Livestock the solution or the problem

[CDavidLance]

Govts have to listen to many competing minority pressure groups, none of whom bother to indulge in joined up thinking. They all concentrate on their own little goldfish bowl view of the world and stamp their feet to get their way on one or two issues. The fact they couldn’t give a fekk for the consequences of their enlightened desires is somewhat problematic for those listening to them, especially if they’re in power and have one or two more things to think about alongside.

I have never in my lifetime witnessed what’s going on now in this country and around the world. Human knowledge, experience and quality science is being chucked in the bin by politicians and the media, both of whom are desperate to pander to the pressure groups that shout the loudest. Junk science and fake news is now the holy grail. The human race is in a rapidly accelerating death spiral.

I have a little more faith in human nature than that. The Cop 26 in Glasgow showed how eventually the science can prevail after single issue group noise, vested interest noise and political inertia have all had their moments of resistance. The penny does drop eventually, but only if the sensible people keep up the pressure for sense to prevail. Its exhausting but necessary. Just think of all those Urban Minds that have to be educated, patiently, for sense to come out on top.
Ask somebody in any city center in the UK where milk comes from. The predominant answer will be their local supermarket. Urban Minds.

 

[CDavidLance]

A plate from the Livestock Save the Planet page that's going to be shared quite soon! Ta muchly!

I'm sorry to say that this particular plate runs the risk of increasing Urban Minded confusion. By putting Fossil Fuel Emissions in the same circle as Natural Carbon Cycle amounts it is making it look as though there is a valid comparison, or maybe all part of the same thing, which they are not.
It would be better if the left hand illustrations showed that the same amount of Carbon is fixed as emitted for each part. Then completely separately the right should show emissions with NOTHING fixed in return thus adding to atmospheric CO2. That is the most important message.
Global Food Justice needs to decenter to how an unaware consumer would see this. The graphics appear to contradict the reasoning at the top.

 

[delilah]

Us rank amateurs on here produced the attached three years ago. It remains head and shoulders above anything from our national representative bodies. I pay subs to the NFU and levy to the AHDB, and they have produced nothing with my money that I would wish to hand over to a member of the public. Nothing.

 

[DaveGrohl]

I'm sorry to say that this particular plate runs the risk of increasing Urban Minded confusion. By putting Fossil Fuel Emissions in the same circle as Natural Carbon Cycle amounts it is making it look as though there is a valid comparison, or maybe all part of the same thing, which they are not.
It would be better if the left hand illustrations showed that the same amount of Carbon is fixed as emitted for each part. Then completely separately the right should show emissions with NOTHING fixed in return thus adding to atmospheric CO2. That is the most important message.
Global Food Justice needs to decenter to how an unaware consumer would see this. The graphics appear to contradict the reasoning at the top.

I agree with what you say, but I wouldn’t stop there. Emissions do not equal warming impact, but all we ever hear about is emissions (based around the randomly chosen GWP100). The media debate needs to move on from "emissions" but how do we do that? There needs to be two columns for each source of emissions, carbon into the atmosphere and carbon taken out. That would show farming in a different light to what’s constantly claimed. Heck, there should be a third column too highlighting the difference between extra carbon added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels and zero carbon added from natural processes, and this column should be in bold red ink. Oh, and then finally a warming impact column.

That would actually show exactly what you say the above graphic lacks.

 

[primmiemoo]

I'm sorry to say that this particular plate runs the risk of increasing Urban Minded confusion. By putting Fossil Fuel Emissions in the same circle as Natural Carbon Cycle amounts it is making it look as though there is a valid comparison, or maybe all part of the same thing, which they are not.
It would be better if the left hand illustrations showed that the same amount of Carbon is fixed as emitted for each part. Then completely separately the right should show emissions with NOTHING fixed in return thus adding to atmospheric CO2. That is the most important message.
Global Food Justice needs to decenter to how an unaware consumer would see this. The graphics appear to contradict the reasoning at the top.

Good point, in the light of which this will be included so as to give the opportunity for further thought ~

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Don't have to plough to rejuvenate all sorts of drills about now!

I know, but I have a feeling that as you can't spray off an old pasture as an organic producer, it is easier to plough. I am not overly convinced using the eignbock and stocks slug pelleter after silage really does that much good, I am hoping for the swards to improve with rotational grazing but if I was a dairy farmer I would probably plough. Can a slot seeder work well without roundup?

I have yet to hear an evaluation of the relative benefits/costs of spray off with roundup or plough to reseed, thinking from an environmental viewpoint.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

The energy for making fertiliser doesn't have to come from Fossil Fuels. The reason it has done historically is because Fossil Fuels were cheap. The energy can be renewable and the reagents can be recycled. The fertisilser industry just needs to put thinking caps on. It hasn't had to in the past. It does now. Ammonia production only requires energy, air and water. Simples.
The nutrient budget of farms needs to be replenished by recycling what goes off the farm to restore the budget over time. This is mostly bringing back Phosphate and Potash and occasionally trace elements. Nitrogen can be fixed on the farm by legumes (usually Clover) and that is what we did at Yalland when we held the Soil Association Standard. Productivity per acre was up with the best of the Hill Farms without Nitrogen fertilisers.
FYM went out on the silage fields in August to recycle that. With the high rainfall at Yalland (Avr 72 inches) the muck was used best from that time into the autumn and vanished by spring.
Thinking in cycles and budgets is the sustainable approach. Not trying to push things to unsustainable extremes goes with that mindset. Most Rural Minded people know that.

My other thoughts about synthetic Nitrogen, is, they encourage the bacteria in the soil, this needs Nitrogen & Carbon, and as there is more Nitrogen, they take Carbon from the soil organic matter to balance their needs. They then die or are eaten, and the Carbon they used is released from the soil as CO2, hence Nitrogen fertliser reduces soil organic matter over time.

Am I right in those thoughts?

So to my mind Nitrogen has two strikes against it, but a big plus in production rises. However those rises have only evened out the reducing margins on the products sold off the farm!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

It’s true that everything would solved with less people, find a solution to that other than world war or disease you’ve crack it

The answer is education for women, educated women have fewer children, improve the rights for women, reproductive coercion goes on.

 

[CDavidLance]

Good point, in the light of which this will be included so as to give the opportunity for further thought ~

This is excellent. Answers all concerns above.

 

[Muddyroads]

I know, but I have a feeling that as you can't spray off an old pasture as an organic producer, it is easier to plough. I am not overly convinced using the eignbock and stocks slug pelleter after silage really does that much good, I am hoping for the swards to improve with rotational grazing but if I was a dairy farmer I would probably plough. Can a slot seeder work well without roundup?

I have yet to hear an evaluation of the relative benefits/costs of spray off with roundup or plough to reseed, thinking from an environmental viewpoint.

Is it possible to accurately measure the amount of carbon lost as a result of ploughing? We constantly hear (and often repeat) that it’s bad, but how bad? Is it possible that ploughing as part of rotational farming might at least break even in carbon terms, bearing in mind the additional carbon that could be sequestered?

 

[CDavidLance]

I know, but I have a feeling that as you can't spray off an old pasture as an organic producer, it is easier to plough. I am not overly convinced using the eignbock and stocks slug pelleter after silage really does that much good, I am hoping for the swards to improve with rotational grazing but if I was a dairy farmer I would probably plough. Can a slot seeder work well without roundup?

I have yet to hear an evaluation of the relative benefits/costs of spray off with roundup or plough to reseed, thinking from an environmental viewpoint.

I am attaching the Soil Association Standards 2021. The sections from page 67 onwards relate to your question. When I looked into the use of Glyphosate (Roundup) there appeared to be so little wrong with it, environmentally, that my opinion formed that using it is vastly better than incurring the detrimental effects of ploughing. In my personal opinion reluctant use of Glyphosate is better than ploughing if you feel that a sward has to be destroyed. Ploughing turns the soil ecosystem upside down and has all sorts of other bad effects.
Oversowing using direct drilling or broadcast and harrowing can improve swards without destroying what you have and without destroying the soil ecosystem. This has been advocated since the 1970's. There are books devoted to this subject. A quick Google search should present you with a selection.

View attachment sa-gb-farming-_growing-standards.pdf

 

[CDavidLance]

My other thoughts about synthetic Nitrogen, is, they encourage the bacteria in the soil, this needs Nitrogen & Carbon, and as there is more Nitrogen, they take Carbon from the soil organic matter to balance their needs. They then die or are eaten, and the Carbon they used is released from the soil as CO2, hence Nitrogen fertliser reduces soil organic matter over time.

Am I right in those thoughts?

So to my mind Nitrogen has two strikes against it, but a big plus in production rises. However those rises have only evened out the reducing margins on the products sold off the farm!

Carbon depletion in the soil can happen, but it depends on other things as well as Nitrogen. The most relevant consideration in what you appear to be thinking is where the Nitrogen fertiliser is. If it is sitting on the soil surface or in the litter layer then it will not interact much with soil organisms. If it washes into the very top layer then it is more available to the crop and may cause some microbial stimulation. If it washes further down then there are different effects again.
The amount of extra Organic Matter in the standing crop resulting from fertiliser may outweigh what is lost from the soil. Not only does the above ground mass increase, but root growth does too and that definitely increases soil surface and soil Organic Matter. Light amounts of inorganic fertiliser are not necessarily a bad thing.
Carbon is being fixed and released in soil all the time under a crop.
There is a relatively huge release from ploughing.

 

[Muddyroads]

There is a relatively huge release from ploughing.

Can you quantify how much? How is it measured?

 

[CDavidLance]

Is it possible to accurately measure the amount of carbon lost as a result of ploughing? We constantly hear (and often repeat) that it’s bad, but how bad? Is it possible that ploughing as part of rotational farming might at least break even in carbon terms, bearing in mind the additional carbon that could be sequestered?

Yes. Studies have been running on this since the 1970's when the Direct Drilling alternative was becoming established. The figures I am using come from the paper below and from reviews of literature.
One off ploughing of previously unploughed soil releases about 4 to 6 % of the Carbon that was there from the profile as a whole.
If ploughing is then used each year the accumulated depletion is about 20 % of Carbon lost after 5 times (years) and about 40 % after 10 times (years) and can be as much as 50 % by that stage. Eventually there is an equilibrium well below 50 % of initial Carbon in soils that are ploughed every year.

Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several years of conservation tillage | Request PDF

Request PDF | Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several years of conservation tillage | Restricting tillage to shallow-mixing operations as conducted in many conservation tillage systems occasionally causes problems such as compaction... | Find, read and cite...

www.researchgate.net

 

[bluebell]

people should look at recent history since the end of ww2, also talk to many that were alive then? The whole reason, that the EU was formed after ww2, in agricultures role in the EU? was to encourage, support, europes farmers, in many many ways, from subsidies on produce, to massive investment in all areas of food production, from breeding better yielding varieties of crops and farm animals? We in the UK did like wise? Yes talk about so called traditional farming? not using so called artifical fertilizer to get these new varieties of crops of both grass and cearals the yield potential they are now capable of giving? but remember one thing, the UKs population has grown by over 20 million extra people, and still rapidly growing since the end of ww2?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Is it possible to accurately measure the amount of carbon lost as a result of ploughing? We constantly hear (and often repeat) that it’s bad, but how bad? Is it possible that ploughing as part of rotational farming might at least break even in carbon terms, bearing in mind the additional carbon that could be sequestered?

I have seen fields where the top of the field is feet, maybe 6' lower through the soil moving down hill.

 

[CDavidLance]

Livestock are the solution.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064083938052

The fact that there are people out there putting out a constant stream of high quality information, presumably off their own backs, just reinforces how utterly sh!t we are as an industry with all of the resources at our disposal.

Brilliant collection of persuasive facts and figures and images. Yet another resource for the NFU to be working with.
One thing that has occurred to me is that contributors to this thread all appear to be all coming from a grassland assumption for livestock production. There are other approaches that get this agricultural sector a bad press due to over-intensification. Corn-fed beef is an obvious example.
In order to limit or reverse over-intensification trends the Royal Commission would need to identify practices that are not a good idea for reasons of animal welfare, healthiness of the product, waste management, energy efficiency, Carbon budget, pollution, and so on. We really need consensus decisions on what is and is not acceptable in order to keep production systems working to maximum general benefit. The money and support then needs to follow those decisions. The decisions also need to be the standards by which imports are judged from other countries.
There is so much to do on this topic. The UK could lead the world if it's governing bodies can get their act together.

 

[Surgery]

The problem is when the sh1te hits the fan problems change to fit in with the general situation just as what’s happening now , makes my blood boil , throw in packham , the EA and the general glueing themselves to the tarmac brigade quite frankly there all saying what suits themselves short term

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

On old PP which is Direct Drilled or Overseeded with new grass and clover is a complete waste of time as there is always too many creatures and other things waiting to kill it off.
I have never had any success with not using Glyphosphate on old pasture which is drilled with a forage crop in the summer or late autumn, however we are in a low rainfall area, especially with summer droughts.
If someone can tell me how to do this successfully without spraying it off I am ready to give it a try!

 

[delilah]

Brilliant collection of persuasive facts and figures and images. Yet another resource for the NFU to be working with.
One thing that has occurred to me is that contributors to this thread all appear to be all coming from a grassland assumption for livestock production. There are other approaches that get this agricultural sector a bad press due to over-intensification. Corn-fed beef is an obvious example.
In order to limit or reverse over-intensification trends the Royal Commission would need to identify practices that are not a good idea for reasons of animal welfare, healthiness of the product, waste management, energy efficiency, Carbon budget, pollution, and so on. We really need consensus decisions on what is and is not acceptable in order to keep production systems working to maximum general benefit. The money and support then needs to follow those decisions. The decisions also need to be the standards by which imports are judged from other countries.
There is so much to do on this topic. The UK could lead the world if it's governing bodies can get their act together.

Actually disagree with pretty much all of that. And we were getting on so well .