Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Tom · Guest

I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.

David P · Guest

Cross-posted to UBA where you are more likely to get an appropriate
readership.

"Tom" <tbanks@easton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d817d6d.0312040715.157a621a@posting.google.com...
[quote]I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.[/quote]

Torsten Brinch · Guest

On 4 Dec 2003 07:15:36 -0800, tbanks@easton.ac.uk (Tom) wrote:

[quote]I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat.
[/quote]
Bloody unfair, if brassicas are not even to be considered :-)

Any
[quote]information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.[/quote]

Guest

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.business.agriculture.]
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:35:31 -0000, David P wrote:
[quote]Cross-posted to UBA where you are more likely to get an appropriate
readership.

"Tom" <tbanks@easton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d817d6d.0312040715.157a621a@posting.google.com...
I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.
[/quote]
Yonks ago, pulses and roots were very beneficial for the following
wheat, nowadays with sprays and fertilizer, generally wheat is sown
continually. I don>t know if that is a good thing, considering humus,
etc.

Once, other crops allowed manual removal of weeds, and sheeps
droppings manured the ground, or pulses built up fertility. Nowadays,
there are very few sheep in the main cornlands.

--
greymaus
Al Firan RumaiDin

Oz · Guest

David P <me@privacy.net> writes
[quote]Cross-posted to UBA where you are more likely to get an appropriate
readership.

"Tom" <tbanks@easton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d817d6d.0312040715.157a621a@posting.google.com...
I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.
[/quote]
Years ago, whem ADAS (UK version of aphis) did vast numbers of trials
this info was public. Admittedly, with no web it was sometimes hard to
get ones hands on the data, but it was possible.

I suspect the data has long since been skipped by defra as 'of no
importance'.

Try looking on the hgca site (but don;t hold your breath).
Some quasi-public bodies do/havedone this work, and you might think the
results would be public, unfortunately extracting the data turns out to
be near impossible. They claim it is confidential so as to protect their
ability to draft in collaborative work. Rothamstead being a classic
example.

ARC, now TAG ,is a private experimental company (actually a research
charity) funded largely by a group of farmers which does do this sort of
work. Not unreasonably the data is confidential to those who have paid
to do the work. Consequently I cannot tell you the results.

However, risking being struck off, and entirely from memory, it is
generally considered that break crops allowing the optimal UK drilling
date produces a 10-30% yield increase of first wheats over second
wheats, with setaside being at the top end, and pulses at the bottom
end. Late harvested roots, sugarbeet/potatoes, are highly variable doing
very well in some years, and very poorly indeed in others. The later
than optimal harvesting date combined with severe soil damage in some
soils in some years contributing to the poor results.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Oz · Guest

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> writes
[quote]Try looking on the hgca site (but don;t hold your breath).
Some quasi-public bodies do/havedone this work, and you might think the
results would be public, unfortunately extracting the data turns out to
be near impossible. They claim it is confidential so as to protect their
ability to draft in collaborative work. Rothamstead being a classic
example.
[/quote]
I forgot one limited, but public, result.

NIAB variety trials 2002 gave (probably a three year average) for all
trials in all areas a control mean:

first wheats of 10.60 T/Ha
second wheats of 9.10 T/Ha

These appear to be early oct sown.

The below all first wheats:

sown yield
early oct 9.77
end oct 10.04
mid nov 8.6

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Oz · Guest

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> writes

erratum:

[quote]sown yield
early sept 9.77
^^^^^
end oct 10.04
mid nov 8.6
[/quote]
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Gordon Couger · Guest

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:RxwbkDCazC0$Ewke@btopenworld.com...
[quote]David P <me@privacy.net> writes
Cross-posted to UBA where you are more likely to get an appropriate
readership.

"Tom" <tbanks@easton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d817d6d.0312040715.157a621a@posting.google.com...
I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.

Years ago, whem ADAS (UK version of aphis) did vast numbers of trials
this info was public. Admittedly, with no web it was sometimes hard to
get ones hands on the data, but it was possible.

I suspect the data has long since been skipped by defra as 'of no
importance'.

Try looking on the hgca site (but don;t hold your breath).
Some quasi-public bodies do/havedone this work, and you might think the
results would be public, unfortunately extracting the data turns out to
be near impossible. They claim it is confidential so as to protect their
ability to draft in collaborative work. Rothamstead being a classic
example.

ARC, now TAG ,is a private experimental company (actually a research
charity) funded largely by a group of farmers which does do this sort of
work. Not unreasonably the data is confidential to those who have paid
to do the work. Consequently I cannot tell you the results.
[/quote]
We have a few private ag research groups in this country and almost all make
their work public except the companies that do it for themselves and they
release a lot that is not something that gives them an edge in thier market.

Texas A&M Rolling Plains Experiment Station is largely totaly funded by
Waggoner Ranch to help solve their problems but they don>t keep it to
themselves. They share it with the world.

I would hardly call it charity if they hogged the results.

Gordon

Oz · Guest

Gordon Couger <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> writes

[quote]We have a few private ag research groups in this country and almost all make
their work public except the companies that do it for themselves and they
release a lot that is not something that gives them an edge in thier market.

Texas A&M Rolling Plains Experiment Station is largely totaly funded by
Waggoner Ranch to help solve their problems but they don>t keep it to
themselves. They share it with the world.

I would hardly call it charity if they hogged the results.
[/quote]
The problem is that if it were free, few farmers would pay for the work,
the organisation would fail, and there would be no independent ag
research work done in the UK.

So in fact I agree with their restriction.
The cost when shared between many is quite cheap (circa $US500/annum).

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Gordon Couger · Guest

[quote]
"Tom" <tbanks@easton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d817d6d.0312040715.157a621a@posting.google.com...
I>m doing a research study on which crop, either cereal, pulses or
root are most beneficial to a following 1st year wheat. Any
information on articles, interviews or personal experience would be
very useful.

If the land has not been in wheat.[/quote]

Legumes are usually beneficial to some degree to any crop that follows them.
Alfalfa which you don>t grow much of over there does great things for wheat
yields for a year or two following it. Clover meadows should do the same.

Any rotation should help if the land has been in wheat very long. There will
be some diseases and what not that rotation will help.

If you are double cropping nutrients can be caught up in the crop residue
and not available to the wheat. Legumes are not usualy bad about doing that.
I am not sure about spring wheat but you can test winter wheat for nitrogen
an apply it anytime before it joints and get most of the response from the
nitrogen. Phosphorus needs to be available when the plant sprouts.

My experience with wheat in Oklahoma won>t apply very well in the UK but
those generalizations should not be off the mark.

Gordon

Gordon Couger · Guest

"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:pj11w6JH1C2$EwyS@btopenworld.com...
[quote]Gordon Couger <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> writes

We have a few private ag research groups in this country and almost all
make
their work public except the companies that do it for themselves and they
release a lot that is not something that gives them an edge in thier
market.

Texas A&M Rolling Plains Experiment Station is largely totaly funded by
Waggoner Ranch to help solve their problems but they don>t keep it to
themselves. They share it with the world.

I would hardly call it charity if they hogged the results.

The problem is that if it were free, few farmers would pay for the work,
the organisation would fail, and there would be no independent ag
research work done in the UK.

So in fact I agree with their restriction.
The cost when shared between many is quite cheap (circa $US500/annum).

I see your point. We have organizations that take a small bite at marketing[/quote]
for such as that. A dollar a head for cattle and a dollar or five pre bale
of cotton at the gin and spread the cost over everyone and share the
results. Most of that is for promotion and is not without problems. The
cotton check off has paid for some pretty nice research. They are not easy
to set up.

Getting framers to agree on what is obviously in their mutual self interest
is devilishly difficult. All my life we have been trying to get a boll
weevil eradication program going. It has been obvious it would work from a
early as the late 50>s at a price we can all afford. We finally got one in
place nation wide 3 years ago that finally meets all the requirements of the
state and federal courts.

Some one is constantly challenging the check off programs. On pork the
vertically integrated guys don>t like sending money to promote their
competition in marketing check offs. The cow calf industry is changing from
the big guy to the little guy and that is upsetting things now that half the
beef is produced by part time cattlemen with a few head and a job in town.

For a country that has been cut real short on food twice in the last century
your government is damned short sighted about agriculture as a strategic
resource.

Gordon.

Peter Gillett · Guest

In article <aWOCb.69$PK3.0@okepread01>,
Gordon Couger <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

<snip>

[quote]For a country that has been cut real short on food twice in the last century
your government is damned short sighted about agriculture as a strategic
resource.
[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.........

They don>t look past what they need for the next election (and their future
careers).

Jane

[quote]Gordon.
[/quote]
--
Peter Gillett : peter.gillett@ukgateway.net
Totnes : South Devon

Jim Webster · Guest

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:aWOCb.69$PK3.0@okepread01...

[quote]For a country that has been cut real short on food twice in the last
century
your government is damned short sighted about agriculture as a strategic
resource.

Gordon.
[/quote]
it doesn>t regard agriculture as a strategic resource, indeed it has
specificially eliminated that aspect from the forward planning

Jim Webster

[quote]
[/quote]

Gordon Couger · Guest

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brh36g$f1l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
[quote]
"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:aWOCb.69$PK3.0@okepread01...

For a country that has been cut real short on food twice in the last
century
your government is damned short sighted about agriculture as a strategic
resource.

Gordon.

it doesn>t regard agriculture as a strategic resource, indeed it has
specificially eliminated that aspect from the forward planning

How does your government plan on people making a living so they can tax[/quote]
them to have something to keep their jobs?

Are you going to revive manufacturing, shipping, mining or what? Putting all
your eggs in the high tech, banking and service industry basket is a damn
risky. You have a very good climate for agriculture and livestock and people
out of work. Buying from a third party doesn>t make sense when it puts your
at the mercy of a few countries that are prone to less deposable weather
than you are.

The last 20 years of cheap food may not last for ever. I wonder how your
politicians will react when the discover the inelasticity of food prices
with no local supplies that they can control the price on. I guess they have
forgot that wheat price of wheat can triple in the space of a few weeks. All
the conditions that they are putting on food imports will be interesting
when they can>t buy food that meet their requirements one day when stocks
get low, prices start up and every one decides to hold what they have for
better prices.

No one remembers what happens when there is not an oversupply of everything.

Gordon

Hamish · Guest

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:xMUCb.2863>
[quote]No one remembers what happens when there is not an oversupply of
everything.[/quote]

Indeed, and economics is beyond the most of us.

You can currently buy a DVD player for £37 in the UK. It is produced in
China, shipped halfway around the world made a profit for an importer and
distributed around England taxed at 17.5% and then sold in a shop paying
large local taxes.

I do not understand how this can work. So it is very unlikely that as an
outsider I can follow the economics of world food economics. Polititions
even less so, I don>t understand it with an open mind our masters live a
surreal world of spin.

But as this group points out, we pay a small % of income on food so 400%
price hikes are affordable, it is the knock on effect on the service
industries that will take the hit. If the money is spent on food then it is
the DVD players that will stay on the shelves, and a lot of world employment
is in such consumer products.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 1 of 4