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
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
ELMs. Use it or lose it?
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="Steevo" data-source="post: 8584473" data-attributes="member: 430"><p>I was thinking this yesterday when out fertiliser spreading. My poorer areas of direct drilled crop (and with greater amounts of blackgrass!) were where I have drainage issues. My (farming) alternatives are to:</p><p></p><p>1) Continue as I am direct drilling all fields and end up with wasted inputs on these areas meaning a <strong>greater carbon footprint</strong> per kg of food produced</p><p>2) Plough/cultivate a greater area in order to improve the drainage and mineralise some N meaning a <strong>greater carbon footprint</strong> per kg of food produced</p><p>3) Spend tens of thousands draining fields (money I don't really have the budget for, nor can I justify when farming isn't profitable enough) to install drainage in these fields. This would enable me to continue direct drilling, using less carbon emissions to plant the crop, as well as much reduced pesticide usage (using drainage as part of IPM) and a better utilisation of all inputs including the nitrogen fertiliser that seems to be so vilified. Result: a <strong>reduced carbon footprint</strong> per kg of food produced.</p><p></p><p>As things stand, 1) and 2) are far far more likely to happen than 3). How's that for government logic. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll Eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steevo, post: 8584473, member: 430"] I was thinking this yesterday when out fertiliser spreading. My poorer areas of direct drilled crop (and with greater amounts of blackgrass!) were where I have drainage issues. My (farming) alternatives are to: 1) Continue as I am direct drilling all fields and end up with wasted inputs on these areas meaning a [B]greater carbon footprint[/B] per kg of food produced 2) Plough/cultivate a greater area in order to improve the drainage and mineralise some N meaning a [B]greater carbon footprint[/B] per kg of food produced 3) Spend tens of thousands draining fields (money I don't really have the budget for, nor can I justify when farming isn't profitable enough) to install drainage in these fields. This would enable me to continue direct drilling, using less carbon emissions to plant the crop, as well as much reduced pesticide usage (using drainage as part of IPM) and a better utilisation of all inputs including the nitrogen fertiliser that seems to be so vilified. Result: a [B]reduced carbon footprint[/B] per kg of food produced. As things stand, 1) and 2) are far far more likely to happen than 3). How's that for government logic. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
ELMs. Use it or lose it?
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