Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[mdnagel@verizon.net]

There seems to be a bit of inconsistency, maybe you can help clarify...

The Soil FeedWeb article that you passed recently (very good article, btw), has references to all kinds of testing and amending; such as:

1. If colonization is between 15% and 40%, then all that is needed is additional fungal foods to help the Mycorrhizal fungi improve plant growth, reduce plant stress, and improve root protection.
1. There is a dose response relationship to humic acids additions. Typically addition of 2 to 4 pounds of dry product, or 1 to 2 gallons of liquid product per acre are adequate to improve fungal growth. But, if there are toxic chemical residues to overcome, additional humics of fulvics may be needed. It is best to check periodically to see that colonization is improving as desired.

And you yourself mention adding "aged manure and alfalfa meal, with a dash of bone meal."

All this amending is based on evaluations of one type or another, "data collection" as I like to refer to it as.  Amending is a way of (attempting to- it will take time to observe/measure success or failure) make up for some deficiency: if the soil isn't deficient, then why would one "amend" it?

Because big Ag's system uses soil testing it doesn't mean that soil testing is bad.  I could suggest that there are far more people who mis-diagnose their soil conditions w/o soil testing than those who perform soil testing; but, without statistical analysis how can we know for sure (esp given that most people probably wouldn't admit their mistakes)?  Can testing laboratories screw up tests?  Of course!  And, as people here have properly noted, any recommended actions are to be looked at with skepticism: for anyone who should happen to get soil test (don't mention it here lest you be branded a heretic - LOL), be sure to state what you are using your soil for.

Have I ever had a soil test done?  No.  Would I ever have one done?  Probably, though most likely only when establishing on new land, land that isn't familiar to me.

Just like complex carbs are better than simple ones, complex amendments are better than simple ones: though sometimes the simple versions are necessary to initiate a quick resuscitation of the patient!  But, the "complex" is basically a buffered package of a specific mineral; for instance, kelp is high in potassium.  ("buffered" might not be the best word to use)

Again, I agree with you on the "simpleness" of maintenance, it's the repair end of things that I think are not so simple.

As many have stated -that "nature" is able to correct soils- we are, whether we want to admit it, interfering with nature (how many wild tomato plants are growing in New Mexico?), and as such, we find ourselves needing to alter soil makeup.

Until we can better appreciate shamanism we'll likely have to continue to rely on science for a bit longer...


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


Aug 24, 2010 10:39:40 AM, livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

>
>The bottom line is simple - too simple for the soil test experts. To replace
>what's taken from the soil, put plant matter back into the soil.
>
>I just pass on what's come from personal experience and lots of books. I
>never did a soil test here, but observed only one kind of clump grass grew and a
>couple kinds of arid bushes like fourwing saltbush. I amended with lots of aged
>manure and alfalfa meal, with a dash of bone meal which comes ultimately from the
>plants livestock eat. I've posted pictures of the results in the past. The plant
>growth and vegetable flavor rival the claims in old issues of Organic Gardening.
>For decades the pages of Organic Gardening magazine featured endless organic growers
>simply incorporating plant matter and/or manure and getting wonderful results.
>
>What soil tests do is data collection; what organic growers do is not. It's
>intuitive observation of plant health and weeds, and gaining a "feel"
>for the soil. Data is only as good as the person collecting it and soil test people
>generally can't think outside the chemical box. I mean they can't see anything
>but bare elements - when the big picture includes the soil biology and thousands
>of biochemical substances. And the soil biology has everything to do with what nutrients
>and biochemical substances are made available to plants. Without the biological
>perspective the data can be misleading or downright harmful.
>
>
>paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 8/24/2010 at 11:08 AM mdnagel@verizon.net wrote:
>
>Paul, we're talking past one another, and seemingly in circle.
>
>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
>