One of the purposes of cover crop rolling is the intended reduction or elimination of burn down herbicides. Most studies I have read showed great promise with rolling and crimping. Now for the hard truth: burn down herbicides have actually shown faster increases in traditional measurable soil organic matter than even the best of organic methods, but the assumption is that these herbicides have the negative consequence of destroying much of the beneficial bacteria and other necessary micro-organisms creating an overall net-negative effect (the biological aspect that is difficult or expensive to measure). The fact of the matter is that there aren't enough studies to validate this because we have looked at soil incorrectly (in my humble opinion) for centuries, generally from a geological perspective. There is so much we don't know about soil, and so many assumptions we have made regarding soil that the Soil Science Society has redefined the term ‘soil science'. This corrected definition was made in large part to include the biological aspect of soil as we now it. We often fail to realize that science is ever evolving, instead working from an assumption that we have reached the ‘pinnacle' of a specific area of study. In fact, the soil lab I interned at was conducting a study on this very aspect. My internship was completed before the study was (and I was under a confidentiality agreement) but highly recommend utilizing the information from the attached link. Best of luck my friend!
“In California, this new form will be needed for customers who are selected for funding in both EQIP batch periods ending March 3 and June 9,” said NRCS State Conservationist Carlos Suarez.
One of the purposes of cover crop rolling is the intended reduction or elimination of burn down herbicides. Most studies I have read showed great promise with rolling and crimping. Now for the hard truth: burn down herbicides have actually shown faster increases in traditional measurable soil organic matter than even the best of organic methods, but the assumption is that these herbicides have the negative consequence of destroying much of the beneficial bacteria and other necessary micro-organisms creating an overall net-negative effect (the biological aspect that is difficult or expensive to measure). The fact of the matter is that there aren't enough studies to validate this because we have looked at soil incorrectly (in my humble opinion) for centuries, generally from a geological perspective. There is so much we don't know about soil, and so many assumptions we have made regarding soil that the Soil Science Society has redefined the term ‘soil science'. This corrected definition was made in large part to include the biological aspect of soil as we now it. We often fail to realize that science is ever evolving, instead working from an assumption that we have reached the ‘pinnacle' of a specific area of study. In fact, the soil lab I interned at was conducting a study on this very aspect. My internship was completed before the study was (and I was under a confidentiality agreement) but highly recommend utilizing the information from the attached link. Best of luck my friend!
“In California, this new form will be needed for customers who are selected for funding in both EQIP batch periods ending March 3 and June 9,” said NRCS State Conservationist Carlos Suarez.
You're not allowed to send a request anymore because you exceeded your limit.
If you believe this message is in error please contact us at admin@agfuse.com
Log in to follow people on AgFuse.
Don't have an account?
Want to try out our iOS application?
Join Thousands of Agricultural Professionals for Free!
You're not allowed to send a request anymore because you exceeded your limit.
If you believe this message is in error please contact us at admin@agfuse.com
AgFuse © 2021 
