"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..

A good find but....

If they were "investigating" the effects of roundup why did they not have any plots where it was used without hoeing? Were they intentionally hiding the effects of roundup behind the hoeing? Who paid for the study?

ALL of this science has biases, some pro- roundup and some anti- roundup.
I totally agree with you. And we could go on tit for tatting.

I think it would be a massive overreaction to seek to ban roundup however. The science even the "against" stuff is not terribly conclusive. To the point it's probably not that harmful - or put it this way there is a lot lot worse
 

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset

man tries to control nature, to varying short terms of success. The real problem is people are not prepared to pay enough for the food they think they want. S/mkts play on this, and strive to have greener credentials than their rivals, again without upping the price they pay. The result is a type of farming, where all corners need to be cut, simply to make a living. The result, fert and sprays, are used to lower cost of production, crap is added to food, to bulk it up. R/up is a massive cost saver, it has altered farming the world over, but no one really knows the long term effects on people, but we can have a guess what will happen, to farming, higher costs. At the same time, no-one is prepared to cover those costs, so, as l posted earlier, perhaps the benefits out weigh the downs. We would seriously miss r/up if it is withdrawn, it is a brilliant product.
So what is the answer, basically there isn't one, r/up may be replaced, with what, something that in 10 yrs, will be classed as 'dangerous' ? People are not willing to pay a fair price for their food, and guvs desperately want to keep prices down, and commodity food, at commodity price, is not profitable without those short term fixes.
We could go round in circles on this subject, and not come to a conclusion, other than, you pay for what you eat, and if people won't pay, where does that leave us ? Food production, and human wants, are going in very different directions, and l cannot see them meeting, any time soon, so l have no answer to the enigma.
 
man tries to control nature, to varying short terms of success. The real problem is people are not prepared to pay enough for the food they think they want. S/mkts play on this, and strive to have greener credentials than their rivals, again without upping the price they pay. The result is a type of farming, where all corners need to be cut, simply to make a living. The result, fert and sprays, are used to lower cost of production, crap is added to food, to bulk it up. R/up is a massive cost saver, it has altered farming the world over, but no one really knows the long term effects on people, but we can have a guess what will happen, to farming, higher costs. At the same time, no-one is prepared to cover those costs, so, as l posted earlier, perhaps the benefits out weigh the downs. We would seriously miss r/up if it is withdrawn, it is a brilliant product.
So what is the answer, basically there isn't one, r/up may be replaced, with what, something that in 10 yrs, will be classed as 'dangerous' ? People are not willing to pay a fair price for their food, and guvs desperately want to keep prices down, and commodity food, at commodity price, is not profitable without those short term fixes.
We could go round in circles on this subject, and not come to a conclusion, other than, you pay for what you eat, and if people won't pay, where does that leave us ? Food production, and human wants, are going in very different directions, and l cannot see them meeting, any time soon, so l have no answer to the enigma.
If you were paid more I doubt it would be any different
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
If you were paid more I doubt it would be any different
Agreed. Just like the various "how to improve farm safety" threads where folk post that is the poor profitability preventing farms being safe, being paid more would not, in itself, change how safely most folk farm. That requires a new mental approach.

I'm neither pro nor anti roundup (I used it here 2 weeks ago on our paths). I do think it's days are numbered though, not least because GM definitely HAS led to roundup resistant weeds in the countries that approved it (something the promoters of both roundup and GM said would never happen).

I posted a month or so ago about talking to 2 women from AFBI in Northern Ireland who were helping a project to reduce MCPA pollution of drinking water (from field spraying to kill rushes in grassland). They were promoting use of weed wipers with glyphosate instead. I pointed out that different grazing management could achieve the same result without any chemical application. It may not work for some farmers in their particular context but it's got to be worth looking at. Swapping one chemical treatment for another is just applying the same thinking.

We all have to learn to think differently, something that fundamentally underlies this thread and the techniques discussed in it.
 
Agreed. Just like the various "how to improve farm safety" threads where folk post that is the poor profitability preventing farms being safe, being paid more would not, in itself, change how safely most folk farm. That requires a new mental approach.

I'm neither pro nor anti roundup (I used it here 2 weeks ago on our paths). I do think it's days are numbered though, not least because GM definitely HAS led to roundup resistant weeds in the countries that approved it (something the promoters of both roundup and GM said would never happen).

I posted a month or so ago about talking to 2 women from AFBI in Northern Ireland who were helping a project to reduce MCPA pollution of drinking water (from field spraying to kill rushes in grassland). They were promoting use of weed wipers with glyphosate instead. I pointed out that different grazing management could achieve the same result without any chemical application. It may not work for some farmers in their particular context but it's got to be worth looking at. Swapping one chemical treatment for another is just applying the same thinking.

We all have to learn to think differently, something that fundamentally underlies this thread and the techniques discussed in it.
If you use it then it sounds like you are pro roundup but maybe anti others using it?!

If it's days are numbered then it would be a triumph of emotion over rationality. You can criticise it's overuse and reliance on one mode of action but as a pesticide it's not as bad as many others. Certainly not worth banning because of a dislike of GM crops.

RDP safety and GM are different issues.

You won't get me arguing that we shouldn't glyphosate judiciously though. One in 12-18 months is good stewardship
 
Last edited:

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
It's an interesting debate.

What if our own cells contained fungi, and what if fungi use the same shikimate 7-step metabolic pathway as plants and archaea etc

What if those body cell's fungi were able to be killed by concenrations about 3-5x lower than the concentrations found in drinking water...?

I'm not so sure that it's irrational to be averse to any pesticides TBH, especially anything fungicidal
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
If you use it then it sounds like you are pro roundup but maybe anti others using it?!

If it's days are numbered then it would be a triumph of emotion over rationality. You can criticise it's overuse and reliance on one mode of action but as a pesticide it's not as bad as many others. Certainly not worth banning because of a dislike of GM crops.

RDP safety and GM are different issues.

You won't get me arguing that we shouldn't glyphosate judiciously though. One in 12-18 months is good stewardship
Roundup is a tool in the box. Where it's the best tool for the particular job in hand we should use it.

One day we might not have it though.
Like Atrazine
And Chlorpyriphos
And Cymag
And
And
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Just like the various "how to improve farm safety" threads where folk post that is the poor profitability preventing farms being safe, being paid more would not, in itself, change how safely most folk farm. That requires a new mental approach.

I'm neither pro nor anti roundup (I used it here 2 weeks ago on our paths). I do think it's days are numbered though, not least because GM definitely HAS led to roundup resistant weeds in the countries that approved it (something the promoters of both roundup and GM said would never happen).

I posted a month or so ago about talking to 2 women from AFBI in Northern Ireland who were helping a project to reduce MCPA pollution of drinking water (from field spraying to kill rushes in grassland). They were promoting use of weed wipers with glyphosate instead. I pointed out that different grazing management could achieve the same result without any chemical application. It may not work for some farmers in their particular context but it's got to be worth looking at. Swapping one chemical treatment for another is just applying the same thinking.

We all have to learn to think differently, something that fundamentally underlies this thread and the techniques discussed in it.
I pointed out that different grazing management could achieve the same result without any chemical application

What different grazing management would you recommend?
 

Jonny B88

Member
Location
ballykelly. NI
Agreed. Just like the various "how to improve farm safety" threads where folk post that is the poor profitability preventing farms being safe, being paid more would not, in itself, change how safely most folk farm. That requires a new mental approach.

I'm neither pro nor anti roundup (I used it here 2 weeks ago on our paths). I do think it's days are numbered though, not least because GM definitely HAS led to roundup resistant weeds in the countries that approved it (something the promoters of both roundup and GM said would never happen).

I posted a month or so ago about talking to 2 women from AFBI in Northern Ireland who were helping a project to reduce MCPA pollution of drinking water (from field spraying to kill rushes in grassland). They were promoting use of weed wipers with glyphosate instead. I pointed out that different grazing management could achieve the same result without any chemical application. It may not work for some farmers in their particular context but it's got to be worth looking at. Swapping one chemical treatment for another is just applying the same thinking.

We all have to learn to think differently, something that fundamentally underlies this thread and the techniques discussed in it.
You don’t happen to remember the names of those women? I am in a few AFBI projects so may know them. I would be interested in discussing your approach with them.
 

som farmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
somerset
l just hope it's use is restricted, rather than an outright ban. It is one of those 'tools' that is hard to imagine working without, l can remember it's arrival, and cost, £72 for 5 litres, it was seriously expensive to use, but it was nearly magical, couch disappeared, killed docks right down to their roots etc. Global use must be enormous, so we will continue to eat food, produced in r/up use cropping, even if banned here.
It's been about for 50 yrs, so there should be loads of research done, on it's effects, and to be fair, it's only recently 'bad' things are reported, and mostly by the seriously green lobby. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it is still classed as 'safe' by the various watchdog boards.
There are few truly game changing sprays, DTD would be another, correctly withdrawn, but it saved the lives of millions of people, they would disagree.
I don't know the answer, but suspect the negatives are outweighed by the positives, not so much in the 'west' as in the 3rd world countries. The 'best' outcome would be by 'restricting it's use'.
 

Rejuvenating swards: Which option is best?

  • 451
  • 0


Written by Brian McDonnell

Maintaining grass quality during mid-season grazing is important. Farmers can maintain quality by entering ideal grazing covers of 1,300 – 1,500kg DM/ha, and grazing down to a residual of 4cm every rotation.

If you are now in a situation where cows are not cleaning out paddocks as well as they should be, leading to the development of steamy grass within the sward, here are some options.

Common options for rejuvenating swards include:

  1. Take a silage cut, probably into bales, remove the material and start again with the aftermath...
Top