An dropped today?I heard this morning via a lorry driver that a certain fert plan was so full of blue bags that they were stacked everywhere.
Oh. and AN has dropped £40/t this morning.
There's going to be murder commited if it has.
An dropped today?I heard this morning via a lorry driver that a certain fert plan was so full of blue bags that they were stacked everywhere.
Oh. and AN has dropped £40/t this morning.
That all sounds like a lot of nothing to me.If you think (and I do) that we are headed for a complete omnishambles that optimistically will be very bad and pessimistically will bring about significant damage to our current civil society the surely one must consider what to do to prepare. Take the maxim 'See, Judge, Act' and we are certainly seeing all sorts of breakdowns to normal service, then it seems equally obvious that most of what we are seeing can be judged to be injurious to what has until recently been normal service, there fore logically and if one has the courage of ones convictions one must act. I find myself thinking that any sort of blame or pointing fingers is now irrelevant, all that will count from here on is how and what we choose to do?
Actually the exhaust from Adblue catalytically reduced diesel exhaust consists of C02, water vapour and nitrogen gas, not ammonia. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our air and I seriously doubt whether that emitted by 'clean' exhausts make even a tiny jot of difference."Somehow", pollution only occurs in Cities.
We don't see harmful pollution in the countryside - yet "Ammonia" "Somehow" combines with "Chemicals" in Cities and produces pollution.
I think they mean Cities are polluted and Ammonia - which is emitted by AdBlue vehicles - makes it "Worse".
Regardless, it's a cows fault.
Yes and no. It depends what output you want /need.Is bagged fertiliser essential?
Genuinely don't know the answer but before artificial fertiliser were farms soil health rapidly declining as they were always taking from the land?I do mixed farming, but you still have to bring nutrients into the cycle somewhere, for as long as you are exporting it as agricultural output.
Even muck doesn’t come from nowhere, and contains less nutrients than what you put into it (unless your animals aren’t productive in any way).
You surely don't want to go to the cost of enclosing arable fields, building and spending on the infrastructure needed for animals and the muck they produce and indeed the extra pollution that extra ruminants would produce for the sake of ever so slightly less factory total N application?Yes and no. It depends what output you want /need.
I would say that in the UK 25-50% of N use is “not essential” and could be better used by the world elsewhere!
I am a lazy no-till arable farmer, but in my heart of hearts I know that a well integrated mixed farm, efficiently cycling nutrients would be much better environmentally.
But much harder work and I think in recent history less economically rewarding if family labour is costed in properly.
Cheap artificial inputs especially N allow arable to work as a standalone enterprise, limit them too much and you start to need lots of unproductive fertility building phases in your crop rotation.
Probably the opposite as they had to have livestock manures, grass rotation and often fallow with green manures such as clover.Genuinely don't know the answer but before artificial fertiliser were farms soil health rapidly declining as they were always taking from the land?
On the whole yes. During and after the War, massive effort was put in to increase land's fertility and crop yields with EHF's [experimental husbandry farms] wholly paid for by the taxpayer, finding new ways to maximise production potential and educating farmers on all aspects of doing so. Massive increases were made in land fertility and crop breeding to efficiently utilise the increased fertility, along with mechanisation and chemical pest control to better farm efficiency and produce food cheaper.Genuinely don't know the answer but before artificial fertiliser were farms soil health rapidly declining as they were always taking from the land?
If I wanted to do it, I would be doing it! So no, I would rather not. That doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge that in pure agronomic terms, without significant artificial inputs it is a superior system.You surely don't want to go to the cost of enclosing arable fields, building and spending on the infrastructure needed for animals and the muck they produce and indeed the extra pollution that extra ruminants would produce for the sake of ever so slightly less factory total N application?
Farmers couldnt go wrong with Tom Williams as minister of ag then.On the whole yes. During and after the War, massive effort was put in to increase land's fertility and crop yields with EHF's [experimental husbandry farms] wholly paid for by the taxpayer, finding new ways to maximise production potential and educating farmers on all aspects of doing so. Massive increases were made in land fertility and crop breeding to efficiently utilise the increased fertility, along with mechanisation and chemical pest control to better farm efficiency and produce food cheaper.
All that is now being undone it seems to me.
There are still massive areas of farmland that are being farmed 'traditionally' or have regressed to being that way. These areas produce next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Most of the food is produced by the proportion of farmers that are professional and manage their land rather intensively with relatively high input and high output of clean quality produce.
Some might say, some might not!!I don’t suppose you’re a proper mixed farmer are you Mr B!?
But 'they' are aiming to reduce or eliminate the livestock that we think are beneficial because they are apparently gross polluters of both the air and water and probably even the seas. Even their leather is no longer viewed as being 'sustainable' with 'vegan leather' or plastic as we used to call it, apparently being preferable. It's become a strange world indeed.If I wanted to do it, I would be doing it! So no I would rather not, that doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge that in pure agronomic terms, without significant artificial inputs it is a superior system.
We were a mixed(ish) farm up until about 25 years ago. (You could argue about how well the livestock and arable enterprises were integrated, but we were a mixed farm)
When (from another thread) their figures show that 211 portions of meat equals 1 car on the road for a year, and yet UK Ag in total is only responsible for ¼ of total emissions from UK transport, it is quite easy to see that simply “they” have got their accounting system wrong.But 'they' are aiming to reduce or eliminate the livestock that we think are beneficial because they are apparently gross polluters of both the air and water and probably even the seas. Even their leather is no longer viewed as being 'sustainable' with 'vegan leather' or plastic as we used to call it, apparently being preferable. It's become a strange world indeed.
Consider the amount of cereal straw, that is otherwise fertiliser for either the grower or a livestock farmer, that is currently going up in smoke along with all the maize that goes into digesters to create electricity rather than feed people [directly or indirectly].
You wouldn’t be implying the the biggest problem is nutrient loss through people, would you?It's a non issue, less than 2% of arable land is used for all types of biofuel.
And, for every ton of nutrient that goes into a digester, the same comes out the back and is returned to where it came from. Which is not the case with arable and vegetable crops.