Cab-over Pete
Member
- Location
- Kenilworth, Warwickshire
I’m not that bothered. Fed up with locking horns over it.
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.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
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 .
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!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.
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 .
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.
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.