Climate Conference

Masifxx

Seemed to be a Serious presentation today from Frank Mitloehner at the IFA climate conferenceon Methane. (It’s different!) Amazing how An Taisce tried to block him. A new form of sensorship! How we compare animals participating in the carbon cycle with burning coal? We shouldn’t and this is now accepted.

Keepgrowing

Attended that conference today. 3 excellent presentations with Proff MitLonher being the stand out. He really dispelled a few untruths today regarding methane and carbon and ruminants.

The thing that was glaringly obvious was the research gap that exists between his findings and Teagasc’s research. If we’re relying on Teagasc here I’m afraid the horse will have bolted.

Panch18

Would have loved to have attended

Would you mind giving us a few quick lines on his main points?

Panch18

Masifxx wrote: »

Seemed to be a Serious presentation today from Frank Mitloehner at the IFA climate conferenceon Methane. (It’s different!) Amazing how An Taisce tried to block him. A new form of sensorship! How we compare animals participating in the carbon cycle with burning coal? We shouldn’t and this is now accepted.

I'll tell you what, that press release from An Taisce was an absolute disgrace. It just goes to show the lengths they will go to drown out any reasonable discussion and debate on climate change. Unless it fits their agenda they don't want to hear about it

A very dangerous crowd

Gawddawggonnit

Keepgrowing wrote: »

The thing that was glaringly obvious was the research gap that exists between his findings and Teagasc’s research. If we’re relying on Teagasc here I’m afraid the horse will have bolted.

I’ve been saying this with a couple of years...
Question is, who to get to do reasoned and focused research?
The bonus is that most of the research is already out there and all that needs to be done is set up the research in Ireland.

$64milion question...are Irish farmers ready/capable of real and fundamental change??

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

I'll tell you what, that press release from An Taisce was an absolute disgrace. It just goes to show the lengths they will go to drown out any reasonable discussion and debate on climate change. Unless it fits their agenda they don't want to hear about it

A very dangerous crowd

Groups have their minds made up on the farming and climate debate, they don’t want their positions challenged.
We can do our best to ignore what is going on, but be aware that a propaganda war is raging online against animal farming and from what I can see farming is not holding its ground on this.

Mooooo

Is there a link to anything from the conference?

Keepgrowing

I’ve a busy day here today, I’ll read my notes tonight and post some take homes.

Say my name

The ifa should set up a national soil carbon measuring, incentive and carbon trading system for it's members.
Just like fbd was established to provide insurance for it's members.
Have this set up so that private business or individual's worldwide can buy or rent carbon credits from ifa members.
Obviously it would involve soil measurement but just have it based on soil farmland. No hedges or ditches although that could be open for debate. But have that tillage farmers as well as grassland would also see the benefit in being in the system.
Immediately that would put the agriculture climate naysayers in this country at a disadvantage, bring in funds from elsewhere from CAP and give farmers figures about what they are accomplishing on the ground.

It probably would be a first for a farmers union in the world to do so but it would add to our green image and take direction back into the farmers hands and not be dependent on Leinster house.

A model like this is

https://nori.com/

alps

Say my name wrote: »

The ifa should set up a national soil carbon measuring, incentive and carbon trading system for it's members.
Just like fbd was established to provide insurance for it's members.
Have this set up so that private business or individual's worldwide can buy or rent carbon credits from ifa members.
Obviously it would involve soil measurement but just have it based on soil farmland. No hedges or ditches although that could be open for debate. But have that tillage farmers as well as grassland would also see the benefit in being in the system.
Immediately that would put the agriculture climate naysayers in this country at a disadvantage, bring in funds from elsewhere from CAP and give farmers figures about what they are accomplishing on the ground.

It probably would be a first for a farmers union in the world to do so but it would add to our green image and take direction back into the farmers hands and not be dependent on Leinster house.

A model like this is

https://nori.com/

Can we actually sell Carbon Credits in or from Ireland?

Have an involvement in renewables and was of the opinion that gov passed regulations way back in early 2000's claiming ownership for the state.

Say my name

alps wrote: »

Can we actually sell Carbon Credits in or from Ireland?

Have an involvement in renewables and was of the opinion that gov passed regulations way back in early 2000's claiming ownership for the state.

I don't know that. It's for a higher up head than me.

If so that'd probably stop Irish farmers from partaking directly in the Nori initiative.
Wouldn't that be some skull duggery.

Mooooo

alps wrote: »

Can we actually sell Carbon Credits in or from Ireland?

Have an involvement in renewables and was of the opinion that gov passed regulations way back in early 2000's claiming ownership for the state.

I think you are right, same thing included any minerals etc I think?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Keepgrowing wrote: »

Attended that conference today. 3 excellent presentations with Proff MitLonher being the stand out. He really dispelled a few untruths today regarding methane and carbon and ruminants.

The thing that was glaringly obvious was the research gap that exists between his findings and Teagasc’s research. If we’re relying on Teagasc here I’m afraid the horse will have bolted.

A lot will depend on what kind of results you're looking for, tbh. Proper, replicable, significant results take time to set up trials, decide what exactly is being measured and how long the trial should last.

A quick tweet on one trial result, preliminary as yet but there are loads more either starting or 1 or two years into the trials.
https://twitter.com/HaroldKingston1/status/1219027504121499648?s=19

patsy_mccabe

Says it all really.


https://twitter.com/ClaireMc_C/status/1219715991833399299

tractorporn

Panch18 wrote: »

I'll tell you what, that press release from An Taisce was an absolute disgrace. It just goes to show the lengths they will go to drown out any reasonable discussion and debate on climate change. Unless it fits their agenda they don't want to hear about it

A very dangerous crowd

That statement read like a spoilt 12 year old girl who had been told that they couldn't have a pony for their birthday.

yosemitesam1

On methane emissions, just did some rough calculations.
120kg methane is roughly produced per cow per year.
It lasts roughly 10 years in the atmosphere.
So there's a pool of 1200kg per cow, say 2 cows per ha, 2,400kg methane per ha.
That is 28 times worse than co2 over 100 years. So 28 multiplied by 2.4t equals 67.2 t co2 equivalent to be offset the effect of methane on the atmosphere. Multiply 67.2 by 0.272727 equals 18.3t of carbon to be held in the soil to make a stocking rate of 2 cows/ha methane neutral.
That needs an additional 1.525 percentage points of soil carbon/ha in the top 20cm. Assuming bulk density of 0.6.

That is not a lot considering most grassland would be around 5%. Long term tillage would be less than half of that soil carbon content.

Seems too easy, but can't see any fault in it.

yosemitesam1

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

On methane emissions, just did some rough calculations.
120kg methane is roughly produced per cow per year.
It lasts roughly 10 years in the atmosphere.
So there's a pool of 1200kg per cow, say 2 cows per ha, 2,400kg methane per ha.
That is 28 times worse than co2 over 100 years. So 28 multiplied by 2.4t equals 67.2 t co2 equivalent to be offset the effect of methane on the atmosphere. Multiply 67.2 by 0.272727 equals 18.3t of carbon to be held in the soil to make a stocking rate of 2 cows/ha methane neutral.
That needs an additional 1.525 percentage points of soil carbon/ha in the top 20cm. Assuming bulk density of 0.6.

That is not a lot considering most grassland would be around 5%. Long term tillage would be less than half of that soil carbon content.

Seems too easy, but can't see any fault in it.

Instead of methane being 28 times worse than co2, it should be around 100 times. Changes it to needing soil carbon % of about 5.5% in top 20cm. It would have to be spread over more soil to do, but still possible with deep rooting grasses etc

Capercaillie

In presentations no mention of Nitrous oxide a potent GHG, a byproduct of exogenous N fertilization. The "gold standard" sward in IFA "smart farming" initiative is ryegrass sward which have high N requirements. Mixed species (more biodiverse) swards require minimal exogenous N application. It's no wonder nitrous oxide was not mentioned since it was an IFA event and it doesn't fit their agenda.

Castlekeeper

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Instead of methane being 28 times worse than co2, it should be around 100 times. Changes it to needing soil carbon % of about 5.5% in top 20cm. It would have to be spread over more soil to do, but still possible with deep rooting grasses etc

Some say high N fertilisation leads to overall soil carbon loss especially below 12-15cm. Measuring soil carbon levels appears to be quite a complex and uncertain science yet, I've seen a good few unexplained results by expert soil scientists.
This could be a factor in the reluctance of the EPA to include soil carbon levels in their overall calculations. It could also be a due to a wider unspoken agricultural policy because of a fear that results mightn't suit.

yosemitesam1

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Some say high N fertilisation leads to overall soil carbon loss especially below 12-15cm. Measuring soil carbon levels appears to be quite a complex and uncertain science yet, I've seen a good few unexplained results by expert soil scientists.
This could be a factor in the reluctance of the EPA to include soil carbon levels in their overall calculations. It could also be a due to a wider unspoken agricultural policy because of a fear that results mightn't suit.

The losses from intensive use of fertilizer can easily be reversed (without destroying yields).
To measure differences teagasc/EPA need to get rid of their gas flux machines and start taking soil core samples from a variety of farms/land uses. The results will become apparent then.
The problem with the flux machines used at present is it's the equivalent of measuring how much water flows out of a tap into a sink and guesstimating how much water is in it without knowing how much is flowing out the drain.
The forestry carbon figures are based off an assessment of a few different aged stands of Sitka spruce, there wasn't anything complicated about it. Allow for different soil types and there's no reason I can see why it couldn't be done for soils.
The one thing that may be an obstacle is that it wouldn't tell the right story, maybe things are changing slowly but they've a long way to go before they're ready to accept lower input diverse swards are the only future.
There's a document in the farm science thread of a large scale testing of sites in the UK where it was found lower input grassland soils held more carbon

Castlekeeper

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The losses from intensive use of fertilizer can easily be reversed (without destroying yields).
To measure differences teagasc/EPA need to get rid of their gas flux machines and start taking soil core samples from a variety of farms/land uses. The results will become apparent then.
The problem with the flux machines used at present is it's the equivalent of measuring how much water flows out of a tap into a sink and guesstimating how much water is in it without knowing how much is flowing out the drain.
The forestry carbon figures are based off an assessment of a few different aged stands of Sitka spruce, there wasn't anything complicated about it. Allow for different soil types and there's no reason I can see why it couldn't be done for soils.
The one thing that may be an obstacle is that it wouldn't tell the right story, maybe things are changing slowly but they've a long way to go before they're ready to accept lower input diverse swards are the only future.
There's a document in the farm science thread of a large scale testing of sites in the UK where it was found lower input grassland soils held more carbon

The atypical results I've seen were on the high side and from soil cores if that's any help.

Castlekeeper

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The losses from intensive use of fertilizer can easily be reversed (without destroying yields).
To measure differences teagasc/EPA need to get rid of their gas flux machines and start taking soil core samples from a variety of farms/land uses. The results will become apparent then.
The problem with the flux machines used at present is it's the equivalent of measuring how much water flows out of a tap into a sink and guesstimating how much water is in it without knowing how much is flowing out the drain.
The forestry carbon figures are based off an assessment of a few different aged stands of Sitka spruce, there wasn't anything complicated about it. Allow for different soil types and there's no reason I can see why it couldn't be done for soils.
The one thing that may be an obstacle is that it wouldn't tell the right story, maybe things are changing slowly but they've a long way to go before they're ready to accept lower input diverse swards are the only future.
There's a document in the farm science thread of a large scale testing of sites in the UK where it was found lower input grassland soils held more carbon

It's life, but not as we know it.

Pinsnbushings

Capercaillie wrote: »

In presentations no mention of Nitrous oxide a potent GHG, a byproduct of exogenous N fertilization. The "gold standard" sward in IFA "smart farming" initiative is ryegrass sward which have high N requirements. Mixed species (more biodiverse) swards require minimal exogenous N application. It's no wonder nitrous oxide was not mentioned since it was an IFA event and it doesn't fit their agenda.

Very tempted to try sone multi species sward this year but know very little about them, read an article in the farmers journal dairy magazine about a farmer in meath i think it was who sowed 5ha and had great results, haven't the article to hand so figures could be out but from memory he grew 14t dm last year with about 50-60kg of N/HA, which was roughly the same as his ryegrass swards that received the 250kg of N. Very promising if that's accurate and repeatable.

Castlekeeper

Pinsnbushings wrote: »

Very tempted to try sone multi species sward this year but know very little about them, read an article in the farmers journal dairy magazine about a farmer in meath i think it was who sowed 5ha and had great results, haven't the article to hand so figures could be out but from memory he grew 14t dm last year with about 50-60kg of N/HA, which was roughly the same as his ryegrass swards that received the 250kg of N. Very promising if that's accurate and repeatable.

That would be typical, 0kg N Multi species yields surpassed the control of 250kgN ryegrass in the UCD smart grass trials.
If using N on herbal swards,small quantities <10 units/ac/application of Sulphate of Ammonia cause least disruption to the microbes on which they depend for performance.
The best crowd to talk to are the seed companies. Cotswold seeds will send you on a load of very informative brochures if you email or phone them.
McGuinness seeds and Western seeds would be worth calling up as well.

Mooooo

What stocking rates can they support and are they suitable for early and late grazing? Unless these trials are carried out on heavy ground etc I'll reserve judgment. If stock have to spend another month inside in either the start or the end of the year or both due to ground cover etc it would defeat the purpose

jaymla627

Mooooo wrote: »

What stocking rates can they support and are they suitable for early and late grazing? Unless these trials are carried out on heavy ground etc I'll reserve judgment. If stock have to spend another month inside in either the start or the end of the year or both due to ground cover etc it would defeat the purpose

They dont work on heavy ground that holds water, chicory which is pretty important to support a good protein/energy source in mixed awards hates the above type of ground and simply dies of, a good crop of docks will probably take its place in the sward after a year

yosemitesam1

Mooooo wrote: »

What stocking rates can they support and are they suitable for early and late grazing? Unless these trials are carried out on heavy ground etc I'll reserve judgment. If stock have to spend another month inside in either the start or the end of the year or both due to ground cover etc it would defeat the purpose

All the other species are productive. The reason ryegrass came to predominate was because it established rapidly, seed could be produced cheaply and it responded well to large n applications.
Festuloliums, Timothy, cocksfoot can all produce well just need less inputs. It doesn't have to be a mix of herbs and legumes

Castlekeeper

Mooooo wrote: »

What stocking rates can they support and are they suitable for early and late grazing? Unless these trials are carried out on heavy ground etc I'll reserve judgment. If stock have to spend another month inside in either the start or the end of the year or both due to ground cover etc it would defeat the purpose

We definitely need more trials especially on farms around the country to improve and refine their applications and suitability, and we should be pushing for them.
Stocking rate is usually based on forage grown. Soil structure and water infiltration should improve with the massive increase of root mass and biological activity.
Ground cover would be higher than for PRG +/-WC, which doesn't perform well or persist on heavy land anyway so that's a low bar to be setting.

Water John

Fruithill Farm in West Cork can also provide mixed species mix.
It looks like the obvious route. As some above said, it is a change of direction for most farmers.
It is really important to counter the meat/dairy narrative that has caught hold. This has been hijacked very successfully by another agenda.
A journalist on BBC was looking into her carbon footprint. She had five major contributors. Travel was highest and food was in fourth place. Yet, her first action was to eliminate meat and dairy from her diet. That is the risk the farmers are facing in reality.

Fair play to the IFA for putting on the conf. NZ Govn't are already on this path.
In fairness to John Fitzgerald, he said he had changed his opinion on the role of agriculture, since taking up his present position. That openness is to be respected.

Castlekeeper

jaymla627 wrote: »

They dont work on heavy ground that holds water, chicory which is pretty important to support a good protein/energy source in mixed awards hates the above type of ground and simply dies of, a good crop of docks will probably take its place in the sward after a year

Docks won't/don't dominate in a MSS because there simply isn't the same opportunities for them. Now if you go out in early spring, graze it to the floor, cut it up, and put out a heavy coat of slurry I'm sure you'll come up with a photo to prove me wrong!
Interestingly I've seen recently that the dreaded dock is a much better behaved, palatable and nutritious plant in a low fert environment.
Chicory in fact would be one of the less palatable plants in a MSS but is usually included for its rooting qualities, broad leaf, and higher seed availability. Given that the more species the better, the outcome of one particular species is largely irrelevant, especially when you take into account extra indigenous special plants and natural succession of the sward within its ecological niche.

Water John

I think the dock likes high N feeding. Really don't see them in organic swards anyway.

Panch18

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Docks won't/don't dominate in a MSS because there simply isn't the same opportunities for them. Now if you go out in early spring, graze it to the floor, cut it up, and put out a heavy coat of slurry I'm sure you'll come up with a pot to prove me wrong!
Interestingly I've seen recently that the dreaded dock is a much better behaved, palatable and nutritious plant in a low fert environment.
Chicory in fact would be one of the less palatable plants in a MSS but is usually included for its rooting qualities, broad leaf, and higher seed availability. Given that the more species the better, the outcome of one particular species is largely irrelevant, especially when you take into account extra indigenous special plants and natural succession of the sward within its ecological niche.

just want to pick up on 1 particular item you mention there "Given that the more species the better"

I was under the impression that this isn't actually true, from a production point of view anyway. My understanding was that 6 main different species was the ideal, certainly from a production point of view. If i remember correctly, 2 types of grass, 2 types of clover and 2 others was the optimal mix and performed significantly better than a 9 species sward.

I need to find out where i read that though

yosemitesam1

Panch18 wrote: »

just want to pick up on 1 particular item you mention there "Given that the more species the better"

I was under the impression that this isn't actually true, from a production point of view anyway. My understanding was that 6 main different species was the ideal, certainly from a production point of view. If i remember correctly, 2 types of grass, 2 types of clover and 2 others was the optimal mix and performed significantly better than a 9 species sward.

I need to find out where i read that though

Whatever about in a short controlled trial, but if you're at a high stocking rate there's no point putting in too many species to start off with. Trying out strips of the different grass species or overseeding clover (and maybe plantain) would be the first step. If lads jump in with two feet with high expectations and no knowledge of how mixes/management should be tailored to their own circumstances, chances of disappointment are high.

Edit, worth keeping in mind that the smart grass results are in no way comprehensive

Buford T. Justice XIX

Link to the conference videos.
https://www.ifa.ie/cross-sectors/environment-rural-affairs/climate-action-in-agriculture-event-january-2020/

Panch18

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Link to the conference videos.
https://www.ifa.ie/cross-sectors/environment-rural-affairs/climate-action-in-agriculture-event-january-2020/

that'll be some nice viewing for the weekend!!!

Capercaillie

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Docks won't/don't dominate in a MSS because there simply isn't the same opportunities for them. Now if you go out in early spring, graze it to the floor, cut it up, and put out a heavy coat of slurry I'm sure you'll come up with a photo to prove me wrong!
Interestingly I've seen recently that the dreaded dock is a much better behaved, palatable and nutritious plant in a low fert environment.
Chicory in fact would be one of the less palatable plants in a MSS but is usually included for its rooting qualities, broad leaf, and higher seed availability. Given that the more species the better, the outcome of one particular species is largely irrelevant, especially when you take into account extra indigenous special plants and natural succession of the sward within its ecological niche.

PRG has very shallow roots. Docks with their deep root structure have virtually no completion in RRG swards, the ecological niche which they inhabit is vacant. Coupled with high N application, you then have problems with this "weed".

In mixed species swards you have multiple deep rooting plants, which unlike PRG compete with the docks. Docks thus rarely are a problem. I have a traditional hay meadow and virtually no docks present.

Pinsnbushings

Castlekeeper wrote: »

That would be typical, 0kg N Multi species yields surpassed the control of 250kgN ryegrass in the UCD smart grass trials.
If using N on herbal swards,small quantities <10 units/ac/application of Sulphate of Ammonia cause least disruption to the microbes on which they depend for performance.
The best crowd to talk to are the seed companies. Cotswold seeds will send you on a load of very informative brochures if you email or phone them.
McGuinness seeds and Western seeds would be worth calling up as well.

Thanks castle, I'll give those a shout. Think I will give it a try on 4 acres of high dry ground that's currently growing a lovely multispecies of mainly docks and thistles.
Early days in all this but low carbon farming, regenerative agriculture whatever you want to call it, looks like our future whether we like it or not.
No doubt farming beef and dairy are the soft target, did I hear on the radio today that the internet as a whole is responsible for as much emissions worldwide as the aviation industry.
You hear very little about that, sad but there will only be one winner if consumers are given the choice between sacrificing social media, city breaks, sunholidays etc, and eating less meat and dairy.

Keepgrowing

https://www.ifa.ie/ifa-climate-in-agriculture-event/

Gawddawggonnit

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

All the other species are productive. The reason ryegrass came to predominate was because it established rapidly, seed could be produced cheaply and it responded well to large n applications.
Festuloliums, Timothy, cocksfoot can all produce well just need less inputs. It doesn't have to be a mix of herbs and legumes

The newer varieties of fescue and cocksfoot now yield significantly more on the shoulders of the year. Festulolium works well in small inclusions in the mix also.
Teagasc need to be doing the trials on this urgently...but firstly they’ll have to do a 180 on the current narrative.

Water John

Have a look at the Board of Teagasc;
https://www.teagasc.ie/about/our-organisation/authority/

I know it's an old hobby horse of mine but one is a CEO of a fertiliser co, put there by Simon Coveney.
That is just plain wrong.

Castlekeeper

Panch18 wrote: »

just want to pick up on 1 particular item you mention there "Given that the more species the better"

I was under the impression that this isn't actually true, from a production point of view anyway. My understanding was that 6 main different species was the ideal, certainly from a production point of view. If i remember correctly, 2 types of grass, 2 types of clover and 2 others was the optimal mix and performed significantly better than a 9 species sward.

I need to find out where i read that though

That is correct with a caveat, iirc, it was in the second stage if the trial when the 0kg N treatment was removed ( go figure!) And the 9 species mix had establishment problems which in fact made it an unbalanced 6/7 species mix.

All info I've seen from other countries show correlation between the number of species and performance plus resilience.
It also stands up to the scientific explanations of
competitive overyielding and, excuse the lack of correct and succinct terminology, the increases in microbial stimulation, interaction, diversity, and complexity, with increased species numbers.

Castlekeeper

Water John wrote: »

Have a look at the Board of Teagasc;
https://www.teagasc.ie/about/our-organisation/authority/

I know it's an old hobby horse of mine but one is a CEO of a fertiliser co, put there by Simon Coveney.
That is just plain wrong.

I wonder why the Teafasc Johnstown Castle multi species trials have been sabotaged /designed to fail by having just two N treatment's 150kgs/ha and 250kgs/ha?...

Panch18

Castlekeeper wrote: »

That is correct with a caveat, iirc, it was in the second stage if the trial when the 0kg N treatment was removed ( go figure!) And the 9 species mix had establishment problems which in fact made it an unbalanced 6/7 species mix.

All info I've seen from other countries show correlation between the number of species and performance plus resilience.
It also stands up to the scientific explanations of
competitive overyielding and, excuse the lack of correct and succinct terminology, the increases in microbial stimulation, interaction, diversity, and complexity, with increased species numbers.

Thanks for that, I was unaware of the caveat

It’s a fascinating topic, we really need some serious trial work done on it

Water John

No scientific experiment or trial can be valid unless a, control is conducted. A control, in this case would have been zero N.

Say my name

Water John wrote: »

No scientific experiment or trial can be valid unless a, control is conducted. A control, in this case would have been zero N.

Can they not just link in with on farm crops already been grown here?
There must be a fair few at it at this stage?
Or are the discussion group whatsapp groups the only one's to benefit?

Castlekeeper

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Whatever about in a short controlled trial, but if you're at a high stocking rate there's no point putting in too many species to start off with. Trying out strips of the different grass species or overseeding clover (and maybe plantain) would be the first step. If lads jump in with two feet with high expectations and no knowledge of how mixes/management should be tailored to their own circumstances, chances of disappointment are high.

Edit, worth keeping in mind that the smart grass results are in no way comprehensive

Just to add some experiences to this Sam, overseeding of multi species mixes has had very poor success rates from personal knowledge in Ireland and in a Welsh on farm trial over the last few years.
The clover overseeding and management protocols are well tried and proven and better suits free draining land types and a medium level of N fert.
As per the farm featured in the farmers journal mention earlier, one way to start is by trialling a paddock for a year or two.

yosemitesam1

Water John wrote: »

No scientific experiment or trial can be valid unless a, control is conducted. A control, in this case would have been zero N.

Under cutting regimes for trials, there's no organic n being applied by animals so it could be argued 0n isn't representative of any on farm conditions

Water John

I see you point Sam, but a control doesn't actually have to exist in everyday practice. It's there to indicate the base level. But there are near zero N examples.
Mob grazing is one. There the animals may be on that patch for 12/24 hours in 40 days. The animal N would be neglible.
If you have multi species clovers/grasses for silage. It's cut 4 times a year but may be only grazed once or twice.

Castlekeeper

Panch18 wrote: »

Thanks for that, I was unaware of the caveat

It’s a fascinating topic, we really need some serious trial work done on it

It came from Dr.Helen Sheridan's talk at BioFarm.

Plus 1 on the research, in Moorepark and out on farm scale, it's criminal to ignore the possibilities.
We all have to keep asking for it though.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Water John wrote: »

I see you point Sam, but a control doesn't actually have to exist in everyday practice. It's there to indicate the base level. But there are near zero N examples.
Mob grazing is one. There the animals may be on that patch for 12/24 hours in 40 days. The animal N would be neglible.
If you have multi species clovers/grasses for silage. It's cut 4 times a year but may be only grazed once or twice.

For trial work, which is what Teagasc is doing, you do need a control. Otherwise you're comparing relative results rather than absolute results.

Imagine what would be said about the trial work in Solohead if Moorepark results were used as a base figure.

Water John

It's similar to finding out how cows perform under different levels of meal feeding. There is a control batch which are given, no meal. That is not going to then happen in a real farming situation.