Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Pete Vukovich <pvukovic1@yahoo.com>]

I think I'd want to know as much about my soil as I can, but sometimes conclusions soil tests suggest are confusing. Some labs are just going to recommend adding stuff, some run better tests than others. I think the results are just more information some of it good some not so good, some incidental. What you do with them is a totally different matter.

I run nitrogen tests every once and a while and they tend to show up low, but then again what I plant there seems to do just fine without adding anything (other than compost and a little bat guano every few years).

I suspect timing is a factor here as well, all of these nutrients cycle (become more or less available) depending on temperature, ambient light, soil physics and so on. These days I'm more curious about getting soils tested for bacterial population densities which also cycle depending on soil moisture content , temperature , etc. Still the best tool I think for me is just looking at it and smelling it, particularly when its wet.

Either way its a fascinating subject, I have a metric ton of soil books (chemistry, physics, biology, etc) I keep hoping to get to someday to make more sense of it all. Based on the constantly changing classifications and new discoveries in soil biology its a long way from being well understood in spite of what some of the books suggest. Of course pretty much every science has advocates that think their field is nearing completion (I remember Steven Weinberg saying physics would be finished in another decade 20 years ago - this nonsense in spite of getting a Nobel prize) and those who think its due for a few more revolutionary revisions. Of course like Berry says, science and technology always happen in the future.


--- On Tue, 8/24/10, Emery Mitchamore <emitch@att.net> wrote:

From: Emery Mitchamore <emitch@att.net>
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] The only way to tell what your soil really needs???
To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing" <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 10:19 AM

This thread reminds me of one of my pet peeves - that things MUST be one way or the other.  Mark is right that soil analysis can be a useful tool, especially as you begin improving your soil.  There is no reason whatsoever that having a soil analysis should diminish your efforts to increase organic matter in the soil.  Remind yourselves that no-till does not bring in any balance or missing substances.  If something is deficient, and you attempt to avoid importing, it will remain deficient, and you will never know what you might have accomplished.  In other words, use every tool available.

E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
www.hillcountrynatives.net

On Aug 24, 2010, at 11:08 AM, mdnagel@verizon.net wrote:

Paul, we're talking past one another, and seemingly in circle. <sigh>

Again, you mention balance in compost.  That balance is what provides balance in the soil.  You open your response with this statement:

"Balance is one of those deceptive concepts pushed for chemical farming"

This may speak to chemical farmers, but it doesn't mean a one-to-one correlation with soil analysis.  Soil analysis is NOT chemical farming.

Nature's balance is all fine and well should one find such an environment.  But, and this was the reason why most people started hanging out here, that on the whole things are horribly out of balance.

Again, I agree that applying a balanced (buffered) compost on balanced soil is the way to go.

I'm still looking for some way that people can learn how to assess what is lacking in their soils.  And yes, one can become "in tune" with this understanding by looking, touching, and smelling soil, but... is this not data collection?  Isn't that what soil tests do?  Data without a proper understanding, whether from a novice grower or from some lab technician (or computer generated response from a soil readout), is just data- does really nothing: the data, however, DOES has value as a placeholder for review come time that proper understanding IS available.

I think that we're needlessly condemning the baby because the bathwater is dirty.


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


Aug 24, 2010 07:06:06 AM, livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

>
>Balance is one of those deceptive concepts pushed for chemical farming. In the 
>organic writers, soil with additions of plant matter from many sources allows plants 
>to use only the nutrients they need. Composted or aged matter in soil provides a 
>natural buffer for pH also. As for well composted and amended, it usually means 
>soil that's been built up over more than one season with plant matter from various 
>sources. We don't worry about too much of this or that because plants have always 
>had the ability to use what they need if its available. And with organic matter 
>from various sources, the odds of not getting enough of one thing are negligible. 
>This is simply the common wisdom of organic growers for decades. Or millenia in 
>the case of Farmers of Forty Centuries (F.H. King). 
>
>Dieter mentioned biologically active soil. Soil scientists are only beginning 
>to understand the basics of soil biology, and organically built soil is the key 
>to simplify all the issues. Microbes play an active role in feeding plant roots 
>by processing what's in the soil itself, and even work within plant roots like 
>the flora in our own gut (our lives depend on it). Various nutrients or compounds 
>may be present according to soil tests but unavailable to plants because soil not 
>organically amended may not have the microbe population to make them available. 
>Or the reverse - not show up in tests but be available when plants want them. Plants 
>can signal microbes biochemically to team up and make it happen. It's just far 
>too complicated for extension agents to grasp. But nature makes it simple for growers. 
>And things have been growing for eons without our help.
>
>paul tradingpost@lobo.net
> 
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 8/24/2010 at 2:17 AM mdnagel@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>"And I have yet to see any significant evidence of some key elements
>>missing in well-composted and amended soil"
>>
>>But... what is "well composted and amended soil?"
>>
>>I'm not trying to be difficult here, but just saying these words provides
>>no real clarification or present an apparent guide as to how one achieves
>>this state of balance >should there be a significant imbalance<.
>>
>>I am in total agreement that balance is key, but when that balance is out
>>of whack it seems that there would be a need for _more_ , or less, of
>>something to put it back in whack. And, given that it's clear that
>>different crops take up different amounts of minerals I think that it's
>>pretty safe to say that different crop residues won't necessarily replace
>>the minerals extracted and exported from another crop.
>>
>>I have not, and will not, suggest that soil tests are some magic bullet, 
>I
>>know better than that. But on the other hand I don't believe that any
>>random composting of materials is a magic bullet for just any soil
>>deficiencies.
>>
>>Again, I'm not arguing that soil tests can be all that knowing/telling. 
>
>>As you note, soil is very complex, in which case "well-composed and
>>amended soil" seems, to me, to be a bit too simple of a guideline to
>>address imbalances: do I get more cow/horse manure, or do I get more 
>>in the blank>? Sure, over time if one were to overwhelm existing
>>deficient soil with "balanced" amendments then one would achieve 
>a balance.
>>
>>"Variety is a simple thing; the Rodales and other organic writers have
>>long urged incorporating plant matter from various plants rather than just
>>a single plant source."
>>
>>Again, simple enough to state, but how does one know whether one has got
>>enough "various plants?"
>>
>>From what I've read the key foundation is the ratio of calcium and
>>magnesium, that these control the availability of all other minerals. 
>>From Julius Ruechel's book "Grass-Fed Cattle: How to Produce and 
>Market
>>Natural Beef" (pgs. 168-169) he writes:
>>
>> Soil fertility is controlled not by individual minerals in the soil,
>>but by the overall balance or ratio of minerals. A colloid is the smallest
>>soil particle, made up of either clay minerals or organic matter. It is
>>like a little wafer that attracts and holds mineral ions through
>>electrical charges. (Mineral ions, also called cations, are nonorganic
>>soil elements - calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
>>sodium, sulfur, copper, zinc, and so forth - that have acquired an
>>electrical charge.) This is essentially how soil nutrients are stored in
>>the soil. Each mineral element represents a certain percentage of the
>>available sites (called base saturation) on each colloid.
>>
>> The plant draws nutrients from the colloid through its own electrical
>>charges in the roots and not acids. When the balance of elements is
>>correct, the plant is able to access each nutrient according to its needs.
>>If the ratio of mineral ions on the colloid is incorrect, the interaction
>>of electrical charges among the various minerals ions will cause some
>>elements to be bound more tightly to the colloid while others are held
>>more loosely, making it difficult for the plant to access the correct
>>proportion of minerals.
>>
>>---
>>
>>Yes, balance is key!
>>
>>
>>-Mark Nagel
>>Everett, WA
>>

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland