Dairy Chitchat 3

jaymla627

Mooooo wrote: »

Do ryegrass swards not sequester carbon? I haven't used monoculture put do use a mix of ryegrasses. They would want to start doing proper trials with clovers etc on a mixture of ground types as doing it on good dry ground is feckall good to the rest of us. A lot of clover in my swards would mean delayed turnout and early housing in 4 out of 5 years with reduced ground cover and lower temps on wetter ground, with more often reseeding. It may not decrease the carbon footprint at all

Stictched in 70 acres of clover here in the summer of 18 after the drought started to break, never really got going at all, and is still only sporadically throughout the paddocks, ph and soil indices are all perfect but we have heavy clay soil here and alot of moory ground that just isn't suited to clover, the cost of clover safe sprays alone is a major issue where docks are a problem

yosemitesam1

Mooooo wrote: »

Do ryegrass swards not sequester carbon? I haven't used monoculture put do use a mix of ryegrasses. They would want to start doing proper trials with clovers etc on a mixture of ground types as doing it on good dry ground is feckall good to the rest of us. A lot of clover in my swards would mean delayed turnout and early housing in 4 out of 5 years with reduced ground cover and lower temps on wetter ground, with more often reseeding. It may not decrease the carbon footprint at all

No, they lose carbon compared to low input multi species awards. As well as reduced structure, water holding/infiltration

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/government-publishes-plan-to-tackle-agriculture-emissions-38699895.html

Mooooo

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

No, they lose carbon compared to low input multi species awards. As well as reduced structure, water holding/infiltration

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/government-publishes-plan-to-tackle-agriculture-emissions-38699895.html

Losing carbon compared to something else doesn't mean it doesn't sequester carbon.

yosemitesam1

Mooooo wrote: »

Losing carbon compared to something else doesn't mean it doesn't sequester carbon.

unless you're coming from continuos tillage, it doesn't sequester carbon. The majority of land would have been converted to intensively grassland from less intensively used grassland and will be actively losing soil carbon as a result

Say my name

Anyone that soil tests for Soil Organic Matter just divide that result by 1.72 and you'll get the rough figure of soil carbon.
You'll have a figure then to compare to other years.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Anyone that soil tests for Soil Organic Matter just divide that result by 1.72 and you'll get the rough figure of soil carbon.
You'll have a figure then to compare to other years.

Not accurate, the amount of carbon per gram of organic matter can differ hugely and change over time as it reacts to changing management

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Not accurate, the amount of carbon per gram of organic matter can differ hugely and change over time as it reacts to changing management

Only going off what a world renowned soil expert advises farmers on, if their soil lab only measures soil organic matter and they'll know then what's happening between soil tests.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Only going off what a world renowned soil expert advises farmers on, if their soil lab only measures soil organic matter and they'll know then what's happening between soil tests.

We'll whoever it is is wrong! That's probably where some of the direct drilling/cover crop lads are getting their crazy high figures of sequestration from. Cellulose is 44% carbon, glucose is 40%. Your figure assumes 58% for everything.

Changing from 55 to 50% equals about 8t/ha of carbon in top 20cm or 29t co2 equivalent

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

We'll whoever it is is wrong! That's probably where some of the direct drilling/cover crop lads are getting their crazy high figures of sequestration from. Cellulose is 44% carbon, glucose is 40%. Your figure assumes 58% for everything.

Changing from 55 to 50% equals about 8t/ha of carbon in top 20cm or 29t co2 equivalent

Well they do have their own soil testing lab that measures carbon as part of the test and advises farmers on what measures to take. I can't say any more than that.

You don't happen to have a lab yourself?

Have you included the "dead" carbon as such in your assumptions that they may be wrong?

Gawddawggonnit

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Why didnt you sow 6 way mix if thats what is supposed to be done?

Ignorance.
I didn’t know any better. I rotate grass with maize etc, but that field is shallow and very dry, so I said I’d leave it in permanent pasture. To get area aid on permanent pasture it must be a minimum of a 6 way mix. Downside of permanent pastures is that you can’t ever change back to tillage...I’ll stick maize into it again next year.

Gawddawggonnit

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

unless you're coming from continuos tillage, it doesn't sequester carbon. The majority of land would have been converted to intensively grassland from less intensively used grassland and will be actively losing soil carbon as a result

Correct.

Say my name

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Correct.

It's not though.

Gawddawggonnit

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Not accurate, the amount of carbon per gram of organic matter can differ hugely and change over time as it reacts to changing management

We’re going to be tested from next year on carbon content on soils. Tests will be done when they’re testing for nitrogen. These tests are done to a depth of 90cm.

I’ll post the results and the cropping/tillage history as they evolve.

Say my name

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

We’re going to be tested from next year on carbon content on soils. Tests will be done when they’re testing for nitrogen. These tests are done to a depth of 90cm.

I’ll post the results and the cropping/tillage history as they evolve.

Get them to test for carbon leaching in groundwater and your waterways for a fuller picture.

yosemitesam1

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

We’re going to be tested from next year on carbon content on soils. Tests will be done when they’re testing for nitrogen. These tests are done to a depth of 90cm.

I’ll post the results and the cropping/tillage history as they evolve.

Would be interesting to see how organic matter levels change alongside carbon

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

It's not though.

What's incorrect?

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

What's incorrect?

The bit you posted about grassland not sequestering carbon. Untrue and misleading.

You then tried to explain this by claiming that only depleted soils coming from tillage converted to grassland sequester carbon.

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

The bit you posted about grassland not sequestering carbon. Untrue and misleading.

You then tried to explain this by claiming that only depleted soils coming from tillage converted to grassland sequester carbon.

Any evidence to back that up?

whelan2

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Any evidence to back that up?

Hold on he will google it .......

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Any evidence to back that up?

Grass takes in carbon through photosynthesis. The carbon goes into the plant and becomes the plant and goes into the roots and feeds biology through exudates.
Cow or farmer takes the grass/carbon and converts it to meat and dung and urine or composted perhaps in a biogas plant.
Farmer or cow spreads the dung and urine/carbon back onto the soil and it feeds the biology in the soil. Biology eats all these inputs from the roots and dung and urine and through the process of them living and dying it becomes a slightly tougher sort of carbon that can be sort of stored.
If the field is disturbed by tilling of course carbon can realised back to the atmosphere. Fertilizer slows down the biology in the soil and carbon is not as readily stored in the soil but as soon as a plant is photosynthetic it's sequestering carbon and the carbon journey from the atmosphere has begun.

Forest carbon proponents give great joy in telling how trees store carbon. You've even the government supporting this. It doesn't matter if it's burned for fuel straight after and released again . They've somehow claimed the moral high ground.
The farmer sells his carbon as the crop, meat, milk or wool, whatever and no account is taken of it. The only credit/emphasis seems to be on measuring soil carbon. And even at that no account is taken of carbon leaching from the soils into the waterways into the sea.

Inaccurate accounting abounds.

Say my name

whelan2 wrote: »

Hold on he will google it .......

Don't have to.

Nice niggle there. :pac:

Panch18

whelan2 wrote: »

Hold on he will google it .......

Bit harsh there now in fairness

whelan2

Panch18 wrote: »

Bit harsh there now in fairness

He's a big boy now , he can give it and take it

Say my name

whelan2 wrote: »

He's a big boy now , he can give it and take it

Ah you never know..

I might have to run home and tell Mammy.

whelan2

Just got my post out of the post box. I got the herd screening results from glanbia, fixed price scheme paper work from glanbia. Yesterday I got a scc result in a letter from glanbia, which I also got online and in a text. The day before I got a booklet on calf welfare from glanbia and the day before that I got my milk statement. Sustainability how are ya

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Grass takes in carbon through photosynthesis. The carbon goes into the plant and becomes the plant and goes into the roots and feeds biology through exudates.
Cow or farmer takes the grass/carbon and converts it to meat and dung and urine or composted perhaps in a biogas plant.
Farmer or cow spreads the dung and urine/carbon back onto the soil and it feeds the biology in the soil. Biology eats all these inputs from the roots and dung and urine and through the process of them living and dying it becomes a slightly tougher sort of carbon that can be sort of stored.
If the field is disturbed by tilling of course carbon can realised back to the atmosphere. Fertilizer slows down the biology in the soil and carbon is not as readily stored in the soil but as soon as a plant is photosynthetic it's sequestering carbon and the carbon journey from the atmosphere has begun.

Forest carbon proponents give great joy in telling how trees store carbon. You've even the government supporting this. It doesn't matter if it's burned for fuel straight after and released again . They've somehow claimed the moral high ground.
The farmer sells his carbon as the crop, meat, milk or wool, whatever and no account is taken of it. The only credit/emphasis seems to be on measuring soil carbon. And even at that no account is taken of carbon leaching from the soils into the waterways into the sea.

Inaccurate accounting abounds.

Major oversimplification going on there and most of it doesn't happen. Think about it, if an animal can digest 80-90% of grass in under 24 hours in an anaerobic environment what chance has anything organic of surviving long term where oxygen and as much time as bacteria/fungi want is available?
Dung and surface residue makes a tiny contribution to total soil carbon. Everything on the surface gets degraded too fast. In the case of lignin, even though it's slower to be broken down. It still only lasts for about 3 months. It's also so unreactive that it has no chance of being protected from breakdown by sticking to soil particles.
The most important parts of soil carbon are:
root biomass, both alive and in various stages of decay.

Exudates. Even though the majority of these simple sugars and proteins are broken down fast, they're sticky and reactive. So they'll draw soil particles into aggregates and slow down decomposition rates.

Bacteria+fungi
The actual amount of carbon held in their biomass is small but they're so active releasing so many different chemicals that glue aggregates together and result in carbon getting trapped between clay and silt making it inaccessible for breakdown.
Fungi are more important than bacteria for soil carbon because they grow hairs out through the soil and release glued as they go to stabilise the gaps they cross.

If land is coming from a fairly diverse sward with low inputs (even if that was 40+ years ago, as it takes a lot of time for carbon held in aggregates to be released and not replaced in the abscence of tillage). Nearly everything that helps store carbon in the soil is reduced
Ryegrass maintains a smaller root mass than most of the other main grasses. Add in fertilisation and it decreases it further.
A monoculture of species maintains a lot less microbes than a mixture. Add in fertilizer and plants cut back on microbe allocations reducing things further. In addition, a much higher percentage of parasitic/disease microbes will prevail. Not the types that build networks to access soil nutrients, because they're not out interacting with soil particles. Less aggregates are formed and less carbon is stored.
Under equal conditions, ryegrass supports less microbes than cocksfoot, clover etc will.
Fungal to bacterial biomass from low input grass is massively greater than intensively used grass.

Most intensive grassland would be losing around 1 tonne co2/ha

Buford T. Justice XIX

https://twitter.com/IrishGrassland/status/1199709690294423554?s=19

Water John

I'll match yours Judge.
https://nots.ie/courses/sustainable-livestock-in-2020-a-discussion-with-sheila-cooke-of-3lm/

And it doesn't have a fertiiser co sponsoring it.

Say my name

Now.

A screenshot is the best I can do.



Don't worry folks this doesn't happen.
Gas fella you are yose and you not acknowledging the whole system.

Edit: I may get out my picture of charcoal again to show what carbon is.
And God help the bale grazers who aim to build up soil carbon through the cattle dung.

einn32

Dairygold tanker driver was telling me that the milk is going for cheddar and heading to the UK warehouses. Brexit!