Ain't that the truth!Oh I see
I thought you may be agreeing with their winging and moaning about us winging and moaning
which made me laugh I have to say
it seems it is the prerogative of farmers all over the word
I'm in StPetersburg (formerly Leningrad) today. Yes I really am.I think Putin finds favour with this mob, I've seen his praises sung high on these pages for his support of Russian agriculture ( among other things ) . . .
If I was compiling a list of my leftish heroes / role models, Putin would be that far to the right he wouldn't be on the page . . .
I may not have my facts right, but weren't ag subsidises in the UK after WW2 introduced by a Labour govt ? Didn't the Thatcher govt try to reduce them ?
I dunno why this lot hate the left so much, they appear to embrace state supported industry . . .
Of course we can learn off each other, I have a couple of friends that won't use a plough but will only rotavate the top 2inches of soil to reseed / sow stubble turnips, they understand how the soil works just are afraid of what will happen if they don't spread N! I've been Organic for over 10 years I find that ploughing works for me/ this farm, but I'm having a good look at what their doing to see if I can improve what I'm doingI really quite enjoy the debate.. to me there is no argument. I've experienced both sides of the coin and know which one is the one I sit on..
The puzzling part is, a regular poster on here suggests that both sides can learn off the other..
What tosh- are you 'the duck's alter ego?
Can't speak for the others, but farm profit is my main driver.
I have no animal health issues (or expenditure) and 3x the output per acre of my large scale neighbour. Perhaps my lambs know I've got a mortgage?
Would really like to know how that can be "improved" by slapping on some urea- or reseeding with a nitrogen-hungry monoculture?
Care to tell us how soils really work, Ollie?
Or is the "living soil" concept just fiction to you?
I'd urge you to search YouTube for a bloke named Gabe Brown, who will answer your assumptions neatly. Will only take an hour of your time.
I didn't think you'd bother to search for him very hard.Who is Gabe Brown? Does he have a Nobel prize as well?
How soils work? It is not rocket science, what would you like to know?? People worked out 8000 years ago at least that if you took something from a piece of land as food, something would have to go back. I would point out that plenty of food is grown without soil whatsoever now but that's a discussion for another time.
You have 3 times the output of your neighbour? That is good for you, but the context you have provided is vague to say the least.
Nitrogen is the enemy and monoculture is bad? Would you care to let the developing world know this gem of information??
Why on earth are you so anti-nitrogen? You realise that it is a key element in basically most living organisms, right?
It is a tool, nothing more. If you over-do it, its bad. Either use it or don't. When you have approached levels of output that many farmers are around the world, you might be in a better position to convince them not to use it. I don't personally care where the nitrogen comes from, it makes no difference to me and it makes no difference to a plant. You seem to have it in my head I make some massive living from selling little white prills, when in actuality, it is a very small part of what I do.
TypoVarious salesmen have worked out that 3 billion of those at least would have perished were it not for the Haber process and Dr Borlaug,
I didn't think you'd bother to search for him very hard.
I'm afraid he has as many Nobel prizes as you and I combined.Does he have a Nobel prize or not? If you answer that, perhaps I would consider the time researching the bloke. Since you cannot be assed to discuss anything at length, (besides mooting your anti-everything stance at every opportunity), why do you assume I would be prepared to spend my time researching something you are a proponent of?
Communication is the essential basis of all sales and marketing. It's your baby; you flog it.
I'm afraid he has as many Nobel prizes as you and I combined.
More acres though, and has the numbers and the yields to back up my own claims and completely dispel the myth that we need synthetic fert to "feed the world".
It is extremely presumptuous to conclude that I am anti-Nitrogen; I love the stuff, it's the most abundant element in our atmosphere.
But I don't feed the denitrifying microbes in my soil and don't buy into the claim that it's the best way to grow food. In the short term it provides benefit- in the mid term it's obvious it doesn't, and in the long term (more than a few hundred years) it may very well be the reason humans cannot grow enough food.
That's why my money was on you not even bothering to type the name into your computer until replying to my post.
As you said, it's your baby, you flog it.
You claim that it doesn't matter to the plant where the nitrogen comes from- which is true..
But, it does matter a lot to the soil biota, which is largely where we differ.
For them, any more than 5 or 6 units of N per application starts the alarm bells, the denitrifying ones kick off, and speed the release back to the atmosphere.
Much like this thread really- balance is good for everyone...
So basically, if I provide the links, you won't take time to read them, is that correct?
So - why would I research methods of upsetting my own business model?
I already know how.
That part is easy, millions of food producers subscribe to it now, have done for years; greatly improves the yields in the short term, detrimental in the long term.
Are you livestock or arable farming?
That is exactly why I urged you to watch the Gabe Brown video, it will only take 58 minutes of your time, and he will explain from a producer's POV.I merely ask that you just elaborate the blokes methods and ideas in a summary so we can at least have an inkling of it?
Soil biota- I am well aware of this term. As I mentioned there are various systems where soil is not even used to grow crops. It is being done successfully already on a wide scale. I have no doubt whatsoever that virtually every input or action you place upon a field has some detrimental effect to the soil biota, as it begins to change the soil chemistry often in wide ranging and long lasting ways. However, where you and I differ perhaps, is that I have seen fields where farmers have deliberately been pushing their soils into what any soil scientist would describe as oblivion, and these fields are dishing up the goods for reasons I am unable to explain.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that the soils in these areas should be virtually dead and grow nothing, but the crops involved are far from dead, on the contrary, they are performing very well, even exceptionally well, when the soil science part of my brain cannot add it up and flashing massive warning signs. And in some parts of the world, this has been going on for in excess of 50 years.
My point is thus, a lot of soils are perhaps hugely tougher than we realise. They can withstand a lot of abuse, and the biggest form of abuse going is ploughing or being denuded by chemical or mechanical means. Likewise, they can be revitalised in various ways.
I have no doubt that there is a raft of genuine research that illustrates that using nitrates, or sulphates or spraying on glyphosate have some kind of long-lasting effect on soil life, but in practical terms, have farmers seen this to an extent that it is affecting them in real terms? I am not sure I have seen it yet. They are quick to recognise the effect of compaction, because the effects are visual and nearly immediate.
For the record I am involved with both livestock and arable farming; in my book they are two ends of the same sandwich. In my region particularly, one side depends upon the other.