Will we be ploughing for re seeding in the future?

[Christopher Renner]

Thank you for sharing.
Quick question, many of the comparisons for the laboratory work compared zero till with conventional over a time period. Does that mean you had the farmer plough up a patch of 15year DD land to get the comparative core?

I think they compare 2 adjacent fields under different management.

 

[Christopher Renner]

Thank you for sharing.
Quick question, many of the comparisons for the laboratory work compared zero till with conventional over a time period. Does that mean you had the farmer plough up a patch of 15year DD land to get the comparative core?

I think they compared 2 adjacent fields under the different management.

 

[Bury the Trash]

Worlds gone mad

 

[oil barron]

I think they compared 2 adjacent fields under the different management.

Yes. But they do a comparison of time in zero till. For each comparison the conventional till result is different. I’m not sure how they managed that.

 

[Christopher Renner]

Yes. But they do a comparison of time in zero till. For each comparison the conventional till result is different. I’m not sure how they managed that.
View attachment 958736

I think they compared different pairs of farms depending on how long the direct drilling had been done.

 

[oil barron]

I think they compared different pairs of farms depending on how long the direct drilling had been done.

Then I think the only meaningfull conclusion you can draw from their work is that different soil types have different organic matter contents.
I was pretty disappointed by the language used in their introduction and conclusion compared with the data they presented.
They even touted the mythical oxidization without any scientific discussion around what it is.

 

[Christopher Renner]

Then I think the only meaningfull conclusion you can draw from their work is that different soil types have different organic matter contents.
I was pretty disappointed by the language used in their introduction and conclusion compared with the data they presented.
They even touted the mythical oxidization without any scientific discussion around what it is.

I think you’re right about the different organic matter content between farms but the comparison between the different management still shows a difference.
I think the oxidation is explaining by the soil being less open in direct drilling if I have read it correctly.

 

[oil barron]

I think you’re right about the different organic matter content between farms but the comparison between the different management still shows a difference.
I think the oxidation is explaining by the soil being less open in direct drilling if I have read it correctly.

The only difference they were able to show is what they are calling flux, when they cooked the core in an oven and measured the NO and CO2 being released. I’m not really sure that is a great real life comparison. They were unable to demonstrate meaningful increase in soil carbon content as they admit in the main text, but not the conclusion

Oxygen content is increased in tillage. Oxygen being next to organic matter does not generate CO2 though. It is the biological action that generates it. Which is claimed to be increased in a no till environment.

 

[Christopher Renner]

The only difference they were able to show is what they are calling flux, when they cooked the core in an oven and measured the NO and CO2 being released. I’m not really sure that is a great real life comparison. They were unable to demonstrate meaningful increase in soil carbon content as they admit in the main text, but not the conclusion


View attachment 958784

Oxygen content is increased in tillage. Oxygen being next to organic matter does not generate CO2 though. It is the biological action that generates it. Which is claimed to be increased in a no till environment.

I only read the report quickly but it did make clear the answers to your earlier questions.
If you read it carefully and have further questions I suggest you email the author of the report [email protected]
Best Wishes

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

What I keep saying, they are not sources, just part of the cycle.

I accept that. Apparently volcanoes is where all the carbon originated.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

1

 

[Derrick Hughes]

We can't blame the weather now apart from its a bit cold
Field no 1 done with the plough is greening over
The buck stops here [emoji19]

 

[Bury the Trash]

1View attachment 958858

Possibly Useful but currently Overpriced ?

A conventional box drill such as a sulky ( very good drill) with a choice of suffolk or discs ,
Can be got brand new for between 7 and 9 k I think I am right in saying.

Yes they are not quite the same, thing I know but nonetheless similar amount of steel etc and very comparable on balance, when quality and spec is taken into account.

So why is the Aitchison overpriced?
If it weren't so , i could buy one and go contracting as well as my own


Trouble is with that I wouldn't want my work to fail, no matter how well I did it, whereas my plough contracting that I do is always spot on , guaranteed before I leave the field or send the bill.

Just my ( from a practical slant ) thoughts thats all .

 

[delilah]

To draw an analogy.

A proposal was put forward some time ago to levy a £100 tax on cattle slaughtered over 30 months of age. The rationale being that if a cow lives longer it makes a greater contribution to climate change, due to it emitting more methane and being less efficient in converting its feed into beef. This proposed tax was researched and debated at length on here. The conclusion being that it was a crock of sh!t. There is no scientific basis, whatsoever, for saying that slaughtering all cattle at an earlier age would lower UK GHG emissions.

This ELMS proposal to subsidize DD amounts to the self same thing; a tax on cultivating. There have been a whole load of questions asked in this thread that remain unanswered, either because no-one knows the answers or because to answer them is to admit to fundamental flaws in the argument. Saying that Direct Drilling all crops would lower UK GHG emissions is a crock of sh!t. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise, go back through this thread and start answering some of the questions asked.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Possibly Useful but currently Overpriced ?

A conventional box drill such as a sulky ( very good drill) with a choice of suffolk or discs ,
Can be got brand new for between 7 and 9 k I think I am right in saying.

Yes they are not quite the same, thing I know but nonetheless similar amount of steel etc and very comparable on balance, when quality and spec is taken into account.

So why is the Aitchison overpriced?
If it weren't so , i could buy one and go contracting as well as my own


Trouble is with that I wouldn't want my work to fail, no matter how well I did it, whereas my plough contracting that I do is always spot on , guaranteed before I leave the field or send the bill.

Just my ( from a practical slant ) thoughts thats all .

How much is expensive and did not realise you
went out contacting
With drill you and doing the complete job not just ploughing, but yiu have to be ready to say ,I am not drilling that its a waste of time and money

 

[Henarar]

To draw an analogy.

A proposal was put forward some time ago to levy a £100 tax on cattle slaughtered over 30 months of age. The rationale being that if a cow lives longer it makes a greater contribution to climate change, due to it emitting more methane and being less efficient in converting its feed into beef. This proposed tax was researched and debated at length on here. The conclusion being that it was a crock of sh!t. There is no scientific basis, whatsoever, for saying that slaughtering all cattle at an earlier age would lower UK GHG emissions.

This ELMS proposal to subsidize DD amounts to the self same thing; a tax on cultivating. There have been a whole load of questions asked in this thread that remain unanswered, either because no-one knows the answers or because to answer them is to admit to fundamental flaws in the argument. Saying that Direct Drilling all crops would lower UK GHG emissions is a crock of sh!t. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise, go back through this thread and start answering some of the questions asked.

I think the best way to make crops grow better is a crock of sh1t

 

[som farmer]

To draw an analogy.

A proposal was put forward some time ago to levy a £100 tax on cattle slaughtered over 30 months of age. The rationale being that if a cow lives longer it makes a greater contribution to climate change, due to it emitting more methane and being less efficient in converting its feed into beef. This proposed tax was researched and debated at length on here. The conclusion being that it was a crock of sh!t. There is no scientific basis, whatsoever, for saying that slaughtering all cattle at an earlier age would lower UK GHG emissions.

This ELMS proposal to subsidize DD amounts to the self same thing; a tax on cultivating. There have been a whole load of questions asked in this thread that remain unanswered, either because no-one knows the answers or because to answer them is to admit to fundamental flaws in the argument. Saying that Direct Drilling all crops would lower UK GHG emissions is a crock of sh!t. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise, go back through this thread and start answering some of the questions asked.

the biggest problem is, that an industry, we don't shout loud enough, those that do, seem to live in an idealistic world, where they think their policies are the only way forward, that and 1 size fits all, which it doesn't. Scientists have to earn a living, and that is based on how they THINK things will pan out. We saw it with BSE, seeing it with covid, and now climate change, the first two, especially BSE, have proved to rather adrift. It really makes no difference what we think the answers are, or how their solutions won't work, we will have to obey. The only advantage in that, is food production will fall, and prices may rise, which will alter things again, that and the fact that it has to global effort to make any serious solution to work. The truth and factual proof will not effect how things will pan out, if they did, the employment of scientists would slump.

 

[Two Tone]

To draw an analogy.

A proposal was put forward some time ago to levy a £100 tax on cattle slaughtered over 30 months of age. The rationale being that if a cow lives longer it makes a greater contribution to climate change, due to it emitting more methane and being less efficient in converting its feed into beef. This proposed tax was researched and debated at length on here. The conclusion being that it was a crock of sh!t. There is no scientific basis, whatsoever, for saying that slaughtering all cattle at an earlier age would lower UK GHG emissions.

This ELMS proposal to subsidize DD amounts to the self same thing; a tax on cultivating. There have been a whole load of questions asked in this thread that remain unanswered, either because no-one knows the answers or because to answer them is to admit to fundamental flaws in the argument. Saying that Direct Drilling all crops would lower UK GHG emissions is a crock of sh!t. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise, go back through this thread and start answering some of the questions asked.

Nobody can answer all the questions yet, because nobody knows them yet.
My understanding is that ELMs isn’t compulsory, nobody has to take any of it up at all. I don’t think there will even be time length agreements on it either. More of an ongoing thing, to be taken advantage of, where it can be taken advantage of and paid for on a monthly rather than yearly basis for agreed long term public/environmental benefits .
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that DD is more environmentally friendly. Even if you discount the Carbon not being released from ploughed fields, the fuel saving alone is environmentally far better.
There will be no tax on cultivations, but a financial bonus incentive to reduce them.


It simply isn’t doing any good over-hyping a situation up that doesn’t actually exist yet.
Let’s just see what happens and debate it properly when details are revealed rather than continue to make guesses and jump up and down about them.
Most of us haven’t got time to waste going right back through this thread or are stupid enough to want to head for an early grave, worrying that ELMS might be somewhat inconvenient to the way we farm now because of our own inflexibility.

If you want take to advantage of ELMs and can do so, then do so.
Much of it will probably be for things we might already be doing or could do without too much drastic change.
If you don’t like the idea of change and don’t want any ELMs money, nobody will be forcing you to take part.

 

[delilah]

I don’t think there will even be time length agreements on it either. More of an ongoing thing, to be taken advantage of, where it can be taken advantage of and paid for on a monthly rather than yearly basis for agreed long term public/environmental benefits .

Yet the paper that has been shared on here suggests that it takes 15 years for a 30% GHG benefit (which on a cursory reading looks like it could be pulled apart anyway). How the fudge can something that seems to rely, fundamentally, on a long term commitment, have taxpayer money thrown at it on an annual basis ?

Most of us haven’t got time to waste going right back through this thread or are stupid enough to want to head for an early grave, worrying that ELMS might be somewhat inconvenient to the way we farm now because of our own inflexibility.

We are told, constantly, and correctly, that this is the most important change in farm policy for decades. You think it is acceptable to just let it get past the point of no return without challenging it ?

 

[delilah]

Nobody can answer all the questions yet, because nobody knows them yet.

Then we cannot go around paying farmers all this money. Again, have a look at what it all adds up to per Ha if you take up all of the DD options. It's a lot of money.

Think about it. You are saying pay someone to DD where the circumstances are correct. OK, you also want to pay someone to cultivate where the circumstances are correct ? No. It's all a nonsense.

ELMS money on DD knowledge exchange, open days etc ? Absolutely. But that should be it.