The £ value of fym

I agree. We're losing our solutions that come out of a bag or can - I see UK ag turning a full circle back to mixed farming with various forms of livestock. Not necessarily the types that our fathers & grandfathers had, but AD plants, algae production, green manures, recycled waste streams etc.

Soil organic matters have declined to their current low levels but the rate of decline is slowing. Stubble burning and ploughing are the worst IMO and no till and cover crops are the best, with manuring at the very top. Cultivation and crop removal reduces it. We're lucky in this country not to have as many extreme weather events as the Amazon basin or the Dust Bowl so our soil loss (not just depreciation/degradation) isn't as bad.

I still often think of this post and link from @KJM as a way of questioning whether we really are on a straight line path to doom:

Interesting link I found

http://www.era.rothamsted.ac.uk/home/studies/PoultonSOMposter.pdf

It would suggest just because SOM has dropped from its original level in grass, doesn't mean you can project a straight line to zero and eternal doom. The results suggest the soil will stabilise at a new level for the management it is under. Many farms may have been in continuous arable for long enough to have stabilised at their new lower level.
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
Good research there @Feldspar

Are you still happy that higher SOM generally means better working soil & better yields? My highest yields still come from fields next to an old dairy unit that was packed up 15 years ago. The SOM levels are 8-12% there vs 4-6% elsewhere.

If you're feeling like doing some more digging, can you find us some more on the different types of soil organic matter like fresh (decaying root mass, straw) and much older (humates) please? :)
 

N.Yorks.

Member
I still often think of this post and link from @KJM as a way of questioning whether we really are on a straight line path to doom:
I agree it would be too simple to draw a straight line to zero. Surely it is the productive potential of any new equilibrium that is the key. If the new equilibrium is always a bit lower than the last then the productive capacity is potentially compromised.

Why accept that standard arable practice will reduce the equilibrium? Surely better OM recycling, wider rotation including CC's and smarter cultivation will adjust the new equilibrium up a bit?

Recent research shows where you're introducing OM via various sources and balancing the remaining crop nutrient requirements with mineral fert the yields are over and above what you would get with only mineral fertiliser.

Seven trillion organisms the size of an earthworm or less in a cubic meter of top soil aren't there for no reason. You reduce them and the soil structure declines, then the soils oxygen level goes down and the natural drainage declines and the soil becomes less of an attractive place for a root to do its stuff. Poor roots poor crop it's that simple.
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
Also, another interesting perspective: http://www.niab.com/blog/post/103

The graph in Orson's blog suggests that annual FYM gave 2 t/ha extra yield to the spring barley though his critical analysis did point out that less yield benefit occurred for autumn applications of muck before winter wheat.

It certainly suggests that the OP is doing the right thing by applying muck. What the links are lacking is what that manure cost.

Tony Reynolds hosted some research on soil carbon sequestration. His soil carbon levels went up when he adopted no till. The passage of time doesn't allow a fair comparison as to whether his yields went up as a result. Initially, they fell, with year 3 being the worst.
 
Good research there @Feldspar

Are you still happy that higher SOM generally means better working soil & better yields? My highest yields still come from fields next to an old dairy unit that was packed up 15 years ago. The SOM levels are 8-12% there vs 4-6% elsewhere.

If you're feeling like doing some more digging, can you find us some more on the different types of soil organic matter like fresh (decaying root mass, straw) and much older (humates) please? :)

Empirically I'd definitely agree. Our old meadow ground will give the highest yields (assuming we can keep them free of BG, which is much more difficult). A lot easier working too. Walked some of the spring barley in the meadow ground and there is as usual a lot more tillers on the plants there compared to normal field areas.
 
The graph in Orson's blog suggests that annual FYM gave 2 t/ha extra yield to the spring barley though his critical analysis did point out that less yield benefit occurred for autumn applications of muck before winter wheat.

It certainly suggests that the OP is doing the right thing by applying muck. What the links are lacking is what that manure cost.

Tony Reynolds hosted some research on soil carbon sequestration. His soil carbon levels went up when he adopted no till. The passage of time doesn't allow a fair comparison as to whether his yields went up as a result. Initially, they fell, with year 3 being the worst.

I am still very wary of claims about changes in SOM because there are so many sampling errors (terrible statistical pun). With the well known stratification of SOM under no-till, you need to sample down to 50cm and correct for bulk density to get a true picture. Hardly anyone does this. And then you get into a debate about the insensitivity to different types of SOM and their relative importance.
 

Joe Boy

Member
Location
Essex
Would be interested in seeing a picture of your old windrow turner if you have time.TIA.

ImageUploadedByThe Farming Forum1464285968.936581.jpg


ImageUploadedByThe Farming Forum1464286063.046988.jpg


It breaks the muck down great. It takes about 45 mins to get up one of those lines which is about 600t. I do that about 10 times in total. It spreads 12m no problems from a disk spreader then. Also volume to spread is reduced by 30 - 50%.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
Good research there @Feldspar

Are you still happy that higher SOM generally means better working soil & better yields? My highest yields still come from fields next to an old dairy unit that was packed up 15 years ago. The SOM levels are 8-12% there vs 4-6% elsewhere.

If you're feeling like doing some more digging, can you find us some more on the different types of soil organic matter like fresh (decaying root mass, straw) and much older (humates) please? :)
This link will give you part of the picture:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/DC-Agri - Bulletin 8 - Soil Quality.pdf

Did read a paper on the benefits of having lower but regular applications of manures/composts etc but can't remember where I put it.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
I am still very wary of claims about changes in SOM because there are so many sampling errors (terrible statistical pun). With the well known stratification of SOM under no-till, you need to sample down to 50cm and correct for bulk density to get a true picture. Hardly anyone does this. And then you get into a debate about the insensitivity to different types of SOM and their relative importance.
No one said is was easy.(y):scratchhead:
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
I am still very wary of claims about changes in SOM because there are so many sampling errors (terrible statistical pun). With the well known stratification of SOM under no-till, you need to sample down to 50cm and correct for bulk density to get a true picture. Hardly anyone does this. And then you get into a debate about the insensitivity to different types of SOM and their relative importance.

I think its pretty safe to assume if you add OM to land then the OM % should increase
 
not everything has to be managed - there is art and science and farming is a long ways from being 100% science

I hear what you say (https://bridgesandtangents.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/english1.jpg), but it's not OK to go around claiming you've raised your OM levels just based on your soil test result, when you've sampled in any a way which is known to be methodologically deficient. If challenged further, it is also not OK to explain away the mistake by saying, "Well, soil sampling is an art".
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
I hear what you say (https://bridgesandtangents.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/english1.jpg), but it's not OK to go around claiming you've raised your OM levels just based on your soil test result, when you've sampled in any a way which is known to be methodologically deficient. If challenged further, it is also not OK to explain away the mistake by saying, "Well, soil sampling is an art".

I've never tested OM - I think its a pointless test

I do feel that anything I can do to increase OM is a good thing though so I get as much mick, compost and grow as much cover crop as I can

I can't prove any of it gets me better yields and even if I could spend money doing so would it make me any better off ? ............that's the art bit, trust instinct and what many previous generations of farmers have founds works ;)
 
I've never tested OM - I think its a pointless test

I do feel that anything I can do to increase OM is a good thing though so I get as much mick, compost and grow as much cover crop as I can

I can't prove any of it gets me better yields and even if I could spend money doing so would it make me any better off ? ............that's the art bit, trust instinct and what many previous generations of farmers have founds works ;)

I'd say you can get some good evidence that it would help your yields (at least in spring barley if you take the findings in the link higher up). I count the long-standing methods of previous generations as evidence in favour which ranks alongside more recent research.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
I'd say you can get some good evidence that it would help your yields (at least in spring barley if you take the findings in the link higher up). I count the long-standing methods of previous generations as evidence in favour which ranks alongside more recent research.

why do i need any evidence beyond what ends up in the combine tank and the profit figure at the end of year ?

I don't get the need to quantify everything unless its your job to research for the benefit of others
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 65 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.1%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

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

    Votes: 6 3.2%

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

  • 1,287
  • 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