Direct Driller lime article

[Clive]

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%

it's an opinion piece - no claims of pier reviewed scientific paper etc.

as is most of the magazine……… and TFF for that matter


i've had great results with Calcifert as i have with good quality ground limestone (not all ground limestone is equal, some is shite Im sure you will agree)

I tend to use a low rate of Calcifert down tramlines in spring at 36m to feed Calcium rather than for pH its a cheap input and a Ca is an important nutrient for plant growth- however it seems to do a good job of maintaining pH that so has reduced need for out of crop pH correction with ground limestone, we GPS zone sample every 4 years so have quality data that backs this up not opinion . I tend to use (quality) ground limestone where we have correction to do pre crop

 

[Cab-over Pete]

All good practice Clive. I’ve no problem with any of that.

But I make no apologies for saying this again, the piece we are referring to is not an opinion.
A farmer writing his experiences, thoughts and findings is an opinion. The author is not a farmer and neither is Direct Driller Magazine.

The author is blatantly an advisor and as such should provide proof of his claims. Alternatively, he should say that his samples are not in any way scientific or proven.
I just think the publisher should be a little more careful about what they publish, otherwise lines become blurred and this sort of thing (this thread) happens.

Let’s not forget, the OP was doubtful of the article content and they were absolutely right to be.

I’m sure the publisher doesn’t want people to doubt what they publish. Otherwise, what is the point? The magazine becomes little more than a comic if the content isn’t correct.

 

[Clive]

All good practice Clive. I’ve no problem with any of that.

But I make no apologies for saying this again, the piece we are referring to is not an opinion.
A farmer writing his experiences, thoughts and findings is an opinion. The author is not a farmer and neither is Direct Driller Magazine.

The author is blatantly an advisor and as such should provide proof of his claims. Alternatively, he should say that his samples are not in any way scientific or proven.
I just think the publisher should be a little more careful about what they publish, otherwise lines become blurred and this sort of thing (this thread) happens.

Let’s not forget, the OP was doubtful of the article content and they were absolutely right to be.

I’m sure the publisher doesn’t want people to doubt what they publish. Otherwise, what is the point? The magazine becomes little more than a comic if the content isn’t correct.

DD is not a pier reviewed scientific journal - it’s a magazine full of opinion some of which I agree with and others I do not


just like TFF or any other agricultural publication or any part of the internet really in that respect (better than most however I would suggest !)

the fact that the OP has been been to ask and discus deeper with experts of various backgrounds and hopeful draw own conclusions and opinions is only positive and why THIS form of knowledge exchange is so much better and more powerful that any other ………….. we are to a degree informally pier reviewing right now !,

 

[ajd132]

DD is not a pier reviewed scientific journal - it’s a magazine full of opinion some of which I agree with and others I do not


just like TFF or any other agricultural publication or any part of the internet really in that respect (better than most however I would suggest !)

the fact that the OP has been been to ask and discus deeper with experts of various backgrounds and hopeful draw own conclusions and opinions is only positive and why THIS form of knowledge exchange is so much better and more powerful that any other ………….. we are to a degree informally pier reviewing right now !,

I agree with Pete I think anything written by advisors should come with a disclaimer or advertorial badge. Most, including independants often have some kind of ulterior motive IMO.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

We are, you’re correct @Clive peer reviewing right now.

Maybe it’s just me struggling with it. I just think that open discussion should be honest and contain fact not unproven claims. Seeds get sown when that happens and who knows what grows from them.

I do sometimes forget that most people can see through the nonsense. In fact that is what has happened here, it has been questioned.

 

[Clive]

the editors of DD (or any ag magazine). can not be expected to fact check and verify everything printed

it’s opinion simple as that


this forum is full of opinion and is based upon open discussion - members also often post things that are not correct - if we start censoring i’m pretty sure a riot would quickly follow !

 

[Cab-over Pete]

You say tomato…….

 

[Clive]

I agree with Pete I think anything written by advisors should come with a disclaimer or advertorial badge. Most, including independants often have some kind of ulterior motive IMO.

its not paid for content by the way - very rare any dd mag content is paid for - when it is it is labelled as such

 

[Cab-over Pete]

Ah good. Then the “opinion” is worth what has been paid for it.

Works all ways I suppose.

 

[Wisconsonian]

I somewhat agree with Pete, those are facts that are stated, and there are some facts stated falsely, and that's what we're arguing about.

Clearly Pete disagrees with the percentage failing the fertilizer act, I'll leave it at that, we have different standards here, which are "loosely" adhered to.

"The larger particle size 0.841mm and above gave a very limited pH increase and took 18 months to achieve it." the only opinion in that sentence is "very limited" when in fact, compared to the control of no lime, the large particle size of .841mm gave an immediate and sustained pH response. That is a error of simple ignorance on the authors part.

The first table in this thread gives a number of 70 for screened lime passing the finest screen, where the article gives a number of 20 which would make more sense. As the other numbers are correct, I'll assume one of those is a simple error.

The first and last paragraph contain opinion and suspect facts, the factual errors in the rest of the article are enough to discount the content, unless someone would like to show me otherwise. Or provide a cost comparison of the suggestions.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

Thank you @Wisconsonian and others who see my point of view.

Sometimes, after the umpteenth banging of head on wall, it seems I’m the only one!

Never assume that “facts” stated were simple errors. As @ajd132 has said, ulterior motives are often at play.

It’s not my opinion, but fact, that the article contains several incorrect and dubious statements.

 

[jh.]

I was in no way having a go at Direct Driller mag or TFF just trying to get a discussion going about the article .

Wisconsonian has covered some of it , with his ref to the tables . I could not follow what the author was getting at with the figures. They make no sense to me that 40% of ground passes the fine sieve and 70% of screened could . I then thought perhaps this table read the other way so ground has 5% stopping at 3.35mm sieve and then 40% stopping at 0.15mm sieve so 55% was very fine product . Same for screened 5%at 3.35mm and then 70% 0.15mm so 25% very fine product but then both beat the reguation in the other table , so how have they failed 100% on farm samples , even reading it either way ?

Then came the surface area claim . Well if the regulations say 40% of ground passes a 150micron sieve , then at an application rate of 5 ton a hec , 2 tons are going to be this mega fine good stuff covering the surface . Surely it means the prilled needs to go on at 2 ton a hec as well ?

As said I have no idea on prilled lime . With yara extran nitrogen I buy a ton and the bag is marked 33.5% . Is prilled lime 100% lime granuals or is it also a percentage with other products making up the granuals?

 

[davidroberts30]

I was in no way having a go at Direct Driller mag or TFF just trying to get a discussion going about the article .

Wisconsonian has covered some of it , with his ref to the tables . I could not follow what the author was getting at with the figures. They make no sense to me that 40% of ground passes the fine sieve and 70% of screened could . I then thought perhaps this table read the other way so ground has 5% stopping at 3.35mm sieve and then 40% stopping at 0.15mm sieve so 55% was very fine product . Same for screened 5%at 3.35mm and then 70% 0.15mm so 25% very fine product but then both beat the reguation in the other table , so how have they failed 100% on farm samples , even reading it either way ?

Then came the surface area claim . Well if the regulations say 40% of ground passes a 150micron sieve , then at an application rate of 5 ton a hec , 2 tons are going to be this mega fine good stuff covering the surface . Surely it means the prilled needs to go on at 2 ton a hec as well ?

As said I have no idea on prilled lime . With yara extran nitrogen I buy a ton and the bag is marked 33.5% . Is prilled lime 100% lime granuals or is it also a percentage with other products making up the granuals?

Prilled lime is 100% limestone dust ground fine and prilled
The makers suggest it can be use at around 200kg a acre and equal ground lime at 2ton
Now to me school was a long time ago but even I can't get that to equal each other
Plus prilled is 10x the price of ground

 

[2tractors]

I am but a simple (retired) sheep farmer but just looking at the surface area bit of the table the author claims that the prilled product is 2.29 times better than ground limestone. So when deciding which to buy it comes down to price v effectiveness. So if ground limestone is (say) £35/tonne spread the prilled product cant' be more than 35 x 2.29= £80/tonne with a bit knocked off for application costs say £77/tonne- I don't know the current prilled price but it will be close to double that I guess?

I did use prilled once on a SB crop that was in desperate need of a pH lift, it did its job but did not lift the pH for the following crop (pH exactly the same 12 months on) so needed a dose of ground lime for longevity- never used prills again.

 

[Yale]

Any thoughts on chalk lime versus hard limestone?

I‘ve been sourcing chalk lime lately at 1/3 extra cost as the local stuff which is hard just seems too gritty and hard.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

I was in no way having a go at Direct Driller mag or TFF just trying to get a discussion going about the article .

Wisconsonian has covered some of it , with his ref to the tables . I could not follow what the author was getting at with the figures. They make no sense to me that 40% of ground passes the fine sieve and 70% of screened could . I then thought perhaps this table read the other way so ground has 5% stopping at 3.35mm sieve and then 40% stopping at 0.15mm sieve so 55% was very fine product . Same for screened 5%at 3.35mm and then 70% 0.15mm so 25% very fine product but then both beat the reguation in the other table , so how have they failed 100% on farm samples , even reading it either way ?

Then came the surface area claim . Well if the regulations say 40% of ground passes a 150micron sieve , then at an application rate of 5 ton a hec , 2 tons are going to be this mega fine good stuff covering the surface . Surely it means the prilled needs to go on at 2 ton a hec as well ?

As said I have no idea on prilled lime . With yara extran nitrogen I buy a ton and the bag is marked 33.5% . Is prilled lime 100% lime granuals or is it also a percentage with other products making up the granuals?

I wasn’t really having a go at DDM or TFF either. I’ve been told on a text this afternoon that @Clive and @Chris F run the magazine, but I don’t think I knew that before.

So inadvertently I suppose my point has gone right to the top!

You’ve all seen through the “opinion “ anyway, that’s the important bit.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

Any thoughts on chalk lime versus hard limestone?

I‘ve been sourcing chalk lime lately at 1/3 extra cost as the local stuff which is hard just seems too gritty and hard.

It’s all about cost vs efficiency. If the chalk is good quality and priced accordingly then it will win hands down.
If the hard and gritty local lime is only about half useful then it doesn’t matter as long as it’s half price.
But it’s just common sense to buy the best you can afford. That’s what you all do when buying tractors/sheep/cows/fertiliser etc etc.

 

[ollie989898]

A great deal of the media are merely presenters of information: I bet you would be surprised at how little many editors and correspondents and writers actually know about the technical aspects of any issue they might choose to print. They are thus limited to selling copy that is by and large opinion. Large amounts of the media is churned out by copy-writers who are paid to get words on a page. They will be skilled in the English language. Anything beyond that will be a bonus. Then of course you have people using the media to flog something and will dress up their window show in any number of ways to achieve this.

 

[ollie989898]

Prilled lime is 100% limestone dust ground fine and prilled
The makers suggest it can be use at around 200kg a acre and equal ground lime at 2ton
Now to me school was a long time ago but even I can't get that to equal each other
Plus prilled is 10x the price of ground

The people using prilled lime- for whatever reason- I just don't get why they aren't chucking on 200/300kg of the finest product they can buy locally? Would be cheaper I'm sure.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

I actually welcome a few people trying prilled lime. I have had customers use it in the past. They find it doesn’t really do what it says on the tin and go back to using bulk lime.

A prilled lime salesman could be my best salesman in the long run.