[tokyo_to_motueka]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat's up with aeration of the soil/ tilling/ worms? Why is this good? Is it good?

[bart]

tokyo_to_motueka, I hope you get a chance to read Holmgren's new book. It's a stimulating treat for anyone who's followed PO issues. If I were giving a course in PO and sustainable living, this book would be at the center of it.

A number of Holmgren's writings are available online:
http://www.holmgren.com.au/html/Publica ... tings.html
http://www.holmgren.com.au/html/Writings/Writings.html
http://energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=524

Holmgren wrote about two pages on rock-dust in his new book. Here are his conclusions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('David Holmgren', '.')..the best use for non-renewable resources and technology should be to establish a system, rather than to maintain or harvest it...

Mineral fertilisers are a special case of using fossil fuels (in crushing and transport) and often limited non-renewable sources (such as phosphate rock) to improve the long-term productivity of soils...

there is evidence that, if the principles of balancing soil minerals can be better understood and applied, soil re-mineralisation can create a permanent improvement in biological productivity that does not need to be repeated, except to replace minerals exported in produce. ...

Better understandings of soil improvement based on the use of chemistry (rock minerals) and biology (plants, animals and microbes) are emerging, which can hopefully provide more reliable ways to achieve the "Holy Grail" of organic farming: high productivity and healthy balance.
Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability p. 48-50

[Liamj]

aayyy, great thread, on'yez all. I'll try hard not to rehash already excellent info, but i too love thinking about soils.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Soft_Landing', '
')What happens to plant growth if there is a lack of N/P/K/other trace elements?
Are the trace elements taken off site with produce, or do they work like catalysts in the soil? I think the latter possibility is just wishful thinking, but, maybe...

[bart]

This sounds like your area of study, Liamj!

Question for you or anyone else knowledgeable. What about the microfauna in the soil, the bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, etc.?

Could you verify or deny the impressions of an outsider to the field?

From hearing and reading the work of soil ecologist Elaine Ingham, it seems as if microfauna are critical for agriculture -- making nutrients available to plants, preventing pathogens from taking hold, recycling organic material, etc

And yet from what I can tell, in gardening or farming, we really don't pay much attention to them. Yes, the organic people talk about "the life in the soil," but in a general, fuzzy way. We don't seem to have the same level of understanding about the microfauna as we do about other agricultural sciences, such as plant physiology.

My guess is that pre-20th century farmers and gardeners were acute observers of soil fertility, but their ideas were on the level of rules of thumb and gut feelings. Scientific investigation would have been hampered by lack of instruments and understanding of the microbial world.

However, in the 20th century, when it would have been scientifically possible to get a grip on soil ecology, we went down the path of chemical agriculture. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers made it unnecessary to study the critters in the soil; the synthetics seemed cheap and effective and soil ecology was probably considered suspect since it would call into question the chemical triumphs.

Now, the field of agriculture seems to be confused. The chemical advocates don't seem so sure of themselves, but soil ecology doesn't seem to get much funding or publicity.

If we are entering a low-energy world in which fertilizers and pesticides will be in short supply, and the food supply is in doubt, wouldn't it make sense for us to be MUCH more knowledge about soil ecology?

One example. If plant health is so dependent on soil microbes, is it such a great idea to irrigate with chlorinated water? I understand that the soil typically will lock up the chlorine, but even so -- wouldn't it be a good idea to study the effect on soil life since the chlorine would be applied regularly in large amounts? In particular, I wonder about chloramine, which is often used in water systems instead of chlorine This chemical is much slower to break down than chlorine (you can't get rid of it, merely by letting the water stand). What happens to the critical soil life if we keep putting these antibiotic chemicals onto the soils? In researching the subject, I run across glib, superficial answers --"Well, so far we haven't seen any problems." I've found nothing in which I really could have confidence.

[Liamj]

Hi Bart, its sure been an interest of mine but not comprehensively trained-in or specifically worked-with on daily basis. Soil ecology is indeed 'where it all happens' for plant nutrition, and we don't know very much about it at micro scale anyway. By biomass the bacteria are the major players, but with 1000s of species in any particular sod, some likely to be unique to locale, its no wonder we haven't made much progress understanding them.

CSIRO in Aus now retail a soil innoculation (not sure now if its bacterial or fungal) to help native plant establishment, but it doesn't work for all spp or in all locations.
Many practitioners report that if ensure approp soil 'nutrition' then approp bacteria & bugs will turn up. That makes some sense, but doesn't help us amateurs deal with a plague of cocksheafers!

Microfauna, the bugs and beasties, are easier to get a grip on, with a hand lens and any starter text in entymology or plant pathology all thats reqd. Bugs reveal their livelihoods by their morphology - if its got a long thin tube for a mouth, its prob a sap or root (or blood!) sucker. If its got digging legs & streamlined shape, it prob resides &/or breeds under the ground.

Of course diff life stages may live in diff places, which is why texts are essential (unless you've got a few lifetimes to reinvent that wheel). Once have the right bug & know its lifecycle, you're more than halfway there (sez this very amateur pl.pathologist.. I just hope Dr J.Johns doesn't read this!).
The ones we know best (like pythium & fusarium - seed & collar rots) we know fairly well; that doesn't mean we can eradicate them, but by applying knowledge of pest/disease ecology can minimise losses(e.g. fusarium, like most fungi, likes humidity, so keep humidity down).

The subsoil, soil surface, and plant surface are (to bugs) pretty diff environments, with diff humidity, temp, cover/camoflage & avail food, and remembering that helps to sort out who is who and what might be done.

Hate to be Mr Doomer, but unbalanced systems (which allow bugs/diseases to get out of control) are going to become even more common with climate change, so getting a handle on local pests is reqd for those serious about food production. http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/repor ... eeds.shtml

Bart mentioned fungi, or mycorrhizae specifically (root-LIKE structures from some fungi that exchange nutrients with plants http://www.wild.paonia.com/mycorrhizals.htm) and they do play various roles in many soil ecosystems, reportedly more so where nutrient deficiencies are severe or widespread. Can form associations with grasses thru to hardwood trees, but associations are one fungi species to several dicots, or several-to-several, not many-many.

So if your site has been cropped annually for 40 years, its actually unlikely all your desired or reqd fungi will be there (bugs & bacteria supposedly weather cropping better, but i'm basing that on a remembered conversation). You might well survive without them, but i know i'll sleep easier once done everything can to ensure have full local suite. A few ute loads of carefully collected & buried dirt should do it (i hope).

okay, i'll quit hogging the thread now

edit- oh, and sorry Bart, haven't heard anything about chlorine impacts on soils, will do a little digging

[tokyo_to_motueka]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'W')hat about the microfauna in the soil, the bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, etc.?

From hearing and reading the work of soil ecologist Elaine Ingham, it seems as if microfauna are critical for agriculture -- making nutrients available to plants, preventing pathogens from taking hold, recycling organic material, etc

And yet from what I can tell, in gardening or farming, we really don't pay much attention to them. Yes, the organic people talk about "the life in the soil," but in a general, fuzzy way. We don't seem to have the same level of understanding about the microfauna as we do about other agricultural sciences, such as plant physiology.

My guess is that pre-20th century farmers and gardeners were acute observers of soil fertility, but their ideas were on the level of rules of thumb and gut feelings. Scientific investigation would have been hampered by lack of instruments and understanding of the microbial world.

[Liamj]

Fukuoka was a prophet, heres a quote i hope i remember right, that i know will drive JD nuts

"..The only road to peace is for all people to abandon the castle gate of relative perception, go down into the meadow, and return to the heart of nonactive nature." (One Straw Revolution).

[scootergrrrl]

soil is a complicated system. i've done ag research for 15 years so ask away. what i don't know i can look up. people will realize just how important soil is when they have to rip up their backyards to plant some veggies.

[Ludi]

Various trees and deep-rooted weeds bring minerals up from deep in the soil and in some cases concentrate them in their tissues, so replenishing minerals could be done in a low-energy-intensive manner while producing compost ingredients.

[nth]

plant physiology is a lot easier to study than soil.
just soil physics and water traveling through it is not predictable. this should be easy as we are not dealing with anything live or dynamic- just a pile of cooked dirt, to kill off everything and sieved to a certain size and let water drip down using gravity. You won't be able to predict how much water and how fast and where it will drip down.

As of 2000, we don't have the scientific instruments to measure what microbes live in the soil and their demographics or population dynamics. What scientists can test is based on culturing. They take a sample of soil and wash it with solutions and see what grows.

They use microbiology plates with different nutrients to try to grow them. Then they can use protein binding tests or phospholipid or fatty acid binding tests to discuss about what lives in the soil. Some scientists even directly apply extracted solutions to these tests.

Using radioactive isotope or luminiscent dna, scientists tried to study microbes in their habitat. What they found is that the markers get transfered to local microbes and slowly fade away.

Scientists used microscopes to identify protozoans or other multi-cellular organisms. Since these organisms eat each other, there is tendency that samples will become mono-culture or more like reduce diversity.

As alluded to by others, soil environment is very microscopic. One drop of water will be home to hundreds or thousands of critters.

Even the study of plants and their symbiotic fungi is not well understood. There is a strong correlation to poor soil and poor nutrient soil will have more plants with symbiotic fungi. These plants will only form symbiotic relationships if plenty of water, but nutrient poor. If high nutrient, then numbers diminish.

Rhizosphere (soil that gets roots leaking out water and nutrients) are the most diverse and abundant microfauna. There is direct correlation with number of exudates(water and nutrients escaping roots) and amount of N uptake by the plant. Under these experiments, it is theorized that microbes help plants uptake N.

I will come back next week to post more if interested.

[FarmCat]

I read through the thread quickly, so pardon me if this has been stated already.

I wanted to briefly mention the big reason that conventional farming (commercial fertilizers and pesticides) is a terrible way to grow food. As many people have stated above, the bacteria, fungi, worms, and other life in the soil are terribly important. They take the minerals and other nutrients that are in forms unusable by plants, and turn them into usable compounds. The best known example is nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

Pesticides kill the beneficial soil life as well as the pests! When your soil is dead your plants can't use the nutrients in the form that they're in, and so you have to apply usable forms of them by adding nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus fertilizer. But that still leaves your plants without the multitude of trace nutrients that they need to be healthy and that you need to get when you eat those plants so you can be healthy.

It can take 5-7 years to revive soils, restore the living communities in them, after you stop using conventional pesticides and fertilizers.

The best book I have read on this subject is "Empty Harvest: Understanding the link between our food, our immunity, and our planet," by Dr. Bernard Jensen and Mark Anderson.

The second point I wanted to make is that the rock dust mentioned above in several places is not really such a strange idea at all. It is also not energy-intensive, because you don't really have to make rock dust-it exists in great abundance all around us. If you grind a rock to powder and then add a little water, you get---clay! People have been adding clay to their soils to provide minerals for all of recorded history. Some types are better than others because of the mix of minerals. Google on Montmorillonite clay, also known as bentonite clay. Excellent stuff for your garden. You can get it at Farm and Fleet and similar stores.

[AnnaLivia]

thanks to everyone for this elegant and important thread. i would like to add a contribution from an amatuer's research (mine).

i found this man's thesis to be a good and quick introduction to understanding this subject.

A THESIS ON SOIL REMINERALIZATION

snippets from this thesis (it was hard for me to pick and choose, but here's a little of it):

Korcak (1996) states that "Sixteen elements are considered to be essential for the growth of higher plants. These include those required in relatively large amounts. (1% dry weight or more) ie H,O,N,C,K,Mg,P,S, and CL and those required in relatively small amounts (ppm) levels ie Mn, Zn, Cu, Fe, B and, Mo" Most of these are provided by rock dust (Appendix A) and from the environment in healthy soil systems.

These elements must be provided by the soil and differ for each plant and each situation depending on the various interactions within the soil. When chemicals are added they can cause imbalances in the soil that can thus be injurious to the plants (Cooper 1975, Hensel 1885)

"There are many problems with chemical fertilisers as they can destroy the natural soil environment Petrochemical fertilisers are often high in soluble salts that are detrimental to soil microbes and plants alike; they decrease microbial activity and plant nutrient uptake". (Enviro-guard 1999)

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 1998) is currently researching by-product utilisation, by reclaiming materials such as quarry waste fines, gypsum and coal dust. They can be combined and composted with municipal by-products. This composting reduces pathogens, toxins and odours to create high quality natural fertilisers for the soil. This has great potential for the problem of landfill (USDA 1998)

If however Soil Remineralisation is to be accepted in the mainstream more scientific research needs to be carried out.

All the research from around the world is being collated by Remineralise the Earth (Appendix G) as a central point of information for rock dust research.

The SEER Centre in Scotland was very interesting, too:

PAUL KELBIE, INDEPENDENT, UK - With the prospect of an earth made infertile from over-production and mass reliance on chemicals, coupled with an atmosphere polluted by greenhouse gases there seems little to celebrate. But belief is growing that an answer to some of the earth's problems are not only at hand, but under our feet. Specialists have just met in Perth to discuss the secrets of rock dust, a quarrying by-product that is at the heart of government-sponsored scientific trials and which, it is claimed, could revitalize barren soil and reverse climate change.

The recognition of the healing powers of rock dust comes after a 20-year campaign by two former schoolteachers, Cameron and Moira Thomson. They have been battling to prove that rock dust can replace the minerals that have been lost to the earth over the past 10,000 years and, as a result, rejuvenate the land and halt climate change.

To prove their point, the couple have converted six acres of open, infertile land in the Grampian foothills near Pitlochry into a modern Eden. Using little more than rock dust mixed with compost, they have created rich, deep soils capable of producing cabbages the size of footballs, onions bigger than coconuts and gooseberries as big as plums.

"This is a simple answer which doesn't involve drastic life changes by anyone," Ms Thomson said. "People don't have to stop driving cars to do this, just spread some rock dust on their gardens. We could cover the earth with rock dust and start to absorb carbon in a more natural fashion which, along with reducing emissions and using a combination of other initiatives, will have a better and faster response.". . .

The couple claim the technique may also play a significant role in the fight against climate change as calcium and magnesium in the dust converts carbon in the air into carbonates. Such is the interest in the theory that NASA in the US is examining it in preparation for growing plants on other planets.


BBC, APRIL 2004 -
It seems impossible that a discovery of such importance can start in a Dundee garden, but the Thomsons are on the brink of finding out whether their work really has all the benefits they think it has in terms of better produce which improves human health, taking more carbon from the atmosphere, holding it in the soil and therefore helping fight climate change, making positive use of waste (including stockpiled rock dust), reducing the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and improving poor soils in some areas of Scotland with few other economic opportunities. If it is proved to work in just some of these areas, it will be of enormous significance for all of us.

SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL EARTH REGENERATION CENTER (cool photos there)

http://www.seercentre.org.uk/

and from PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, MAR 2000

- In one experiment in North Carolina, 500 five-year-old red spruce and fraser fir trees were treated with rock dust applied at various rates. After six months it was found that all of the rock-dusted trees had survived, while only 77%-87% of the non-treated trees had. Growth rate increases, depending on the size of application, varied from 5% to 39%.

- At the Hardin Brothers farm in Queensland Australia, rock dust has been used since the mid-80s. Among the results: fertilizer applications have been reduced by 80 percent. There has been a saving in fertilizer costs. There has been less environmental damage caused by runoff contamination. 25% higher yields. 20% increase in growth rate. There has been an 80% increase in production even using less fertilizer.

- In another case, glacial moraine gravel dust was spread on 10 acres. In an area of sparse rainfall and dry summers, and with no irrigation, the corn produced 65 bushels per acre, compared to yields of under 25 bushels per acre from other local farms.

- A study in Bavaria found that after 24 years the wood volume of the treated area was four times higher than in the untreated area. In the case of new pine seedlings remineralized with basalt rock dust, there were gains over the untreated area after the sixth year. After 24 years, the wood volume of the treated area was four times higher than in the untreated area.

- Another experiment by Jared Milarch, an undergraduate at Northwestern Michigan College, produced, by the 67th day, startling increases in immature tomatoes treated with montmorillonite clay.

-Your editor (Sam Smith of The Progressive Review) www.prorev.com , who worked on his parent's organic beef farm even before the publication of "Silent Spring," is aware of the slow osmosis from ridicule to acceptance in matters of natural agriculture. My father had a hard time even finding a lawyer when he sued the Central Maine Power Company in 1960 for spraying along the farm power lines. The town lawyer took the case and won a settlement that to this day bars CMP from spraying power lines if the owner does not wish it. The remineralization movement is presently in a somewhat analogous position of odd novelty. The one person I have met in Washington who is sympathetic to the idea is Pentagon whistleblower Ernie Fitzgerald, who recalls steel mill tailings being successfully used on Alabama farms when he was growing up.

[Liamj]

More on the natural fertility front, most recent CSIRO Sustainability Network newsletter has piece by Joe Friend (and incidentally one by David Holmgren on urban refits) on the overlooked importance of the whole soil profile in soil nutrient status.
http://www.bml.csiro.au/susnetnl/netwl49E.pdf
[quote]
Australian and international Geologists working in central Australia have clearly stated that “there is no soil out here, just
sand and clayâ€

[scootergrrrl]

[quote="Liamj"]More on the natural fertility front, most recent CSIRO Sustainability Network newsletter has piece by Joe Friend (and incidentally one by David Holmgren on urban refits) on the overlooked importance of the whole soil profile in soil nutrient status.
http://www.bml.csiro.au/susnetnl/netwl49E.pdf
[quote]
]

the problem is most plants species and specifically the plant species we utilize only grow on the very top of the soil structure.

the big nutrient in soil is nitrogen. and of course that comes from oil. nitrogen has always been the limiting factor.

[Pops]

Bump

[ralfy]

"A Dangerous Fixation"

"Synthetic nitrogen was born 100 years ago; it’s why half of us are alive."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... lizer.html

[Tanada]

The thing is nitrogen fixation is the easiest of all fertilizers to manufacture. As long as you have access to water, electricity, and a few simple catalysts you can make as much as you want. The catalysts last for a very long time so electricity and water and air are your limiting factors, and without water and air you won't be farming even hydroponically.

People got used to cheap fossil fuel hydrogen for the process, but Norway made all of its Ammonia from hydroelectricity and water for decades before fossil fuels were cheap enough to compete in Norway.

[ralfy]

There is more to it than such. More details can be found in the article.

[sparky]

.
Fascinating subject ,
Bad farmers talk about acreage , good farmers talk about soils
as a rough and ready estimate gab a piece and look at the color
the darker it is the more carbon is in the soil , this is an absolute value
the darker the soil the better it is
then look at the structure crush it with your fingers , if it crumble into dust it has poor water holding
if too sticky , it has too much clay
if it feel too grainy there probably is too much sand ,
too much bits of gravel will wear out plow and tools
that's typical of alluvial fields in up country river land
of course a critical factor if how deep it is
a foot is OK , the more the better

good soil is dark rich , crumble into lumps an feel damp
a worm sticking its head up is a very.... very good sign
it happen in garden , much less in plowed fields

The traditional form of soil management was the two fields rotation system
grain and cattle often with a fallow year ,
It's OK for subsistence but it is sustainable at a low level with no food export
then it got modified to the three field system
grain , cattle and clover , it is a much better cycle, it is robust but then again ,
there isn't much leeway for food export beside meat and dairy
the latest and most sophisticated was the four fields system
grain cattle , clover and turnip , the turnips were feed to the cattle and avoided ground compaction
(always a major problem )
Farmers can get very emotional about ploughing ,the arguments go back back and forth
there is a lot of very good reasons for how much and how deep
it depend on the soil , crop and previous problem
my guess is sometimes changing the intensity and depth is good

trace elements have got a small bulk and are very cost effective if lacking ,
it is worth it to get them in , but a waste or worst if there is enough already
Kangaroo island in South Australia was very poor , people didn't understand why
until it was found the place was copper depleted , it was easy enough to bring some
the results were very satisfying
until the 60ies there was no need to add sulfur ,
pollution was kind enough to provide this vital element , not so much now
bringing clay or chalk to improve the structure is very expensive ,
except for very valuable cash crop ,it is not worth the bother


anyone which know about soils will jump up and throw things at me saying "it all depend "
they will be right of course
still that give you a good start to think

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')here is more to it than such. More details can be found in the article.