One for Jack I saw a very old thread last night where you mentioned your experiances from yesteryear where clover was grown in mixture with cereals. I dont know about what results you might of had, but i do know why yields might not have been as good as one might expect. The problem is that the clover only generates its 'organic' nitrate at a very slow rate THROUGHOUT its life. The cereal is essentially a grass; once spring arrives, the soil tempreture rises and the sun shines. The cereal begins to grow rapidly, and needs a lot of nitrate in a short 'burst'. The clover will not be able to meet this demand and so growth will be restricted from them on; the cereal now suffering from sub-optimum levels of nitrate availibility. The scientists i mentioned earlier had much to say about this. He argued that the application of 'raw' mineral fertilisers was identical to natural situations where grass would be found growing in isolated pockets in high forestry (remember that the UK was pretty much a giant woodland at one time). Grass would only grow when light became availible; i.e where a tree fell down. The tree would rot down and release a flush of N at once in a short period of time, and thus be picked up by the grass and other vegatation; the same as if i applied N fert. The point is that legumes might work but it is best for nitrate to be made availible for crops WHEN they require it. Legumes generate N in a continual trickle which may be detrimental to the environment, since such N might leach like its inorganic counterpart. Also, do not believe that 'organic' Nitrate is any better (or different) from chemically produced Nitrate. They are the same thing. Plants dont care where that nitrate ion comes from. Mayo PS It is generally accepted that organic yields are lower, the extent depending on the crop. Leake at CWS4,(25) reported in direct comparison that wheat, beans and peas yields were 60-70% whereas oats were 85% conventional yields. Boarded Barns(3) routinely found organic wheat yields about 50%. Such yield differences indicates a waste of good farmland which could easily be more profitably employed in woodland, in willow plantations for biofuel or returning it to other natural conditions such as fenland. The considerations are much more important overseas where growing populations using inefficient organic agriculture (as recommended by Greenpeace amongst others) will simply cut down more tropical forest to feed the growing population. Currently for example Mexican peasants destroy 3 million acres of virgin tropic forest /year to slash-and-burn agriculture. No form of agriculture is natural (all rely on preventing forest succession) but the nearest to nature is no-till which mimics the annual cycle of the meadow or prairie. Agriculture tends in one sense to mimic the effects of individual tree loss in forests. When a mature tree falls over, light penetrates the forest floor, there is flush of nitrate and water in the soil and weed seeds which are light and nitrate sensitive germinate. Most crops are derived from weeds although their germination requirements for nitrate and light have been bred out. Agriculturalists mimic tree loss by clearing ground and the claim that nitrate is an unnatural fertiliser by organic acolytes is contradicted by this perfectly natural process. In a further chapter(28) entitled "Does the supply of available nitrogen restrict organic productivity" the authors have to come to a very obvious conclusion. Canopy development in late spring (mainly leaf production) requires sudden heavy sources of nitrate (synchrony in N availability) to produce protein for chloroplasts and photosynthesis. A process that ploughs in material which is only slowly degraded over many months or even years cannot release minerals in a short intense burst as required for plant growth. This is the great benefit of applying soluble minerals-with care they can be applied precisely when needed. The evidence indicates that although organic soils may contain substantial levels of purported nitrogen, the plant acts as though only a fifth or thereabouts is actually available for growth. Measurement published from Rothamsted over a five year period comparing organic and conventional farms found the five year average of nitrate release into water ways to be identical(30). A further chapter in Soil Use and Management found that "nitrate losses following arable crops averaged 47 and 58 kgNha-1 for organic and conventional fields respectively with part of the difference being due to the greater proportion of non-cereal break crops in the latter"(31). These figures are no different to those described from Rothamsted with the difference accounted for by break crops. The nitrate loss figures are based on area measurement. If based, as I think they should be, on a yield basis measuring the actual efficiency of use of nitrate by the crop then the figures indicate that organic wastes 9.4 kgN.tonne-1ha-1 whilst conventional agriculture wastes 7.5kgN.tonne.ha-1. Thats enough for now. Tell me what you think once you've digested that. :-)

Mayo, For once you and I are diametrically opposed. In this one I am as one with the organic brigade, First of all I do not think you appreciate the amont of nitrogen there is availlable after a good sheep grazed clover ley. At most, when nitro chalk nitrogen fertilizer (15.5%N) came out we used to argue whether to put on 15 units or 22.5 units on winter wheat. There was such a residue of nitrogen the crops would go flat. Admittedly we did not have straw shortners or stiffeners but varieties like Hybrid 46 stood well (they were very short). The amount of nitrogen availlable was huge, hence qickly availlable. More importantly though I think your argument is flawed, ie needing a quick burst. I think the organic people are right. Because the nitrogen was steadily availlable we had healthier stronger crops, not as much fungus disease. You should remember though that in those days on a small mixed farm we had a lot of livestock: cows, bullocks, sheep, chickens and father had a lot of pigs. We had a grazed rotation with some permanent pasture. We used white clover mixes for sheep, red clover to make hay for the cows, leguminous vetches and kale for the cows as well as mangolds. You can see the inherent fertility was way better than today.I wonder if there is ANY residual nitrogen left this year!!! There must have been a huge amount of work, God knows how it got done. Having said all this in praise of organic, I asked a friend of mine who farms over the hedge from a recently much featured organic farmer what my friend thought to his organic neighbour. His answer was: " wish there were more like him, if there were, the public would go hungry and start paying for their food" Jack Caley PS only the advent of fossil fuels and herbicides has allowed us to boost production and feed a large population.

Jack We are not opposed in this manner i can assure you. I think we are both right to some degree. I have done a lot of soil testing in my time. I dont dispute the amount of N legumes can generate whether grazed or not. I was actually refering to your experiance of Bi-cropping clover/cereals but my points are still relevant. My point is that this huge amount of N (the end result of growing legumes etc) is sat in the soil and is of no use to you until you sow your cereal. In the meantime it will wash away (probably into your nearest stream), since it is so soluble in water: once the rains hit. Suppose you sow your cereal in autumn, after removing your clover ley. The crop germinates, grows so far and then hibernates until spring. Meanwhile your N that you've accumulated washes away- the plant has no need for it and will not take it up. Then, come spring, the sun shines, the soil warms up and away the crop goes, although N is not syncrhonised and so the crop will run out of N unless some is applied. Ploughing and other disruptive cultivations also lose N from your soil 'bank' by releasing ammonia or NoX. Anyone with experiance of soil tests will know how unreliable N indices are, since nitrates are so easily lost from the system and N banks cannot be relied upon, unless you know you have high levels of organic matter waiting to give up its nitrogen, and thats a whole other ball game and by no means reliable (C:N ratios etc). The references i posted and my own beliefs state that conventional agriculture mimics natural systems more closely than any other system with regard to nitrate use and availibility. The question is not of supply; it is of timing. Normal farmers put N on (or SHOULD do) when the crop is growing rapidly and needs Nitrates to make proteins. They match supply to demand and so you get the most effcient use; N is not left lying around for long periods of time ready to dissolve into soil water. I don't doubt that the crops you grew before my time were healthier, despite a lower reliance on agchem useage in many cases. My grandfather always said as much. However, this could be for several reasons: 1. N ferts make crops too lush and overfed, they then become more susceptible to disease. 2. The disease causing organisms have evolved into becoming more efficient at what they do. 3. Our changing climate (becoming wetter and warmer here) favours the diseases and so we have worse off crops. 4. In our quest for ever more yield and quality we have bred out disease resistance traits, probably much to the delight of Agchem manufactuerers. Probably a combination of these. Be careful with that word fertility. It can be defined in many terms regardless of whether a farm is organic or stockless etc. I'd bet my uncles farm is way more fertile than his organic neighbour by virtue of the huge amounts of pig muck (from next door) and sewage sludge it has had applied, in combination with the use of min-till systems. A mixed farm (organic or otherwise) is always going to be ahead of the game with this fertility since it has access to manures. My uncles arable neighbour (very large, effcient farm indeed- they have one field of at least 140 acres by my reckoning) has none of these. Instead, he uses NPKs and sometimes a dab of phibrophos (i am told this is burnt chicken muck? is this correct?), as well as growing leys for silage production for other farms. If you mean fertile in terms of soil microbes, the research i posted included some work done by Rothamsted showing some farms had higher microbe counts than even organic farms. Espcially where No-till and manures were employed. On another point, i have already mentioned how my lectuerer (organic mixed farmer) struggles to maintain P & K indices, and was going to have to resort to importing muck etc. If you mean fertile in terms of organic matter, then this is almost a complete lottery; farms can use manures, sewage, industrial wastes etc, cover crops and who knows what. The organic brigade cant claim to be better here. The advent of fossil fuels, agchems AND fertilisers are responsible for our food supply today. Remember Dr Borluag and the area of land required if we all went organic? Also, suppose we did try to supply crops without inorganic ferts. We use manures and legumes to do it. How much diesel and metal are we going to use doing this, what with ploughing, cultivations, drilling etc and the spreading of muck? The average nutrient values of even pig muck (brown gold my uncle calls it) are way short of good old NPK ferts. The amounts required to supply reasonable rates of nutrients are often between 20-50 cubic metres per hectare (sorry to have to use metric here, but i cant remember the figures in old money!). I dont know about you but muckspreaders never seemed a very precise tool to me, especially since you are dealing with an inconsistent product sometimes. What im trying to say is that conventional agriculture is just as 'natural' as any system and just as sustainable- Like the Prof said, agriculture is NOT a natural process, since we are all preventing our land from reverting into what it wants to be: Natural forest/Scrubland or a bog in some cases! Hope i've made a clear argument, but i probably have done enough rambling. Mayo

Mayo, Quick reply, tis my bedtime. 1/ Fibrophos is burnt chicken muck, big plant up in Scotland. 2/ I do not agree with you that "organic" nitrogen is washed away in winter. To do that it would have to be water soluble as for instance ammonium nitrate.Being a complex organic compound it has to be degraded, it will not degrade in low soil temperatures, therefore it is carried over to spring when soil temperatures rise again and the nitrogen is slowly released promoting healthy plant growth. I am not promoting organic agriculture, as it is fairly obvious that pure organic could not feed us all as conventional now does. What I am saying is that there is a lot of middle ground for a sustainable agriculture. The main obstacle is the bigotry of the Soil Association. Goodnight, Jack Caley

Jack I agree that there are some things we can copy from the organic farmers among us, i think Min/no-till and ICM are moving in the direction you say is the 'middle ground', although i think agchems will always have a place, their use ever more dictated by cost rather than need. However, about 'organic' nitrate/nitrogen. Legumes use the Rhizobium spp bacterium to make the 'organic' nitrate (its rate of conversion being detemrined by soil ph AND strangely, soil oxygen content, this having a NEGATIVE effect). The form of nitrogen produced is actually Ammonium or NH4. Plants can use both Ammonium or Nitrate as their main source of nitrogen, although nitrate is the preferred source for many species. BOTH products are highly soluble in water, and ammonium will actually become nitrate when it comes into contact with oxygenated water, and so it will be washed away in winter just like if i decided to dump 150kg/ha of AN on in December during the rains. This explains the figures in my research where the Prof shows large amounts of nitrate being leached from organic fields where there is no vegetation to take it up. My point is that there is no such thing as 'organic' nitrate or nitrogen. Ammonium is highly volatile and can also be released in gaseous form. Nitrate can also do this BUT only when converted into ammonium by bacteria. However, i accept Nitrogen CAN be held over winter but only when its in held inside a plant/crop/dead organic matter as proteins. This however, means that it is locked up and unavailible for the following crop until the matter in question is decomposed into its constituent chemical parts. This takes considerable time, because bacteria cannot decompose anything unless the Carbon: Nitrogen ratio is correct (this effect can be found where large quantities of cereal straw are incorporated in the autumn and a crop drilled. The crop suffering from N stress very early on, since soil bacteria have used all availible N to cope with the glut in soil carbon levels). This is a very gradual process and will make N availible for the following crop only in a very steady and slow release, i grant you that it is affected by tempreture albeit not in a massive way (of course the problem being this nitrate being released is continual and cannot be staggered to synchronise with plant needs, so you will end up with surpluses [to be leached or blown away] and deficits- hence the reduction in yields). This is how my lecturer manages to grow her veg for 2/3 years after a legume crop and still have suffcient nitrogen availible to give her the yields she requires. If this was not the case, and the organic N you speak of became immediately availible in spring like you say, the reserves of N two seasons down the line would be gone. The point is that farmers (regardless of being organic or not) are both working within the nitrogen cycle, and the addition of nitrate fertilisers is not unnatural, dangerous or wrong. It simply delivers the plants requirements as and when they are needed. The question of overall sustainability is very difficult indeed. Ultimately, i believe that agriculture (along with many other human activites) in its present state (modern machinery, chemicals, ferts etc etc) whether organic or not is NOT sustainable by any means. However, the human population is now too large to be fed by any other means. Even my lectuerer accepted this. When we finally revert back to being hunter-gatherers (probably our only option after we have exhausted all our natural resources, fought over the tiny remainder [probably with nuclear weapons or the like, thereby reducing our population to something managable] and noticed the onset of massive global climate changes [probably the resumption of an iceage for us here in the UK] we might be able to confront the sustainability question. If i happen to be alive at this time, i'll let you know the answer. :-) Mayo

Very interesting topic, a subject that is of interest to those of us on the poorer land. We are just about to undersow clover into winter wheat on some plots we have set up on the farm. The ability to be able to grow your own nitrogen is obviously important, but it is what the clover will do to soil structure and "natural" fertility that is of more interest. We all know that with intensive cultivation over the last fifty yaers that we have lost up to 50% of the soils organic matter. This is something that has got to be reversed. I have been looking at some trials in France where they have been incorporating undersown clovers in a combinable crop rotation and not only have they been able to cut back on imported N but they are using less in the way of herbicides and pesticides due a greater natural diversity within the cropped area. Perhaps the main benefit has been that they have been able to successfully direct drill crops due to better soil structure and the residual nitrogen gives the sown crop a bit of a boost. In New Zealand it is common practice to have two years pasture/grass in every five years of cropping (so I am told), and in Argentina where we are lead to believe that everything is direct drilled - yes it is for about 5-7 years then in many cases the land returns to pasture to recover for as many years.

Mayo, The nitrogen locked up by legumes is not an inorganic nitrogen compound freely floating around in the soil it is anorganic plant waste. If you thought that I meant nitrogen instantly became availlable at spring you misunderstood me, it is being slowly released all the time on the breakdown of plant matter,(clover roots etc, and clover must be deep rooting to provide the growth it did for our sheep). The problem is the one touched on by Jim Bullock: there is very, very little residual organic matter left in modern intensively farmed soil. We have seen a dramatic example of that on this farm this spring. Crops were sown into wet soil last autumn, the soil is compacted so there is little oxygen to work and hence a very severe nitrogen shortage. Because of a difficult wet spring and the fact that Richard is doing a lot of work on the gas storage site we have not been able to get badly needed nitogen on. Our crops look terrible, it is not going to be a good farming year. With regard to a sustainable agriculture, there are two or more meanings. One is sustainable financially, mintill etc. The otheris far more important: sustainable ecologically. The whole ethos behind my fathers farming was that sort of sustainability. He could have made Patrick Holden look simple and father would never even have realised. He used two and three year grass/clover temporary leys, if you left them down for three years you could claim the ploughing out grant as well as get a damn good crop of wheat. The onset of sprays made it even easier but subsidies and increased production brought down real commodity prices so the only alternative was to get rid of labour from an intensive labour situation. There were three or four employees plus my father and mother on 126 acres!!! Jack Caley

Jack I will happily admit defeat if you can tell the exact chemical compund that you claim is this 'organic plant waste' otherwise it must be organic matter, and that can take years to breakdown. You seem to have confirmed my thoughts on the situation; N is locked up as organic matter and NOT availible like my friend NPK. Be careful with the word 'organic'. In chemical terms it means something that is or was once living. PS Organic matter levels do not automatically make good indicators of soil health; although i accept they are often interlinked. Travel to mexico and see the massive levels of organic matter, however, you wont know that the soil is highly acidic and hopeless at holding nutrients. This is how rainfall eliminates nitrogen from the soil, even heavy clays that will bind with nitrates; the hydrogen ions (i.e dilute sulphuric and nitric acids) will readily displace anything it can from the soil, unless they are stashed as organic matter. I shall dig up my old A-level textbook tomorrow. This will clear the mud i assure you. I will offer more in response to your posting later. Again, i urge caution to the word sustainable (a terribly misunderstood and poorly used word). How energy intensive were your fathers methods? Did it provide as much end product (i,e something to end up in peoples bellies) as modern methods in the same scale and timescale? More to come. Please dont think im out to shoot you down, just a bit of discusssion. I dont doubt anything you say about the old methods. I often envy my grandfather sometimes (apart from the hand hoeing!). Mayo

Jim Organic matter levels can easily be increased by using no-till or min-till methods. After almost ten years of this my uncles farm in places begins to resemble a compost heap, and this is on thin chalky soils that are as much flint/chalk as actual soil. Would you not say this is true on your own farm, being the min-till enthusiast that you are? Its the plough (and often the powerharrow or dust makers, my uncle calls it) and other secondary cultivations that use sheer horsepower to beat the soil into submission that has caused the loss in of O/M in many soils. Soil is rarely bare in nature; it is a biologically dangerous situation; leaving your 'vitals' open to the wind and water. Nature has grown things in this earth for millenia. We would do well to learn from it. I'll add more later. Have to go now. Mayo

Mayo I 100% agree,(OM levels do take time to re-build 5-10 years). I believe we need to develop farming systems that produce healthy crops requiring the minimum of imported inputs (be they fertilisers, sprays, fuel or even steel). These systems should have a minimum impact on the surrounding environment so making agriculture a renewable industry rather than (as is predominatly now)an extractive industry such as mining, petroleum etc. Unfortunatly these ideals do not necessarily go hand in hand with short term profitability. I believe the industry has a very exciting future, but it will not be as we know it today, it will require a bit of 'blue-sky' thinking for a few. (Growing 4-5 tons/acre of feed wheat may seem like a good idea, but it is not sustainable in the political and economic environment in which we find ourselves in the UK) Bigger units, machinery and higher levels of inputs will only create a bigger hole to climb out of if you are not very careful. There are farms of only 400-500 acres in France and the UK that are embracing some of these re-discovered (new for some) technologies that the bigger units could not even contemplate however these smaller units are showing good returns even in todays economic climate.

Jim Im not sure how best to make agriculture more sustainable in the short term (I say short term, because we will not be able to feed our population if we reject modern technology completely for any period of time). It might be that we have to embrace the old technologies you mention to achieve this. However, what are we aiming to achieve in this manner? Is sustainability in the short term a worthy goal in practical terms? The ultimate in sustainability must be Hunter-gathering; i.e no agriculture at all. Since what you take as food is replaced without you having to burn one drop of diesel or use one pound of steel. Also note how Prof Trewas said that agriculture of any kind is completely unnatural since it stops land from reaching the state it ultimately wants to be. If instead you want to make the best use of your existing resources, and so acknowledge they are not being renewed, then there are probably many ways to achieve this; whether smaller units move toward input free farming, or larger units using the high tech option (i,e GM to beat pest/disease, better fertilisers, precision farming, no till etc etc). I'll accept that currently here the UK they dont want us to produce anything, on the grounds of environmental risks etc. The question of sustainability (as supposedly answered in the curry report) has been poorly answered up to now. Even if we give up all our inputs, what about the diesel we use, the steel we use? And no matter how hard we try, nutrient mining is still going to happen; Dr Borlaug (i mentioned in my other thread) stated that we dont have enough land to graze animals and provide enough manure to meet the soils needs. If you grow legumes instead, what about the loss of this land for the production of our food? Since it can only be digested by us if we consume it as meat; dictating the need for animals which are themselves NOT environmentaly friendly or effcient systems for converting vegetable matter into something we can consume. However, speaking in global terms i honestly believe (and hope!) we will see agriculture returning to the forefront of industry and mankinds activities like it was during the industrial revolution and prior to it. I think farmers the world over will one day be growing millions of acres of sugar/starch (whether as maize, sugar cane or beet etc) for making ethanol to replace petrol, millions of acres of rape/sunflowers etc will be grown to produce bio-diesel and meet all our lubricant needs, as well as the tons of products we already produce as food (Also remeber that they are beginning to produce bio-degradable plastics from vegetable oils). Forestry will be grown to supply energy and produce electricity; our other means are too limited or expensive or pose environmental risks. The whole system will be renewable (or as close are you are going to get), since it can all be grown from the land. Technology will be needed to produce enough food and energy and keep the whole world turning. Technology will allow us to do this, without having to cut down more rainforest, create more deserts or drain all of our freshwater supplies (now a major problem). The demand for food and energy can only go one way as all countries seek to better their way of life. I'd like to think that we'll all be looked on as saviours again one day. Farmers will be able to supply much more than just food; they will be able to supply the very lifeblood of modern civilisation; energy (and other raw materials). Of course, i cannot provide any sort of reasonable timescale for this. I seriously doubt i shall be alive when this happens. OR alternatively, the human race will have spread to another planet capable of meeting our needs so we can start the whole process of explotation again. Interesting topic albeit decidedly philosophical! Mayo

Agree with both of you for the most part, all accept the bit about colonising another world which too often is used an excuse for not looking after the planet we’ve got. Two questions: As well as contributing fertility to the soil does green manuring/cover crops help reduce the greenhouse effect? You may have seen the Soil Association statistics on how different systems of farming change the carbon content of the soil and while no-one takes SA stats too seriously are they right in assuming most of that lost ends up as CO2? Secondly do either of you believe in Gaia? Is it now acceptable to believe that the earth is trying to heal herself if only we would listen?

This topic intrests me imensly. Last November I decided to Axe The Continous Cereal regime and also the Contracting side of the Business, The return from these two "Enterprises" was becoming a joke, not employing any labour and the big 4 zero this year also influenced my decision. Yields of 10.57 T/ha were acheivable and sustained, on some land, but the cost in inputs - hurrendous. Yields of less than 8.50 T/ha from the light soils using almost the same inputs = financial suicide. The better land on the farm (red loam over sand stone) has been planted with Linseed this year, this will be followed with Spring Rape next year. I am experimenting with fallow, this is now an option under SPS, on some VERY light soil - black "blow-away" Sand. I have decide to use the fallow period, probably two years, to build fertility and Organic matter content. My choice for this is to sow a mixture of Red Clover, Sweet Clover and Phacelia, the latter being added to surpress weeds and add a bit of colour. The plan is to allow the "crop" to flower and re-seed itself in year one, before it sets seeds in year two it will be flailed off, digested sewage sludge applied and then the lot will be ploughed in - well, thats the plan any-way. I should then be able to produce a crop of Barley, maybe Wheat, without having to pile on 200 units/Acre (sorry guys - still work in old money) of in-organic Nitrogen. The objective is to produce one really good, worthwhile crop every three years - instead of pi***** about trying to grow half a crop every year. Local Comments on this have ranged from - "what's the point of that", "won't work" and "you must be mad". One thing that I find very interesting is that a Neighbour, who has just completed drilling Spring Rape on some of this Light soil, did so with a Power Harrow combination - HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH A CROP OF WINTER RAPE ON THIS VERY LAND, USING THE SAME MACHINE! Light sand-Power harrow? Using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, springs to mind. P.W

Tom My remarks about finding another planet to live on do not represent my own view; i think that this is extremely unlikely lifeline to depend upon given the chances of there actually being a suitable planet, and im not sure that we will ever have the capability to go the distance and get there. Just a throwaway remark. The growing of any crop helps reduce the greenhouse effect by removing CO2. Any residues or biomass then incorporated into the soil profile will eventually become part of the soils organic matter and a carbon sink. HOWEVER, ploughing and disruptive tillage releases huge amounts of CO2 AND permits the oxidation of organic matter. This represents an increase in the greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. The answer is thus YES. And i would agree with SA stats showing how the carbon content of soils can be increased, although ploughing should be avoided if you want to maximise the net removal of CO2. I have always argued that arable farming is a net remover of CO2, since we only remove the grain and sink carbon into the soil by incorpoating all the residues etc. Of course the most efficient collectors of atmospheric carbon are the oceans (see my global warming thread) and after that trees. By using large scale afforestation programmes we could easily begin to make serious dents in global CO2 levels. Please dont take this the wrong way, but what is Gaia? I believe that the earth has been here a long time and its global ecosystem is a very complex one. It is a dynamic system that will alter as certain factors change. How else would life have survived iceages or mass extinction events? Mother nature has ways and means of dealing with everything, even very rare asteriod collisions; we are still here are we not? If you think about it in that way, perhaps the effects of all our meddling are not as serious as we are sometimes led to believe? Mayo

Phil I agree that it might benefit arable growers if we relax our use of inputs and try to make a higher margin through reduced costs. Obviously it depends on your soils and situation, and you seem fairly clued up as to what your future plans are. My point is that conventional growers (at least those that manage their operations sensibly, and with regard for the environment [and costs!]) are doing nothing wrong in doing what they do. Nitrate fertilisers and agchems are just a different answer to the same question facing organic farmers. I admire your attitude to the future, although we are all facing a quandry: What will happen to the prices once subsidies go entirely!? This will probably weed out those who cannot work with nature. Mayo PS My uncle would have tried the old einbock and spreader to establish the spring rape you mentioned.

Mayo, I will be careful of the word "organic" if you will promise to be careful of the word "sustainable". Might be better to use the words "viable financially" and/or sustainable. My fathers farming was far more sustainable ecologically because his farming methods were more in tune with the natural cycle. Of course his yields would not have fed the nation as it is structured today, with intensive farming and processing. Nor would have been viable financially with todays prices and labour costs. Now to the definition of organic and inorganic. Your lecturer thought her organic nitrogen was locked up. I suggest that she just did not have enough availlable. Organic nitrogen in a well balanced soil, (ie ph, mineral balance, structure, moisture content, oxygen etc etc) will become availlable very rapidly and in a controlled manner, the growing crop will see to that. I am reminded of an uncle who lived in town and grew tomatoes. Every year he would come and collect sheep droppings for his greenhouse, take them and soak them in a bucket of water to ferilise his tomatoes. The tomatoes tasted superb. Jack Caley. No offence taken, I find the subject interesting, and I only wish it were more than academic. However we are all ruled by economics. I just wish also that todays generation could see some of the benefits of my fathers days, and some of the pitfalls and hard work. The other day as I was set waiting for the ferry to pass through the lock gates, Cargills grain exporting terminal was in full view. I was just musing if all the antics of this government and its total ignorance and naivete will mean that we shall no longer be loading ships from there in a few years time?

Mayo. Just in-case there is any Confusion. I farm just over 300 Acres, in Devon. The farm is split - 190 Acres of Permanent Pasture, this land is fully Organic, 110 Acres of Arable land that is NOT Organic. I also have an Area of Fenland on the farm - This is designated a County Wildlife site, one of only 3 in the County.The C.W.S has many rare Species of plants - the Heath spotted and Southern Marsh Orchids being prime examples. I appreciate, and respect your point regarding the Dihlema that the Organic boys are faced with. Can they not use the same prinsipal - Give the land a rest?? I probably should not say it, but I will, the whole Organic thing is a Farce. I regularly here from the Organic sector - "our cereal fields are a better place to be for wildlife - no pesticides in them". My reply is, usually, "You try telling that to a ground nesting bird, when it is trying desperaetly to avoid the tined weeders that are still bombing up and down your fields in May". - very few bother to respond. Your uncle would have made a good choice. Of course, had the neighbour asked someone with experiance of the local Soils, he may have been able to establish the first crop! Regards. Phil W.

Jack I take your point about my use of the word sustainable. i detest the term immensely, after sitting through many hours of sustainable agriculture lectures that completely missed the point. Thus, i believe that: UK ag will have to adapt and possibly use new technologies/or revert to old organic ones in order to become FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE (/VIABLE), in the short-term while commodity prices are low and the red tape demon abounds. However, I doubt agriculture can ever meaningfully claim to be ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE because it uses up 'raw materials' that it cannot reproduce in sufficient quantities to offset those used initially: i.e steel, diesel and energy. Hunter-gathering is the only method of feeding ourselves that be sustainable in these terms, because it does not require fertilisers, diesel, agchems, drills, ploughs or £200,000 lexions to do it. The agriculture i described as hopefully happening many years from now (i.e growing energy crops, bio-diesel using GM etc etc etc) will probably be the cloest we will ever get to a truly sustainable agriculture. Hope this clears the air somewhat. BTW: Are you sure there arent any other factors that could of influenced the taste of those tomatoes? I'll agree that neat faceal material (i.e sheep 'pellets' i think i'l call them) can break down very quickly; the ratio of Carbon to Nitrogen is much closer than that of say, straw. Thus decomposers can multiply more quickly and do their work in a much reduced time-scale. Sadly, the same is not true of crop residues or even many manures containing too much straw. Just out of interest do would you mind sharing any other of your experiances regarding bygone farming practices? My grandfather often mentioned how they would spread manure by hand on fields, each load being dumped a precise distance apart, or how they often grew 'dredge corn' for the chickens. Am i correct in thinking this was a mixture of cereals i.e barley/rye etc? My most surprising revelation was that regarding the sycthe. I did not realise you had to sharpen the thing every 20 minutes or so! Lunch was often little more than a wedge of bread and a lump of cheese, washed down by milk (or if you were really lucky, homemade cider from the farms press). Mayo

Nice one Jack. Should be a fair qauntity of residual N this Spring - Fairly dry summer (until August that is), followed by a very dry Winter - well, it was in the South West? I share your "Friends" view regarding Organic production, I have said, many times - If every farmer went Organic, the population would soon starve. Organic production is also Inaficient - You need Twice the Area to produce the same Vollume. And the Quality ? - Debateable! The price - I personally would not pay £5.67 / KG for a chicken that had been produced to Organic Standards, when the conventionally produced birds are priced at £2.37 / KG. Prices observed in Sainsbury's - Fresh chickens. Talking of standards - I use to think the A.C.C.S standards were a bit much, but they do have a logical reason. The Organic standards - well, that's a different story. We are told to "compost" our manure heaps - by stirring them up. This is a direct contradiction of the Code of Practice to reduce Air Pollution - When we disturb the heap it releases Ammonia/Nitrogen into the Air! I have been instructed that Spreading the manure from the Organic Dairy replacements that we rear, On my NON-ORGANIC land - is against the Organic Regulations, I must stop immediatly! I use to spread the "Straw Dung" on the Arable land as it was this land that Produced the Straw - Good Agricultural Practice, especially if the land has a very LOW POTASH Index i.e 0 - 1. I am instructed that the the "Waste" from Organic Livestock can only be disposed of on Organic Land. Of Course, if an Organic Farmer IMPORTS Manure's from NON-ORGANIC holdigs and composts it, and stores it in the field it is to be spread in - THIS IS O.K. - NOW "THAT'S" WHAT I CALL HYPOCRICY. I am unable to spread the manure on my Organic Pasture, I do not want to improve the fertility of these "RARE" traditional River Meadows - we will loose the traditional species, Sweet Vernal grass being one of them. To overcome this Dihlema, I am told that I have to obtain a derogation to EXPORT the manure to another Organic Holding, That should make interestin reading on the Farms BIO-SECURITY plan. P.W P.S If I could afford to buy Organic Chickens - Perhaps I could afford to un-convert my Organic Land, Put the SP5 form in the shreader - and Farm as I would Like to do so. P.P.S - Bit late to put the SP5 in the shreader, I returned it on 23/03/05. P.P.P.S - The card that the RPA sent to confirm that they had recived the application had 1st April 2005 stamped on it. Do you think they are trying to tell me something.

Phil, There is a local (9 miles away), small organic veg producer here. It amused us that he took manure from one of our neighbours to grow his produce. The manure came from beef cattle fed on imported maize gluten, intensively grown barley, sugar beet pulp etc and the straw was from a real spray happy farm. It was OK that he used it to grow organicthough. Possibly the Soil Association made the regulation that "organic" muck could not be spread on conventional merely to ensure that another "organic" sic producer might have a better chance of getting manure that he could make spurious claims for? Just demonstrates the whole farce of "organics" Jack Caley

Jack. Another one to ponder over. I checked out the list of "chemicals" that are authorised for use on Organic land. Copper Sulphate can, and is widely used, for disease control and "Burning off" Organic potato crops. O.K then, I say to my-self, I will use Copper Sulphate to spray off the weeds under approx 4 mile of electric fence. OH NO YOU WON'T! came the reply from OFG, Copper Sulphate has not got specific authorisation to be used for that purpose from UKROFS - no derogation granted. So - you can use it (a poison), on crops that are going to be eaten, but you can't use it for "killing" weeds on, what is in reallity, an un-cropped Area. Is this not just a prime and typical example of the double standards that we are forced to endure. Phil.

Phil Excellant points you raised there. Copper sulphate is absolute Ca*k compared to mancozeb, which is both more effective and less damaging to the environment. The list of approved products for organic farming is over 350 products, about 100 of which are chemical in nature. Love the 'you cant spread organic muck on non-organic land'! I can see NO reason for not letting you do this. Mayo

Mayo Where is the list of chemicals authorised for use on organis land? I would love to get hold of a copy to show some people I know who are committed 'organic consumers'

Mayo. Do some of the people that prattle on about how wonerfull Organic Produce is, Actually know about some of these issues that we are discussing - I think Not. Do they Know, for instance, that some of the Toxins found in the microscopic fungal spores of some common fungal diseases, are actually up to 12 times more toxic than some of the Chemicals used to treat such disease. P.W P.S - very few, intellegent and logical thinking people, can see any reason for this biased rule.

Its it our duty to feed the world? or make a profit? If we all went organic it would be supply and demand. Higher prices etc, do we owe it to anyone to feed them?