How I eliminated my rushes naturally

Buford T. Justice XIX

_Brian wrote: »

I was thinking about op's comment about water, wet ground and rushes.

Close to us there is a field owned by a neighbor. My girls call it the flooded field at the cross. It regularly has standing water, slow to drain, rust heavily when traveled by tractor.

But no rushes.

Thing is he constantly applies traditional farmyard manure. All over the winter he's out with the transport box forking ding out.

I think the constant ding has maintained the biodiversity within the soil and this maintains healthy soil and ph and keeps weeds at bay.

If weather permitted he gets two cuts of silage and grazes it too.


I think over application of slurry excessive inappropriate chemical fertiliser application is creating a poor environment for all the bacteria and organisms that maintain healthy soils.

That's the key right there.

I have a few fields/spots in fields that would be heavy ground, prone to rushes. Where they are in two cut silage fields, there are no rushes because they never get a chance to establish. In the one cut silage fields, you will see a sprinkling of rushes but they never get a chance to get established because I top them late in the season when I can.

And increased fertility will encourage grass to thrive and grow faster leaving less fertiliser for the rushes.

I have a field I hope to reseed this year and I've been trying 1, 2 and 3 toppings on in different sections with 2 years. The more cuts, the less rushes.

Once the drainage is right and the fertility is sorted, the biodiversity will take care of itself, imo.

Who2

I personally think it's a combination of all of the above, round up has it's place as I've tried reseeded without it and they just never last without it no matter what type of management. Dung is a great job but luckily I wouldn't have enough rush on the farm to make a st bridgids cross, even though I always try to get it onto old ground. The slurry is another good job but it's really only suitable on dry ground or it can leave heavy ground heavier as far as I'm aware. Drainage is always a very individual thing, pulling the scrape of a digger on wet ground won't solve everyone's problem, some ground will need to be stoned down three foot anyway to catch springs and water tables while it might only clog up in some ground. There was a lad on here years ago that found does filter type piping the only thing to fix his problem with ground. What I'm more or less trying to say everything has it's place and it's more down to the person not knowing what works than the actual product or method used.

taxusbaccata

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Funnily enough i work with them daily for 9 months of the year, done the uni bit and extra box ticking to be qualified to prescribe agrichem forgetting more than you know at this stage. My fiance is almost done her phd on reducing residue levels from tri-azole fungs in cereal crops and their associated 'issues' and have absorbed some bio-chemistry via osmosis and general experience of using soil solvita tests, change effects of cultivation and such.
So your saying the scientific argument on the control of one the most heavily scutinised actives in a heavilly regulated industry is false because you say so? You almost got a monsanto dig in too, but you recoiled at the last second . If it is shown to be hazardous at the current low doseage levels and to is impossible to control in water and animal tallows etcetc then yes it will be removed but not until the science proves so. It's funny the Eu, they ban use of some chems but allow european companies to produce them in the eu and buy food that's been treated with them.
Save your digs for someone who cares, i could retort with something about hichens progressives but there's enough arguments from half arsed articles off the internet flying here already :rolleyes:.

Did you pass your uni course? I hope you aren't spraying your aphids with glyphosate and your rushes with permethrin - it could explain poor results;)

That's great that your fiancée is doing her PhD on anti fungal metabolism. Is this related to glyphosate effects on soil micro organisms?

I use antibacterial, anti viral and anti fungal agents, admittedly not on plants, but for mammals 12 months of the year so I am familiar with them.

No not because I say so regarding glyphosate and soil damage. Glyphosate damages soil mycorrhiza, bacteria and earthworms as shown in scientific research. There are 66 references to scientific research papers on the 3 pages in the soil association pdf I posted above - which you rubbished as it doesn't fit your opinion.

A few summary points from the above summary document backed up with scientific papers:

"Impact on mycorrhizal fungi:
...Recent research has found that glyphosate (and/or its metabolite AMPA) reduces the spore viability and root colonisation of AMF, and could reduce plant diversity.[43] Another study found a 40% reduction of mycorrhization after the application of Roundup in soils that had been amended with the mycorrhizal fungi, Glomus mosseae.[44]
Impact of repeated glyphosate applications There is evidence now to suggest that repeated glyphosate applications can impact on soil microbial communities as they adapt to repeated glyphosate applications.45 One study found that a single exposure to soils of glyphosate (technical grade) caused only minor changes to microbial community function or structure. However, in soils where there had been no previous application of glyphosate, microbial respiration increased in response to glyphosate exposure. This potentially reflects a stress response of species sensitive to glyphosate
Increase in micro-organisms causing disease in crops: It has been reported that using glyphosate as a weed control in agricultural systems has led to the increased severity or re-emergence of crop diseases.[49] There is concern over how the use of glyphosate increases the potential for the development of pathogen levels that affect crop health, altering the communities of rhizosphere microbes involved in nutrient transformation, and shifting the balance between micro-organisms that are beneficial and detrimental to plant health [50]
For example, one study found that the disease severity and frequency of the soil borne fungus Fusarium solani f. sp. Glycines, the cause of Sudden Death Syndrome, in glyphosate-tolerant soya beans was higher after application of glyphosate compared to no herbicide application. [51]

There is now evidence to suggest that it is not just the direct disruption of the shikimic acid metabolic pathway which is responsible for the herbicidal properties of glyphosate. It is now believed by some scientists that the herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate is largely due to colonization of roots of affected plants by soil-borne pathogens and that glyphosate somehow compromises the ability of plants to defend against pathogens that inhabit the rhizosphere. Many of plants defences are reliant on the shikimic acid pathway, and as glyphosate blocks this pathway, it is conceivable that glyphosate would render plants more susceptible to pathogens.[52]

Impact on soil fauna: ...at least six other studies found damaging effects of the herbicide. One study found that the earthworm Eisenia fetida avoids soil contaminated by the glyphosate based herbicide Groundclear, and this impact on locomotor activity could compromise the survival of the worms.[59] ...indicating that glyphosate has a deleterious effect on the viability of cocoons. This study too found that the earthworms also avoided the soil treated with the herbicide. Another laboratory study on Eisenia foetida earthworms demonstrated severe effects on the development and reproduction caused by glyphosate (active ingredient only) at a range of concentrations, indicating that it may have significant toxic effects on soil biota. There was a decrease in the mean weight of the earthworms, and no cocoons or juveniles were found in the soil containing the herbicide[61]
...Roundup application initially stimulated surface casting activity of Lumbricus terrestris L. However the number of produced casts ceased dramatically about one week after herbicide application; cumulative cast mass produced by L. terrestris four weeks after herbicide application was reduced by 46% compared to the area not treated by herbicides. The reproduction success of both earthworm species substantially decreased after herbicide application. The hatching rate of cocoons decreased from 43% to 17% for L. terrestris and from 71% to 32% for A. caliginosa when cocoons were collected from soil without herbicide or with herbicide treatment, respectively[62]


What are Hichens progressives?

You will see that the digs, general hostility and attempted ridiculing was commenced by you.

A great documentary on what Monsanto do to farmers - a policy coming to Ireland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su0om5L4Bhg

pedigree 6

Am I the only one who would like to see this drainage and resseding job?

Op you talk the talk but show us if you can walk the walk.




Otherwise this thread is pointless.:rolleyes:

kollegeknight

Pedigree, fair play, it's a grand job in the photos. Great to see hard work that succeeds. The parents in the photo look right happy.

Odelay

kollegeknight wrote: »

Pedigree, fair play, it's a grand job in the photos. Great to see hard work that succeeds. The parents in the photo look right happy.

I think they know the farm is in safe hands.

pedigree 6

kollegeknight wrote: »

Pedigree, fair play, it's a grand job in the photos. Great to see hard work that succeeds. The parents in the photo look right happy.

It's not hard work when you enjoy what you're doing and can see the difference that you're doing. I love that work.

What I don't like are patronizing people who claim to know everything but can't back up what they say.

pedigree 6

Odelay wrote: »

I think they know the farm is in safe hands.

I wouldn't say that. I can be a lazy f**ker a lot of the time.

Keepgrowing

Willfarman wrote: »

I disagree on the nitrogen bass.. Heavy land around here and leaving aside drainage the cleanest land is the land that gets the most nitrogen.

Get the water away, reseed, fertilise it heavily and graze as heavily as it can take
That's how to handle rushes

White Clover

A ewe for every bullock helps too. Heavy ground needs to be grazed for 9 to 10 months of the year to keep it right. Having cattle only may only allow 6 or 7 months grazing.

taxusbaccata

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Am I the only one who would like to see this drainage and resseding job?

Op you talk the talk but show us if you can walk the walk.




Otherwise this thread is pointless.:rolleyes:

I don't have before photos but I can get current photos.

I am not being defensibly critical but there are problems with your comparison.
The neighbours field is flatter aspect and is visably retaining water (seen in photo). Your field is a downward slope and would not retain water with healthy soil.
We would need equal lighting at the same time of year. Your field has more direct lighting whereas your neighbours is either dusk or dawn warm lighting.

I am sure your results are genuine - glyphosate will eliminate all plant life so that you can restart from zero plant life with seeds of your choosing. I'm delighted no rushes have reappeared in 6 years but what I fear will happen is that the monoculture of rye grass will not persist. Nature does not like monoculture and other seeds will arrive particularly if bare soil occurs.

Anyway Ill get a few shots of my dying/dead rushes and amateur drains for you ASAP. For the moment I am delighted my rushes are leaving using basic non chemical methods.

pedigree 6

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I don't have before photos but I can get current photos.

I am not being defensibly critical but there are problems with your comparison.
The neighbours field is flatter aspect and is visably retaining water (seen in photo). Your field is a downward slope and would not retain water with healthy soil.
We would need equal lighting at the same time of year. Your field has more direct lighting whereas your neighbours is either dusk or dawn warm lighting.

I am sure your results are genuine - glyphosate will eliminate all plant life so that you can restart from zero plant life with seeds of your choosing. I'm delighted no rushes have reappeared in 6 years but what I fear will happen is that the monoculture of rye grass will not persist. Nature does not like monoculture and other seeds will arrive particularly if bare soil occurs.

Anyway Ill get a few shots of my dying/dead rushes and amateur drains for you ASAP. For the moment I am delighted my rushes are leaving using basic non chemical methods.

Finally. Hooray.

The field was a hollow but I levelled out that after putting the drains in and then put the slope in.

You'll get a lot further with people with a bit of honey than with a drop of vinegar.

Another piece of advice you don't know everything.

taxusbaccata

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Finally. Hooray.

The field was a hollow but I levelled out that after putting the drains in and then put the slope in.

You'll get a lot further with people with a bit of honey than with a drop of vinegar.

Another piece of advice you don't know everything.

I didn't realise I had sprayed the vinegar first. Maybe my psychological allergy to glyphosate and similar agents comes across as being judgemental.
I certainly don't know everything after 3 years and 10 acres. I really enjoy chatting with other farmers. As a hobby "farmer" I can afford to play around and mess things up so I understand when others cannot afford to take risks and do what convention recommends.

As a matter of interest I was told by an experienced farmer he noticed slurry kills earthworms and massively affects drainage - anyone have experience of this?

alps

We have killed earthworms with slurry, but only on occasions. We're certainly going to take notice of the incidences of kill to see if we can see a pattern, and avoid.

Our greatest kill seems to be just before closing date when we have watery slurry from summer milking, and possibly going too heavy on the restricted amount of ground we have available coming up to the closing date. We rarely see any kill when applying in more summery conditions.

We have no problems whatsoever from drainage, and have been stocked heavily for many years. The top layer will hold moisture better than it used to with the increasing organic matter over the years. Our preference for slurry application on the grazing platform is during warmer periods on very bare paddocks, probably along the little and often lines.

Farmer

In an ideal world, we should probably be doing slurry separation and spreading the solids on such ground but, like many things in farming, It's just not practical on a small scale

I'm not sure what we'd do with the liquid then, I suppose spread it on the drier ground

I think some of the worm stuff was done in the "farm science" thread. Again, in most cases, economics overrides.

satstheway

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Finally. Hooray.

The field was a hollow but I levelled out that after putting the drains in and then put the slope in.

You'll get a lot further with people with a bit of honey than with a drop of vinegar.

Another piece of advice you don't know everything.

Your pictures are good.
What depth were the drains? and what depth of stone did u put on top before back filling?

We never drain any deeper than the waist but you got good results so maybe your onto something.

pedigree 6

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I didn't realise I had sprayed the vinegar first. Maybe my psychological allergy to glyphosate and similar agents comes across as being judgemental.
I certainly don't know everything after 3 years and 10 acres. I really enjoy chatting with other farmers. As a hobby "farmer" I can afford to play around and mess things up so I understand when others cannot afford to take risks and do what convention recommends.

As a matter of interest I was told by an experienced farmer he noticed slurry kills earthworms and massively affects drainage - anyone have experience of this?

God i'd love to have you working a week on our farm.:D

I think you'll find farmers are a very open group and always willing to try new things.

But what you are coming up with about not spraying roundup when reseeding or reclaiming land. No offence, it may be new to you but most farmers on here have tried it here and wouldn't recommend it.

Then you went on about cattle grazing docks and nettles.
That's why I had to ask you about the quality of your silage or hay.
You probably won't touch them with a spray and say you are helping the environment. When the real reason probably is that you couldn't be bothered.

You started this thread with real promise and I thought I was going to learn something new but you turned it into a roundup bashing thread.

On the earthworms and slurry someone asked that question before and the best answer I could come up with was the earthworms died from suffocation ( lack of oxygen ) at that time of spreading. The slurry was spread at dusk in calm conditions when dew was falling coupled with respiration of the grass.
But an outsider/non farmer seeing the headline slurry kills earthworms would come to the conclusion that it happens every time.

You're coming into farming as a novice and I hope you make some great discoveries in the future of agriculture but don't assume that someone who is doing it all their life knows nothing.

Now the fun starts.
What are you going to do with the land to make money??

Good luck.:)
(Still like to see those pics).

pedigree 6

satstheway wrote: »

Your pictures are good.
What depth were the drains? and what depth of stone did u put on top before back filling?

We never drain any deeper than the waist but you got good results so maybe your onto something.

The deeper you drain/pipe the larger ground area above that it will cover.
It's kind of works like a vee from the pipe to the surface area.

It was over the workers head so about 6ft.

Not sure of depth. But the stone was rose to any springs or old drains to get that water into the pipe. (I'm giving away all the secrets here.:o)
Then it all goes out in the one pipe so that there is always water flowing in that pipe all year round so never blocks.

patsy_mccabe

P6,
So you didn't bring the stones to the surface? On average how far below the top surface did you bring them?

pedigree 6

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

P6,
So you didn't bring the stones to the surface? On average how far below the top surface did you bring them?

They were brought up to any springs or old drains. I guess maybe the most was a foot below the surface at some springs.

I see on the ifj that some people brought it to the surface alright.

taxusbaccata

pedigree 6 wrote: »

God i'd love to have you working a week on our farm.:D

I think you'll find farmers are a very open group and always willing to try new things.

But what you are coming up with about not spraying roundup when reseeding or reclaiming land. No offence, it may be new to you but most farmers on here have tried it here and wouldn't recommend it.

Then you went on about cattle grazing docks and nettles.
That's why I had to ask you about the quality of your silage or hay.
You probably won't touch them with a spray and say you are helping the environment. When the real reason probably is that you couldn't be bothered.

You started this thread with real promise and I thought I was going to learn something new but you turned it into a roundup bashing thread.

On the earthworms and slurry someone asked that question before and the best answer I could come up with was the earthworms died from suffocation ( lack of oxygen ) at that time of spreading. The slurry was spread at dusk in calm conditions when dew was falling coupled with respiration of the grass.
But an outsider/non farmer seeing the headline slurry kills earthworms would come to the conclusion that it happens every time.

You're coming into farming as a novice and I hope you make some great discoveries in the future of agriculture but don't assume that someone who is doing it all their life knows nothing.

Now the fun starts.
What are you going to do with the land to make money??

Good luck.:)
(Still like to see those pics).

I started this thread to share my novice experience of a very positive outcome that others might find useful. A poster asked my opinion regarding glyphosate and I told him all out why I am against its use and backed up my real world concerns with published research. Maybe I'm naive and impractical but I really do believe in a heavily organic approach to farming, forestry and food production. I dont think I'm alone in this way of thinking. I am very concerned that mainstream farming has been hijacked by agrichem corporations and I feel that is not healthy for our soils or our produce. When GMOs are pushed on us and they are coming then farmers are in real trouble. Look to the experience of small farmers in the US. The contracts they are forced to sign are criminal.

Most of my opinions are based on listening to experienced farmers and scientists (eg. very healthy livestock from mixed plant pastures, which you do not seem to approve of; plastic pipe drains blocking etc) and reading literature/evidence and from my minimal practical experience. I do have a scientific background and apply these disciplines to my small farming project. I challenge advice I am given that just does not seem logical. eg. I was told I would never grow wheat or barley where I live. It grew no problem. I was told the only way to deal with rushes is to top and spray. They are dying off with drainage. Please do not assume that my exploring and questioning conventional practice equates to assuming that someone who is doing it all their life knows nothing.

When you say above I couldn't be bothered spraying - are you saying I'm too lazy to spray weeds? If so what is that based on?

Welding Rod

There's an awful lot of big words in this thread brought out by the fudging plain simple rush!!
At the end of the day the rush is one tough basteward and won't go away by being nice to the fooker.
Needs a regular rub from Monsanto I'm afraid!!

memorystick

Do they need a second spray or is one enough? I sprayed rushes last September and they're fairly brown now but still a little green in the lower stem.

You'd have a lot of shoring done by the time you'd read this thread. Lads have too much time me thinks.

Bass Reeves

Welding Rod wrote: »

There's an awful lot of big words in this thread brought out by the fudging plain simple rush!!
At the end of the day the rush is one tough basteward and won't go away by being nice to the fooker.
Needs a regular rub from Monsanto I'm afraid!!

TBH roundup or gysophate is not the answer to rushes. It is much more compex than that. It is all about land management

memorystick

A heavy infestation of rushes often requires a shoring and a reseeding job. Roundup is essential before reseeding.

Welding Rod

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Welding Rod wrote: »

There's an awful lot of big words in this thread brought out by the fudging plain simple rush!!
At the end of the day the rush is one tough basteward and won't go away by being nice to the fooker.
Needs a regular rub from Monsanto I'm afraid!!

TBH roundup or gysophate is not the answer to rushes. It is much more compex than that. It is all about land management

Fair enough. However the one thing the rush needs above all others is water. We just seem to be getting more and more of it coming out of the sky. There comes a point where it becomes economically impossible to deal with that through draining etc, when you are faced with marginal profits on what you produce.
Beef for example!!! If you have to upgrade drainage on a few acres every year with current income from beef you may as well pack it in.

charolais0153

Welding Rod wrote: »

Fair enough. However the one thing the rush needs above all others is water. We just seem to be getting more and more of it coming out of the sky

The last 7 or so months haven't been that wet imo

Buford T. Justice XIX

charolais0153 wrote: »

The last 7 or so months haven't been that wet imo

I don't think they would agree with you on that up in the North West, somehow.

CloughCasey1

charolais0153 wrote: »

The last 7 or so months haven't been that wet imo

No more than myself. What would ye know about rushes.☺

charolais0153

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I don't think they would agree with you on that up in the North West, somehow.

Mayo galway border....

Mooooo

It's drainage is the key, and depending on ground type and enterprise whether it's economical to do it is the question. Rushes return here when the ground starts getting wet again. Part of ground isn't great at getting away surface water but have a lot of water below to shift as well, which we find is the bigger problem. We drained and improved the fall of a bit of ground which has worked but a lot of subsoil was mixed with the small bit of topsoil so will have to feed it hard. Also surface can go very hard in dry spells now, was done 7 years ago will probably need more work soon but I'd get sweats just thinking of the stones again

Buford T. Justice XIX

charolais0153 wrote: »

Mayo galway border....

A friend of mine in Donegal reckons his land is wetter this back end than in 2009. It's mad the variation in ground conditions within even a few miles though.

croot

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

A friend of mine in Donegal reckons his land is wetter this back end than in 2009. It's mad the variation in ground conditions within even a few miles though.

It wasn't any worse than normal in the 2009 for rainfall in the north west in general. It was just the rest of the country had the same level of rainfall.

Nearest weather station to me recorded 1436 mm rainfall in 2009 but 2015 was 1848 mm and 2013 was 1522 mm. This year will probably be the worst of all but no figures from MET yet.

Chuchote

How did people deal with rushes before Roundup? Just curious.

lookinghere

taxusbaccata wrote: »

I heard from many farmers that the only way to get rid of rushes is to spray and top them. I purchased 10 acres of long historically grazed fields which was having problems with rushes.

I would never use these toxic chemicals to damage the bacteria and fungi that keep the soil healthy aiding grass and other plants so I approached it logically... What do rushes need to survive? Wet and saturated soil. I observed that rush seeds actually germinate in water. I suspect that saturated soils have a thin film of water creating a surface "microlake" effect.

I observed the flow of heavy rain water over my fields, took photos and in the spring I used a small 3T digger to create a very gentle shallow drain with the front blade. It worked perfectly as it channeled the rainwater runoff into the pond I had dug. The next few month I noticed all the rushes were dying off.

EDIT: I made the drain along the path the water took naturally.

IMO chemical sprays are a complete waste of money and damage our soils. They only cause a transient set back to the rush plant before it takes off again. But the marketing power of chemical companies is great.

I am planting a boundary range of native trees to help with water and other soil health issues. The leaves they drop are fantastic for topsoil nutrients and their root complexes aid hugely with soil drainage.

Simple way is the best

Buford T. Justice XIX

Chuchote wrote: »

How did people deal with rushes before Roundup? Just curious.

Drainage, lime, fertiliser and cutting, pretty much the same as now except roundup allows a much faster arrival at an all grass sward and an easier route there.

lookinghere

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Drainage, lime, fertiliser and cutting, pretty much the same as now except roundup allows a much faster arrival at an all grass sward and an easier route there.

But roundup is not as good anymore

patsy_mccabe

What happened to the dung beetle? I haven't seen one here in ages and I clearly remember them from when I was young. Did the Ivomectin kill them, I wonder.

Welding Rod

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

What happened to the dung beetle? I haven't seen one here in ages and I clearly remember them from when I was young. Did the Ivomectin kill them, I wonder.

And what about the horsefly?
Vet scarce now.
Them fookers could bring two pounds of flesh in one haul. They are no loss if you ask me?

Birdnuts

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

What happened to the dung beetle? I haven't seen one here in ages and I clearly remember them from when I was young. Did the Ivomectin kill them, I wonder.

Tis not helping them that's for sure and the same with earthworms. High levels of antibitics in dung is another issue. Dung beetles, worms etc. provide an invaluable service in terms of adding humus and other vital elements to the soil via recycling dung and other waste products. I think the state agri-agencies could do a lot more helping the averge farmer understand the importance of such things in terms of soil management etc.

pedigree 6

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

What happened to the dung beetle? I haven't seen one here in ages and I clearly remember them from when I was young. Did the Ivomectin kill them, I wonder.

I was welding in the milking parlour one night in September and I got a wallop in the head with something. I turned off the welder and was wondering what the hell was after hitting me. I looked down on the ground and there was a big fe#ker of a dung beetle stunned after hitting me.

There up here still anyway. There's one field where badgers root and you can see all the dungpats turned over looking for them.

There's a lot of hedgehogs near the farmyard and you'd see the hedgehogs at night rooting in the field at the yard.

As for horseflies. There's no shortage of them here either. Bastward things.
I'm allergic to them.

( I think people should look more too at what's on their farm . A lot of people now can't spot signs of things anymore).

Satriale

Chuchote wrote: »

How did people deal with rushes before Roundup? Just curious.

A farmer told me they used to use them for bedding.

greysides

Welding Rod wrote: »

And what about the horsefly?
Vet scarce now.
Them fookers could bring two pounds of flesh in one haul. They are no loss if you ask me?

Noticed that too. Hard to find any sympathy for them either..:D

Welding Rod

Satriale wrote: »

Chuchote wrote: »

How did people deal with rushes before Roundup? Just curious.

A farmer told me they used to use them for bedding.

And for thatching ricks of hay! Cut and tied into sheafs and transported to the haggard to be used for the thatching.
Been there done that!!

longgonesilver

Satriale wrote: »

A farmer told me they used to use them for bedding.

They made mattresses out of them too. And spread them on the stone floors to make a carpet.

patsy_mccabe

I remember my neighbour using rushes as bedding.

Username John

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I remember my neighbour using rushes as bedding.

Was it called 'Litter' - rushes cut for bedding...

good work aint dear

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Am I the only one who would like to see this drainage and resseding job?

Op you talk the talk but show us if you can walk the walk.




Otherwise this thread is pointless.:rolleyes:

Have to agree 100% . far too many people want to discuss topics that are either completely ludricus or impractical . commonsence has to apply in every situtaton and maybe if more of the poorer quality land was put into forestry it would give a better financal return .and maybe free up some more of the cap budget for the land that actually is employing people and contributing to the economy . if somebody wants to champion and idea they should be able to prove it.

good work aint dear

Birdnuts wrote: »

Tis not helping them that's for sure and the same with earthworms. High levels of antibitics in dung is another issue. Dung beetles, worms etc. provide an invaluable service in terms of adding humus and other vital elements to the soil via recycling dung and other waste products. I think the state agri-agencies could do a lot more helping the averge farmer understand the importance of such things in terms of soil management etc.

since when is ivermection an antibiotic and id rather see a dead dungbeetle than dead animals because of parasites

Satriale

good work aint dear wrote: »

Have to agree 100% . far too many people want to discuss topics that are either completely ludricus or impractical . commonsence has to apply in every situtaton and maybe if more of the poorer quality land was put into forestry it would give a better financal return .and maybe free up some more of the cap budget for the land that actually is employing people and contributing to the economy . if somebody wants to champion and idea they should be able to prove it.

Somewhere in the mists of time two lads argued over whether rubbing two sticks or striking two rocks was the best way to start a fire. And i'm sure the guy selling the sticks though flint was ludicrous too.
If people didnt discuss new ideas we still be sitting around in cold caves flinging sh1t at each other for the craic.