Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Dr Christine Jones
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Two Tone" data-source="post: 7476469" data-attributes="member: 44728"><p>I’d be very interested hearing [USER=3357]@Warnesworth[/USER] ’s opinion on this. I was fortunate enough to share a zoom meeting with him last week and everything he said makes a great deal of sense.</p><p></p><p>The trouble with a lot of these things, such as Dr Jones describes, we can only hope that the research behind it is reasonable rather than trying to prove a point and not swayed by personal or political opinion.</p><p></p><p>On the other side of the equation is the fact that if any system is already working for us, we can be reluctant to want to change it, or even want to listen to anybody suggesting we change it. This can often be described as a case of an “Inconvenient Truth”.</p><p></p><p>I have my feet in both camps (Conventional -v- Zero-til) at the moment. I know which side I want to end up on, but any business has to make sure that it works for them.</p><p></p><p>When we talk about CO2 and Net Zero targets, it is very easy to apportion blame when not all of the facts are taken into consideration. A couple of years ago, I looked at trying to find out how much more CO2 was extracted from the atmosphere by our crops, when Nitrate fertilisers are used to enhance photosynthesis within a crop.</p><p>I’m not a research scientist and trying to find the information wasn’t easy. Trying desperately not to “over-prove” the point, what I found was that on this 320 ha mixed farm using about 35 tonnes of Urea and another 35 tonnes of Doubletop, increased the amount of CO2 this farm captures above what it would capture without the addition of Nitrate by almost 5,000 tonnes a year!</p><p>Remember this is on top of what the crops and grass would achieve, without the fertiliser.</p><p>On wheat in particular, the extra CO2 it captures is almost 30 times more CO2 than it took to manufacture that fertiliser!</p><p></p><p>So, it comes over as rather annoying that when our politicians refer to farmer’s Carbon footprints, that they “Conveniently forget” the photosynthesis side of the equation, let alone the extra increases that fertiliser cause in CO2 capture.</p><p></p><p></p><p>However, it is heartening when something is said that one has had some experience of in real research.</p><p>A few years ago, CNH experimented with a special Combine header called the Dual Stream Header. I am not going to bore everybody with it. There is a good thread about it on TFF if anybody wants to look at it. DS wasn’t a new concept insofar as it had been tried before in the 60’s, but didn’t work then because the “double-cut straw” was not pushed to the ground by cage-type rollers, which cause it to contact the soil to make it rot.</p><p></p><p>I also looked a couple of years ago into what happens to straw after harvest. If it is left on the surface, once Zero-til farmers have got through the 2nd - 4th year pain barrier, hopefully enough worms will have built up to pull it below the soil surface.</p><p>Here in lays another dilemma: Left on the surface in contact with the soil, it will rot, releasing CO2 and Methane as it does so. Burying it, might prevent such losses to the atmosphere and help build up Organic Matter as well as feed the following crop. Either the plough or the worms will do this. But can the worms do it fast enough, compared to the plough, to prevent further excessive CO2 and methane release back to the atmosphere?</p><p></p><p>I’m so new into the Zero-til story that I have an awful lot to learn. Especially when it come to cover crops.</p><p>Yes, I can see the advantages and it all make sense on paper.</p><p>However in practical terms, maybe not so:</p><p>Wanting to plant my Zero-til (winter) crops 2 weeks sooner than I would do conventionally, will mean this happens in no more than 4 weeks since the previous crop was harvested! This means planting a cover crop in a time when it might be difficult to get anything to want to grow anyway.........This is my dilemma at the moment.</p><p></p><p>It is all very interesting listening to the scientists, but “gut feeling” is often a practical Science and/or Art which needs listening to, too!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Two Tone, post: 7476469, member: 44728"] I’d be very interested hearing [USER=3357]@Warnesworth[/USER] ’s opinion on this. I was fortunate enough to share a zoom meeting with him last week and everything he said makes a great deal of sense. The trouble with a lot of these things, such as Dr Jones describes, we can only hope that the research behind it is reasonable rather than trying to prove a point and not swayed by personal or political opinion. On the other side of the equation is the fact that if any system is already working for us, we can be reluctant to want to change it, or even want to listen to anybody suggesting we change it. This can often be described as a case of an “Inconvenient Truth”. I have my feet in both camps (Conventional -v- Zero-til) at the moment. I know which side I want to end up on, but any business has to make sure that it works for them. When we talk about CO2 and Net Zero targets, it is very easy to apportion blame when not all of the facts are taken into consideration. A couple of years ago, I looked at trying to find out how much more CO2 was extracted from the atmosphere by our crops, when Nitrate fertilisers are used to enhance photosynthesis within a crop. I’m not a research scientist and trying to find the information wasn’t easy. Trying desperately not to “over-prove” the point, what I found was that on this 320 ha mixed farm using about 35 tonnes of Urea and another 35 tonnes of Doubletop, increased the amount of CO2 this farm captures above what it would capture without the addition of Nitrate by almost 5,000 tonnes a year! Remember this is on top of what the crops and grass would achieve, without the fertiliser. On wheat in particular, the extra CO2 it captures is almost 30 times more CO2 than it took to manufacture that fertiliser! So, it comes over as rather annoying that when our politicians refer to farmer’s Carbon footprints, that they “Conveniently forget” the photosynthesis side of the equation, let alone the extra increases that fertiliser cause in CO2 capture. However, it is heartening when something is said that one has had some experience of in real research. A few years ago, CNH experimented with a special Combine header called the Dual Stream Header. I am not going to bore everybody with it. There is a good thread about it on TFF if anybody wants to look at it. DS wasn’t a new concept insofar as it had been tried before in the 60’s, but didn’t work then because the “double-cut straw” was not pushed to the ground by cage-type rollers, which cause it to contact the soil to make it rot. I also looked a couple of years ago into what happens to straw after harvest. If it is left on the surface, once Zero-til farmers have got through the 2nd - 4th year pain barrier, hopefully enough worms will have built up to pull it below the soil surface. Here in lays another dilemma: Left on the surface in contact with the soil, it will rot, releasing CO2 and Methane as it does so. Burying it, might prevent such losses to the atmosphere and help build up Organic Matter as well as feed the following crop. Either the plough or the worms will do this. But can the worms do it fast enough, compared to the plough, to prevent further excessive CO2 and methane release back to the atmosphere? I’m so new into the Zero-til story that I have an awful lot to learn. Especially when it come to cover crops. Yes, I can see the advantages and it all make sense on paper. However in practical terms, maybe not so: Wanting to plant my Zero-til (winter) crops 2 weeks sooner than I would do conventionally, will mean this happens in no more than 4 weeks since the previous crop was harvested! This means planting a cover crop in a time when it might be difficult to get anything to want to grow anyway.........This is my dilemma at the moment. It is all very interesting listening to the scientists, but “gut feeling” is often a practical Science and/or Art which needs listening to, too! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Dr Christine Jones
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top