Aerator after silage

twin_beacon

We are picking around 20 acres tomorrow (bales). The fields will be closed straight away for second cut. it will be getting slurry via dribble bar from an umbilical system within the next 10 days, depending on when the contractor is free. Is it worth running over the fields with the aerator before the slurry is applied?

charolais0153

twin_beacon wrote: »

We are picking around 20 acres tomorrow (bales). The fields will be closed straight away for second cut. it will be getting slurry via dribble bar from an umbilical system within the next 10 days, depending on when the contractor is free. Is it worth running over the fields with the aerator before the slurry is applied?

Would the field get too dry if it was to get anotjer spell of dry weather

MF290

charolais0153 wrote: »

Would the field get too dry if it was to get anotjer spell of dry weather

There would be a fair weight in the ones that are filled with water.

Muckit

It's a great idea. See a lad near here doing it. Go for it

valtra2

Do half of it and you will know if it was worth it in a few weeks

Odelay

Try half the field as and experiment and see how it works out?

valtra2

Snap

Odelay

Odelay wrote: »

Try half the field as and experiment and see how it works out?

Or leave a smaller patch without the aerator? It would be interesting to see.

Grueller

Do you know what would be a great idea, try half of the field and not the other half.

mengele

Why not do half the field and leave the other half?

Say my name

Or do two quarters and leave two quarters as an experiment.

Edit: if your soil is high in iron an aeration is supposed to oxidize some of that iron and get more aerobic bacteria into the soil. All food for plants eventually.

Mooooo

What you'd need to watch for is that it doesn't turn up and earth that may end up in the second cut. Dunno if they do or not just if you do keep and eye on how it's going

Dunedin

Mooooo wrote: »

What you'd need to watch for is that it doesn't turn up and earth that may end up in the second cut. Dunno if they do or not just if you do keep and eye on how it's going

He could do half the field with the aerator and the other half for the second cut - boom 💥

GrasstoMilk

Was research done in teagasc's research farm
In solo head a good many years ago and it seen no benefit from the aerator to grass growth at all.
Brilliant for weeds though I'm told

twin_beacon

I've an idea, maybe I'll just to half the land


around 10 acres is boggy, and doesn't get grazed. Normally just 2 cuts of silage a year. The other 10 acres is much better land, and gets grazed. I may do the better land first, as I might not have time to do both.

GrasstoMilk

twin_beacon wrote: »

I've an idea, maybe I'll just to half the land


around 10 acres is boggy, and doesn't get grazed. Normally just 2 cuts of silage a year. The other 10 acres is much better land, and gets grazed. I may do the better land first, as I might not have time to do both.

Could you get your hands on a mole plough in the autumn? It would do a much better job imo over the aerator. The aerator wouldn't go deep enough

twin_beacon

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Could you get your hands on a mole plough in the autumn? It would do a much better job imo over the aerator. The aerator wouldn't go deep enough

the mole plough would be the right job, however all this land has drainage pipes going through it, so we would run the risk of ripping them all up.

lakill Farm

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Was research done in teagasc's research farm
In solo head a good many years ago and it seen no benefit from the aerator to grass growth at all.
Brilliant for weeds though I'm told

weeds? :rolleyes:

Aerator are a good job especially if using more than 2k gallons of slurry per acre

twin_beacon

lakill Farm wrote: »

Aerator are a good job especially if using more than 2k gallons of slurry per acre

thats what I've heard alright. this land will be getting slurry soon.

charolais0153

twin_beacon wrote: »

thats what I've heard alright. this land will be getting slurry soon.

1995, experiments were conducted at Kilmaley and Knockbeg under grazing
and silage conservation conditions and on a previously compacted site at
Kilmaley. Spiking treatments were carried out at both sites in Spring 1995.
Treatments were replicated three or four times at each site. The recorded dry
matter yields for Kilmaley (total of 6 harvests on the grazing area and 3 cuts on
the silage area) and Knockbeg (one cut only) are given in Table 2. Only one cut
was taken at Knockbeg because grass growth in Summer 1995 was very poor due
to very dry soil conditions.

There was no significant difference between treatments at the grazed site in
Kilmaley. The spiking treatment significantly reduced yield at the conservation
site. Spiking also tended to reduce yield at the Knockbeg sites, although a
significant difference was only recorded at the conservation site. The tendency to
reduce yield may be associated with physical damage caused to the plant root
structure, thereby inhibiting water and nutrient uptake, particularly in dry
conditions. At Kilmaley, where yields were recorded over the entire season, there
was a tendency for the spiked plots to give a higher yield than the control plots at
the later cuts.
The treatments imposed on the previous compaction trial showed similar trends
(Table 3). Spiking reduced grass dry matter yield on the first harvest after
treatment regardless of previous compaction treatment. While the effects of the
previous compaction were evident, the percentage yield reduction was similar
whether the plots had received conventional, low ground-pressure or no previous
traffic
....from teagasc

Say my name

charolais0153 wrote: »

1995, experiments were conducted at Kilmaley and Knockbeg under grazing
and silage conservation conditions and on a previously compacted site at
Kilmaley. Spiking treatments were carried out at both sites in Spring 1995.
Treatments were replicated three or four times at each site. The recorded dry
matter yields for Kilmaley (total of 6 harvests on the grazing area and 3 cuts on
the silage area) and Knockbeg (one cut only) are given in Table 2. Only one cut
was taken at Knockbeg because grass growth in Summer 1995 was very poor due
to very dry soil conditions.

There was no significant difference between treatments at the grazed site in
Kilmaley. The spiking treatment significantly reduced yield at the conservation
site. Spiking also tended to reduce yield at the Knockbeg sites, although a
significant difference was only recorded at the conservation site. The tendency to
reduce yield may be associated with physical damage caused to the plant root
structure, thereby inhibiting water and nutrient uptake, particularly in dry
conditions. At Kilmaley, where yields were recorded over the entire season, there
was a tendency for the spiked plots to give a higher yield than the control plots at
the later cuts.
The treatments imposed on the previous compaction trial showed similar trends
(Table 3). Spiking reduced grass dry matter yield on the first harvest after
treatment regardless of previous compaction treatment. While the effects of the
previous compaction were evident, the percentage yield reduction was similar
whether the plots had received conventional, low ground-pressure or no previous
traffic
....from teagasc

So Kilmaley was up on recorded yield.
Knockbeg was too dry after and down in yield.

So we're back to it being site and soil and weather dependent.

I tell ye lads the biggest inhibition of growth of cereal or grass or whatever in dry conditions is boron availability. The drier the ground the less it's available and then growth slows down. Either a little bit from slurry or fert if it's not in excess in the soil already is a help.

I see a question asked on another forum about cows being fussy and bawling going into paddocks. That could be down to too much nitrogen, boron, aluminium or manganese in the soil and plant. Ye may laugh but seawater sprayed as a once off treatment at 4 or 5litres/ac but diluted with non treated well water at 19:1 would help that and make the cows graze it to the ground. So 5 would make 100 litres of ready to use. Alternatively you could use any marine based product, seaweed spray, physolith, etc to balance out your problem minerals or alternatively a bit of sodium in fertilizer helps content cows in trouble paddocks too. It also helps paddocks that go 'sour' from too much slurry.

So now... there's a bit of trivia.

lakill Farm

One years test in 2 site locations over 23 years ago hardly is much proof now in fairness.

You want a 5 year experiment using 2/3 different type of aerators.

Sure if teagasc only tested grass seed once or milk performance once and quarter of a century later someone came up with a new idea would most people still rely on there advice.

charolais0153 wrote: »

1995, experiments were conducted at Kilmaley and Knockbeg under grazing
and silage conservation conditions and on a previously compacted site at
Kilmaley. Spiking treatments were carried out at both sites in Spring 1995.
Treatments were replicated three or four times at each site. The recorded dry
matter yields for Kilmaley (total of 6 harvests on the grazing area and 3 cuts on
the silage area) and Knockbeg (one cut only) are given in Table 2. Only one cut
was taken at Knockbeg because grass growth in Summer 1995 was very poor due
to very dry soil conditions.

There was no significant difference between treatments at the grazed site in
Kilmaley. The spiking treatment significantly reduced yield at the conservation
site. Spiking also tended to reduce yield at the Knockbeg sites, although a
significant difference was only recorded at the conservation site. The tendency to
reduce yield may be associated with physical damage caused to the plant root
structure, thereby inhibiting water and nutrient uptake, particularly in dry
conditions. At Kilmaley, where yields were recorded over the entire season, there
was a tendency for the spiked plots to give a higher yield than the control plots at
the later cuts.
The treatments imposed on the previous compaction trial showed similar trends
(Table 3). Spiking reduced grass dry matter yield on the first harvest after
treatment regardless of previous compaction treatment. While the effects of the
previous compaction were evident, the percentage yield reduction was similar
whether the plots had received conventional, low ground-pressure or no previous
traffic
....from teagasc

Markcheese

On top of the year it probably depends what you're trying to improve ( I know it's grass growth) but is it compaction from machinery,?
From large amounts of slurry?
Oxidising iron or breaking an iron pan?
Letting water drain quicker?
Or airating/ loosening the soil on reseeded ground with no deep rooted plants... There may be better ways of achieving that particular result.. Or not..

raypallas

twin_beacon wrote:

the mole plough would be the right job, however all this land has drainage pipes going through it, so we would run the risk of ripping them all up.

Would you not be going parallel to the drainage pipes tho? I'd be all for the mole plough has turned ground inside out here.

twin_beacon

raypallas wrote: »

Would you not be going parallel to the drainage pipes tho? I'd be all for the mole plough has turned ground inside out here.

can't remember exactly where they are, the land has been reseeded since the drainage pipes went in, so you cant see the marks any more.