Is soil movement so bad??

[Will7]

These pictures are of a black oat, oil radish, stubble turnip, phacelia and berseem clover cover crop sown approx 8 weeks ago. The first 2 pictures are dd into stubble. The dog is for scale and I have tried to take a picture at her head height to show the difference in above ground biomass

The second 2 pictures are on land pigtailed and pressed in the autumn. The same seed rate etc

I know which one I think is better

 

[Jim Bullock]

If we have a field where we do not think we are going to get a decent result direct drilling (poor residue spreading, surface compaction)we often find a shallow pass with a flexi-tine sorts the job out.

 

[Feldspar]

Basically no is the answer I'm at the moment. No obviously OM difference in long term tillage versus no-till in a wide range range of comparisons / systems. Questionable benefit from indubitable OM stratification under no-till. Much faster root growth and higher aeration levels under loosened soil conditions. Not sure though that cultivation systems give a higher margin overall though. Plan to use Terrastar quite a bit this season again. Definitely shallow move in front of spring crops.

 

[PSQ]

I'd go with: mineralised nitrogen in the cultivated soil -V- denitrification due to trash 70:1 C/N ratio in the DD.

So the Nitrogen cycle is obviously working better with a bit of tillage; and as Feldspar says, a bit of aeration.

 

[Dead Rabbits]

These pictures are of a black oat, oil radish, stubble turnip, phacelia and berseem clover cover crop sown approx 8 weeks ago. The first 2 pictures are dd into stubble. The dog is for scale and I have tried to take a picture at her head height to show the difference in above ground biomass
View attachment 542860 View attachment 542862
The second 2 pictures are on land pigtailed and pressed in the autumn. The same seed rate etc
View attachment 542864 View attachment 542866
I know which one I think is better

I certainly think repeated long term tillage is inherently damaging to your soil. Every time you till you should be cringing at all the damage you are doing to your soil life. Not to mention erosion and carbon loss.

I certainly think long term chronic exposure to herbicides is inherently damaging to you, your soil, livestock, wild life etc. Every time you spray you should be cringing at all the damage you are inflicting.

Just a bit of the personal conflict I have on the subject.

Perhaps a better way to look at it would be what you are trying to achieve, no matter what your tools are. I heard Colin Seis speak one time and something he said really stuck with me. A paraphrase of it is " If what you are doing now can't be done for a thousand years, what's the point?" Something along those lines, certainly a long term view.

 

[Feldspar]

I certainly think repeated long term tillage is inherently damaging to your soil. Every time you till you should be cringing at all the damage you are doing to your soil life. Not to mention erosion and carbon loss.

I certainly think long term chronic exposure to herbicides is inherently damaging to you, your soil, livestock, wild life etc. Every time you spray you should be cringing at all the damage you are inflicting.

Just a bit of the personal conflict I have on the subject.

Perhaps a better way to look at it would be what you are trying to achieve, no matter what your tools are. I heard Colin Seis speak one time and something he said really stuck with me. A paraphrase of it is " If what you are doing now can't be done for a thousand years, what's the point?" Something along those lines, certainly a long term view.

Actually the evidence is not at all clear that tillage does reduce organic matter (SOC). Now that more nuanced studies have been done, often a lot of old studies can be shown to be deficient in their methodology (too shallow sampling and not correcting for bulk density). Also, if you have anaerobic conditions you can get higher emission of NOx gasses from no-till soils. Lower levels of aeration can result in lower biological activity.

The herbicides one is interesting too. Again some of the results are surprising and not as bad as you might fear: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/the-fate-of-pesticides-in-soil.91154/. Spraying is obviously a case of balancing advantages against disadvantages, but a lot of the time sprays are not as persistent or as damaging as a lot of people say. Some sprays actually cause a spike in soil biological activity.

 

[Feldspar]

Soil my handkerchief. Results not as you might expect. Credit to Agrii for the trial.

 

[The_Swede]

Tillage likely has far more of an impact on soil fungi than bacteria from what I understand - fair to say the pictures above more to do with bacterial activity? Having said that fungi are reported to prefer to feed on longer carbon chains which the above would be an example of... as you say not as you would expect??

I took some soil samples here last year to asses biology in a couple of fields, one had been in no till arable for six years the other old PP uncultivated in living memory. Both had received similar (generous) applications of lovely composted FYM in recent years... no difference in results, both heavily bacterially dominated.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I certainly think repeated long term tillage is inherently damaging to your soil. Every time you till you should be cringing at all the damage you are doing to your soil life. Not to mention erosion and carbon loss.

I certainly think long term chronic exposure to herbicides is inherently damaging to you, your soil, livestock, wild life etc. Every time you spray you should be cringing at all the damage you are inflicting.

Just a bit of the personal conflict I have on the subject.

Perhaps a better way to look at it would be what you are trying to achieve, no matter what your tools are. I heard Colin Seis speak one time and something he said really stuck with me. A paraphrase of it is " If what you are doing now can't be done for a thousand years, what's the point?" Something along those lines, certainly a long term view.

I think this is a bit facile to be honest. Actually if you can do what you do and make a living from it then that is fine. Yes the long term view is important but you can't take too long term a view because ultimately it may end up being too dogmatic - I may have an expert in making wonderful Abacus' in Roman times and could have done perpetually but its not what we want or need 1000 years later. In fact Colin Seis ground and landscape pre Aborginal times may well have been a much more verdant place than it is now. Who knows?

Tillage is inherently damaging to soil yes. Long term herbicides its not so clear cut - yes they will damage some things - its a pesticide and its job is to kill things but it doesn't follow that all herbicides are of equal toxicity and impact. You could do nothing of course and let climax vegetation take over in 100 years but you will need to make some cash out of it.

But the OP is soil movement bad? Its a negative for the bigger picture but a positive for the shorter term sometimes. You've just got to do what works. Pretty much continuous no till works well for me although I may scratch an 1" or so of soil after winter barley and before WOSR this year

 

[Feldspar]

I think this is a bit facile to be honest. Actually if you can do what you do and make a living from it then that is fine. Yes the long term view is important but you can't take too long term a view because ultimately it may end up being too dogmatic - I may have an expert in making wonderful Abacus' in Roman times and could have done perpetually but its not what we want or need 1000 years later. In fact Colin Seis ground and landscape pre Aborginal times may well have been a much more verdant place than it is now. Who knows?

Tillage is inherently damaging to soil yes. Long term herbicides its not so clear cut - yes they will damage some things - its a pesticide and its job is to kill things but it doesn't follow that all herbicides are of equal toxicity and impact. You could do nothing of course and let climax vegetation take over in 100 years but you will need to make some cash out of it

Do you think that technology will move on so quickly that the concept of soil fertility for crop production will seem an anachronistic concept in 60 years time? I think we we'll see the AI revolution within the next few decades which will change many things as we know them. It seems quite plausible that food production will change radically over that period.

Regardless of the above, I agree that there's no point farming for 1000 years if you go bust after 5.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Do you think that technology will move on so quickly that the concept of soil fertility for crop production will seem an anachronistic concept in 60 years time? I think we we'll see the AI revolution within the next few decades which will change many things as we know them. It seems quite plausible that food production will change radically over that period.

Regardless of the above, I agree that there's no point farming for 1000 years if you go bust after 5.

Well we may not need animals and soil in the future yes.

 

[Feldspar]

Well we may not need animals and soil in the future yes.

So under conditions of great uncertainty, what do assume as the likely outcome? It seems to me that humans always fail to underestimate the pace of future chance. We extrapolate from the rate of change at the present, but fail to take into account the current rate of rate of change.

My two favourite pieces on this topic, although not exactly addressing this specific point:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html

 

[SilliamWhale]

I dont know. Its saturday and sunny!

 

[TelesnaAg]

These pictures are of a black oat, oil radish, stubble turnip, phacelia and berseem clover cover crop sown approx 8 weeks ago. The first 2 pictures are dd into stubble. The dog is for scale and I have tried to take a picture at her head height to show the difference in above ground biomass
View attachment 542860 View attachment 542862
The second 2 pictures are on land pigtailed and pressed in the autumn. The same seed rate etc
View attachment 542864 View attachment 542866
I know which one I think is better

Personally first mistake, your looking above the ground, the cover crop is to benefit soil....

Ant....

 

[Will Blackburn]

A cover crop should be scavenging nutrition not given a free lunch.

 

[richard hammond]

If we have a field where we do not think we are going to get a decent result direct drilling (poor residue spreading, surface compaction)we often find a shallow pass with a flexi-tine sorts the job out.

I totally agree Jim, No-Till is a system not a bloody religion!!

 

[SilliamWhale]

I totally agree Jim, No-Till is a system not a bloody religion!!

Nobody treats it as one. Tillage is quite a religious thing though given how much unneeded tillage goes on

 

[richard hammond]

Nobody treats it as one. Tillage is quite a religious thing though given how much unneeded tillage goes on

Got to say some people on here do treat it as a religion! but if they are happy with their religion don't moan when their religion fails them!

 

[marco]

What is the difference underground? That's what a cover crop should be doing, opening up and aeration the soil. The air has to get in or you'll get feltspars fear of anaerobic conditions. It's seen lovely looking covers which were all canopy and very little roots.

 

[doorknob]

I have another one of those damn foreigner questions. What's a pigtail?