Will we be ploughing for re seeding in the future?

[digger64]

I can see the point with a short termer like irg but an old ley needs younger better varieties surely?

yes but it does work

 

[DrWazzock]

Ploughing undoubtedly introduces a lot of oxygen to a greater depth than direct drilling. This probably causes more oxidisation and so results in a lower equilibrium level of OM in the soil than direct drilling. Direct drilling will build OM in the soil and I’d say it will reach an equilibrium level greater than with ploughing due to slower oxidisation, but levels of OM in the soil won’t increase indefinitely under any system, even in undisturbed woodland as the microbes and fungi build up to a sufficient level to keep pace with breaking down OM as fast as it is added. The only way OM can accumulate very significantly is in something like a peat bog where layer upon layer grows on top and compresses the material underneath which doesn’t oxidise due to being under water with insufficient oxygen which might even lead to coal after millions of years., most likely with production of a fair amount of methane as OM breaks down with insufficient oxygen at depth.
So yes direct drilling could help as could planting trees and sowing permanent pasture but whether the effect will continue for long enough to make a difference before equilibrium is reached and no more carbon is sequestered is highly debatable.
It all helps though IMO so DD, PP etc are a good thing provided that actually work in the circumstances in which they are employed.
My problem with DD here on heavy land is what I call gradual concretisation which sees diminishing biological activity and productivity of any kind and falling OM levels year on year. I’m still working on it though. Cover crops might solve it.

 

[delilah]

Why would you have any interest at all in what someone else is getting?

Because it amounts to a subsidy for one business against another. All other things being equal, they can undercut the other in the marketplace. It is equivalent to drawing a straight line from Lands End to The Wash, and saying that everyone below the line continues to get BPS and those above it have it stopped. (not a direct comparison but makes the point).

 

[Ceri]

Ploughing undoubtedly introduces a lot of oxygen to a greater depth than direct drilling. This probably causes more oxidisation and so results in a lower equilibrium level of OM in the soil than direct drilling. Direct drilling will build OM in the soil and I’d say it will reach an equilibrium level greater than with ploughing due to slower oxidisation, but levels of OM in the soil won’t increase indefinitely under any system, even in undisturbed woodland as the microbes and fungi build up to a sufficient level to keep pace with breaking down OM as fast as it is added. The only way OM can accumulate very significantly is in something like a peat bog where layer upon layer grows on top and compresses the material underneath which doesn’t oxidise due to being under water with insufficient oxygen which might even lead to coal after millions of years., most likely with production of a fair amount of methane as OM breaks down with insufficient oxygen at depth.
So yes direct drilling could help as could planting trees and sowing permanent pasture but whether the effect will continue for long enough to make a difference before equilibrium is reached and no more carbon is sequestered is highly debatable.
It all helps though IMO so DD, PP etc are a good thing provided that actually work in the circumstances in which they are employed.
My problem with DD here on heavy land is what I call gradual concretisation which sees diminishing biological activity and productivity of any kind and falling OM levels year on year. I’m still working on it though. Cover crops might solve it.

Erm is that a yes or a no then.......?

 

[delilah]

It’s definitely not enough to make anti no tillers go no till

If I am heavy ground, and house my cattle, am I 'anti-outwintering' ?

Il take it though if they want to give it to me for something I’m already doing.

And when the taxpayer says "Where is the public good in me paying farmers to do stuff they will do anyway ?", how are we to answer ?

 

[Ceri]

If I am heavy ground, and house my cattle, am I 'anti-outwintering' ?



And when the taxpayer says "Where is the public good in me paying farmers to do stuff they will do anyway ?", how are we to answer ?

By supplying there public feckin good in the form of food........

 

[Hilly]

By supplying there public feckin good in the form of food........

Aye and if they don’t want to pay subsidy they can fooking well pay for the food or starve .

 

[delilah]

By supplying there public feckin good in the form of food........

then you need to pay it to all food producers.

 

[delilah]

Which begs another question:
If you receive an ELMS payment to switch to DD rather than ploughing, for how many years does that soil need to remain unploughed before ploughing it produces a net environmental dis-benefit ?
(accepting, for a second, the premise that DD is better in terms of GHG emissions)
I assume we know the answer to that ? And that ELMS agreements will be legally binding for a time period beyond the answer to the question. Otherwise none of these ELMS options have any substance.

Have asked twice and no reply, giving it a third go then giving up, if we haven't got an answer to this then the whole thing is an even bigger shambles than I thought.

 

[DrWazzock]

Erm is that a yes or a no then.......?

Erm is that a yes or a no then.......?

It’s complex. Generally the less you can disturb the soil the better it is, but sometimes it has to be disturbed so I wouldn’t rule out ploughing as a useful tool in the box. I won’t be selling my plough, but will only be using it sparingly.
This is why I’m wary of going too enthusiastically down one route. Never say never and all that. I’m wary of somebody persuading DEFRA that ploughing should be restricted so we get to a point where we have to ring them up for permission every time we hitch the plough up. I don’t want that kind of interference in my day to day management thanks very much.

 

[DrWazzock]

Have asked twice and no reply, giving it a third go then giving up, if we haven't got an answer to this then the whole thing is an even bigger shambles than I thought.

Nobody really knows. All I’d say is we should leave it alone. Reality is folks are casting around for ideas to justify keeping the free money flowing. There is all this taxpayers money to be handed out. We just have to think of a reason to give it a veneer of justification to the public otherwise they might kick off.
IMO you might as well get a payment for being “ a jolly good fellow” for all it matters. In the end it will just be a transfer of taxpayers cash into landowners bank accounts as it is now, just because we are err, let me see, landowners.

 

[The Seeker]

Even if we all follow down the carbon road no ploughs ect , the bigger boys around the world will still crack on regardless

 

[oil barron]

P

Ploughing undoubtedly introduces a lot of oxygen to a greater depth than direct drilling. This probably causes more oxidisation and so results in a lower equilibrium level of OM in the soil than direct drilling. Direct drilling will build OM in the soil and I’d say it will reach an equilibrium level greater than with ploughing due to slower oxidisation, but levels of OM in the soil won’t increase indefinitely under any system, even in undisturbed woodland as the microbes and fungi build up to a sufficient level to keep pace with breaking down OM as fast as it is added. The only way OM can accumulate very significantly is in something like a peat bog where layer upon layer grows on top and compresses the material underneath which doesn’t oxidise due to being under water with insufficient oxygen which might even lead to coal after millions of years., most likely with production of a fair amount of methane as OM breaks down with insufficient oxygen at depth.
So yes direct drilling could help as could planting trees and sowing permanent pasture but whether the effect will continue for long enough to make a difference before equilibrium is reached and no more carbon is sequestered is highly debatable.
It all helps though IMO so DD, PP etc are a good thing provided that actually work in the circumstances in which they are employed.
My problem with DD here on heavy land is what I call gradual concretisation which sees diminishing biological activity and productivity of any kind and falling OM levels year on year. I’m still working on it though. Cover crops might solve it.

how does this oxidisation work? In DD the stubble is above ground and the dead routs are below ground. Vice versa if you plough. So presumably letting the routes see more oxygen vaporizes them into CO2? I don’t understand the chemical reaction.

 

[DrWazzock]

P

how does this oxidisation work? In DD the stubble is above ground and the dead routs are below ground. Vice versa if you plough. So presumably letting the routes see more oxygen vaporizes them into CO2? I don’t understand the chemical reaction.

As I understand it, it’s bacteria that oxidise the OM. The bacteria need oxygen to oxidise the OM. If you plough you add lots of oxygen and the numbers of bacteria rise and they can work faster to oxidise OM. We also see this effect with temporary lock up of manganese after ploughing. The bacteria activity increases with more oxygen and they also use up the available manganese temporarily, starving the growing crop of manganese in a poorly consolidated seedbed. Roll it and you keep the air out, reducing bacteria activity, reducing the bacteria demand for manganese, leaving more for the growing crop. Ploughing “burns” OM my letting oxygen in in huge quantities which allows the soil bacteria to oxidise OM or in effect feed on the soil OM producing carbon dioxide as a by product of their respiration.

 

[DrWazzock]

I suppose it’s a biological reaction more than a chemical reaction.

 

[oil barron]

As I understand it, it’s bacteria that oxidise the OM. The bacteria need oxygen to oxidise the OM. If you plough you add lots of oxygen and the numbers of bacteria rise and they can work faster to oxidise OM. We also see this effect with temporary lock up of manganese after ploughing. The bacteria activity increases with more oxygen and they also use up the available manganese temporarily, starving the growing crop of manganese in a poorly consolidated seedbed. Roll it and you keep the air out, reducing bacteria activity, reducing the bacteria demand for manganese, leaving more for the growing crop. Ploughing “burns” OM my letting oxygen in in huge quantities which allows the soil bacteria to oxidise OM or in effect feed on the soil OM producing carbon dioxide as a by product of their respiration.

So ploughing increases the biological activity in soil which breaks down Organic matter making nutrients available?

 

[DrWazzock]

So ploughing increases the biological activity in soil which breaks down Organic matter making nutrients available?

Indeed it does. It makes more nitrogen available for example, as the bacteria break down OM to its constituent elements.

There is another side to it as well. If you don’t get enough oxygen into the soil then the bacteria can still work to some extent but tend to produce acid byproducts which is why water logged soils can acidify very quickly.
It’s a complex and fascinating subject.

 

[oil barron]

Indeed it does. It makes more nitrogen available for example, as the bacteria break down OM to its constituent elements.

There is another side to it as well. If you don’t get enough oxygen into the soil then the bacteria can still work to some extent but tend to produce acid byproducts which is why water logged soils can acidify very quickly.
It’s a complex and fascinating subject.

its confusing because we are told that direct drilling increases the biology in the soil and that the increased earthworm activity mixes in surface residue as well as the plough does. If that was the case then a healthy soil after a few years of DD would be omitting more CO2?

 

[DrWazzock]

The plough is in effect a catalyst to more rapid soil biological activity. It speeds up biological activity in the soil by introducing oxygen and burying OM. The plough also creates an immediate but short lived temporary structure to the soil.
I suppose people want to stop ploughing so that they can store more OM in the soil as inert OM, not oxidised by the bacteria because there isn’t enough oxygen for them to do this or because more OM is on the surface out of reach of the bacteria.
You have to ask yourself, if there is less oxygen in the soil and less bacteriological activity there isn’t there also less rate of nutrient release and less oxygen for the plant roots themselves and hence less agricultural output.
It’s all a bit unknown IMO, and it would be a brave man or woman who could say definitively that ploughing or not ploughing is the right way forward all things considered.

 

[DrWazzock]

its confusing because we are told that direct drilling increases the biology in the soil and that the increased earthworm activity mixes in surface residue as well as the plough does. If that was the case then a healthy soil after a few years of DD would be omitting more CO2?

Yes, you have beat me to it. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I am getting out of my depth so I can’t really answer that but I’d say it’s far from a simple “direct drill good, plough bad” answer, more like some sort of compromise.