Soil Organic Matter discussion.

Farmer Ed

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/

Needless to say I don't think the study that is reported here was funded by the fertilizer industry. But it is hard to ignore science.

pedigree 6

Farmer Ed wrote: »

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/

Needless to say I don't think the study that is reported here was funded by the fertilizer industry. But it is hard to ignore science.

Do you do any farm work at all farmer ed? Ha! Are you even a farmer?;)

It's hardly science though more like sensationalist stuff thrown in with a bit of paranoia published for paranoid people.

The line that made me switch off and disregard that whole article was the bit about how soils were fertile before the start of chemical fertilisers and now they're not anymore.

As someone who has seen the land here when my father concentrated more on his off farm job and the land was as near organic as you can get and the difference since I've went fulltime farming and fed the land properly and corrected deficiencies is unbelievable.
That article just panders to the uneducated non farmer paranoid class.

Farmer Ed

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Do you do any farm work at all farmer ed? Ha! Are you even a farmer?;)

It's hardly science though more like sensationalist stuff thrown in with a bit of paranoia published for paranoid people.

The line that made me switch off and disregard that whole article was the bit about how soils were fertile before the start of chemical fertilisers and now they're not anymore.

As someone who has seen the land here when my father concentrated more on his off farm job and the land was as near organic as you can get and the difference since I've went fulltime farming and fed the land properly and corrected deficiencies is unbelievable.
That article just panders to the uneducated non farmer paranoid class.

OK agreed it is an american study and it would be using land that was once part of the great parries as a reference point.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I have something like 1900 posts on here you have something well over 3000. So maybe both of us could do with reviewing the amount of time we give on here?

20silkcut

Farmer Ed wrote: »

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/

Needless to say I don't think the study that is reported here was funded by the fertilizer industry. But it is hard to ignore science.

If we are to take that article at face value it is still not of massive concern if land becomes dependent on synthetic nitrogen all productive farm land is. Presumably after humans disappear from the earth nature will take over all this land again and balance itself out again.
While we are here we should make the most out of it. Nitrates directives environmental regulations etc are creating poverty amongst farmers in this country for dubious unseen environmental gains.
Has anyone noticed an improvement in the quality of their life by having a 12 week slurry spreading ban.

pedigree 6

Farmer Ed wrote: »

OK agreed it is an american study and it would be using land that was once part of the great parries as a reference point.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I have something like 1900 posts on here you have something well over 3000. So maybe both of us could do with reviewing the amount of time we give on here?

Ah go way with that crap about don't shoot the messenger. No need to get defensive about it. You'll be calling for the school principal to have a word with me next.

I just wanted to know a bit about your farming. If you don't want to answer fair enough but don't be taking it the wrong way. You're not a covert Chinese spy. Ha!;)

Farmer Ed

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Ah go way with that crap about don't shoot the messenger. No need to get defensive about it. You'll be calling for the school principal to have a word with me next.

I just wanted to know a bit about your farming. If you don't want to answer fair enough but don't be taking it the wrong way. You're not a covert Chinese spy. Ha!;)

Yes I am a dairy farmer. I even have the green cert I got as a result of the multiple choice test I did to prove it. No offense intended. All I am saying is we need to have an open mind.

Farmer Ed

20silkcut wrote: »

If we are to take that article at face value it is still not of massive concern if land becomes dependent on synthetic nitrogen all productive farm land is. Presumably after humans disappear from the earth nature will take over all this land again and balance itself out again.
While we are here we should make the most out of it. Nitrates directives environmental regulations etc are creating poverty amongst farmers in this country for dubious unseen environmental gains.
Has anyone noticed an improvement in the quality of their life by having a 12 week slurry spreading ban.[/quotehttp://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/]

There is no logic in the 12 week slurry bad. Obviously that is the greatest load of bull they ever came up with. I totally agree with that. But it just goes to show what can happen if decisions are taken without looking at the big picture. All I am saying is we need to keep an open mind. Change is not always a bad thing.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Farmer Ed wrote: »

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/

Needless to say I don't think the study that is reported here was funded by the fertilizer industry. But it is hard to ignore science.

The important point in that article from an Irish point of view...

From the evidence presented in this paper, it would be fair to conclude that modern annual crop management systems are associated with declines in SOC concentrations and that increased residue inputs from high nitrogen applications do not mitigate this decline as much as we might hope.

While there may be some truth in the article, it is only considering soil organic matter in annual crop systems and there is nothing at all in the article making a connection with N use in permanent pasture like we predominately have in Ireland.

Sheep breeder

Farmer Ed wrote: »

OK everyone's situation in different I'm sure. But I am not convinced that every angle is been examined here. We really have been trained to only look at things one way. I find it hard to believe that anyone should have to half the number of cows. But if that were to happen it would also mean the knock on effect would be you'd get more money for your milk and your costs would also fall. Also there is a growing school of thought as to what effect over fertilization is having on the long term effect of soil. Ultimately it may not be sustainable anyway. Plus there is also a link now being made to things like the increase in flooding as over fertilization is being linked to poorer water holding capacity of soils.

Fair enough its only natural we all worry about our own personal situation. But ultimately the policy makers will want to be seen acting in the public interest. The question then is do we move with it and make the best of it or do we adopt a Donald Trump approach?

The problem with the derogation farmers is they are exporting nitrates on paper only and will eventually sicken their own land with nitrates and where will they go then with stock.

Sheep breeder

Farmer Ed wrote: »

20silkcut wrote: »

If we are to take that article at face value it is still not of massive concern if land becomes dependent on synthetic nitrogen all productive farm land is. Presumably after humans disappear from the earth nature will take over all this land again and balance itself out again.
While we are here we should make the most out of it. Nitrates directives environmental regulations etc are creating poverty amongst farmers in this country for dubious unseen environmental gains.
Has anyone noticed an improvement in the quality of their life by having a 12 week slurry spreading ban.[/quotehttp://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/]

There is no logic in the 12 week slurry bad. Obviously that is the greatest load of bull they ever came up with. I totally agree with that. But it just goes to show what can happen if decisions are taken without looking at the big picture. All I am saying is we need to keep an open mind. Change is not always a bad thing.

Totally disagree with you on the 12 week ban,it is the best thing to happen for water quality in ireland, the day of the milking parlour washing going down the water course is gone and the over flow pipe from the slatted tank to drain is gone and the fellow with no set up for stock and out on ring feeders in two foot of slopp

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The important point in that article from an Irish point of view...

From the evidence presented in this paper, it would be fair to conclude that modern annual crop management systems are associated with declines in SOC concentrations and that increased residue inputs from high nitrogen applications do not mitigate this decline as much as we might hope.

While there may be some truth in the article, it is only considering soil organic matter in annual crop systems and there is nothing at all in the article making a connection with N use in permanent pasture like we predominately have in Ireland.

That is a valid point but as most soil scientists will agree. Even the most qualified of them are now realising they don't understand as much about soil as they previously thought. From that prospective I would be very much of the opinion more independent work needs to be done in this area. To be fair teagasc recently held their first ever soil microbiology conference recently. My fear is that in spite of inviting in experts from microbiology Ireland. There is a bit of a difference between studying pathogens and studying useful soil microbe's.

For example it has been well established that N and P applications turn off natural N and P releasing enzymes in soil. That is not even disputed by scientists anymore. Soil is a fascinating subject that is possibly not that well understood. No doubt the application of artificial fertilizer will give a response to production. No question about that? The question is what is the long term costs and are there cheaper alternatives. Scientists like Christine Jones's in Australia, Joel Williams in the UK and Elaine Ingham in the US, would seam to think so?

J.O. Farmer

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Totally disagree with you on the 12 week ban,it is the best thing to happen for water quality in ireland, the day of the milking parlour washing going down the water course is gone and the over flow pipe from the slatted tank to drain is gone and the fellow with no set up for stock and out on ring feeders in two foot of slopp

All the examples you listed have nothing to do with the 12 week ban but I agree they are all good things.

The part that is non sensical is saying that in a particular 12 weeks that the conditions will be too bad to spread slurry but the other 40 weeks are fine when the conditions could be better during the closed period.
It's like saying this is the 1st week of June and I'm going to cut silage because the calendar says so. I won't stick my head outside the door to see if it's nice weather or pouring rain

pedigree 6

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The important point in that article from an Irish point of view...

From the evidence presented in this paper, it would be fair to conclude that modern annual crop management systems are associated with declines in SOC concentrations and that increased residue inputs from high nitrogen applications do not mitigate this decline as much as we might hope.

While there may be some truth in the article, it is only considering soil organic matter in annual crop systems and there is nothing at all in the article making a connection with N use in permanent pasture like we predominately have in Ireland.

I read another article or radio clip from a British expert that was posted on another farming forum. I think the person may have been on Countryfile.
But on the forum they were trying to explain more about carbon farming.

The expert was telling farmers to top grass more and have the residue from the grass to go into the soil and increase organic matter and help get more carbon into the soil.
Honestly did ye ever hear such bullsh1t.

I'll use all the grass I can by grazing and saving for silage. The organic matter and carbon I'll put back in the soil will be in the form of dung and slurry. Thank you very much.;)

You can always manipulate a study and result to suit your own agenda.
Independent studies with no agendas are non existent.

Edit: And another thing productivity (how much produce comes from that land )is always left out of the studies.
There's some great work being done on nutrients and micronutrients now. But honestly other one's would have you going back to the stone age.

Farmer Ed

pedigree 6 wrote: »

I read another article or radio clip from a British expert that was posted on another farming forum. I think the person may have been on Countryfile.
But on the forum they were trying to explain more about carbon farming.

The expert was telling farmers to top grass more and have the residue from the grass to go into the soil and increase organic matter and help get more carbon into the soil.
Honestly did ye ever hear such bullsh1t.

I'll use all the grass I can by grazing and saving for silage. The organic matter and carbon I'll put back in the soil will be in the form of dung and slurry. Thank you very much.;)

You can always manipulate a study and result to suit your own agenda.
Independent studies with no agendas are non existent.

Would totally agree about independent study's or the lack of them.

pedigree 6

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Would totally agree about independent study's or the lack of them.

The one thing that annoys me about these studies that say that there's been a dramatic decrease in OM in soils when applying fert so then that's bad.
Is that there's never a mention of any dung or slurry being applied to that land only fertiliser. Funny that.
Stupid really.

They suit the studies and make the result the way they want it to be.

Farmer Ed

pedigree 6 wrote: »

The one thing that annoys me about these studies that say that there's been a dramatic decrease in OM in soils when applying fert so then that's bad.
Is that there's never a mention of any dung or slurry being applied to that land only fertiliser. Funny that.
Stupid really.

They suit the studies and make the result the way they want it to be.

I agree and the same could be said for a lot of studies. If studies are being funded directly or indirectly by private business. There is always going to be someone with an agenda to look after. That really is a huge problem facing us and not just in agricultural.

Keepgrowing

rangler1 wrote: »

And of course the rest of the world would be delighted to see EU farmers restricted again.....didn't NZ increase their output tenfold during the EUs last quota years

Ah no Rangler, they'd row in with us as they'd be getting a higher price because of our decreased output

Keepgrowing

Sheep breeder wrote: »

The problem with the derogation farmers is they are exporting nitrates on paper only and will eventually sicken their own land with nitrates and where will they go then with stock.

In derogation, heavily stocked dairy farm and never exported on paper or otherwise. Have you stats to back up your claim? I do however buy in 50% of my dry cow silage and all my straw. This way I'm not taking massive amounts of P&k from my land. I then spread dung and slurry back out. It's all about how it's done.

Someone mentioned pipes flowing to rivers, illegal and nothing to do with ban. Beat thing about the ban is not bollixing with slurry during the winter

Farmer Ed

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Ah no Rangler, they'd row in with us as they'd be getting a higher price because of our decreased output

Some NZ farmers are looking at alternatives also https://youtu.be/pTw4t7ON4ls

Buford T. Justice XIX

Moved from Minister Creed thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057594488

yosemitesam1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The important point in that article from an Irish point of view...

From the evidence presented in this paper, it would be fair to conclude that modern annual crop management systems are associated with declines in SOC concentrations and that increased residue inputs from high nitrogen applications do not mitigate this decline as much as we might hope.

While there may be some truth in the article, it is only considering soil organic matter in annual crop systems and there is nothing at all in the article making a connection with N use in permanent pasture like we predominately have in Ireland.

Posted a study done in the UK a while back done in the UK, they measured soil carbon across 180 sites and found that as intensity increased soil carbon storage decreased. Also tested the home farm versus a neighbour's 30-35 years worth of different management. There was a difference of about 18t of carbon (about 60t co2 equivalent) in the top 20cm/ha (which unfortunately would only show about half the difference). Add that carbon onto the footprint of milk/beef produced and it puts Irish produce well up into the middle of the table in the EU rankings no better than any of the likes of France, UK, Germany or Netherlands on a pure carbon emissions basis.

Fertiliser plays a key role in reducing soil carbon because it leads to a situation where plants are producing smaller root systems and no longer pumping out sugars into the soil feeding all the microorganisms that would have once been the only way for it to get the nutrients it needed. Nearly all the yield increases seen over the last 50 or 100 years are down to redistributing yield into the parts of the plant that are harvested (grain in cereals, leaves in grass). This reduced amount of roots and soil microbes will lead to a lot of problems over the coming years; flooding, compaction and nutrient imbalances are all going to start showing up.

yosemitesam1

pedigree 6 wrote: »

The line that made me switch off and disregard that whole article was the bit about how soils were fertile before the start of chemical fertilisers and now they're not anymore.

Back in the 1800's when the Russians were ploughing up virgin steppe or old fallow (15-20years+) they weren't actually able to grow a reasonable crop because so much fertility built up under natural grassland that any cereal planted would be guaranteed to lodge very early on...
Millions of tonnes of bones were harvested and sold when the mid west was settled in order to fertilise European fields.
There's land in Asia that was in continuous cultivation for more than 3 or 4,000 years without any use of fertiliser.
There was a huge amount of different systems used to maintain soil fertility while making the land produce. The only problem with the majority of these systems was they were abandoned

patsy_mccabe

I always thought that declining organic matter in tillage was due to no slurry / dung being spread. UK farmers are beginning to realise now that a rotational system involving grazing animals is the answer. Just don't tell the vegans that.

Buford T. Justice XIX

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Posted a study done in the UK a while back done in the UK, they measured soil carbon across 180 sites and found that as intensity increased soil carbon storage decreased. Also tested the home farm versus a neighbour's 30-35 years worth of different management. There was a difference of about 18t of carbon (about 60t co2 equivalent) in the top 20cm/ha (which unfortunately would only show about half the difference). Add that carbon onto the footprint of milk/beef produced and it puts Irish produce well up into the middle of the table in the EU rankings no better than any of the likes of France, UK, Germany or Netherlands on a pure carbon emissions basis.

Fertiliser plays a key role in reducing soil carbon because it leads to a situation where plants are producing smaller root systems and no longer pumping out sugars into the soil feeding all the microorganisms that would have once been the only way for it to get the nutrients it needed. Nearly all the yield increases seen over the last 50 or 100 years are down to redistributing yield into the parts of the plant that are harvested (grain in cereals, leaves in grass). This reduced amount of roots and soil microbes will lead to a lot of problems over the coming years; flooding, compaction and nutrient imbalances are all going to start showing up.

It shouldn't take too long for soil systems to recover, if that turns out to be true. The first years production will be diverted to roots and the microflora and fauna will increase quickly and it will be more sustainable in the future. I wonder too about the capacity of ryegrass to maintain its production with less fertiliser and if we will be moving back to the 'weed' grasses in future.

It will be very funny if true. It will mean that production will have to fall and food prices rise due to demand outstripping supply. I can see a lot of restrictions being lifted to increase production.

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I always thought that declining organic matter in tillage was due to no slurry / dung being spread. UK farmers are beginning to realise now that a rotational system involving grazing animals is the answer. Just don't tell the vegans that.

In fairness, a mixed farming system was always the standard system. Grassland systems will do ok but continuous tillage will struggle and die off quickly.

Water John

I'm sure grass varieties will be further produced that, don't demand high levels of artificial fertiliser. Also researchers might look a bit a producing clovers that work at lower temps.
Another alt are mixed species, as in growing other plants in the grasses with deep roots, eg chicory.

pedigree 6

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Back in the 1800's when the Russians were ploughing up virgin steppe or old fallow (15-20years+) they weren't actually able to grow a reasonable crop because so much fertility built up under natural grassland that any cereal planted would be guaranteed to lodge very early on...
Millions of tonnes of bones were harvested and sold when the mid west was settled in order to fertilise European fields.
There's land in Asia that was in continuous cultivation for more than 3 or 4,000 years without any use of fertiliser.
There was a huge amount of different systems used to maintain soil fertility while making the land produce. The only problem with the majority of these systems was they were abandoned

And the most fertile soil in the world before fertiliser was always around the major cities due to night soil being spread.
Do that now and there's uproar.:D

Even back 200 years ago here it was lime kilns with limestone and anthracite being burnt and spread on fields. They were even spreading it high up on the slopes of the Blackstairs. Big supply of calcium, boron and potash in that stuff.

They were abandoned for a reason.
Health and safety and modern regulations would be a fair enough reason.

pedigree 6

Water John wrote: »

I'm sure grass varieties will be further produced that, don't demand high levels of artificial fertiliser. Also researchers might look a bit a producing clovers that work at lower temps.
Another alt are mixed species, as in growing other plants in the grasses with deep roots, eg chicory.

Get the oul genetically modified plants developed and we'd be grand.
Oh wait someone said we can't do that.
Darn it anyway!

Farmer Ed

Actually while we all believe an rightly so that dung and slurry adds organic matter to soil. Scientists like Christine Jones, Joel Williams and Elaine Ingham to name a few are all now very much preaching the gospel that they believe the main way soil organic matter is built is by the roots of healthy plants releasing sugars and starches that feed soil microbiology. Otherwise know as root exudates. In return the microbes help make soil nutrients availble to the plants. The USDA have named this as the soil food web.The question is how do our farm management practice's effect this? The fact is scientists are no where near in agreement as to how exactly the whole thing works. I had a very interesting conversation with a very grounded Dutch soil scientist recently who readily admitted that she had been studying something for 30years and still didn't have the answer. The truth is the study of soil is still in its infancy. The biggest problem is possibly not what we don't know but rather what we think we know.

kowtow

I agree with your reservations about ryegrass. It strikes me as a little ironic sometimes that far from 'freedom to roam pastures' we are in some respects turning our cows into four legged combines that must harvest their food wet or dry.

But would food prices rise if yields from grass diminished? .. would the gap not be filled by more intensive systems? Regardless the impact on soil etc..

And will the day come when they will pay a premium for ryegrass free milk?

Because as any of my neighbours will attest, I've been preparing rigorosly for this turn of events, cultivating weeds - which I'm good at - where others grow ryegrass (which I'm not).

I like to think of it as a salad bar where the cows can choose their own perfectly balanced diet. The cows like it because they can shelter from the wind behind the weeds while they wait to come up to the parlour for nuts. The merchants like it because the bigger weeds eat pasture sward like candy, and the cows appetite for nuts is not diminished by too much grass.

We are all, therefore, happy in our own way. Like all good ecosystems.

Farmer Ed

kowtow wrote: »

I agree with your reservations about ryegrass. It strikes me as a little ironic sometimes that far from 'freedom to roam pastures' we are in some respects turning our cows into four legged combines that must harvest their food wet or dry.

But would food prices rise if yields from grass diminished? .. would the gap not be filled by more intensive systems? Regardless the impact on soil etc..

And will the day come when they will pay a premium for ryegrass free milk?

Because as any of my neighbours will attest, I've been preparing rigorosly for this turn of events, cultivating weeds - which I'm good at - where others grow ryegrass (which I'm not).

I like to think of it as a salad bar where the cows can choose their own perfectly balanced diet. The cows like it because they can shelter from the wind behind the weeds while they wait to come up to the parlour for nuts. The merchants like it because the bigger weeds eat pasture sward like candy, and the cows appetite for nuts is not diminished by too much grass.

We are all, therefore, happy in our own way. Like all good ecosystems.

Don't know if you have heard of Gabe Brown? But I think he would love you. When he reseeds he sets a mix of 70 different verities. Just watching some of his videos online and he swears this to be the secret of his success. Would love to see him talk at a Teagasc event.

yosemitesam1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It shouldn't take too long for soil systems to recover, if that turns out to be true. The first years production will be diverted to roots and the microflora and fauna will increase quickly and it will be more sustainable in the future. I wonder too about the capacity of ryegrass to maintain its production with less fertiliser and if we will be moving back to the 'weed' grasses in future.

It will be very funny if true. It will mean that production will have to fall and food prices rise due to demand outstripping supply. I can see a lot of restrictions being lifted to increase production.




.

All the populations of beneficial microbes take such a hammering that you're talking 5-10 years to start to see measurable differences in many of their numbers and soil carbon storage. But really no one knows how long it takes to rebuild the whole soil web back to where it was, have seen somewhere that after 40 years of changed management fungal feeding mites hadn't returned (I don't know if that will make any difference but there would more than likely be others too).
Processes like aggregation and nutrient cycling will probably take a very long time to restore themselves back to where they were, carbon storage would be as a byproduct of these.

A return to alternative species inclusion in swards won't mean a catastrophic drop in production, it might mean 2 cows/ha instead of 3 is the aim. But taking into account it would be a much more robust lower input system, offer an awful lot of environmental benfits and give the opportunity to produce something distinctive.

The world as a whole has more than enough untapped capacity for food supply never to be an issue if managed right...

Farmer Ed

Actually I came across a slurry additive recently called Plocher. Its been around for a long time and there is even some old stuff on boards about it. Just wondering has anyone used it as it claims to be very beneficial to soil. I know Bishop Burton college in the UK have used it and the feedback was very positive. Just I am not aware of any official trials that have been done on it? First I thought it was bacteria and enzymes, but apparently its not? Not sure anyone fully understands how it works? But I have yet to see any negative feedback about it?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Actually I came across a slurry additive recently called Plocher. Its been around for a long time and there is even some old stuff on boards about it. Just wondering has anyone used it as it claims to be very beneficial to soil. I know Bishop Burton college in the UK have used it and the feedback was very positive. Just I am not aware of any official trials that have been done on it? First I thought it was bacteria and enzymes, but apparently its not? Not sure anyone fully understands how it works? But I have yet to see any negative feedback about it?

I used a version of it this winter. I reckon it pays for itself in terms of agitating slurry alone. The contractor agitated my tank in a few minutes this spring rather than over a few hours normally. Ads for pasture benefits with increased nutrient availability, I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other this spring.

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I used a version of it this winter. I reckon it pays for itself in terms of agitating slurry alone. The contractor agitated my tank in a few minutes this spring rather than over a few hours normally. Ads for pasture benefits with increased nutrient availability, I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other this spring.

Was it plocher? Apparently there is a difference. Most of these products are bacteria and enzymes. Plocher is something different that no one can really fully explain how it works?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Was it plocher? Apparently there is a difference. Most of these products are bacteria and enzymes. Plocher is something different that no one can really fully explain how it works?

No, not Plocher. I rang them and was quoted a rather large sum for my needs for the winter. I got other stuff from Buyrite/Magenta and was very happy with it in terms of agitation. I've no idea about N, P and K uptakes and utilisation with it until some research comes out on it.

yosemitesam1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Was it plocher? Apparently there is a difference. Most of these products are bacteria and enzymes. Plocher is something different that no one can really fully explain how it works?

Seems to be mainly lime with a bit of molasses in some of their products. It doesn't say its in it but might have humic acid also but that's only a guess.

Waffletraktor

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Seems to be mainly lime with a bit of molasses in some of their products. It doesn't say its in it but might have humic acid also but that's only a guess.

When someone won't tell you what the super dooper active in their products are, it's normally snake oil.

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

No, not Plocher. I rang them and was quoted a rather large sum for my needs for the winter. I got other stuff from Buyrite/Magenta and was very happy with it in terms of agitation. I've no idea about N, P and K uptakes and utilisation with it until some research comes out on it.

Yes that is a bacteria and enzyme blend. Good to know it had an effect.

Farmer Ed

Waffletraktor wrote: »

When someone won't tell you what the super dooper active in their products are, it's normally snake oil.

Actually the person who told me was the guy who used it in Bruton college and he is not selling it .I think the words he used is that he would highly recommend it. That's why I'm just curious if anyone else has used it ?

Farmer Ed

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Seems to be mainly lime with a bit of molasses in some of their products. It doesn't say its in it but might have humic acid also but that's only a guess.

Yes I have yet to find someone who can explain exactly how it might work and yet I have seen reports and spoken to at least one person who claims it does work?

To be honest I'm a bit disappointed that having used it and being happy with it Bishop Burton college haven't gone and done proper independent trials on it.

Waffletraktor

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Actually the person who told me was the guy who used it in Bruton college and he is not selling it .I think the words he used is that he would highly recommend it. That's why I'm just curious if anyone else has used it ?

Recommending to someone to use a product you neither use nor understand can quickly end up going very wrong, very quickly.

yosemitesam1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Actually the person who told me was the guy who used it in Bruton college and he is not selling it .I think the words he used is that he would highly recommend it. That's why I'm just curious if anyone else has used it ?

If he was noticing some sort of difference in the soil over and above what lime could be expected to do I'd say it was probably humic acid.
The only thing to keep in mind is all these fairy dust type products are only really giving a benefit because something is wrong to start with

Waffletraktor

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Yes I have yet to find someone who can explain exactly how it might work and yet I have seen reports and spoken to at least one person who claims it does work?

To be honest I'm a bit disappointed that having used it and being happy with it Bishop Burton college haven't gone and done proper independent trials on it.

Bishop burton is the equivalent of a Teagasc training farm lacking lab facilities of Cirencester or harper adams tbf.

Farmer Ed

Apparently the reports coming back are of much less smell and much less agitation needed plus an increase in soil organic matter. Lime , molasses or humic acid shouldn't really that effect in such small amounts. It seams like what ever is in it is a bit of a mystery? That's assuming it works? Just wondering has anyone used it ?

yosemitesam1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Apparently the reports coming back are of much less smell and much less agitation needed plus an increase in soil organic matter. Lime , molasses or humic acid shouldn't really that effect in such small amounts. It seams like what ever is in it is a bit of a mystery? That's assuming it works? Just wondering has anyone used it ?

There's other slurry additives based solely on lime. Humic acid can have an effect on soil at very low application rates, it's only really available to fungi afaik so soil would look a lot darker and more crumbly

Farmer Ed

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There's other slurry additives based solely on lime. Humic acid can have an effect on soil at very low application rates, it's only really available to fungi afaik so soil would look a lot darker and more crumbly

Form what I am told a bucket will treat 150 thousand gallons of slurry. So it very hard to understand how it works?

Farmer Ed

https://youtu.be/08TI1RKj54g

Buford T. Justice XIX

I came across this video on till v no-till in different soils and their reactions to water.

Farmer Ed

Yes a lot of stuff online about rain stimulators , very interesting

pedigree 6

I have to include this then as a follow on from above.

The Cation Exchange Capacity test on soil.

pedigree 6

As a follow on to the discussion on Organic Matter.

A neighbouring farmer had a big problem with soil being washed off a field in the winter before last when he was grazing sheep on forage rape during heavy rainfall.
Last winter he grew rape again and everyone thought he was going to graze it again.
Nope! He ploughed it all into the soil and sowed spring barley.
Winter cover crops are taking off here to improve OM in the soil.

No point having your tillage ground like concrete.

Continuous tillage on the same ground is only a recent practice anyway since specialization.