Entangled Life

[Kiwi Pete]

All very admirable vision, but what does it mean for farming, do you think? How/what should we be doing longer term?

(Serious question, not having a pop)

In the UK, probably not a lot.

Enjoy being paid for keeping it looking nice, which is the public priority at the moment.

But definitely I would be looking at things like agroforestry/silvopasture if scale/contstaints allowed... again that's pretty difficult if you're a tenant because they'd probably whine if you didn't top the grass to "keep it down".
You'd easily put rows of nuts and fruit, biomass trees etc in if people are used to plenty of hedges?

The "top" of the order of complexity is a perennial polyculture and the bottom is bare soil. An anual monocrop is pretty near that

As per above, really... a manmade landscape is comfortably predictable. Comfort is a public good!

 

[cquick]

If you look at wheat fungicide trials, are we looking at the effect of the fungicide on the plant, or on the plant and arbuscular mycorrhizial fungi (AMF)?

I'd guess the latter, that fungicides have been developed and (self) selected through trials not only mitigate septoria and rusts etc, but either have a beneficial effect on AMF, or have the 'least worst' effect on AMF, compared to more antagonistic candidate fungicides that might, perhaps, have a detrimental effect on AMF and yield.

Ergo: we've already selected the least damaging / 'most beneficial' fungicides to soil health and crop yield.

Ever wondered how some fungicides claim a positive yield response even in a zero-disease situation?
I think it's by killing off the AMF and other beneficial fungi, mineralising some nutrients in the process.

One of the reasons I used a CTL only fungicide programme on my wheat over the last 2 years was that it was non-systemic, so had minimal effect below ground.

 

[Spud]

In the UK, probably not a lot.

Enjoy being paid for keeping it looking nice, which is the public priority at the moment.

But definitely I would be looking at things like agroforestry/silvopasture if scale/contstaints allowed... again that's pretty difficult if you're a tenant because they'd probably whine if you didn't top the grass to "keep it down".
You'd easily put rows of nuts and fruit, biomass trees etc in if people are used to plenty of hedges?

The "top" of the order of complexity is a perennial polyculture and the bottom is bare soil. An anual monocrop is pretty near that

As per above, really... a manmade landscape is comfortably predictable. Comfort is a public good!

That all sounds wonderfully romantic.

Problem.

Somehow, we have to feed ourselves, and make a living. Swinging from the branches like man Friday might be good fun, but it won't pay the rent or clothe the kids!

 

[Kiwi Pete]

That all sounds wonderfully romantic.

Problem.

Somehow, we have to feed ourselves, and make a living. Swinging from the branches like man Friday might be good fun, but it won't pay the rent or clothe the kids!

Absolutely. We're much better than that

 

[Bury the Trash]

blackberries

as said before about protection .hedges need fencing both sides to protect them else stock eat them out,either electric (brambles short the fence until it gets trimmed. or better still permanent which saves labour in the long run we find.
infat perfecct example today where they pushed through the holly to get at the fodder beet next door... weve still got plenty of fencing to do costs a ble dy packet .
it all sounds wonderfull.

 

[Simon C]

Ever wondered how some fungicides claim a positive yield response even in a zero-disease situation?
I think it's by killing off the AMF and other beneficial fungi, mineralising some nutrients in the process.

One of the reasons I used a CTL only fungicide programme on my wheat over the last 2 years was that it was non-systemic, so had minimal effect below ground.

This is an ineresting idea, never thought about that before and could be wrong, however I do believe that feeding mycorrhizae is a cost to the plant which would otherwise be spent on increasing yield.

 

[cquick]

This is an ineresting idea, never thought about that before and could be wrong, however I do believe that feeding mycorrhizae is a cost to the plant which would otherwise be spent on increasing yield.

Over the short term, and in an easy year, I would agree that energy spent on the rhizosphere could otherwise be spent on yield. In a high disease pressure situation or in drought though, the investment would pay off.
My view is that these systems did not evolve to be optimal over the short term; resilience is everything in a biological system and 80% output every year is better than massive reproduction one year and all dead the next.

 

[Bury the Trash]

why worry about the rhizosphere when yr cropping for a year or 3 , let that rebuild whilst its into the grazing ley part of the rotation.
well theres the odd time we graze the stubble s or advanced oats i suppose that adds a few bugs in the interim.

 

[martian]

I can see it now

Dear Merlin

I enjoyed your book. Can you come to Groundswell?

All the best

JC

Uncanny. Are you hacking my emails again Will?
Unfortunately he can't come this year...

He gave a brilliant talk at the ORFC last night, worth the price of entry to the whole event, alone. He was talking (amongst a million other things) about all the other (non-AMF) fungi that sprawl all over plants, protecting them from pathogens and regulating the plants activities a bit like the bacteria in our guts do with us. It made me realise that as soon as you squirt a fungicide on your wheat then you wipe these out and you are on the treadmill of spraying more fungicides every few weeks through the growing season, because your plants are naked and vulnerable. Or you re-coat your crops with friendly fungi, like @parker

There was also a weird little aside about schlerotinia, which is pathogenic to plants, unless it is itself infected by a particular virus, and then it becomes protective of the plant, even symbiotic. There is so much that we don't know...the farm of the future will be a very different place when we find out how to work with nature rather than against her.

 

[Simon C]

It made me realise that as soon as you squirt a fungicide on your wheat then you wipe these out and you are on the treadmill of spraying more fungicides every few weeks through the growing season, because your plants are naked and vulnerable.

I put this point to my agronomist a few years ago, he said "wiping out" beneficial fungi would be pretty unlikely. Fungicides are designed to tackle certain specific fungal diseases, they are rarely totally broad spectrum, and as we know they can sometimes be almost useless on the disease that they are supposed to be controlling. Just because a fungi is beneficial doesn't mean you can assume it is less resilient than the pathogens.

I have done enough brix testing on with and without fungicide treated crops to know that they can upset the mineral balance in the plants, but that is another story.

Enjoying the book, btw. Thanks for the recommendation @martian

 

[martian]

I put this point to my agronomist a few years ago, he said "wiping out" beneficial fungi would be pretty unlikely. Fungicides are designed to tackle certain specific fungal diseases, they are rarely totally broad spectrum, and as we know they can sometimes be almost useless on the disease that they are supposed to be controlling. Just because a fungi is beneficial doesn't mean you can assume it is less resilient than the pathogens.
@martian

Yes, wiping out is a bit hysterical. The thing that strikes me most, the more I find out about fungi, is how much they all interact. Maybe I'm being a bit precious, but if one species is disabled or killed by fungicide, it'll have knock on effects throughout the system. The truth is, no-one really knows atm, not even agronomists, but I suspect our descendants in 50 years time will roll their eyes and chunter about the primitive and destructive agriculture practised in the early 21st Century...

 

[The Ruminant]

Ah...perennial species. A combinable perennial starch food crop.....then you'd be talking.
Always puzzles me why that isn't the holy grail of crop research.

Charles Massy makes the point that cereals are “weedy” plants that have evolved, as annuals, to produce as much seed as possible so that at least some of it grows and continues the species in future years. Therefore they put all their energies into seed production and so, through careful breeding, we can maximise this trait.

Perennials, on the other hand, don’t have such a vested interest in seed production. They are more interested in building a healthy root system and sending up new leaves to capture sunlight. Therefore it is more difficult, from a plant-breeding point of view, to maximise a trait that doesn’t really exist!

 

[Bury the Trash]

or to justify it as yield would lower even though costs would be as well.

depends how much food (for people ) is actually needed and how quick i guess

 

[egbert]

Charles Massy makes the point that cereals are “weedy” plants that have evolved, as annuals, to produce as much seed as possible so that at least some of it grows and continues the species in future years. Therefore they put all their energies into seed production and so, through careful breeding, we can maximise this trait.

Perennials, on the other hand, don’t have such a vested interest in seed production. They are more interested in building a healthy root system and sending up new leaves to capture sunlight. Therefore it is more difficult, from a plant-breeding point of view, to maximise a trait that doesn’t really exist!

that sounds rational ..but then, we did apparently set human feet on the moon.

 

[Bury the Trash]

A biennial plant would be fair compromise over perennial.


On a mixed farm or where stock are adjisted/ in on keep, as the first years vegetative growth would be eaten second yrs combined.