Should we farm without N?

[Chae1]

Yes,but the fields we put hen muck on are full of clover , in sure it brings it on [emoji846]

I find the same with muck from cattle. Over seems to thrive.

 

[Rob Garrett]

Hanson are grinding slag at Teeside I believe

Is that the same stuff as Fibrophos (burnt chicken muck) but without the fancy name & price to go with it?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Is that the same stuff as Fibrophos (burnt chicken muck) but without the fancy name & price to go with it?

No , its Slag from the steal making process. Not seen the stuff from Teeside, so no idea how fine they grind it. We have no end phoning from up North but its just to far to drag it

 

[Mr chips]

How many hens do I need to produce couple thousand ton of hen sh!t ?

64’000 aprox

 

[Rob Garrett]

No , its Slag from the steal making process. Not seen the stuff from Teeside, so no idea how fine they grind it. We have no end phoning from up North but its just to far to drag it

Any near Derby? Thought there might be some out of Sheffield, but not tracked any down yet.

 

[Hilly]

64’000 aprox

Is that a big hen farm in the world of hen farming ?

 

[Mr chips]

Is that a big hen farm in the world of hen farming ?

We collect it from one shed another 3 going up on the same farm. Yes it is bigger than most in our area.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Agreed 100%. There are very few scientific disciplines that do not operate in "silos". Ecology and environmental science are perhaps the exception. All the rest adopt a totally reductionist approach to their study.

I hear what you are saying and I understand what you mean but I'm not sure I can agree with it. I still think that is science or the scientific method that is still the most capable means of analysing data. Of course there are limitations and something is right until we can prove it is wrong etc.

I think on the core point of Mulvaney's conclusion about N it appears from subsequent reviews from two other scientific positions that he misinterpreted the initial data, or at least that is the claim. To say that the wrong type of science has been done or the right type of science hasn't been done doesn't really wash with me. But that doesn't mean I don't think anything is unprovable, its just about the balance of probabilities or the quality of the evidence.

I've got two books here which you may like or have read Holwell, I've never read the first even though I intended to and only just bought the latter and looking forward to getting my teeth into.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I hear what you are saying and I understand what you mean but I'm not sure I can agree with it. I still think that is science or the scientific method that is still the most capable means of analysing data. Of course there are limitations and something is right until we can prove it is wrong etc.

I think on the core point of Mulvaney's conclusion about N it appears from subsequent reviews from two other scientific positions that he misinterpreted the initial data, or at least that is the claim. To say that the wrong type of science has been done or the right type of science hasn't been done doesn't really wash with me. But that doesn't mean I don't think anything is unprovable, its just about the balance of probabilities or the quality of the evidence.

I've got two books here which you may like or have read Holwell, I've never read the first even though I intended to and only just bought the latter and looking forward to getting my teeth into.

View attachment 900303

View attachment 900304

Try:

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

and

Science Fictions by Stuart Richie.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Try:

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

and

Science Fictions by Stuart Richie.

I've read a lot of Ben Goldacre. Not 5h3 Richie one.