Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[<pbunch@cox.net>]

When working on restoration projects here we always got organic matter and 
texture included in our testing as well as the standard parameters. We did 
not look at trace minerals and other components due to cost. As has been 
mentioned you can eyeball things like tilth and organic matter to some 
extent. I agree that NPK/pH tests give one a very limited picture of soil 
characteristics. I see them as a tool, and like all tools they have their 
limitations and should be used in light of those limitations. 

Perhaps the cost factor could be diffused by having responsible agencies do 
generalized testing for trace components by soil type and publishing the 
results. These should be fairly consistent within a soil type since the soils 
are derived from the same parent material and processed by the same physical 
factors.. Also as has been suggested, at least some components could be 
assumed to be deficient and amendments added until plant growth achieves the 
desired level. This would not be good for the trace minerals that can become 
toxic for some plants at high levels. 

I suspect that the biotic components can be managed by eliminating the use of 
substances which kill or weaken them, maintenance of organic matter levels 
and  the application of no-till and/or low till methods. There seems to be 
little point in using amendments for bacterial, fungal, insect, mite  and 
nematode components but in a seriously damaged soil one could obtain soil 
from a well managed area and apply relatively small amounts. They will 
reproduce rapidly in a conducive habitat.  Earthworms might be trickier. One 
would want native species adapted to agricultural soils. I supposed these 
could be begged or bought from folks with the right stuff. 

The abuse of the soils of the US Midwest and other major agricultural areas 
is sin the nation will pay for dearly. Unfortunately this problem was 
identified a long time ago and no appropriate action was taken. The "NPK" 
mentality was largely responsible as fertility could be augmented relatively 
cheaply. This era is rapidly passing. Perhaps with enough people making 
reasonable arguments the deterioration can be stopped or slowed enough to 
salvage enough land to provide "food security" for the country. I don't think 
folks in the US have the same level of awareness of this issues that exists 
in some developing countries. It is good sound bite word and perhaps should 
be used more.

---- Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote: 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland