Direct Driller lime article

Mounty

Member
Location
Suffolk
Just when I was starting to relax since finishing for Christmas. :rolleyes:

Not sure it's clever advertising when you're just slagging off the competing product saying yours is better in every way. Also annoys me because we supply a lot of ground and screened chalk which is a much softer product than limestone, therefore their argument is further flawed. Most chalk is so soft, its very readily available. We do supply a bit of granular and about a month ago (for a cost comparison) it had gone up about £25/tonne.

As for the surface area argument, that's a new angle on me. I really can't see how that is true. If a prill lands and dissolves, it doesn't spread itself about all over the soil.
One thing to remember when you're liming soil is...........1 acre of soil to a depth of approx 6" is approx 1600 tonnes. If this 6" profile is all sub optimal pH, how many tonnes would you think it takes to neutralise it?

Pic shows bulk being applied at 3.7t/ha. It was a windy day so not a perfect job but pretty certain you wouldn't see the coverage of any prills from a drone?
E2EC67B7-2E18-4884-B990-DD8E93D36769.jpeg
 

Wisconsonian

Member
Trade
The article is from a company called soil first farming .

Will this be the spec for the lime regulations they mention ? I suppose 100% not meeting the spec could just mean they have only tested one ground and one screened
That spec makes more sense, 20% passing 150 micron instead of 70% for the first chart for screened limestone, a byproduct of crushing and washing lime for aggregate. Vs 40% passing for ground limestone produced specifically for ag lime.

As far as I know, prilled lime is a chemical lime byproduct so as fine as possible once dissolved in water, but that doesn't mean it spreads as evenly on real ground.

Easy enough to test if you don't trust Pete or the salesman or agronomist mentioned earlier. The test will give you results you can calculate costs with, if you need that to know which is a better value. The big chunks the agronomist complained about don't matter, the test didn't count them and you weren't expecting them to work immediately. You paid for and received the fine portion.
 
This is such a simple bit of science I find the need for a discussion of it near mind-boggling. I really do.

When you are applying the stuff in quantities measured in tonnes to the land, you are applying a veritable ship-load of the stuff to the ground. And what is more, it is really quite cheap material- it's merely dug out of the ground, screened or ground up and loaded into a truck. You couldn't make it any simpler.

How the effect of this can be even closely replicated by applying a few hundred kilos of granules I will never know, what the fudge is in the granules to have such a miraculous effect? Does it contain weapons-grade uranium or something?!

It's lime. Buy it and apply it. Job done. It need not be any more complex than that. Seriously.
 

jh.

Member
Location
fife
So first table picture , you all reckon is their on farm samples and second table I posted later , is the regulations they go on about ?

The first table is what threw me with the area coverage and percentages through screens as no way should screened be finer than ground unless it's read the other way , so the 70% is what doesn't get through finest sieve , plus the 5% so 25% fines .

Clearly they think there is only any value in the finest of stuff and how they get this wild surface area claim so much higher per ton than ground or screened.

There is another graph with sizes , mesh and time if anyone wants it posted .
 

Wisconsonian

Member
Trade
I don't need to see any more of their garbage graphs. If you doubt your local lime supplier, take a sample and have it tested, then you'll know and can compare it to the alternatives, IF you think they're remotely competitive. That's the only way to know exactly how much prilled you'd have to use, but Pete could give you a good estimate if you wanted, I'd guess half to 3/4 of the prilled compared to your local quarry at one year. Prilled may have a much bigger value the first season, like 1-6 months.

Here, "screened" would be a waste product in washed aggregate production, so they could find any sample they want, that was a very good sample for ag lime use. And they found a very coarse sample of ground lime if only 40% passed the finest screen.

The neutralizing test will measure all that, no point in arguing the fine details when the only answer is available if you want to know.
 
So first table picture , you all reckon is their on farm samples and second table I posted later , is the regulations they go on about ?

The first table is what threw me with the area coverage and percentages through screens as no way should screened be finer than ground unless it's read the other way , so the 70% is what doesn't get through finest sieve , plus the 5% so 25% fines .

Clearly they think there is only any value in the finest of stuff and how they get this wild surface area claim so much higher per ton than ground or screened.

There is another graph with sizes , mesh and time if anyone wants it posted .


It is carefully worded to do one thing and one thing only, and that’s to make you doubt what has worked for hundreds of years.

I really would love the authors to tell us all EVERY QUARRY from which they have tested a sample. If they have proof that 100% of the quarry limes they have sampled failed the regs then they really ought to prove that by showing all farmers their results. If their samples have proved that to be the case then it really is an absolute disgrace and they should show you all proof of that.

I’ve asked them to do that here on TFF before but they never have. I doubt they have actually sampled many and have most likely purposely picked poor samples. One thing I do know for certain, they won’t give absolute proof by naming which quarry their supposed samples are from because in most cases the suppliers would be huge companies that will ferociously defend their products that are produced to very strict standards.

They should also bear in mind that quarry lime is a natural product, not chemically processed in any way. As such, it will be subject to slight variations from each individual layer, or bench, of material as the producer works through the quarry. Over the years my main supplier turns out a ground aglime of around 52-53%NV, but it was once 48% and on one occasion was 60%

We can all make wild claims with no proof. Twunts that publish magazines with spurious claims containing no proof are as bad as the people who make the claims, so you have to ask yourself if you can believe much of what you read in their rag.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
It is carefully worded to do one thing and one thing only, and that’s to make you doubt what has worked for hundreds of years.

I really would love the authors to tell us all EVERY QUARRY from which they have tested a sample. If they have proof that 100% of the quarry limes they have sampled failed the regs then they really ought to prove that by showing all farmers their results. If their samples have proved that to be the case then it really is an absolute disgrace and they should show you all proof of that.

I’ve asked them to do that here on TFF before but they never have. I doubt they have actually sampled many and have most likely purposely picked poor samples. One thing I do know for certain, they won’t give absolute proof by naming which quarry their supposed samples are from because in most cases the suppliers would be huge companies that will ferociously defend their products that are produced to very strict standards.

They should also bear in mind that quarry lime is a natural product, not chemically processed in any way. As such, it will be subject to slight variations from each individual layer, or bench, of material as the producer works through the quarry. Over the years my main supplier turns out a ground aglime of around 52-53%NV, but it was once 48% and on one occasion was 60%

We can all make wild claims with no proof. Twunts that publish magazines with spurious claims containing no proof are as bad as the people who make the claims, so you have to ask yourself if you can believe much of what you read in their rag.
I have to say some of the stuff being spouted by various ‘regen ag consultants’ is really quite spurious and much of it seems made up. I even wrote an article in direct driller magazine a while ago about that when I realised the Uk’s leading regen ag agronomy company have another business selling all the products they recommend!
 
Of course you did. Using bulk lime works. If it didn’t, I am quite sure farmers would have noticed by now after hundreds of years.

It’s not as if farmers are a bunch of idiots, but you would think so with some of the things some suppliers try and tell you.

The supply of good quality lime and it’s efficient use is a very, very simple thing to understand. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be able to understand it!!!
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
So first table picture , you all reckon is their on farm samples and second table I posted later , is the regulations they go on about ?

The first table is what threw me with the area coverage and percentages through screens as no way should screened be finer than ground unless it's read the other way , so the 70% is what doesn't get through finest sieve , plus the 5% so 25% fines .

Clearly they think there is only any value in the finest of stuff and how they get this wild surface area claim so much higher per ton than ground or screened.

There is another graph with sizes , mesh and time if anyone wants it posted .

Here is the article being discussed.

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index...-the-quality-of-the-lime-you-purchase.360791/ with all the graphs and tables.

Direct Driller magazine publishes opinions from a lot of farmers and industry. If you have a different view, then you too are welcome to write an article about why you disagree and present your evidence for this. Some on this thread already have. Just drop me an email and I'll let you know the next publication deadline.
 
I don’t think anybody should be having to write an article airing our views and opinions on this matter.
Saying that 100% of bulk lime samples fail to meet regs with no proof or independent test results isn’t an opinion, it’s trying to say something is fact when it isn’t.
That, to be blunt, is total bulls**t and publishers of magazines should question that before publication.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
I don’t think anybody should be having to write an article airing our views and opinions on this matter.
Saying that 100% of bulk lime samples fail to meet regs with no proof or independent test results isn’t an opinion, it’s trying to say something is fact when it isn’t.
That, to be blunt, is total bulls**t and publishers of magazines should question that before publication.

And that is your opinion.
 

jh.

Member
Location
fife
Thanks Chris F ,

It is better that people can read the article now.

I just can't see how the graphs and tables can be used to share any information as give no reference to rates , from what I could find . The surface area claim they make doesn't say a rate just " per metric ton " so surely needs to say if that is a ton a hec or a acre .
 
And that is your opinion.

That the person writing the original article has stated 100% of the bulk lime sampled BY HIMSELF in the U.K. fails to meet regulations whilst giving no independent proof of such a claim is not my opinion. It has been stated by the author himself.

It is my opinion that his claims are bulls**t and until he gives the readers full and independent proof of his claims then that will remain the case. He will never be able to provide that proof because his claim is wrong. Independent sampling goes on all the time for these products and if failings are found the producer cannot sell their product. THAT is fact.

He has made these claims before and never provided any proof. Nor will he ever be able to. If some “proof” as he sees it ever emerges then every lime supplier in the country who meets the stringent regulations of The Fertiliser Act will be able to counter his claims with independent sample results carried out on their products.

Saying that you have sampled lime yourself and found 100% to fail regulations whilst not being an accredited laboratory is not fact. It is nothing but hearsay. For all we know he could have sampled from only one quarry and found it fails by 1%

So in summary, no it is not my opinion that his claims are unsubstantiated or proven. That is fact.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
That the person writing the original article has stated 100% of the bulk lime sampled BY HIMSELF in the U.K. fails to meet regulations whilst giving no independent proof of such a claim is not my opinion. It has been stated by the author himself.

It is my opinion that his claims are bulls**t and until he gives the readers full and independent proof of his claims then that will remain the case. He will never be able to provide that proof because his claim is wrong. Independent sampling goes on all the time for these products and if failings are found the producer cannot sell their product. THAT is fact.

He has made these claims before and never provided any proof. Nor will he ever be able to. If some “proof” as he sees it ever emerges then every lime supplier in the country who meets the stringent regulations of The Fertiliser Act will be able to counter his claims with independent sample results carried out on their products.

Saying that you have sampled lime yourself and found 100% to fail regulations whilst not being an accredited laboratory is not fact. It is nothing but hearsay. For all we know he could have sampled from only one quarry and found it fails by 1%

So in summary, no it is not my opinion that his claims are unsubstantiated or proven. That is fact.

Opinions and facts aren't mutually exclusive. So the above is still your opinion.
 
You are correct with that @Chris F but when opinion is claimed to be fact that is just plain wrong and untruthful.

I’m not actually too bothered about the authors claims. I would be bothered if he provided independently verified proof.

What does bother me is that they have been published with no proof by a magazine supposedly guiding farmers and advising them about best practice.

I could claim that , after my tests, 100% of regenerative agricultural advisors talk crap. When in reality it’s probably nearer 75%
 

Latest Poll on TFF

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 15.0%
  • No

    Votes: 125 85.0%

JCB launches Fastrac ‘iCon’

  • 149
  • 0
Written by Charlotte Cunningham from CPM Magazine

JCB has launched new Fastrac 4000 and 8000 Series tractors with an all-new electronics infrastructure which is claimed to deliver higher levels of performance. According to JCB, the new Fastrac iCon operator environment has three key features: iConfigure – creating a bespoke control experience for every operator iConnect – integrating advanced precision agriculture technology iControl – redefining operation through new driveline software The 175hp to 348hp (133kW to 260kW) Fastracs feature the new iCon armrest console and touch-screen display to provide flexibility in operator allocation and operator information, as well as a new transmission control strategy to enhance operator comfort and powertrain efficiency, says the manufacturer...
Top