest land is the land that gets the most nitrogen.

Provided fertility is right but if fertility is not right N only grows rushes.n

muirsin

Think I have more here than 30 years ago. Problem with modern heavy machinery breaking old stone drains and land becoming wet as result.

Farrell

kevthegaff wrote: »

I have rushes at the bottom of a hill, was wondering would I be better off using a dozer and pulling down some of the hill as there's a hollow at the bottom Iykwim, is it feasible?

Grandfather bought a farm that years prior to purchase was covered in whynnes, the original owner GOR a dozer to clear stripping 6-8" soil & piling all at the bottom of the hill.
There is no whynnes now, no soil fertility at top of hill but the bottom has good grass

patsy_mccabe

Soil Compaction is a huge issue on Irish farms. So much marginal land that any travelling with even light machinery only adds to the drainage problem.
Spraying rushes without tackling the underlying drainage is, as they say 'only kicking the can down the road'. They'll come back up as quick again.

Super job P6 in fairness.

taxusbaccata

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Soil Compaction is a huge issue on Irish farms. So much marginal land that any travelling with even light machinery only adds to the drainage problem.
Spraying rushes without tackling the underlying drainage is, as they say 'only kicking the can down the road'. They'll come back up as quick again.

Super job P6 in fairness.

I have the soil compaction problem too. Interesting if you leave the mycorrhyza fungal network to develop they will form clumps to decompress the soil naturally. Rotting in plant material on the surface (grass, leaves, weeds etc) will feed the mycorrhiza. This does not occur with animal faeces - in fact it decays to ultrafine clay soil. I had the worst part ploughed (as opposed to leave the fungus do it thing with time) and have reseeded it so I'll be interested to see which part performs best. I have noticed a change in the soil structure over 3 years - the solid cake is becoming segmented which is exactly what it needs. I suspect for the above reasons that overgrazing and too many animals on a patch of land really affects soil drainage.

taxusbaccata

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Coffee, at a hazardous intake levels are bad for you just like exposing yourself to every other compound for ingestion beyond safe limits of which glyphosate is also under in recommended dosages. That's the thing that you don't get, it's the amount of residue that is deemed safe to exposure over a long term and the regulatory bodies deem current amount as very safe. Did the US DA not recently double the residual amounts allowed into the foodchain in the last year or 2?
To say users of pesticides get a little defensive is a little disingenuine coming from someone who thinks they know best and will be least affected, unless you have specific botanical bio-chemistry background you've yet to disclose? Regulation based on science, not views/grudges/miss information. Opinion isn't fact.

Something that has been used activelly for 40 years, once at the recommended levels have shown up no greater danger to the food chain than coffee and all we get is the usual misss-information by people who's paycheck comes from their products being liquid poison. Do we get the same crap for Syngenta/Bayer aswell? I would suspect since neonics were banned and the inevitable increase in pyrethroids and their now inevitable breaking down has had more an effect on beneficials than glyphosate. No-til farming has by a country mile the highest users of glyphosate and will steamroll you into the ground if you suggest anything but that they are whats best for increasing flora/fauna populations, funny that but you won't read that in any soilassociation publications as they are like the rspb looking for the next mug to buy dinner. Those least affected seem to know what's best for everyone :rolleyes:

The first rule of toxicology - and yes I have studied human toxicity at university level - is that everything is toxic at a high enough dose - including water, oxygen, glucose - everything. So yes I do get it.

With regard to US regulatory bodies they have absolutely no credibility. Agrichemical as well as many other essential companies have bribed regulatory bodies and political campaigns to ensure cooperation. Agrichemical companies in the US can almost sell whatever chemicals they want. The European agencies have banned many agents that are still used in the US. The WHO (who are quite reputable) tell us that glyphosate is carcinogenic and many European companies are strongly considering banning it.

This questioning of toxicity is not just towards glyphosate. There are thousands of untested chemicals out there. You may have heard of phthalates, bisophenal A etc we are all consuming in plastics - we were told this was safe too but it appears not now.

What you are suffering from my friend is called cognitive dissonance.

pedigree 6

Any pics??

Waffletraktor

taxusbaccata wrote: »

OMG LOL First off you dont seem to even know that glyphosate is a herbicide and pyrethroids are insecticides. You do know that herbicides and insecticides are not same?

The first rule of toxicology - and yes I have studied human toxicity at university level - is that everything is toxic at a high enough dose - including water, oxygen, glucose - everything. So yes I do get it.

With regard to US regulatory bodies they have absolutely no credibility. Agrichemical as well as many other essential companies have bribed regulatory bodies and political campaigns to ensure cooperation. Agrichemical companies in the US can almost sell whatever chemicals they want. The European agencies have banned many agents that are still used in the US. The WHO (who are quite reputable) tell us that glyphosate is carcinogenic and many European companies are strongly considering banning it.

This questioning of toxicity is not just towards glyphosate. There are thousands of untested chemicals out there. You may have heard of phthalates, bisophenal A etc we are all consuming in plastics - we were told this was safe too but it appears not now.

What you are suffering from my friend is called cognitive dissonance.

Funnily enough i work with them daily for 9 months of the year, done the uni bit and extra box ticking to be qualified to prescribe agrichem forgetting more than you know at this stage. My fiance is almost done her phd on reducing residue levels from tri-azole fungs in cereal crops and their associated 'issues' and have absorbed some bio-chemistry via osmosis and general experience of using soil solvita tests, change effects of cultivation and such.
So your saying the scientific argument on the control of one the most heavily scutinised actives in a heavilly regulated industry is false because you say so? You almost got a monsanto dig in too, but you recoiled at the last second . If it is shown to be hazardous at the current low doseage levels and to is impossible to control in water and animal tallows etcetc then yes it will be removed but not until the science proves so. It's funny the Eu, they ban use of some chems but allow european companies to produce them in the eu and buy food that's been treated with them.
Save your digs for someone who cares, i could retort with something about hichens progressives but there's enough arguments from half arsed articles off the internet flying here already :rolleyes:.

_Brian

I was thinking about op's comment about water, wet ground and rushes.

Close to us there is a field owned by a neighbor. My girls call it the flooded field at the cross. It regularly has standing water, slow to drain, rust heavily when traveled by tractor.

But no rushes.

Thing is he constantly applies traditional farmyard manure. All over the winter he's out with the transport box forking ding out.

I think the constant ding has maintained the biodiversity within the soil and this maintains healthy soil and ph and keeps weeds at bay.

If weather permitted he gets two cuts of silage and grazes it too.


I think over application of slurry excessive inappropriate chemical fertiliser application is creating a poor environment for all the bacteria and organisms that maintain healthy soils.