Our N addiction
- Thread starter Farmer Roy
- Start date
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Ain't that the truth!
If you could unite farmers over any issue then you'd be about the first in history to do so. About the only thing in common is a very unique mixture of joy and despair at the same time.
We had 7 different neighbours over 20 something years - but the moans were always about the same things
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
I'm in StPetersburg (formerly Leningrad) today. Yes I really am.
Unfortunately Mr Putin has other engagements, which is rather disappointing. The difference in living standards between the 'have's' and 'have not's' is more evident here than anywhere, or certainly as extreme.
As for agriculture. You do as you bloody well like but don't preach to those that follow the science and make the best of conditions where they are.
As for some claim of having no animal health issues, I have yet to find a farm anywhere with no animal (or crop) health issues. Farming is all about managing issues. Hell, even my cats have health issues now and again.
Are there no Southern Hemisphere forums that are more apt for your conditions rather than comment on totally different farming, politically, physically and economically, literally half way round the globe which obviously has little relevance to you and little in common apart from the English language?
Last edited:
I enjoyed this thread earlier on. It's good to question what we apply and why but it has degenerated into a slagging match. Preaching might get you a few followers but it alienates the rest. TFF is for debate and discussion.
Don't lower yourselves to the shouty idiots' level - it's the quickest way to lose an argument whether you're right or not. All in my most humble honest opinion, of course.
Don't lower yourselves to the shouty idiots' level - it's the quickest way to lose an argument whether you're right or not. All in my most humble honest opinion, of course.
Of course we can learn off each other, I have a couple of friends that won't use a plough but will only rotavate the top 2inches of soil to reseed / sow stubble turnips, they understand how the soil works just are afraid of what will happen if they don't spread N! I've been Organic for over 10 years I find that ploughing works for me/ this farm, but I'm having a good look at what their doing to see if I can improve what I'm doingI really quite enjoy the debate.. to me there is no argument. I've experienced both sides of the coin and know which one is the one I sit on..
The puzzling part is, a regular poster on here suggests that both sides can learn off the other..
Went on a farm visit to a micro dairy milking less than 10 rare breed cows & making it pay by marketing it as rare breed milk & selling at a premium to local hotels & B& B's , it wasn't Organic but I still learnt from that visit (very good marketing to get a premium & be happy to do something different )
The list could go on but need to finish baling my silage
P.s Not having a go at you K.Pete because always respect what you post on here, more just clarifying what I meant
- Location
- NSW, Newstralya
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Crikey- no apology required from anyone!
I have a thick hide- this is the farming equivalent of veganism- constantly justifying why I say what I need to say.
It's very easy to fall into the over-zealous shouty type of debate - purely out of frustration on the bigger issues of farming the land.
Here's where I struggle:
I'm young
I only own a small farm
I live on the wrong side of the world
If I get it right it's because of 'climate' and 'lack of red tape'
I "waste" good grass on purpose
My 3 year old can describe how his Dad runs the farm- and not miss much out;
7 year old can add diagrams and write it all down.
And tell you why it's important to care for what you can't even see, because that's where the profits are made.
So I really don't need to try to help anyone else change their mindset, because our little farm makes soil and money with very little effort.
A good business should be just as good when you leave it alone, I was always told.
But on the Nitrogen topic, I think we all agree that there's an addiction by now?
I will leave the experts to their 'spend it to make it' and have a wee sleep. Enjoy the baling!
I have a thick hide- this is the farming equivalent of veganism- constantly justifying why I say what I need to say.
It's very easy to fall into the over-zealous shouty type of debate - purely out of frustration on the bigger issues of farming the land.
Here's where I struggle:
I'm young
I only own a small farm
I live on the wrong side of the world
If I get it right it's because of 'climate' and 'lack of red tape'
I "waste" good grass on purpose
My 3 year old can describe how his Dad runs the farm- and not miss much out;
7 year old can add diagrams and write it all down.
And tell you why it's important to care for what you can't even see, because that's where the profits are made.
So I really don't need to try to help anyone else change their mindset, because our little farm makes soil and money with very little effort.
A good business should be just as good when you leave it alone, I was always told.
But on the Nitrogen topic, I think we all agree that there's an addiction by now?
I will leave the experts to their 'spend it to make it' and have a wee sleep. Enjoy the baling!
ollie989898
Member
What exactly do people want to know or have issue with? Please be specific because I cannot be wading through trazillions of comments.
Lets face the facts, there are 7 billion people alive today who are consumers.
Various analysts have worked out that 3 billion of those at least would have perished were it not for the Haber process and Dr Borlaug, who was actually a man involved in the 'input trade' and whom received a Nobel prize for his efforts. You will not see his ideas or legacy being abandoned wholescale quite yet I can assure you.
Agriculture is no longer sustainable and has probably not been since the middle ages. Today the world's population is basically consuming fossil fuel in order to survive.
We can argue tooth and nail about profits and output all you want, but there is serious money being made by big companies in the world of agriculture today. It is a big industry, a global industry and I am luck enough to have seen some of it myself. It is not a game.
Now we can talk around the tails of it all you want, I have no question in my mind that some people are doing some clever things, but watching youtube clips and seeing various ideas does not amount to something which is going to be produced, in volume and traded en masse in world markets.
There is a peculiar purview on this forum that farmers should somehow be reverting to system X or Y, or spending zero money on anything. That is fine by me but don't kid yourself, the farmer's only aim should be to make money and adopt a system or collection of practices that work for him, so don't be surprised if others take an alternative path. I am well aware of the practices used in growing various crops in various locales because I am on correspondence with a variety of characters who are doing it. Am I surprised that the majority of Australians do not consider PGRs or fungicides worthwhile on cereals? Not a jot.
So far I have seen threads that elude to mysticism, about how artificial nitrogen is somehow destroying soils, or causing massive organic matter loss, or whatever. If that was the case, than all the barley barons in the East here would be farming in sandpits or on bedrock. Their yields could be measured in kilos per hectare. Despite some of them farming 110% in all respects, I have not seen these ecological disasters occurring in the yellow peril recently.
Please tell me, now and in some detail, what perceived issue you are attempting to address with mob stocking? And how this places you at an advantage compared to those who are not doing it in your region?
Lets face the facts, there are 7 billion people alive today who are consumers.
Various analysts have worked out that 3 billion of those at least would have perished were it not for the Haber process and Dr Borlaug, who was actually a man involved in the 'input trade' and whom received a Nobel prize for his efforts. You will not see his ideas or legacy being abandoned wholescale quite yet I can assure you.
Agriculture is no longer sustainable and has probably not been since the middle ages. Today the world's population is basically consuming fossil fuel in order to survive.
We can argue tooth and nail about profits and output all you want, but there is serious money being made by big companies in the world of agriculture today. It is a big industry, a global industry and I am luck enough to have seen some of it myself. It is not a game.
Now we can talk around the tails of it all you want, I have no question in my mind that some people are doing some clever things, but watching youtube clips and seeing various ideas does not amount to something which is going to be produced, in volume and traded en masse in world markets.
There is a peculiar purview on this forum that farmers should somehow be reverting to system X or Y, or spending zero money on anything. That is fine by me but don't kid yourself, the farmer's only aim should be to make money and adopt a system or collection of practices that work for him, so don't be surprised if others take an alternative path. I am well aware of the practices used in growing various crops in various locales because I am on correspondence with a variety of characters who are doing it. Am I surprised that the majority of Australians do not consider PGRs or fungicides worthwhile on cereals? Not a jot.
So far I have seen threads that elude to mysticism, about how artificial nitrogen is somehow destroying soils, or causing massive organic matter loss, or whatever. If that was the case, than all the barley barons in the East here would be farming in sandpits or on bedrock. Their yields could be measured in kilos per hectare. Despite some of them farming 110% in all respects, I have not seen these ecological disasters occurring in the yellow peril recently.
Please tell me, now and in some detail, what perceived issue you are attempting to address with mob stocking? And how this places you at an advantage compared to those who are not doing it in your region?
ollie989898
Member
Who is Gabe Brown? Does he have a Nobel prize as well?
How soils work? It is not rocket science, what would you like to know?? People worked out 8000 years ago at least that if you took something from a piece of land as food, something would have to go back. I would point out that plenty of food is grown without soil whatsoever now but that's a discussion for another time.
You have 3 times the output of your neighbour? That is good for you, but the context you have provided is vague to say the least.
Nitrogen is the enemy and monoculture is bad? Would you care to let the developing world know this gem of information??
Why on earth are you so anti-nitrogen? You realise that it is a key element in basically most living organisms, right?
It is a tool, nothing more. If you over-do it, its bad. Either use it or don't. When you have approached levels of output that many farmers are around the world, you might be in a better position to convince them not to use it. I don't personally care where the nitrogen comes from, it makes no difference to me and it makes no difference to a plant. You seem to have it in my head I make some massive living from selling little white prills, when in actuality, it is a very small part of what I do.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
I didn't think you'd bother to search for him very hard.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Typo
ollie989898
Member
Does he have a Nobel prize or not? If you answer that, perhaps I would consider the time researching the bloke. Since you cannot be assed to discuss anything at length, (besides mooting your anti-everything stance at every opportunity), why do you assume I would be prepared to spend my time researching something you are a proponent of?
Communication is the essential basis of all sales and marketing. It's your baby; you flog it.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
I'm afraid he has as many Nobel prizes as you and I combined.
More acres though, and has the numbers and the yields to back up my own claims and completely dispel the myth that we need synthetic fert to "feed the world".
It is extremely presumptuous to conclude that I am anti-Nitrogen; I love the stuff, it's the most abundant element in our atmosphere.
But I don't feed the denitrifying microbes in my soil and don't buy into the claim that it's the best way to grow food. In the short term it provides benefit- in the mid term it's obvious it doesn't, and in the long term (more than a few hundred years) it may very well be the reason humans cannot grow enough food.
That's why my money was on you not even bothering to type the name into your computer until replying to my post.
As you said, it's your baby, you flog it.
ollie989898
Member
Look, you are a proponent of the man, you explain his methods and logic then? I simply do not have the time nor motivation to chase down on the web every novel suggestion or link someone illustrates. I have far bigger fish to fry I am afraid.
I am afraid Borlaug's work, of which dozens of studies have been conducted, have illustrated to me, quite readily, how important the Haber process and technology in agriculture is to mankind. You can research that at length, if you so wish. He managed to avert starvation on two continents and his work continues to be used to this day and he is widely believed to have saved billions of lives, and I dare say a lot of farmers the world over can't help but feel inspired by the man and the green revolution in particular. It is also worth noting that a number of eminent environmentalists began to subscribe to Borlaugs ideas, because they realised that more lands could be preserved as less land would be required to feed the same number of mouths.
For man who claims not to be an anti-nitrogen zealot, you have a funny way of describing your ideology, I'll say that.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
You claim that it doesn't matter to the plant where the nitrogen comes from- which is true..
But, it does matter a lot to the soil biota, which is largely where we differ.
For them, any more than 5 or 6 units of N per application starts the alarm bells, the denitrifying ones kick off, and speed the release back to the atmosphere.
Much like this thread really- balance is good for everyone...
So basically, if I provide the links, you won't take time to read them, is that correct?
So - why would I research methods of upsetting my own business model?
I already know how.
That part is easy, millions of food producers subscribe to it now, have done for years; greatly improves the yields in the short term, detrimental in the long term.
Are you livestock or arable farming?
But, it does matter a lot to the soil biota, which is largely where we differ.
For them, any more than 5 or 6 units of N per application starts the alarm bells, the denitrifying ones kick off, and speed the release back to the atmosphere.
Much like this thread really- balance is good for everyone...
So basically, if I provide the links, you won't take time to read them, is that correct?
So - why would I research methods of upsetting my own business model?
I already know how.
That part is easy, millions of food producers subscribe to it now, have done for years; greatly improves the yields in the short term, detrimental in the long term.
Are you livestock or arable farming?
ollie989898
Member
I merely ask that you just elaborate the blokes methods and ideas in a summary so we can at least have an inkling of it?
Soil biota- I am well aware of this term. As I mentioned there are various systems where soil is not even used to grow crops. It is being done successfully already on a wide scale. I have no doubt whatsoever that virtually every input or action you place upon a field has some detrimental effect to the soil biota, as it begins to change the soil chemistry often in wide ranging and long lasting ways. However, where you and I differ perhaps, is that I have seen fields where farmers have deliberately been pushing their soils into what any soil scientist would describe as oblivion, and these fields are dishing up the goods for reasons I am unable to explain.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that the soils in these areas should be virtually dead and grow nothing, but the crops involved are far from dead, on the contrary, they are performing very well, even exceptionally well, when the soil science part of my brain cannot add it up and flashing massive warning signs. And in some parts of the world, this has been going on for in excess of 50 years.
My point is thus, a lot of soils are perhaps hugely tougher than we realise. They can withstand a lot of abuse, and the biggest form of abuse going is ploughing or being denuded by chemical or mechanical means. Likewise, they can be revitalised in various ways.
I have no doubt that there is a raft of genuine research that illustrates that using nitrates, or sulphates or spraying on glyphosate have some kind of long-lasting effect on soil life, but in practical terms, have farmers seen this to an extent that it is affecting them in real terms? I am not sure I have seen it yet. They are quick to recognise the effect of compaction, because the effects are visual and nearly immediate.
For the record I am involved with both livestock and arable farming; in my book they are two ends of the same sandwich. In my region particularly, one side depends upon the other.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Simple.
Science.
This is why I make the claim that, unless you plan to be out putting on a tiny amount of nitrogen every hour of the day- your fertiliser N simply isn't as efficient or effective as letting the rhizobia do their thing.
In a legume monoculture- rhizobia will not fix more nitrogen than a polyculture, because they don't do much until they need to, just the same as the denitrifying ones don't.
Just the same as I don't.
They only work to keep things right for the plants and themselves- so the little white pills spring them into action nicely. The cycle goes around, and then you've not only discouraged the rhizobia but fed the ones that denitrify.
Add to this the added compaction of synthetic N, and it starts to look much more like a silly thing to be doing out of habit.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
That is exactly why I urged you to watch the Gabe Brown video, it will only take 58 minutes of your time, and he will explain from a producer's POV.
Whether you believe him or not, that's up to you entirely; but he'll help dispel many myths about profitability and production and what really drives them.
ollie989898
Member
Thank you very much for that. It served as a refresher of much I have already been obliged to learn, and I had 7 full years of it as well, none of it is a mystery to me for it was all involved in obtaining the nine (largely useless) letters after my name.
But moving on, you are saying that legumes are contributing to your productivity as you are relying upon Rhizobium spp in the soil? I think we can agree on that much for it is not a new or novel idea. However, as I have eluded to in other posts, I don't need to add any amount of nitrogen to the soil every hour of the day, any additional nitrogen is added in doses according to the conditions and crop requirement. In the meantime, we rely on the soil itself to feed the crop.
Plants have adapted nicely over millions of years to find the resources they need. Their more modern mutant cousins we consider as crops today still have some of this ability. Not only that, but I am able to make use of the soil's own reserves to feed a crop in times when I cannot even travel on the dirt to apply something.
There is no question that the use of artificial nitrogenous fertilisers is not a 100% efficient process. No one has ever claimed that it was.
There is much talk about the usefulness of clovers and nitrogen fixing plants. I have seen them grown, and I have read the results in many studies in the journal of forage research. You will have some way to go to convince me that any legume can provide the outright productivity that some grass leys can that have been fed to a nicety.
But moving on, you are saying that legumes are contributing to your productivity as you are relying upon Rhizobium spp in the soil? I think we can agree on that much for it is not a new or novel idea. However, as I have eluded to in other posts, I don't need to add any amount of nitrogen to the soil every hour of the day, any additional nitrogen is added in doses according to the conditions and crop requirement. In the meantime, we rely on the soil itself to feed the crop.
Plants have adapted nicely over millions of years to find the resources they need. Their more modern mutant cousins we consider as crops today still have some of this ability. Not only that, but I am able to make use of the soil's own reserves to feed a crop in times when I cannot even travel on the dirt to apply something.
There is no question that the use of artificial nitrogenous fertilisers is not a 100% efficient process. No one has ever claimed that it was.
There is much talk about the usefulness of clovers and nitrogen fixing plants. I have seen them grown, and I have read the results in many studies in the journal of forage research. You will have some way to go to convince me that any legume can provide the outright productivity that some grass leys can that have been fed to a nicety.