You tell me. That’s why I started this thread. It seems to be the ‘new’ thing to do. I even thought about doing it myself but want to gain as much info about it as I can.
Biological Brews
- Thread starter ajd132
- Start date
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
I haven’t really read too much into this however here is my take. Different farming practices will change the balance between different bacteria, fungi etc, by creating conditions which favour certain organisms. What it won’t do is completely eliminate them all, as there will still be unfarmed areas in a field. Adding new bacteria to the soil won’t mean they are there for good as you will still need favourable conditions for them to survive and reproduce. Also we have just scraped the surface with identifying bacteria, fungi, viruses. There are thousands out there doing fantastic jobs which are yet to be identified.
In summary I think it’s a load of rubbish.
In summary I think it’s a load of rubbish.
Look up "natural farming" or "korean natural farming", Chris Trump on u tube, Elaine Ingham for starters. Or better still get in contact with the Biofarm2020 lot who had a great week of zoom meetings recently with a number of speakers. They can explain better than me.
I'm probably not too dissimilar to yourself, just trying to glean as much info as possible. In my case evolve my own conventional farming system to an organic system for its hopefully higher premiums but with more "regenerative principles" for sustainability and to reduce costs. Hence my interest as I have to get away from bag and bottle "conventional" agriculture.
Cultivate your own IMO's first before spending money and give it a try. That's my intention.
I'm probably not too dissimilar to yourself, just trying to glean as much info as possible. In my case evolve my own conventional farming system to an organic system for its hopefully higher premiums but with more "regenerative principles" for sustainability and to reduce costs. Hence my interest as I have to get away from bag and bottle "conventional" agriculture.
Cultivate your own IMO's first before spending money and give it a try. That's my intention.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Probably do better by skipping one pass with the sprayer TBH, but it's hard to brag about what you aren't spending and doing!
Increase the biology by not doing so much to harm the biology, habitat provision and "do less harm" are probably overall better approaches than buying products you don't need.
Molasses is only going to put your F:B ratio further out of whack, better to omit "an insurance" fungicide if you want healthier soils
it is no different, really that's the thing about the uptake of "regen ag", the same thought process gives the same results. Skimp on fert and spend all the savings on covercrop seed leaves you just as much out of pocket. Why buy stuff you do not need to buy?
Buying less and see if net margins drop is a different mindset to buying more and seeing if yields reflect
Thanks that is great advice. I guess as farmers we have A need to be doing something and interfering constantly.
50ShedsofHay
Member
TBH that makes little sense. The material is diatomaceous earth. It's not a poison or conventional insecticide and does not kill soil microbes. It works by virtue of its high content of microscopic diatom bodies, comprising very hard and sharp silica. This traps in the joints of an insect pest's rigid exoskelton, rendering it immobile and lacerating the epithelium, causing water loss. This can prevent it functioning as a pest and ultimately kill it.
Its a very fine powder, not a granular and has no action on bacteria.
- Location
- Essex Coast
It is basic human nature to want to do something to make things better, it's what we have been doing since crawling out of the swamp. The difficult bit is just standing back and letting things happen on their own.
Fukuoka explains it best, he says after millions of years of evolution, nature is perfect and there is no way we can ever hope to improve on it. Yes we can get higher yields, but that is at the expense of the environment and is unsustainable due to ever decreasing organic matter levels. If polluter pays principals were applied properly to farming, the system would be bankrupt and nature would win by miles.
I run a field on a zero input system so that I can get an idea what is the, what I call "natural yield", and it is pretty amazing what nature can proving for nothing. I like this experiment because it is not possible to know the value of artificial inputs, if you don't know where you are staring from.
YELROM
Member
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Do you post about your zero input field anywhere on here
I am very guilty of always wanting to try the next big thing, I am trying to resist the urge and do a better due dilligence when it comes to this kind of thing hence why I am questioning. I’ve found in the past I want something to work so badly I don’t think about the results objectively and get too reductionist.
- Location
- Essex Coast
Haven't done, no.
Last year my normal ferts, fungicides and 6 sprayer passes bought 2 tonnes/Ha.
This year's spring wheat, they bought 0.5 tonnes/Ha.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
There's always those overheads staring at us, one thing I realised (eventually) was you can fix a poor ROI just as well by reducing the I as increasing the R!
JD-Kid
Member
- Location
- Akaroa.. New Zealand
some of the brews could do things but then a good cover crop with a range of plants in it will do the same just need to know what each plant will host and increase the numbers
a intresting thing I read was most farmers will add products P S K N Ca etc etc to correct the soils organic farmers will tend to use plant hormones to lift plant growth using both will give higher returns
molasses will feed bacteria but it needs C and N the carbon in most cases there but N maybe lacking so the lift not that great in bacteria numbers add some free N in to the system and it works
a intresting thing I read was most farmers will add products P S K N Ca etc etc to correct the soils organic farmers will tend to use plant hormones to lift plant growth using both will give higher returns
molasses will feed bacteria but it needs C and N the carbon in most cases there but N maybe lacking so the lift not that great in bacteria numbers add some free N in to the system and it works
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
^^^^ this
More yield on a cash crop = more extraction
When you look at the bigger picture, it makes more sense to pull out the stops on your covercrops and see what your cashcrops can do with little input, at least then you're spending on something that is staying on the field. That's if you're serious about sustainability and a healthy biome.
That's why I'm seeing so much cognitive dissonance in regen ag circles, most are still chasing yield increases with input reductions, which is bizarre thinking for those who consider themselves "above" average farmers. It's mining without the hard-hats
Crex
Member
- Location
- Innse Gall, Alba
What do you think your homemade brews add to the soil @Kiwi Pete ?
Does it not kill beneficial insects then?
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Good question.
Probably just increase its appetite, cycling was awfully sluggish before.
Everything we do is to aid the fungi, either by adding more diversity or attempting to boost nutrient cycling - assisting all the other stuff we try to do via management changes is 'the big idea'
Residue just used to sit there, the only real sign of fungi was it used to grow buckets of mushrooms.
Now they aren't fruiting, so a good sign that they are under less stress? I think?
No real change to growth, TBH rain is all we need, and putting a litre of horn silica across 65 ac made more of an improvement to growth than all the other brews combined have.
Really our business is selling stored rainfall to other farmers.
you tube : static pile high fungal compost demonstration and presentation with David Johnston. Explains the why you should consider the "bug in a jug" but also why homegrown potentially better.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Does your zero input include or exclude herbicides? They would be the most destructive to leave out in the long term unless you were following organic methods of weed control.
- Location
- Essex Coast
This is not organic. No ferts, lime, PGRs, fungicides but does have herbicides, so a clean crop. Most noticeable thing is that the blackgrass, although there is pretty pathetic and uncompetetive, each plant that survives the herbicides just puts up one small ear, about half the height of the wheat.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Interesting.
Are you using FYM or other soil amendment?
I would have saved £360 Ha on WW and £180 Ha on SW on those inputs.
It has been proven that 200kg N doubles your yield compared with no N, and that would be in trials where there was N applied the previous year, or it was in a legume. Organic production would be about half conventional yields.
I'm not sure what your average yields were in those years, but I'm not sure I would have got 7t/ha milling spec WW with zero N, or 6.35 t/ha SW - but perhaps I should try a small field or a tramline. Might work best with spring barley. The only input I might have to apply in some fields would be Mn.
A good trial would be only herbicides; herbicides and half other inputs; and both compared to normal treatment.
Are you using FYM or other soil amendment?
I would have saved £360 Ha on WW and £180 Ha on SW on those inputs.
It has been proven that 200kg N doubles your yield compared with no N, and that would be in trials where there was N applied the previous year, or it was in a legume. Organic production would be about half conventional yields.
I'm not sure what your average yields were in those years, but I'm not sure I would have got 7t/ha milling spec WW with zero N, or 6.35 t/ha SW - but perhaps I should try a small field or a tramline. Might work best with spring barley. The only input I might have to apply in some fields would be Mn.
A good trial would be only herbicides; herbicides and half other inputs; and both compared to normal treatment.