Will's Interesting Links Page

[SilliamWhale]

i think you will find we are more like this now

 

[dontknowanything]

i think you will find we are more like this now

View attachment 53392

I thought that was the Cross Slot tribe?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Nah, these are the cross slot boys

 

[dontknowanything]

Nah, these are the cross slot boys
View attachment 53394

 

[dontknowanything]

Nah, these are the cross slot boys
View attachment 53394

what on earth did you search for to find that picture? Or is it from the private collection?

 

[SilliamWhale]

what on earth did you search for to find that picture? Or is it from the private collection?

Actually its been all over the UK recently. They are from TOWIE and been in the paper etc. I didn't have to go far to find it.

 

[Feldspar]

My main reason is nothing to with carbon but its about reducing soil erosion, reducing establishment fixed costs and about developing a more resilient and flexible cropping system. ie you can go out in an afternoon and establish 40 acres of crops if the weather suits and you can grow a range of crops seeding from August to May throughout the year (rape, wheat, barley, grass, beans, swedes, linseed)

I think the hand wringing about needing data and research for this and that isn't as relevant if you decide that your going to start no tilling and stop ploughing for your crops over the longer term. That's the system you choose and that's how you make it work for you. Its obvious to me that I don't get such bad erosion, I don't have to spend so much on diesel and steel and that I'm perfectly capable of getting 4t/acre of Wheat, 1.75t/acre rape and 3.5t winter barley with no till crops.

Will I always make the most money each year? Probably no, not every year. Will I have a chance of getting some excellent crops for lower environemental and economic input? Yes.

For sure you can choose to adopt whatever system you like. Personally I'd quite like to know what is likely to happen wrt SOM / SOC without having to change my entire system and then wait for 20 years before I can draw a conclusion. Much better to get others to do the work for you.

If you take away the SOM / SOC issue then a lot of the reason you seem to be no-tilling is because it saves you money. A good reason if you ask me but that's what Clive keeps saying should not be the reason for no-till.

On the fuel front and how it relates to environmental impact, just remember that fuel forms a very small amount of your farm's impact when compared to fertiliser. If you save a bit of money on fuel but have your yields drop a bit for the same fertiliser use, your environmental performance will be far worse.

Also, what you're capable of getting is not the important metric. It's your (average) performance relative to other options that's key. If I got 6 t/ac every 30 years and then 1 t/ac in the other 29 years I don't think I'd be too happy.

 

[dontknowanything]

I think the hand wringing about needing data and research for this and that isn't as relevant if you decide that your going to start no tilling and stop ploughing for your crops over the longer term. That's the system you choose and that's how you make it work for you.

There is no proper research for the UK, and there will not be any results for at least the next decade, even if someone started the trials now. That is exactly why I posted last night, as I do not believe cherry picking [no pun intended @martian !] favourable research from other climates is sensible or relevant.

Deciding no-till is the best system for your farm is exactly the same as deciding a CS is the best drill. The marketing material will give the impression everything is great, but there is much more to it than that. Both take faith to believe in at this point in time.

Me? I think CA is the way to go, but I want a balanced debate, not two polar opposites saying GOOD or BAD

 

[Clive]

this is what I was trying to get across on the other thread, there is no model or evidence that proves zero-till is either right or wrong for my farm. The only way I will find out is to JFDI !

trying wont bankrupt me, if it doesn't work I can always go back to how we were

 

[dontknowanything]

this is what I was trying to get across on the other thread, there is no model or evidence that proves zero-till is either right or wrong for my farm. The only way I will find out is to JFDI !

trying wont bankrupt me, if it doesn't work I can always go back to how we were

A commendable attitude for sure, but I think you will take a lot of convincing that it doesn't work on your farm? Fair?

 

[Clive]

A commendable attitude for sure, but I think you will take a lot of convincing that it doesn't work on your farm? Fair?

Would take no convincing at all if I had seen lower yields or failed crops I would be the first to say it didn't work. I would stop and go back to my old system before I went bust !

I can only report what I have seen so far which despite 2 quite tricky years have been good results, soils that seem better, lower fixed costs and increased timeliness etc

The theory about water infiltration and conservation make sense to me and don't really need trails to prove to me basic physical effects like that.

If that changes I won't pretend it hasn't but at this point I find it hard to see what's going to suddenly go wrong ?

 

[dontknowanything]

at this point I find it hard to see what's going to suddenly go wrong ?

I'd imagine that's exactly what was said 50 years ago when people got rid of their animals and started ploughing everything up: win win situation.

I don't put too much faith in myself to be able to predict a complex system over the long term. BUT this should not be used as an excuse to not do anything new.

To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.

 

[Clive]

I'd imagine that's exactly what was said 50 years ago when people got rid of their animals and started ploughing everything up: win win situation.

I don't put too much faith in myself to be able to predict a complex system over the long term. BUT this should not be used as an excuse to not do anything new.

Things will of course change - I would be very surprised if we are still using tractors as we know them just 20 years from now, gm will change rotation etc and I can see automated spot spraying of weeds by tiny machines being the big next game changer

I will try all I'm sure and if they work they will become part of my system which will constantly evolve as agriculture always has

 

[SilliamWhale]

For sure you can choose to adopt whatever system you like. Personally I'd quite like to know what is likely to happen wrt SOM / SOC without having to change my entire system and then wait for 20 years before I can draw a conclusion. Much better to get others to do the work for you.

If you take away the SOM / SOC issue then a lot of the reason you seem to be no-tilling is because it saves you money. A good reason if you ask me but that's what Clive keeps saying should not be the reason for no-till.

On the fuel front and how it relates to environmental impact, just remember that fuel forms a very small amount of your farm's impact when compared to fertiliser. If you save a bit of money on fuel but have your yields drop a bit for the same fertiliser use, your environmental performance will be far worse.

Also, what you're capable of getting is not the important metric. It's your (average) performance relative to other options that's key. If I got 6 t/ac every 30 years and then 1 t/ac in the other 29 years I don't think I'd be too happy.

Yes I understand your point. But to me its also about what direction to point in broadly. I have always said its threefold for me - economic, ecological and social. Economic is important, I want to establish crops at the lowest cost with the lowest investment I can think of. Ecological - I want to find ways of keeping erosion to the minimum and infiltration to the maximum, I also like to retain what I can on the surface for my soil creatures which are the messengers for plant fertility - artifical and natural; and Social - I don't want to sit on a tractor too much and spend too much time establishing crops that don't need it.

So I feel with no till in the absence of any research evidence I'm still "pointing in the direction" so to speak of lower costs, high yields, a more resilient environment - and possibly an improving one whilst reducing some fossil fuel input or at least using them more efficiently for less time spent.

I know I can get yields every bit as good or better than conventional, I know I can do this with less herbicides some years. The challenge remains to get a little bit more consistency out of all the crops I grow (I've had a whinge about spring barley in the past but it does look nice now) and more experience to know what works when and how. No Till is not an excuse for lower yields but I'm willing to make mistakes and lose a bit of money making mistakes as long as its not too much and I don't make the same mistake twice.

 

[SilliamWhale]

A commendable attitude for sure, but I think you will take a lot of convincing that it doesn't work on your farm? Fair?

It all depends what goes wrong doesn't it. If something is not performing as expected you have to find the reason for it, if you just say "ah doesn't work, told you so, lets go back ploughin'" you haven't learnt what went wrong and where.

And find the reason and find if its fixable. Mechanical? Agronomic? Personal Attitude? Education and Knowledge? Soil drainage? etc. etc. There is always a reason, find it, fix it, puff chest out and crack on.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Things will of course change - I would be very surprised if we are still using tractors as we know them just 20 years from now, gm will change rotation etc and I can see automated spot spraying of weeds by tiny machines being the big next game changer

I will try all I'm sure and if they work they will become part of my system which will constantly evolve as agriculture always has

And also when we change, we change from the change we don't often tend to change back to the situation before we changed from the change.

We tend to judge new ideas in the context of what we know about old ones and whilst its understandable that we do, it doesn't have to be like this. Life and progress isn't about linear development from beginning to an acheivable end, its more a spiral whereby we build on old ideas and bring new ones in besides the older ones, sometimes in the context of old ones and sometimes new contexts evolve - sustainability is one, sort of.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I'd imagine that's exactly what was said 50 years ago when people got rid of their animals and started ploughing everything up: win win situation.

I don't put too much faith in myself to be able to predict a complex system over the long term. BUT this should not be used as an excuse to not do anything new.

Solve one set of problems and another comes along.

Just because we got rid of smallpox doesn't mean we stopped disease. People die of something else instead.

Sometimes you can only really deal with what's in front of you (which at the moment in your case, is probably an extremely large hamburger and fries, and weak budweiser)

 

[Knockie]

Not been on for a few days, so playing catch up. I haven't read all the links and files in detail so sorry if I've missed the point.
Very simply......which is the way I think.......I'm sure we all agree that no till favours the conditions that allow soil biology to thrive. This increase in soil life will consume more SOM, if nothing else in the system changes other than the lack of tillage the SOM will decrease due to increase in soil life.
Take a grass field chuck a few beasts on it......they will do ok......chuck some more on and overstock it......they will not do so well, some might die......what next?......put some fertiliser on (cover crop in the case of feeding soil) or chuck a few bales of hay in (compost/muck in the case of feeding soil).... Not sure if that makes sense! No Till (without adequately feeding the soil biology) could lead to overstocking of the soil with life leading to drop in SOM.
Could Carbon "burn" caused by cultivations be similar to Carbon "use" caused by increased soil life in No Till?
SD.

 

[Feldspar]

Yes I understand your point. But to me its also about what direction to point in broadly. I have always said its threefold for me - economic, ecological and social. Economic is important, I want to establish crops at the lowest cost with the lowest investment I can think of. Ecological - I want to find ways of keeping erosion to the minimum and infiltration to the maximum, I also like to retain what I can on the surface for my soil creatures which are the messengers for plant fertility - artifical and natural; and Social - I don't want to sit on a tractor too much and spend too much time establishing crops that don't need it.

So I feel with no till in the absence of any research evidence I'm still "pointing in the direction" so to speak of lower costs, high yields, a more resilient environment - and possibly an improving one whilst reducing some fossil fuel input or at least using them more efficiently for less time spent.

I know I can get yields every bit as good or better than conventional, I know I can do this with less herbicides some years. The challenge remains to get a little bit more consistency out of all the crops I grow (I've had a whinge about spring barley in the past but it does look nice now) and more experience to know what works when and how. No Till is not an excuse for lower yields but I'm willing to make mistakes and lose a bit of money making mistakes as long as its not too much and I don't make the same mistake twice.

This all seems very sensible.

Just so we're clear, I'd like no-till to work as much as anyone. I dislike ploughing and am rubbish at it too; I hate pressing with considerable vigour and so does my back; I am not a fan of ruts; I would much prefer it if the fuel lorry arrived less often; and buying metal for machines which you think aren't even necessary is quite irritating.

That said, I would like to be clear on what I can and cannot expect, and I think this discussion has been useful in that respect. I do also see people (not on here), who have nailed their colours to the mast, finding it difficult to adjust when things clearly aren't working totally perfectly because it involves a bit of a climb-down. That's only human nature but it does occur.

 

[SilliamWhale]

This all seems very sensible.

Just so we're clear, I'd like no-till to work as much as anyone. I dislike ploughing and am rubbish at it too; I hate pressing with considerable vigour and so does my back; I am not a fan of ruts; I would much prefer it if the fuel lorry arrived less often; and buying metal for machines which you think aren't even necessary is quite irritating.

That said, I would like to be clear on what I can and cannot expect, and I think this discussion has been useful in that respect. I do also see people (not on here), who have nailed their colours to the mast, finding it difficult to adjust when things clearly aren't working totally perfectly because it involves a bit of a climb-down. That's only human nature but it does occur.

I can totally understand your point of view. The only thing I have to manage is my two small blocks of land whereby you have more to deal with and probably more variables and some restrictions.

But I ploughed one field last year and one the year before. I was a bit annoyed about it but I got closer to the reasons why when something goes wrong. I don't feel it as a climb down, I'm comitted to making it work, happy to admit if I've made a mistake and I don't get too upset about making a mistake. I wish I had someone to guide me all the time who has experience of no till for 30 years but we don't, all I've got are the people on here, a chat with Simon Chiles now and again to get some ideas and the odd email to someone from abroad. But I've also seen enough to get a pretty good gut feeling that I think it can still continue to work long term. Remember though we don't have much history or experience to go on, its still fairly new really. We get no help apart from what you find on the net about the best way to manage things.

Last years example was where I drilled spring barley into WW stubble and only rounduped it 2 days before apart from a 5 acre piece which was drilled 7 days later when I was waiting for seed. The difference was very very marked. The 2 day stuff was terrible and hardly germinated at all where the contractors combine had not spread the chaff which was inhibiting germination of barley. So I had allelopathy or pythium nibbling away at a second cereal in a very cold spring. The 5 acre patch recovered ok to do 2t/acre but I won't make the mistake again.

The year before was a field that was permanent set aside for years before and I stupidly decided to grow spring rape after winter barley and left a very very weedy stubble. The spring rape inevitably failed and the old man was so mad (he doesn't really like no till much he believes in the "correctness" of the plough to be honest and still half waiting around for another mistake so he can plough again) he ploughed it and we put stubble turnips in. It was horribly grassweedy though. On reflection I think I could have no tilled turnips or beans in quite nicely but spring rape is a fussy one. I don't plan on making that mistake again either.

My first no till field is now at 10 years anniversary - no subsoiling, no nothing, and its a lovely field of beans this year. Don't see why I shouldn't get another 10 years out of it BUT I will say I'm finding rotation more important than ever and no way would I expect to be able grow wheat n rape alone.