If you would like a printed copy of any of our back issues, then they can be purchased on Farm Marketplace. You can also download the PDFs or read online from links below.
-
How To Start Drilling For £8K
Clive Bailye’s seed drill of choice is his 6m John Deere 750A , which has been used exclusively for 3-4 seasons. Last year, with an increased acreage, the founder and publisher of this Direct Driller magazine thought a second seed drill was necessary. Having just the one machine was a risk and in a difficult season would mean drilling was delayed. He looked around and found a good condition Horsch CO6 tine drill advertised in Germany.
Words and pictures by Mike Donovan
After delivery he rebuilt the coulters to a narrow profile so as to reduce soil disturbance. He says the tine drill is very useful driling after straw crops such as osr and also through the straw on second crop cereals.
Buying the drill from a German farmer was not particularly complicated, and provided him with a higher spec machine than Horsh sell in the UK. The seed dart tyres are much wider, and the machine is fitted with blockage monitors as well as full width front packers and also a liquid fert application system.
A sheaf of photos were taken, and Clive then asked for some of specific parts to show wear. The deal was done at under £5,000 which Clive says is the market value of these machines which are too large for small farmers to buy. Original owners like to buy new and sell when the machine is still in good condition.
Narrow tines with wear tiles
@Clive knew he wanted to make changes, substituting the Horsch tines and coulters for something far narrower, and has ended up getting his own design of tine made, which has a wear tile made from Ferobide, far harder than tungsten. The drill is on the farm primarily for osr and 2nd crop cereals drilled into chopped straw and the 25cm spacing is okay for these crops.
Comments on Clive’s on-line forum, TFF, said the drill many not be so good with beans, as the slot is a mere 12mm wide. And in barley the spacing may well be too wide as it needs to be thick. Clive points out that the seed pipe can actually be a bit wider than 12mm as it is in the shadow of the point. It would be good to have the option of using it for beans.
Above left: The cheap CO6 is being calibrated ready for its first outing
Above right: The adapted Horsch is being filled by the home built drill logistics trailer with seed and liquid starter fert.
Getting around the German instructions
The Horsch came, of course, with a control box and instructions in German. More on-line discussion revealed that English instructions were available on the Horsch website, and another explained that Horsch was sourcing some of these parts from Agton in Canada anyway. Zealman from New Zealand explained that the button marked with callipers should be held down for around 5 seconds. The menu is where you adjust the tramline sequence, valve layout and row numbers.
Ball hitch is a continental standard and provides a positive connection between tractor and drill
The Stocks Wizard has a rotor modified for Avadex which otherwise leaks everywhere
A Stocks Wizard is on the back of the drill and used for Avadex. Here again the knowledge of actual farmers is helpful. Alistair Nelson warned that the rotor and the surrounding shroud need to be changed, and he got good advice “from Rick at Stocks”. Clive has the same setup on the 750A and says that the Avadex leaks everywhere unless the modification is made. The drill was acquired and modified in 2016 and the results have been excellent.
The machine went through the residue without many problems and having the second drill has meant more timely planting. Clive has shown that moving into No-Till is not the expensive exercise so many farmers think it might be. The total cost, after modifications which included replacing all tines and coulters, was under £8,000.
Author Mike Donovan writes: we have featured a number of home made direct drills in @Practical Farm Ideas, and are always interested in seeing more. Please contact mike editor@farmideas.co.uk or 07778877514.
-
Future of Farming: What needs to Change?
Mike Donovan reviews the seminal Hugh Bunting Memorial Lecture given by Professor Amir Kassam titled The Future of Farming: What needs to Change?
The audience learned that, in the opinion of the professor at any rate, it was quite a lot. His concern is that agriculture has moved dangerously off course onto a path of declining productivity, and at the same time has negative impacts both ecologically and socially.
“The intensive tillage-based interventionist farming with its high and addictive dependence on agrochemical inputs and heavy machinery — is no longer fit to meet the agricultural and rural resource management needs and demands of the 21st century.”
His concern reached tipping point in 2011 when he learned of a dust storm in Germany which caused an 81 car pile-up on the autobahn, and this was after a huge 3m tonne soil plume that took off from Ukraine and dumped on Kent; and the reduction of farm wildlife; the increasing presence of pesticides in food products. His conclusion was that farming did, indeed, need to change if these problems were ever going to be addressed.
Professor Amir Kassam of Reading University
Politics, both national and international, have not helped. The UK refused to sign the EU Soil Directive, so preventing remedial changes being made across Europe. The UK’s DFID continued to fund international agricultural research in the name of poverty alleviation which does no produce sustainable production solutions. DEFRA’s “Soil Strategy for England” features a five furrow reversible plough with digger bodies, and LEAF’s document ‘Simply Sustainable Soil Solution’ for improving land sustainability displays on the cover page a picture of a plough at work. As an educator, Prof Kassam sees that agricultural students across the EU, and that includes Britain, graduate with a poor knowledge of soils and their protection and sustainable management.
Industrial agriculture with its reliance on genetics, agrochemicals in a tillage based system is one that has both fed the world and damaged the major factor of production – soil – over the past century, and has come to rely on inputs of mineral fertiliser which has resulted in the in situ loss of traditional germplasm resources.
Time off from teaching and research in 2004 gave Prof Kassam the opportunity to reflect on the wider aspects of the industry which he had spent his life, and to interpret and make sense of things that he had observed and questioned over the past five decades. He says:
My personal view and conclusion is: the root cause of our agricultural land degradation and deceasing productivity – as seen in terms of loss of soil health — is our low soil-carbon farming paradigm of intensive tillage which disrupts and debilitates many important soil-mediated ecosystem functions…” and goes on to say:
Further, I concluded that the condition of our soils was being exacerbated by: (a) applying excessive mineral fertilisers on to farm land that has been losing its ability to respond to inputs due to degradation in soil health, and (b) reducing or doing away with crop diversity and rotations (which were largely in place around the time of WWII) due to agrochemical inputs and commodity-based market forces. Furthermore, I and others determined that the situation is leading to further problems of increased threats from insect pests, diseases and weeds against which farmers are forced to apply ever more pesticides and herbicides, and which further damage biodiversity and pollute the environment.”
He notes that these ideas are not new. Edward Faulkener’s The Plowman’s Folly (published in Britain in 1943 as Ploughman’s) is uncanny in its vision, so much so we have reproduced the chapter titled “Why Plough”.
Prof Kassam says that warnings of the degradation of soil have been almost continuous since the 1940s, and No-Till or Conservation Agriculture (CA) “is an effective solution to stopping agricultural land degradation…”. The method has gained momentum in North and South America, in Australia and New Zealand, in Kazakhstan and China and in the southern African region. It has three core inter-linked principles:
• Minimising mechanical soil disturbance and seeding directly into untilled soil
• Enhancing and maintaining Carbon-rich organic matter on the soil surface using crops, cover crops or crop residues
• Diversification of species – both annual and perennials – together or in rotation sequences. This can include trees, shrubs as well as crops and pasture.system is a lead example for sustainable crop production now adopted by the FAO in their publication ‘Save and Grow’.
These fit in with the advice from the US National Soil Resources which is:
• Disturb the soil as little as possible
• Keep the surface covered throughout the year
• Have plants growing all the time
This satellite image, taken on 16 February 2014, shows how soil is washed off our fields and out into the sea.
©NEODAAS/University of DundeeOpportunities for farmers, and mankind
Against the background of rising input, food and energy costs, CA can decrease fertilizer needs by 30-50%, water needs by 20-30%, fuel consumption by 50-70%, pesticide and herbicide use by 20%. Reduced cost of production with CA is a key to better profitability and competitiveness, as well as keeping food affordable. For example, using CA on Tony Reynolds‟ farm at Thurlby, Lincolnshire (UK), crop establishment cost comparisons show that costs are £245 and £36 for traditional method and for no-till seeding respectively. Similarly, his fuel use dropped from 96 litres/ha under the traditional tillage method for land preparation and crop establishment to 42 litres/ha under the no-till method. Reynolds‟ experience of switching to CA confirms that the known advantages of CA include higher soil carbon levels and microorganism and meso fauna activity over time, minimisation or avoidance of soil erosion, the reversal of soil degradation, improved aquifer recharge due to greater density of soil biopores due to more earthworms and more extensive and deeper rooting. CA advantages also include adaptation to climate change due to increased infiltration and soil moisture storage and increased availability of soil moisture to crops, reduced runoff and flooding, and improved drought and heat tolerance by crops, and climate change mitigation through reduced emissions due to 50-70% lower fuel use, 20-50% lower fertilizer/pesticides, 50% reduction in machinery and use of smaller machines, C-sequestration of 0.05-0.2 t. ha-1. y -1 depending on the ecology and residue management, and no excess CO2 release as a result of no burning of residues.
Advantages offered by CA to small or large farmers include better livelihood and income. For the small farmer under a manual system, CA offers ultimately 50% labour saving, less drudgery, stable yields, and improved food security. To the mechanised farmers CA offers lower fuel use and less machinery and maintenance costs. To the community and society, CA offers public goods that include: less pollution, lower cost for water treatment, more-stable river flows with reduced flooding and maintenance, and cleaner air. At the landscape level, CA offers the advantages of better ecosystem services including: provision of food and clean water, regulation of climate and pests/diseases, supporting nutrient cycles, pollination, cultural recreation, conserving biodiversity, and erosion control. At the global level, the public goods are: improvements in groundwater resources, soil resources, biodiversity and climate change.
Prof Kassam concludes his talk on a positive note. The quiet no-till revolution which has been led by farmers across the world, in particular Brazil since 1971-72, has been spreading in all continents (but very slowly in UK and Europe), now accounts for 117m ha globally. The principles are better understood by the farmers who have adopted the system, and those advising them. he says that “Although agro-business money has captured government policy through controlling research and therefore our universities in the UK and mainland Europe, this can be turned into a win-win collaboration as has occurred in countries such as Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Canada, Australia/NZ and now happening in Kazakhstan, China and parts of Africa.”
The changes he would like to see include all involved to work together to gain a better understanding of no-till from both a scientific and practical point of view. He would like to see more farmers themselves being a force for change and disseminators of knowledge, and believes that funding would provide real benefits for farmers and the countryside. Integrating the three basic components into the next CAP would be hugely beneficial, as would the expansion of university courses and agri education which incorporates CA. If DEFRA, DFID and other government departments were to employ staff with knowledge of CA, and if European donor and development agencies were to adopt and disseminate its principles in their strategies, the movement in Europe could start moving at the same speed as it has in other parts of the world.
Written by Mike Donovan of @Practical Farm Ideas
-
Aqua-Till Uses a Water Jet to Open The Groove
Originally written by Frédéric Thomas – and published in TCS Magazine in August 2013
Cutting with water Ultra High Pressure (UHP) technology is rapidly developing in the industrial world. We appreciate its ability to quickly and cleanly cut virtually anything. In agriculture, the need to precisely cut is just as much as requirement and in many different situations, with one such application being opening a furrow for direct seeding. Greg Butler, one of our Australian colleagues SANTFA (South Australian No-Till Farmers Association) who has had the ingenious idea of using UHP technology. Here are his reflections and the first results of its feasibility study.
The heart of this innovative approach, patented by SANTFA, is to replace the disk opener by a UHP waterjet. This could cut waste and even opening the floor without risk of including vegetation in the furrow. Open the furrow in this way requires much less pulling power and also wear on the components. The device could be provided by manufacturers as an option or available in kit form for mounting on older seeders.
Not Just Water But Also Fertilizer
Although the technology was developed with water, other liquid products such as nitrogen fertilizers may be used in the mixture. For phosphoric acid, which may precipitate under high pressure, tests are needed to determine whether it could be used as a cutting agent for the “liquid coulter.” Although the addition of fertilizer is not fully tested, this combination would reduce the requirement to transport liquid products and double the usefulness of the application with the bonus of a precise location of fertilizer. It appears, moreover, that injecting a fertilizer in this manner increases the dispersion into the surrounding soil furrow, thus reducing the risks of toxicity while increasing efficiency. This method could be particularly interesting for often sown rapeseed varieties in the presence of a large straw mat. Moreover, this little seed is very sensitive to crop residue in the groove and young plant appreciates a bit of a boost in fertility. If chemical fertilizers can provide additional benefits, it is probably best to forget organic products, such as inoculants or other bacteria. They cannot survive the pressure in the pump, or the driving force to the nozzle outlet.The First Feasibility Tests Are Encouraging
To better assess the feasibility of this innovative idea, a series of experiments were performed in March 2011 at Flow International’s UHP Advanced Testing Facility in Jeffersonville, Indiana USA. The majority of tests were carried out at 15 km/hr; an execution speed is the maximum speed of sowing using disc systems. Depending on nozzles and pressures used, the volume of liquid needed however, is between 80 and 22 l / ha; which is an amount in line with the needs of fertilization and transportation options.
At this point, the spacing between crop rows becomes an important factor by limiting not only the number of cutting nozzles but also by reducing the volume of liquid required per hectare: standard gauge used in all calculations is 33 cm. The nozzle wear was also analyzed. Unfortunately, we are using the smallest holes, as they require the least amount of liquid, but that makes them the most susceptible to wear. Finally, the power demand can be quite important with the UHP, this was also evaluated knowing that the pump can easily be positioned directly over the tractor’s PTO with returns of 90-92% on average against 70% a hydraulic drive. It would be relatively similar to that required for the tension opener discs and the operation of the pressure and volume of water required: between 3.5 hp and 11 hp per item depending on soil conditions and depth seedlings.
In terms of cutting waste, the tests yielded the expected results: the ultra high pressure jet cuts the same straws if they are wet or positioned on clay and greasy soil. The inclusion of “hairpinning” residues as may be the case with the discs is therefore virtually non-existent with this principle.
In terms of Operation: if nozzles and average pressures are adjusted, penetration is enhanced with larger nozzles and higher pressures. However, this type of equipment and the volume of water required, approaches the limits of what can be seen in agriculture using a mobile tool.
A Great Idea With Many Agronomic Openings
After these initial laboratory tests confirmed the feasibility of this idea, if Aqua-Till is implemented on a drill, it can bring interesting agronomic benefits. Improvements to residue management from the surface of the groove (keeping trash out of the slot and away from the seed), the “coulter liquid” also may allow a significant extension of drilling windows in dry conditions where the power requirement and the wear are the limiting factors. Can when its wet, not having a mechanical element, eliminates chances of smearing, which could lead to anaerobic conditions for the germinating seed. In addition, even if the power required is similar, in proportional conditions and the same sowing depths, the “liquid coulter” requires no pulling power.The size of the tractor can therefore be reduced due to the design and build of the drill. The Aqua-till concept is perhaps best suited to Seeder drills. Certainly it is seed drills using the Aqua-till concept that are most likely to emerge in the first place. However, Greg Butler went even further in his thoughts. Using a jet under UHP to cut waste, open the fold and place the starter fertilizer, he plans to position the seeds with an “air-gun” located just behind the jet and fertilizer. The only real contact with the ground would be a small press wheel to close the hole.
Ideally, the depth control would be determined by an electro-magnetic density sensor that adjusts the working equipment according to the ground variations. Finally, the “liquid coulter” may operate continuously or synchronized with the delivery of seeds. This option would significantly reduce the volume of water required but also the power to the pump level and is particularly well suited to a Seeder and would allow us to exit the compromised “disk” and move towards seeding point by point with the additional benefit of the precise location of fertilizer: ideal for planting.
Although this idea, which is only a concept at the moment, may seem some way off, it is most definitely possible and tests are planned soon in South Australia. It also proves that technical advances such as this, as elsewhere in industry, allow us to take agricultural problems and create solutions that allow us to farm with greater ease and success.
-
Conservation Agriculture Guru Shows Secrets Of Their Success in No-Till
First published in @Practical Farm Ideas Issue #95, Issue 24-3 Autumn 2015
No-till, zero-till and conservation agriculture have subtle differences in meaning. In all of them, seeds are sown directly into the stubble and trash (or rather mulch) left by the combine. Each of these terms is there to reflect the standpoint of the user. Zero-till says “I never use any cultivation”, while No-Till is fractionally softer, so if a very light run over with a cultivator set at a few millimeters looks necessary, it will be done. The problem is that No-Till can then become ‘lighttill’ which can then damage the natural soil structure which the system relies on, as well as reducing and removing the surface trash or mulch which is such a vital part of the system. Conservation agriculture has an even wider meaning. Cornell University has the best description: ‘CA is a set of soil management practices that minimize the disruption of the soil’s structure, composition and natural biodiversity.
Despite high variability in the types of crops grown and specific management regimes, all forms of conservation agriculture share three core principles. These include: A. maintenance of permanent or semi-permanent soil cover (using either a previous crop residue or specifically growing a cover crop for this purpose); B. minimum soil disturbance through tillage (just enough to get the seed into the ground); C. regular crop rotations to help combat the various biotic constraints. CA also uses or promotes where possible or needed various management practices listed below: 1. utilisation of green manures/ cover crops (GMCC’s) to produce the residue cover; 2. no burning of crop residues; 3. integrated disease and pest management; 4. controlled/limited human and mechanical traffic over agricultural soils.
Tony Reynolds and grandson Sam who is studying at Moulton Coll and is fully engaged on the farm, cropping methods and soil biology
Why the right terminology is necessary The UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is even less definite: Conservation Agriculture (CA) is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. CA is characterised by three linked principles, namely: 1. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance. 2. Permanent organic soil cover. 3. Diversification of crop
species grown in sequences and/or associations. Britain’s farming ministry, DEFRA, has yet to connect with the phrase, favouring Sustainable Agriculture instead. If DEFRA is luke-warm, there’s a growing army of UK farmers who are keen, committed and hugely knowledgeable, and some of these are happy to impart what they know. Regular readers of this Soil+ section in PFI will have read reports on some of these, and it is true that the knowledge of these farmers exceeds that of other experts.
Zero-till has given a decade of great farming
Tony Reynolds is one of the great UK ‘daddies’ of zero-till and conservation agriculture. Over the last five years I have listened to his contribution to various conferences, sometimes have managed to share a cuppa afterwards, and have always wanted to get to see and report on his farm. This season the stars lined up and I arrived at Thurlby Grange Farm near Bourne, Lincs on an afternoon which had followed some heavy morning rain. Arable farms run on zero-tillage are never impressive. The yards and buildings are largely empty of machinery – there’s no big power around.The normal range of ploughs, cultivators, harrows, one-pass kit, tracks and large diesel tanks are just absent. So one searches in vain for signs of life, the wheels and machinery that provide the conventional energy to an arable farm. With zero-till, buildings are eerily vacant. The only machinery seems fairly modest in size, and it can give the initial impression that you’ve come to wrong farm, to a farm which does little or no work itself but leaves it all to contractors or FBT tenants.
“Wouldn’t it be better to keep this top soil on your own farm”
It was October, and the land wet, and ditches three-quarters full of brown water, as was the norm when the ADAS advisor walked the land, and came out with the question: “Wouldn’t it be better to keep this top soil on your own farm?” The question struck a chord. The farm had been in the family for generations and one of Tony’s primarily goals is to leave it in good fettle for the next. Every farmer has relatively few farming seasons and Tony had seen a gradual deterioration in soil quality as well as erosion from water and wind. Losing soil was a poor way to go about providing a legacy, and he also reasoned it was a poor way to farm as well.The question lodged in his mind, and while no big decisions were taken immediately the next spring he did no cultivations for some beans and spring barley, and for the next two years learned what he could about no-tilling.
“We tried a few different drills notilling 100 acres in one place and 200 somewhere else. Learning was not simple. Advisors in farming have always been risk averse, and colleges even more so. The farming internet was in its infancy, so contact with others more knowledgeable and interested in farming with zero-till was just not possible.” Some direct drill salesmen had experience form overseas, but to a large extent Tony was on his own. But the ADAS advisor gave another useful piece of advice “either plough it or don’t touch it.”
In 2003, after two years of experimentation, they had a farm meeting to decide whether or not to commit the farm business to zero-till. Tony’s son-inlaw Clive was already a key figure in the business and he, together with daughter Terry and others were in full agreement to make the change.
The damage of top tillage
Tony is emphatic that merely reducing soil tillage rather than eliminating it does more harm than good. Soil pores are sealed by the the finer soil particles in the disturbed stratum and consequently water infiltration is reduced, root growth is restricted and yields suffer.
Above: The quality of zero-till soil is easy to see, and smell. It provides field crops with a rooting compound that’s more horticultural than agricultural
Maintaining stubble provides drainage structure, an environment for worms and other soil creatures which improve soil condition. Roots and stubble anchor soil.
When sowing into the previous crop’s stubble, the RTK (Real Time Kinematic) global navigation satellite system now available on the farms means that the second crop (e.g. beans) can be sown precisely between the wheat stubble rows.
The system can also be used to relay drill cover crops between the lines of the growing main crop. OSR is broadcast directly, together with slug pellets if needed, by the Autocast which comprises a seed hopper attached behind the combine header; a fan and a manifold distribute seed to spreading plates and a land wheel meters the seed.
The combine used on the farm has a Shelbourne Reynolds stripper header which leaves stubble standing in the field. This speeds up combining and leaves an ideal environment for the subsequent crop (and for trapping incoming windblown soil). Crop establishment costs: Tony made a broad-brush estimate that CA crop production costs are around £30/ha compared with £266/ha for conventionally tilled crops. Some of this saving is due to lower fuel bills as diesel consumption, and the table shows the fuel use per ha since 2004-5, after zerotilling had been introduced.Crop yields: It is to be expected that soils damaged by conventional tillage will need time to heal and re-establish their natural structure of aggregates, pores and channels; and this has been Tony’s experience. Yields in year one after adopting CA were not noticeably lower, however years two to five may show a dip until pre-switch levels were re-achieved in year 6. From then on yields continued to rise before stabilising in year eight at a level higher than year zero. Tony continues to investigate why this yield dip in years 2 to 5 occurs on some soils but not others.
Earthworms are crucial to the soil rehabilitation process and their numbers quickly rise under a no-till and residue retention regime (Figure 6). Tony has made some measurements and he found 47 earthworms in one sample of his notill soil, whereas his neighbour, on the other side of the fence and with the same soil but ploughed each cropping season, had only one worm in the same volume of soil. The average worm count on the farm is between 80 and 90 under an area of 1m2, the aim is to achieve 140-150/ m2.
Soil Carbon Levels: During the soil recuperation process, and beyond, soil carbon levels have continued to rise. The soil organic carbon (SOC) levels were measured by the Uni of Reading as:
2003 – 2.1% (low)
2007 – 4.6% (good)
2014 – 6.3% (v good)SOC indicates soil fertility and so levels of P and K application have fallen by 80% each and N by 50% over the same period.
The effects on the two big arable problems
Blackgrass: one of the most difficult and costly problems of arable farms in the UK. Tony explained how a no- till regime can reduce its incidence. Eighty percent of blackgrass seeds die in the
soil in year one and so, if there is no soil inversion, the mortality rate in year two will be eighty percent of the remaining twenty percent. No-till in conjunction with judicious application of Atlantis (iodosulfuro+mesosulfuron) at 0.4kg/ha has controlled blackgrass on the farm.
GPS mapping is used throughout the farms for soil fertility and crop yields. It is also useful for mapping patches of troublesome weeds so that they can be dealt with selectively, rather than overdosing areas with no weed problems.
Slugs: Zero-till helps to control slugs in a number of ways. Slugs need a diet of rotting material and so seedlings growing in soil with low organic matter have no alternative feed for the slugs. In addition, worms like to eat slug eggs, so a high worm population helps, and the same is true for ground beetles, which
Wheat drilled on Sept 17 looks on the way to doing well
need a greater number of eggs. There’s a balance created naturally, rather than a dependence on pelleting.
The benefits of good record keeping
Readers have to thank Tony for his consistent record keeping over the seasons which both preceded and followed the change to zero-till. The numbers provide evidence like nothing else.
The experience which others had suggested that the conversion of the farm might take six years, and there was an obvious need to reduce the financial impact of this, and so they developed a six year plans for light, medium and heavy soils. In the first years of no cultivation the soil, low in organic matter and with few worms, bacteria and so on, will show poorer than normal fertility. So to counteract this they increased both seed and fertiliser rates to bridge the gap between soils being conditioned mechanically and then being conditioned with natural processes using surface mulch, worms etc. Fig 1. shows the changes they planned and enacted starting in 2003.
Seed Drills
With 2,000ha to drill on three separate farms there’s a chance to have different drills working at the same time. This season the home farm with 500 acres had a new Weaving GD 4800T which works on 24m tramlines and is pulled with a Case 140hp, and a similar 6m drilled 860ha on another farm for 30m tramlines. “The Weaving is the biggest advance in conservation agriculture for the past three generations.” He says the sharply angled double disc opener works very effectively, and cuts through straw and surface material, causing less soil disturbance than he’s seen with other drills. Less disturbance means fewer weed seeds being lifted to the surface so they germinate, and the surface mulch remains in place to speed soil biology. The double disc provides accurate seed placement and seed depth is easy to adjust.But it is perhaps the way the slot is closed which is the neatest part of all. With the slot at an angle of 25 degrees the tyred press wheel closes it by pressing down on top. The wheel acts as a depth wheel and the angle of the main disc is such that there’s a downward draught force. Discs can smear in wet ground, but whether this will be better than other discs such as the John Deere 750A or not is difficult to say.
Tony is really enthusiastic about the machine and farmers will find the sub £30k price for the 3 metre appealing, as they will the low cost of parts.
The 4.8 metre Weaving GD 4800T is sowning at 6.5 inches. Tony would prefer 8in.
Autocasting Oil Seed Rape
Tony is a big fan of autocasting – featured first in Practical Farm Ideas in Vol 4 – 4 (winter 1995-6) and produced this cost comparison table in fig 2.Autocasting works well with well established zero-tilled land. The soil has a highly fertile surface, and the undisturbed soil is friable and good for the plant to root deeply. The seed gets put directly onto the soil surface and is covered with chaff and chopped straw. covered as the combine passes over and the seed is on the cleared strip between header and the seed covered with straw as the combine passes over.
Soil Quality
Sampling for the main plant nutrients has been done by Soyl and a comparison made over the years and the maps show a rising level of P and K, and none has been bought in for the past 8 years.Earthworms clearly make a major difference to soil quality, and are essential if they are used as a cultivation tool.
Soil tillage methods and earthworms: Perhaps the most interesting is how close the reduced tillage land is to conventional ploughing and cultivating. Farmers might expect worms to be far more numerous if the soil is vertically tilled, yet the major difference is when no tillage is done at all. Worms create their systems of runs over years, can get to breeding. The worm has both male and female organs (hermaphrodites) and these are located in segments 9 to 15. When mating they get together with heads pointing in opposite directions and sperm is exchanged and stored in sacs. Eggs are laid around 27 days after mating, and populations can double in 60 days in worm farm conditions.
Fig. 3 compares worm distribution in conventional, reduced tillage and zero tillage soils.
Originally written and pictures by Mike Donovan – and published in @Practical Farm Ideas Magazine 24.3
-
Plowman’ s Folly – Part 1
By Edward H. Faulkner With a Foreword by S. Graham Brade-Birks M.Sc. (Manc.), D.Sc. (Lond.), of the SouthEastern Agricultural College (University of London), Wye, Kent. First published 1945
Traditions of the Plough
The answer to the question, Why do farmers plough? should not be difficult to arrive at. Ploughing is almost universal. Farmers like to plough. If they did not get pleasure from seeing the soil turn turtle, knowing the while that by ploughing they dispose of rubbish that would later interfere with planting and cultivation, less ploughing might be done. Yet farmers are encouraged to plough. Deep ploughing is approved; or, in lieu of deep ploughing, farmers are advised to cut deep into the subsoil in every furrow. Such advice comes from farm papers, bulletins, county agents, and a long list of other sources from which farmers commonly welcome suggestions and information.
There should be clear-cut scientific reasons to justify a practice so unanimously approved and recommended. If there are such reasons I have failed to find them in more than twenty-five years of search. As early as 1912, when my classmates and I were taking courses in soil management and farm machinery, we brought up the subject, quizzing professors as to why ploughing, rather than a method of surface incorporation, should be the generally accepted practice in breaking the soil. A number of answers were offered, none, however, of a scientific nature; in the end some embarrassed instructors had to admit they knew no really scientific reasons for ploughing.
They suggested that the most important justifications for the practice might be that it “turned over a new leaf” for the farmer by the complete burial of preceding crop residues, thus leaving the land free from obstructions to future movements of planting and cultivating machinery. Our experience was not unique. The editor of one of the leading American farm papers has this to say in a letter written to me on August 5, 1937: “It is a subject I became interested in about eighteen years ago. I made a two-thousand-mile trip among soil specialists and farmers and everywhere asked the question: Why do you plough? I was rather amazed at the unsatisfactory answers I received. Apparently farmers do not really know. When I summed up the answers it seemed that they had only one good reason for ploughing, and that was to get rid of weeds.” (Philip S. Rose, then editor of the Country Gentleman.) That there may be good reason to doubt whether the plough does even that is indicated in an article in the January, 1941, issue of this same publication, in which one writer points out that ploughing may preserve for future germination more weed seeds than it destroys.
In all truth, the ultimate scientific reason for the use of the plough has yet to be advanced. My own position, however, has already been advanced in earlier pages of this book. If I were advising farmers on the subject of ploughing, my categorical statement would be Don’t — and for that position there is really scientific warrant. A brief review of the reasons frequently given for ploughing will give opportunity to point out the error involved in each. An administrative officer in the department of agriculture of one of the New England states suggests in a letter that ploughing is designed to allow oxygen to reach the roots of plants; he suggests, too, that ploughed soil will not dry out so rapidly as unbroken soil. His reasons seem to cancel each other, indicating that he had not considered these two suggested effects simultaneously. Letting air into the soil is an efficient way of drying it out, particularly that portion which is disturbed. Since the roots of crops must develop first in this inverted (and necessarily dried) section of soil, it seems that my correspondent really gave a good reason for not ploughing.
This idea — that it is necessary to let oxygen into the soil — has been in circulation for many years. It seems that those who pass it on do not pause to examine its implications. In a world organized as this one is, air is all pervading, except where something else fills the space. There is considerable space throughout all soils from the surface down to the level of ground water. Part of it is filled with capillary water, which clings to the rock fragments themselves; but since the spaces are too large for capillary water to fill them completely, air must fill the rest. When the water table rises, this air is forced out of the soil; when it recedes again, the air re-enters. (Water table is the name given to the level of water in any sponge-like saturated pervious rock below the surface of the ground. The level rises and falls in response to seasons of great or little rainfall. This ground water is the source of supply for perennial streams and springs. It is literally filtered water, since it has to pass through several feet of soil before reaching this low level. Streams supplied entirely from the water table are, therefore, clear at all times. Farm wells must be dug deeper than the lowest level to which the water table ever falls, or they become dry during long continued droughts.) It might be objected that more oxygen is required in the soil than can enter the undisturbed mass.
Perhaps. In that case we should study the undisturbed forest floor. The surface of the soil where the giant sequoias grow was suitable for their needs a thousand years before the mouldboard plough was invented. It is not thinkable that such giants could have developed in the absence of an optimum amount of oxygen in the soil. It must be, then, that growing plants do not require more oxygen in the soil than naturally enters it in the absence of water. There may be extreme situations, for example, where the soil has been excessively compacted by the trampling of animals or people, requiring special treatment. It is not clear, however, that ploughing would be the right treatment. The freezing and thawing of soil in winter usually assists a well tramped path to grow up in vegetation the following season, unless the use of the path is continued. Ordinarily the publications of the government and of the various state institutions can be quoted freely. The information they carry is designed for public use, and wide distribution is desirable.
Ohio State University’s Agricultural Extension Bulletin No. 80 is the only exception to this rule I have seen. It was copyrighted in 1928 and reprinted in June, 1940, still retaining the copyright. The reprinting of this bulletin justifies the assumption that its contents are still considered correct. Significantly, along with other government and state publications as well as the books on soils of the last decade or two, it takes for granted that the farmer knows why he ploughs. The letterpress then proceeds to describe “good” ploughing as the complete burial of all “trash” — so complete that none is exposed even between the furrow slices. This, therefore, may be taken as the more or less official point of view. Various books on agricultural subjects published around 1910 do give what may be considered hypothetical reasons for ploughing. Most of them are vague enough to be interpreted in a number of ways. Here is a list:
a) Soil structure is made either more open or more compact.
b) Retention and movement of water are affected.
c) Aeration is altered.
d) Absorption and retention of heat are influenced.
e) The growth of organisms is either promoted or retarded.
f) The composition of the soil solution is affected.
g) The penetration of plant roots is influenced.This list was compiled from a single paragraph of a well-known soil text which was written in 1909. Though the authors did not realize it at the time, it is a bit of literary skating around a highly dangerous subject. The intent, apparently, was not so much to give information as to indicate in what various categories the student might expect to find it. The implied assumption is that ploughing improves the soil as environment for plant roots. The practice could scarcely be justified otherwise. Just how this improvement is accomplished is left wholly to the bewildered student’s imagination. And while he is trying to rationalize this puzzle he is likely to conclude that, if ploughing really does improve the soil as a site for plants, the vegetation growing so lush on unploughed land must be to some extent underprivileged. Of course, even an astute student may miss that angle. It is obvious that most of us did.
Assuming ploughed land to be better for plant growth, we should find grass growing more freely on ploughed land than on similar unploughed land near by. Weeds, too, should show preference for ploughed land. Volunteer growth should take over and develop more rankly after land has been ploughed than before. Is this so? Observation is that, until ploughed land has subsided again to its former state of firmness, plants develop in it quite tardily, if at all. When dry weather follows the ploughing, it may be weeks or even months before either natural vegetation or a planted crop will make normal growth. The fact is that “bare” land, which notably erodes worse than soil in any other condition, consists almost wholly of land that has been disturbed recently by plough or cultivating implement. The only other bare land is that which has been denuded of top soil by erosion or other forces.
There is significance in the fact that erosion and runoff are worst on bare land, and that bare land is defined above. Take a casual glance at the landscape. Not only does the unploughed land continue to support its growth nicely while the ploughed land is recovering its ability to promote growth, but even the margins of the ploughed field itself continue to support their growth. Such evidence causes the argument that ploughing produces a better environment for plant roots to backfire. The loosening up, pulverizing, and inversion process seems a first-rate way to make good soil incapable of performing its normal functions in plant growth. The explosive separation of the soil mass wrecks temporarily all capillary connections; the organic matter sandwiched in further extends the period of sterility of the soil because of dryness. Therefore, it is not strange that ploughed soil is bare. Before it is ploughed, grass, weeds, and other vegetation grow normally because there is unbroken capillary contact from particle to particle, extending from the water table to the surface.
After ploughing, this source of water is completely cut off until the organic matter at the ploughsole has decayed. Hence the soil simply takes time out from its business of growing things until its normal water supply is restored. There is no mystery about it. It is only the working out of natural law. Wishful thinking is peculiarly ineffective in preventing this undesired outcome of ploughing.Another objectionable feature of ploughing is the merciless trowelling administered by the mouldboard to that portion of the furrow slice which is brought from the ploughsole and exposed to wind and sunshine. The effect is not noticeable, and probably not damaging, if the soil to the full depth of ploughing is dry enough to crumble; but in these days, when all soils seem to become more troublesome to handle, it is seldom that spring ploughing can be done early enough, if the farmer waits for the wet spots to dry out to a sufficient depth. Too often in his haste to get the year’s work started, he rushes into the ploughing while the soil glistens as it leaves the mouldboard. Some men even plough when water follows them in the furrow. Such management of the soil certainly is playing fast and loose with resources which the soil might contribute to crop growth.