Michael, that is possible, and I am not sure that ti's likely to happen
unless prescribed in some way. It could, of course, be included in the
organic standards, and it would be interesting to see the ideas / comments
such a discussion would generate.
I see food nutrient content to be more complex than simply mineral content ,
which in any case is plant / crop specific. I have not looked if such data
exists. And even if we have that data, how do we intentionally produce
plants with optimal nutrient content? Simply adding the "missing" nutrients
to the soil doesn't necessary produce the result we are looking for, soil is
way too complex for that. I think that's why a lot of farmers resort to
foliar applications.
The way I understand organic ag standards, perpetual foliar application is
not desirable or perhaps even prohibited. That's not a criticism of organic
standards, just a recognition that we are more able to identify what is
really important to us in all of this overwhelming complexity.
H
Heide Hermary
Gaia College
http://www.gaiacollege.ca
"It's a matter of discipline...When you've finished washing and dressing
each morning, you must tend your planet."
The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
On 2012-10-24, at 10:06 AM, Michael Astera <michael.astera@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
Heide-
You wrote "there is no agreement on how to evaluate nutrient content
easily".
Agreed, but after quite a lot of looking I discovered that some soil
testing labs also offer plant tissue testing. Usually that is
recommended for and used by growers to measure the minerals in their
crops during the growing season, to see if there are any deficiencies
that could be corrected with a foliar spray or via fertigation. It
also works fine for evaluating the mineral content of produce, and is
hundreds of dollars cheaper than having the testing done by a
nutritional lab.
The simplest and least expensive test is the standard tissue test in
which a few grams of the crop are oven dried and then burned and the
mineral content assayed with an ICP/MS. There is also a wet test,
where the crop is dissolved in nitric acid before being assayed. The
wet method gives results that are directly comparable to the USDA
nutrient charts (mg/100g), including moisture content. The dry tissue
test results are in ppm and don't usually include moisture content, so
that needs to be done by the person sending the sample (fresh vs oven
dry weight). If you know the moisture content the ppm results can
easily be converted to mg/100g of fresh produce.
Both tests analyze N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn at minimum. The
lab I use, LoganLabs.com, charges less than $60 per test.
I would submit that this is the missing link in proving the
nutritional value of any system of agriculture.
Michael A
http://soilminerals.com
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Heide Hermary
<heide.hermary@gaiacollege.ca> wrote:
Joel,
Thank you for re-posting that quote.
Yes, I would be interested in the German version, when you have a moment.
Michael's comments were very interesting. I often hear the idea that
organic agriculture / horticulture only concerns itself only with organic
matter management, not soil nutrients. I don't see how that is evident from
the Standards, which definitely allow non organic (i.e. mineral) inputs. We
always introduce Albrecht and Reams, because we teach about nutrient
management. We also introduce current soil microbiology concepts - I don't
see any conflict.
The difficulty, I think, is more in the general focus. If we want to produce
nutritious food we need the nutrients in the soil, and accessible to plants
through appropriate biology. but I don't see that as an expressed purpose of
agriculture, whether conventional or organic. And maybe it's not front and
centre because there is no agreement on how to evaluate nutrient content
easily.
Heide
Heide Hermary
Gaia College
http://www.gaiacollege.ca
"It's a matter of discipline...When you've finished washing and dressing
each morning, you must tend your planet."
The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
On 2012-10-24, at 8:37 AM, Joel Gruver <jgruv@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Hello Michael,
Almost exactly 13 years ago, I posted the following message to the SANET
listserv:
Hello to all...
While perusing a book titled Fauna in soil ecosystems: recycling processes,
nutrient fluxes and agricultural production (edited by Gero Benckiser,
Marcel Dekker, 1997,
ISBN 0-8247-9786-8) I encountered a very interesting quote attributed to an
individual somewhat infamous in sustainable ag circles. In 1855, Justus
Von Liebig wrote:
"Unfortunately the true beauty of agriculture with its intellectual and
animating principles is almost unrecognized. The art of agriculture will
be lost when ignorant, unscientific and short sighted teachers persuade the
farmer to put all his hopes in universal remedies, which don't exist
in nature. Following their advice, bedazzled by an ephemeral success, the
farmer will forget the soil and lose sight of his inherent values and their
influence."
The original source of this quote is Liebig von, J. (1855) Die Grundsatze
der Agriculturchemie mit Rucksicht auf die in England angestellten
Untersuchungen. Braunschweig.
Those are some interesting words to ponder in this age of biotech promises
of "universal remedies"...
Joel Gruver
Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment
Tufts University
P.S. I have the original German if anyone is interested
***********************************************************************************************
Liebig was indisputably a great scientist and educator who made many
landmark contributions to inorganic and organic chemistry and the teaching
of these topics.
For some reason however proponents of both organic agriculture and
industrial agriculture seem prone to circulating misinformation about the
man.
The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_von_Liebig)
contains several obvious errors:
Liebig did NOT formulate the law of the minimum and for much of his career
believed that all crops had access to N from the air and thus would not
benefit from supplemental N.
I address some of these myths in the presentation at the following link:
http://www.slideshare.net/jbgruver/history-soil-fertility
**********************************************************************************************
JI Rodale was not a scientist... he was a publisher and public speaker who
greatly increased public exposure to the ideas of A Howard, W Albrecht, L
Bromfield, E Pheiffer, M Fukuoka, R McCarrison, W Price...
Howard and Albrecht did not have the same views... but they shared a common
interest in relationships between soil fertility/management and crop,
livestock and human health.
I emphasized this point in class last week when we discussed the slides.
Joel
Joel Gruver
School of Agriculture
Western Illinois University
jgruv@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:57:44 -0400
From: michael.astera@GMAIL.COM
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] History of Organic Agriculture slide presentation
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU
Joel-
I enjoyed the slide show, but if its purpose is to trace the history of
"organic" agriculture I think it's going too far afield and wrongly
including some prominent researchers who don't fit under that tent,
Bromfield and Albrecht. It is also repeating an old and scurrilous canard
against Justus Liebig.
Lebig first: From your slide show "Howard thought that Liebig led
agriculture astray when he denounced the humus theory and promoted the NPK
mentality." At the time of the first publication (1840) of Liebig's
"Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology" agricultural
science had long been dominated by the idea that humus was the sole source
of soil fertility. Liebig definitively showed that was not the case, and
provided evidence that the source of soil fertility was soil minerals.
Although he showed that the elements N, P, and K were of major importance
in growing food crops, and in human and animal nutrition, he emphasized
that whatever needed element was in shortest supply would be the limiting
factor in plant growth and health. The staves of the barrel you pictured on
frame 28 of your slide show, Illustrating Liebig's law of the minimum, show
ten or twelve minerals, not three. If Howard had bothered to actually read
Liebig he would have known him as an ardent champion of soil conservation
whose concern above all was to preserve and build the fertility of
agricultural soils. Liebig devoted a good portion of his energy over
decades to promoting the idea of returning the fertility lost in sewage to
the land. The fact that some short-sighted and greedy industrialists used
a small part of Liebig's work to promote harsh chemical fertilizers to
"mine" soil fertility is not Liebig's fault or doing. This false criticism
of Liebig has been repeated by many other writers who also, it seems, have
not bothered to read Liebig themselves.
Bromfield and Albrecht: Both were strong advocates of restoring and
preserving soil fertility. JI Rodale had some contact with them in the
1940s, but as I heard the story, Rodale was adamant that organic matter
alone was the source of soil fertility, and he strongly objected to the use
of any chemical fertilizers such as ammonium sulfate; Bromfield and
Albrecht were more pragmatic, and they knew that humus alone was not the
answer. On one of the rare occasions that Albert Howard even mentioned
minerals, he made the claim that adding some leaves from deep-rooted forest
trees would provide all of the minerals needed to maintain and build soil
fertility. This patently false claim was believed and repeated by Rodale
through most of the 1940s and '50s. By the late 1950s Rodale had learned
better, and started to emphasize the importance of minerals amendments such
as rock phosphate, greensand, and lime, though he made a serious mistake by
advocating only high-Mg dolomite lime. After Rodale's death in 1971, almost
all mention of minerals disappeared from OG magazine, with the exception of
using lime to adjust soil pH, again wrongly advocating only dolomite lime.
Albrecht was not a supporter of Rodale's organic movement for the simple
reason that he knew enough about chemistry, physiology, and nutrition to
know that organic matter alone would not make or maintain soil fertility.
That false claim is still heavily promoted by the Rodale institute, whose
present "chief scientist" has gone on record many times saying and writing
that no soils in the USA need any minerals, and that each and every soil
has all of the minerals any crop could ever need, forever.
I first came to this SANET forum to start a discussion of the importance of
minerals in soil fertility and growing nutritious crops, in an effort to
offset the exclusive focus on humus and organic matter. My contributions
were not well received or appreciated. The ideas presented were denigrated
and dismissed by a number of people, including Prof Joel Gruver. All of my
posts since early 2011 have been moderated; they must be approved before
going up. As far as I can tell, not because of what I have said, but
apparently due to the ad-hominem attacks against me, the forum moderator
restricted my ability to post while leaving alone all except one of those
slandering me or denigrating the importance of what I advocate for. Anyone
questioning that is referred to the SANET archives from late Dec 2010 to
Jan 2011.
Including Albrecht in a purported history of organic agriculture is
deceptive and intellectually dishonest, especially as it would give the
impression to the uninformed that Albrecht accepted and supported Howard's
and Rodale's ideas about soil fertility being based on organic matter. It
also gives the false impression that Howard, JI Rodale, the Rodale
Institute, or more than a small handful of organic gardeners and growers
have or had any knowledge of Albrecht's work on soil minerals, soil
fertility, nutrition, and health. To date they do not, and are for the most
part continuing to actively denigrate or ignore it.
I would refer anyone interested in Albrecht's understanding of organic
matter in the soil to his chapter on that subject in the 1938 Yearbook of
Agriculture. I would refer anyone interested in his opinion of Rodale's
"organic matter is all" dogma to his collected writings published in four
volumes by Acres USA.
Michael Astera
http://soilminerals.com
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Joel Gruver <jgruv@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
About a year ago I posted a link for a presentation on the History of
Organic Agriculture that I created for my Sustainable Ag class.
here is a link to an updated version of the
presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/jbgruver/history-of-organic-agriculture-14808475
the content is similar but I added some new pics and edited the text on
many slides.
Joel
Joel Gruver
School of Agriculture
Western Illinois University
jgruv@hotmail.com
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.