Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] The only way to tell what your soil really needs???

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] The only way to tell what your soil really needs???
  • Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:40:25 -0600


Leaving aside the question of test results or how they're obtained, testing
doesn't tell us anything about soil *structure* or *texture* or levels of
*organic matter*. Structure affects how soil retains moisture or resists
percolation, or how much air is present (and air is needed in soil) or how
compacted the soil is. And soil *texture* is ideally a crumbly texture, made
by action of microbes in healthy soil with an organic matter level of 5% or
more. Only a few labs can actually text for levels of organic matter, and
they're private labs not under control of state or federal agencies. The
difficulty is, no amount of mineral remediation can correct poor soil
structure or texture, or raise organic matter levels, and those conditions
limit whether crops will grow healthy and productive.

The Great Plains of the USA once had endless prairies of tall grass and
millions of bison, and more importantly, deep topsoil and soil organic matter
levels above 5%. Today it's wheat fields, corn, soy etc. and it's a fraction
of that depth and low in organic matter with resulting compaction and lack of
crumb. And the official remedy for poor production is more chemical
fertilizer based on soil tests that ignore everything but chemical elements.
Which simply feeds the vicious circle. And sick soil feeds sick people. But
that's another story.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 8/28/2010 at 2:40 PM pbunch@cox.net wrote:

>It could be a problem with getting the samples taken correctly. You get
>the best sample if you take material from several locations and mix them
>well. From this composite sample you need to extreact the amount required
>by the lab and send it to them rapidly.
>
>IMHO soil samples are best seen as indicators. I wonder how different the
>previously mentioned samples actually were. If they were taken correctly
>and were all over the map it shows a serious failure of the method. If the
>differences were within a reasonable range it indicates that sampling
>should be taken as a guideline for potential amendment but not necessarily
>as gospel .
>
>It would be nice if one could get a broader range of indicators as has
>been discussed. I suspect however that really in depth (no pun intended)
>analysis would be very expensive.
>
>
>---- pete <pete.rout@virgin.net> wrote:
>> I think what most people are saying is that as the test doesn't
>> really tell you anything, as if you send to more than one tester you
>> get more than one answer, is there really any point in testing?
>> Pete
>>
>> >I'm bowing out of this discussion (and am pondering my continuance
>> >on this list). When the majority of people here (people that I
>> >thought had more ability to reason) believe that if one were to
>> >obtain a soil test that somehow one is FORCED to use chemical
>> >fertilizers. Where is the logic in this?
>> >
>> >I wonder what would have happened if all those revered institutions
>> >never bothered to perform soil tests?
>> >
>> >Yes, we're all fighting the corporate system, but this is starting
>> >to have all the feel of fighting fanaticism with fanaticism.
>> >
>> >
>> >-Mark Nagel
>> >Everett, WA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Livingontheland mailing list
>> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page