Incentives for increasing soil organic matter

Moose

New Member
Location
Bedfordshire
Hi guys, I've been a wildlife lover all my life, and a farmer for none of it. It's fairly obvious to me when exploring the countryside, and researching online, that agriculture in the UK has had a lot of un-intentional harmful effects on the habitats outside of the farmed environment. Some of the main problems that come to mind are nutrients leaching into water courses and flooding caused by run-off. Through reading books, articles, websites and a lot of posts on here soil organic matter seems to be the answer, with nutrient retention, water infiltration and water storage increasing with soil organic matter. Other positive aspects of increasing soil OM could be reduced soil erosion (which would lead to reduced siltation of streams and rivers as well as reducing phosphate pollution), and possibly a reduction in fertiliser usage due to healthier soils, decreasing the Nitrous oxide emissions of UK agriculture as a whole.

My question to the forum is: what do you think would be the best way to encourage UK farmers to try and increase their soil organic matter? is education enough? are subsidies the answer? are current subsidies maybe supporting unsustainable practices that have reduced soil organic matter through history? I'm all ears!

Thanks in advance, Tom (18, currently studying countryside management) :)
 

rob1

Member
Location
wiltshire
Hi Tom. A couple of reasons for increasing run off is a bigger arable area than years ago partly caused by less mixed farming and heavier rain events as they call them which will wash more soil off. The later is out of anyones hands and despite some of the daft ideas that get put out by some alledged environmentalists once there is more water falling from the sky than the soil can absorb it will run off. The former is caused by economics farms have had to grow in size to stay in business and intensify this generally leads to more arable and more soil disturbance, direct drilling can help that to a degree but money is the driver in all businesses.

Sewage works also cause many pollution problems but it is easier to blame agriculture rather than washing powders detergents etc that come from houses .

It is a very complex issue and organic matter is a small part of it
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
From outside your country, I feel that getting your soil OM levels up is possibly reward in itself, for the exact reasons above. It aids all factors of soil health and increases the potential productivity of that land. As @rob1 just pointed out, livestock have the bigger role to play in most systems, cycling their unused nutrients directly where it came from (or very close by)
Less tillage is perhaps the other side of the equation, as then is the main loss of the soil's carbon, when the root biomass is oxidised. That would perhaps be the way to target any rewards.
 

spin cycle

Member
Location
north norfolk
the only answer is to choose...either close uk farm plc down or put up with it.....anything else is 'emperor s new clothes'....this from a decade of religously attending ,often poorly. stewardship meetings/csf ect

briefly....increasing om in arable rotations will encourage more slugs...need more pellets...get into water
ploughing = soil loss/erosion/leaching
dd'ing = more chemical/slugs
livestock= nitrate in water
organic= overwinter leaching of n into water
pesticides in water largely dependant on winter rainfall
 

Walton2

Member
Population growth has been incredible since the 18th century,there is some evidence that in some parts of the world that is now slowing up.However,to feed the billions of people on this planet intensification of food production has been inevitable.Quite simply,politicians cannot afford their electorate go hungry....so they try not to let it happen.It hasn't really happened in the West at all,apart from the War Years,The potato famine in Ireland etc. To put it bluntly, the surest way to increase soil organic levels globally would be to leave the soil alone.....this could be achieved if human population could be reduced perhaps from 7 billion it is now,to say 6 billion as it was 20 years ago.Perhaps even to the 1billion it was when 95% of people were involved in actually producing food !!!
It is human population growth which has been the main driver in the organic matter reduction in our soils.....It would take a brave man to suggest or implement ways of reversing that trend. Discuss.
 

Campani

Member
the only answer is to choose...either close uk farm plc down or put up with it.....anything else is 'emperor s new clothes'....this from a decade of religously attending ,often poorly. stewardship meetings/csf ect

briefly....increasing om in arable rotations will encourage more slugs...need more pellets...get into water
ploughing = soil loss/erosion/leaching
dd'ing = more chemical/slugs
livestock= nitrate in water
organic= overwinter leaching of n into water
pesticides in water largely dependant on winter rainfall

Very simplistic way of looking at it, agriculture has made huge improvements and changes to benefit the environment, largely unnoticed by the London based population. Expecting the government (stewardship etc.) to come up with the solutions to a better farmed environment is a non starter, they don't know anything, all the best ideas have always come from farmers themselves out in the field.
 

Richard III

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
CW5 Cheshire
Hi @Moose you are right, raising soil organic matter would be great, however it is easier said than done. I don't think scientists can even find a good accurate way to measure how much a farmers got yet!

The best way to increase soil organic matter is to introduce grass and livestock back to arable farms, but there has to be a market for the livestock and a desire for the farmer to do this. There are people like @martian going down this road though, and organising events like this:-

http://www.groundswellag.com/

Also have a read of this, you should find it interesting:-

http://thriplow-farms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/David-Walston-Nuffield-Report-2015.pdf
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Water runoff taking soil with it has been happening since the formation of the planet. Look up sedimentary rocks. Limestone would not have been formed without runoff and the fertile deltas throughout the world would not be fertile without the deposit of nutrients and soil deposited during flooding from the major rivers that have picked up those nutrients from upstream.
The most effective means of capturing carbon and seeing it incorporated back into the soil is running grazing livestock.
I understand, although I have not measured it, that dairy and possbly suckler cows are likely to produce about 90 litres of organic material per day all,of which is rapidly absorbed into the soil without any interferance or further processing by me thereby enhancing soil comdition and benefitting the myriad of organisms that exist on or in the soil.
What is it worth to keep that level of carbon capture going on 365 days of the year?
 

Moose

New Member
Location
Bedfordshire
Water runoff taking soil with it has been happening since the formation of the planet. Look up sedimentary rocks. Limestone would not have been formed without runoff and the fertile deltas throughout the world would not be fertile without the deposit of nutrients and soil deposited during flooding from the major rivers that have picked up those nutrients from upstream.
The most effective means of capturing carbon and seeing it incorporated back into the soil is running grazing livestock.
I understand, although I have not measured it, that dairy and possbly suckler cows are likely to produce about 90 litres of organic material per day all,of which is rapidly absorbed into the soil without any interferance or further processing by me thereby enhancing soil comdition and benefitting the myriad of organisms that exist on or in the soil.
What is it worth to keep that level of carbon capture going on 365 days of the year?

I understand that erosion is a natural process, but does that justify increased soil erosion?
 

Moose

New Member
Location
Bedfordshire
Hi @Moose you are right, raising soil organic matter would be great, however it is easier said than done. I don't think scientists can even find a good accurate way to measure how much a farmers got yet!

The best way to increase soil organic matter is to introduce grass and livestock back to arable farms, but there has to be a market for the livestock and a desire for the farmer to do this. There are people like @martian going down this road though, and organising events like this:-

http://www.groundswellag.com/

Also have a read of this, you should find it interesting:-

http://thriplow-farms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/David-Walston-Nuffield-Report-2015.pdf

Thank you for the resources, the nuffield one is particularly interesting. Also nice to see that there is growing interest in soil health and the role that biodiversity can help with this :)
 

franklin

New Member
It's fairly obvious to me when exploring the countryside, and researching online, that agriculture in the UK has had a lot of un-intentional harmful effects on the habitats outside of the farmed environment.

I'm pleased it is all very obvious.

Please spend some time researching online the historic effects of governments with starving populations. History would suggest that its worth a bit of silt in the river.
 
Water runoff taking soil with it has been happening since the formation of the planet. Look up sedimentary rocks. Limestone would not have been formed without runoff and the fertile deltas throughout the world would not be fertile without the deposit of nutrients and soil deposited during flooding from the major rivers that have picked up those nutrients from upstream.
The most effective means of capturing carbon and seeing it incorporated back into the soil is running grazing livestock.
I understand, although I have not measured it, that dairy and possbly suckler cows are likely to produce about 90 litres of organic material per day all,of which is rapidly absorbed into the soil without any interferance or further processing by me thereby enhancing soil comdition and benefitting the myriad of organisms that exist on or in the soil.
What is it worth to keep that level of carbon capture going on 365 days of the year?
And there I was thinking livestock are evil because they emit methane, nothing's simple.:scratchhead:
 

spin cycle

Member
Location
north norfolk
Very simplistic way of looking at it, agriculture has made huge improvements and changes to benefit the environment, largely unnoticed by the London based population. Expecting the government (stewardship etc.) to come up with the solutions to a better farmed environment is a non starter, they don't know anything, all the best ideas have always come from farmers themselves out in the field.

it is ....but someone has to stand up and say 'the emperor is in the altogether'.....simple but true

i'd argue about farming benefiting wildlife/environment because before man started farming the latter were doing just fine


if govt wants food it's got to put up with some environmental /pollution damage....if thats not acceptable get on and shut us down
 

Moose

New Member
Location
Bedfordshire
I'm pleased it is all very obvious.

Please spend some time researching online the historic effects of governments with starving populations. History would suggest that its worth a bit of silt in the river.

I'm not anti-farming, and don't want to see anyone starve. The whole point of my questions was to ask people's opinions on the best way to encourage minimising other damages whilst still producing food
 

Barleycorn

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Hampshire
Some interesting thoughts there Moose.
I have often thought that if the true cost of chemical farming, including NVZs, and the threat of Phosphate VZs, and the associated cost of removing N from drinking water, that has to be done in some areas, was added to the cost of industrial farmed foods, then they would cost as much as organic.
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin
I'm not anti-farming, and don't want to see anyone starve. The whole point of my questions was to ask people's opinions on the best way to encourage minimising other damages whilst still producing food

IMO low intensity mixed farming is the answer to your question. But it will have the effect of increasing our dependency on the import of food products from other questionable growing methods around the world.
 

Moose

New Member
Location
Bedfordshire
IMO low intensity mixed farming is the answer to your question. But it will have the effect of increasing our dependency on the import of food products from other questionable growing methods around the world.
stewardship schemes must do the same, reducing UK food production at the expense of wildlife, which increases food production elsewhere at the expense of their wildlife
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
Hi guys, I've been a wildlife lover all my life, and a farmer for none of it. It's fairly obvious to me when exploring the countryside, and researching online, that agriculture in the UK has had a lot of un-intentional harmful effects on the habitats outside of the farmed environment. Some of the main problems that come to mind are nutrients leaching into water courses and flooding caused by run-off. Through reading books, articles, websites and a lot of posts on here soil organic matter seems to be the answer, with nutrient retention, water infiltration and water storage increasing with soil organic matter. Other positive aspects of increasing soil OM could be reduced soil erosion (which would lead to reduced siltation of streams and rivers as well as reducing phosphate pollution), and possibly a reduction in fertiliser usage due to healthier soils, decreasing the Nitrous oxide emissions of UK agriculture as a whole.

My question to the forum is: what do you think would be the best way to encourage UK farmers to try and increase their soil organic matter? is education enough? are subsidies the answer? are current subsidies maybe supporting unsustainable practices that have reduced soil organic matter through history? I'm all ears!

Thanks in advance, Tom (18, currently studying countryside management) :)
I think we have had 60 years of advice, to farmers, to farm in ways that tend to reduce soil organic matter, so I put the blame for lower organic percentage firmly in the hand of the governments of the day (and the chemical fertiliser manufactures too)
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
Hi Tom. A couple of reasons for increasing run off is a bigger arable area than years ago partly caused by less mixed farming and heavier rain events as they call them which will wash more soil off. The later is out of anyones hands and despite some of the daft ideas that get put out by some alledged environmentalists once there is more water falling from the sky than the soil can absorb it will run off. The former is caused by economics farms have had to grow in size to stay in business and intensify this generally leads to more arable and more soil disturbance, direct drilling can help that to a degree but money is the driver in all businesses.

Sewage works also cause many pollution problems but it is easier to blame agriculture rather than washing powders detergents etc that come from houses .

It is a very complex issue and organic matter is a small part of it
I also think we are missing a government funded ADAS, who could be experimenting and giving advice on no til, cover cropping and eco farming
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top