JD's Proof

[ecoguy]

A few days ago, JD dared the world to prove that the use of synthetic fertilizers has a negative effect on soil microbes/fertility. I think he's been feeling guilty or just likes to argue because the proof is in the pudding JD. If it's not, why do you have to continue to fertilize your customer's lawns, year after year after year? The answer of course is you haven't been feeding your grass, you've been injecting it. Big difference. It's like drinking pop when your thirsty instead of water then wondering why your function decreases. Or living off McDonalds and wondering why your flabbier and have less energy. Still, JD wants some scientific numbers and figures to show that the pudding is toxic. So, this is the place where I or anyone else can post these proofs.

I have some technicians sending me soil reports which I will post on here as soon as I recieve them. The reports are hard to come by due to privacy laws...If some of you, Tim, ICTBill, have reports, please post them. Together we can help JD feel less....conflicted.

In the meantime, here's an article to get us started. Happy reading JD.

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Jan10_King.pdf

[ICT Bill]

A few days ago, JD dared the world to prove that the use of synthetic fertilizers has a negative effect on soil microbes/fertility. I think he's been feeling guilty or just likes to argue because the proof is in the pudding JD. If it's not, why do you have to continue to fertilize your customer's lawns, year after year after year? The answer of course is you haven't been feeding your grass, you've been injecting it. Big difference. It's like drinking pop when your thirsty instead of water then wondering why your function decreases. Or living off McDonalds and wondering why your flabbier and have less energy. Still, JD wants some scientific numbers and figures to show that the pudding is toxic. So, this is the place where I or anyone else can post these proofs.

I have some technicians sending me soil reports which I will post on here as soon as I recieve them. The reports are hard to come by due to privacy laws...If some of you, Tim, ICTBill, have reports, please post them. Together we can help JD feel less....conflicted.

In the meantime, here's an article to get us started. Happy reading JD.

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Jan10_King.pdf

Frankly I don't think you will find any data to support this arguement, there are life forms that live in some of the most toxic environments (ocean floor vents) and the bacteria and others live there too. I have seen examples of gasoline eating microbes, what I said before was
We grow out certain microbes with urea, we also use potato juice, fungal hyphi, refined food sources

some microbes die when put into a dish with certain foods, others love it and multiply like mad

The point is, with an applied food source you are selecting for certain bacteria, fungi, etc. This is one of the arguements of applying the widest range of food sources possible

OR

understand what "does well" for the chosen plant and select for "in general" those

when applying what JD likes to call "synethetic NPK" you are serving a food source that selects for the microbes that like it, others will die off or go dormant because they can't eat that stuff or it is not their "cup of tea"

Fungi are degraders mostly they like cellulose based food to chew on and be prolific

bacteria like simpler sugars "in general"

By applying the food source over and over you are selecting for the dominant colony in the soil

does it kill some or make them go dormant, absolutely

the point being if you are applying good guys and giving them the food that they want you will likely promote their colonies in the area that you had hoped

[ecoguy]

Good points Bill. So what you're saying is it's not a black and white issue. Synthetic NPK has impact on some and not on others. Is the same true with Organic foods?

[quackgrass]

Mineral fertilizers and synthetic herbicides don't devastate microbe populations.

Many microbes actually feed on Synthetic herbicides because they are organic. That is why people don't normally blend Organic fertilizers containing microbes with herbicides.

Now if you want to tell me that natural fertilizers support higher populations of microbes, and typically enhance the soil-I'm all ears.

Some people knock synthetics to sell organics, it creates some far fetched hype that just isn't true, no matter how hard you want it to be.

[ICT Bill]

I doubt I could find data on it, just because there are SSSOOOO many types of microbes in the soil, it may be out there. But by moving to a more diverse set of foods for the soil you should get better diversity and colonization

anecdotally plants that grow in chemical fertilizer seem to be less tolerant of stress, like drought and disease

I have had this conversation for a long time with many who are much smarter than I am, it would seem to me that you could adjust applications (microbe foods) for the type of plant that you are caring for

[ecoguy]

Hey Bill. Well, you're a much smarter guy then me. I'm only 6 months into the industry which in some ways I should probably just shut up and listen. Still, I learn best through dialogue so this is all good. That being said, in my talks with experts in the field, they all agree that synthetics have a negative impact on the microbes/soil. Organics are more sustainable for the long term, which I think that's what your saying.

JD, are you just reacting to my strong speech against synthetics or do you really think they are the future?

[Tim Wilson]

My point on this has been stated here previously and can be found on my webpage under Growing from a microbial perspective or....

What chemicals do is break the cycle. Of course microbes of various types can even feed on chems. This is not the point. If I'm fed by IV for a year, how long before I'm digesting solid food again and to what effect?

[phasthound]

If I'm fed by IV for a year, how long before I'm digesting solid food again and to what effect?

Tim,
I use the IV analogy all the time. People understand that if someone is fed by IV, they will survive but not thrive. The immune system is weakened because nutrients alone do not provide everything we need for vitality. Same is true for plants. A nutrient only diet requires anti-biotics for humans and pesticides for plants.

I'm not an advocate for banning pesticides, they are useful when used properly and as long as we understand they are only treating symptoms not the cause of the problems.

Tim, I hope you are healing well.

[JDUtah]

Oh the places an imagination can take you. Eco, if you knew me personally I honestly think you would not be making such a big deal about this. I said it before, I think you have me way wrong. May I give you some background? It might help you calm down and realize that I truly am on your side.

When I was ten years old my family moved to Utah. We lived with my grandparents for a couple of years while we built our house (2 years because we literally built it, and it took time with limited labor). Anyways during that time my grandpa taught me how to garden. I fell in love with it. Nature. Plants. Hard work. The whole bit. I loved everything about it.

One day I discovered literally boxes of organic gardening magazines that my grandpa had saved via years of subscriptions. At 11 years old I made a little fort out back behind the wood pile and read the magazines after school. Nature fascinated me. The idea of composting fascinated me. The idea of organic gardening fascinated me.

The fort evolved into my own secret little 'organic garden'. It was only like 5 square feet. I remember growing radishes, lettuce, and other crop plants. From that early on in my life I developed a dream to own an organic farm/nursery/reception center.

At 21 I went into business with a family member and started a small landscape maintenance company. We did everything from mow to fert and weed spray (chemically), to sprinkler repair, renovation, mulching, etc.

Well about 2 years ago my partner and I parted business paths and I walked away from the synthetic company to start my own organic maintenance company (I had been running a couple experimental organic lawns already). It took a ton of study and field testing and about a year to design an effective organic program for this area. I will admit that I am bridge, reserving the right to use synthetics when appropriate (usually for control of weed/insect outbreaks).

I plan to build this business and either sell it, or run it profitably enough, so I can eventually buy land and create my organic resort dream. I am not a synthetic lover. I find them appropriate from time to time. But deep in my heart I am an organic guy. I find organics to be fascinating. I love nature. And what a better thing than to use nature to make nature more beautiful.

Just so you know I am serious, here are a few pics of turf on my organic bridge program. The first is a lawn I have had on my organic program for a little over 2 years. It has not seen a synthetic fertilizer for over 18 months

The second and third are pictures of a 5 acre turf campground I started servicing last spring. Anyways the point is. I am an organic guy. I hope you can accept that. I did not attack you or your organics. Nor did I say anything like synthetics were the future. Heck, I didn't even say they should be central to a fert program. I believe quit the contrary.

[phasthound]

JD,

Good for you dude!!
You're doing good work. I remember when you were such an antagonist, now you're a peacemaker. :clapping: Oh, but you did throw out the gauntlet. :)

Eco,

Chill out a little bit. Don't take the bait. We do too much fighting here.

[JDUtah]

So why then did you feel like I was condemning organics and promoting synthetics? My only guess is that I challenged an idea that you had not only accepted to be true but that had become one of your main motivators to justify organics. That idea is that synthetics kill microbes.

Hopefully by now the mind’s eye does not picture synthetic soils void of microbes. That idea simply isn't true.

What is true is that there is a more fascinating, and perhaps ecological, way to care for turf and that way is organically.

The more the myth that synthetics kill soil life is spread, the more resistance the organic industry will have. The more you claim that synthetics kill microbes... the more ignorant you will look to people who know about microbes.

In the end I am on your side. I love organics. I just care enough about you and the industry to inform you when you might be spreading misinformation. I challenged what you said to help you represent organics and synthetics for what they really are. I believe that in the long run you can be more effective with your company that way.

I do not blame you for believing the idea that ferts kill crobes. I do blame a couple of well known, well published, organic advocates. I have heard that at least one of them has retracted on the claims against synthetic ferts, but I have not confirmed that.

Anyways, if you want to keep the dialog going.. That article you posted did not show anything about the proper use of synthetic ferts killing soil microbial life.

[JDUtah]

JD,

Good for you dude!!
You're doing good work. I remember when you were such an antagonist, now you're a peacemaker. :clapping: Oh, but you did throw out the gauntlet. :)

Eco,

Chill out a little bit. Don't take the bait. We do too much fighting here.

Thanks man. I guess you could say I lived and learned. I decided it was a little more effective, and better to my health, to work with people and not just tick them off for sport. Albeit you can see the habbit comes out from time to time. Usually when I am bored. :laugh:

:drinkup:

[Kiril]

I'm only 6 months into the industry which in some ways I should probably just shut up and listen.

Well JD's only got about 1 1/2 years on ya with respect to organics, so you both are in the same boat IMO .... still have a lot to learn.

[DeepGreenLawn]

Everyone still has a lot to learn...

I will admit that I am bridge, reserving the right to use synthetics when appropriate (usually for control of weed/insect outbreaks)

I am not a synthetic lover. I find them appropriate from time to time.

I feel exactly the same way here. I also agree that synthetics don't kill microbes, they just don't require them as much which would then lead to their numbers declining. I as well am a bridge company but in more ways than he. I offer both a synthetic and organic program. My synthetic is just like everyone else, my organic has two options, Hybrid (the bridge using organic ferts and synthetic pest control, and organic, using only organic products unless requested by the customer or a major need for synthetic intervention comes a long and then we must have the customers approval.) Synthetics have their place and they have their areas they don't belong.

My main reason for offering synthetic lawn care is cost. I am in business to make money and currently the cost for my organic program is more than my synthetic. With the economy the way it is I chose to keep as many options open as possible. I am continuing to do everything in my power to lower my costs in the organic field and am also continuing to find better products to apply and ways to apply them.

I am curious though as to who feels the same way about the use of synthetics for pest control in limited applications.

[ecoguy]

Hey JD. The thing that really sucks about this form of communication is its impossible to read the nonverbals. I think that's part to blame. I definitely wasn't as worked up as I obviously came across. Once again, I'm sorry if you felt attacked or if I was being insulting. I also apologize for my damn ego, maybe I should change my name to Egoguy. Thanks for your honesty, indeed your background does help a lot. You are obviously a guy with integrity and I think I misjudged you.

As far as the discussian at hand goes, I honestly didn't start this thread to try and shame you or humiliate you, that's not how I roll. I mostly started it because, as I've already admitted before, I'm a newbie. 6 months in. Trying to read everything I can, talk with experts in the field and yes, build a business that will go the distance. Part of my learning is debating ideas, and honestly I've learned a lot in this discussian, like not villanizing synthetics for instance. The enemy to organic is not synthetic but ignorance. And it was ignorance that I was mostly railing against. Thanks for extending the olive branch.

Regarding the future of this thread, if I do recieve those soil tests I'll put them on and we can go from there.

[JDUtah]

Sounds good. Eco.

Someone in the other thread asked me to link to the SFI tests again, I'm still looking for them. They are posted on this forum by another lawnsite member.

[JDUtah]

BTW, for anyone just finding this thread, the debate started and mostly materialized in this thread...

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=302589

[ecoguy]

I understand why people use synthetics and spray 2-4-d. I really do. What I don't understand is how a company can attach an Eco or Organic name to their business while still using chemicals. It seems like a lie to me. I'm not calling Organic IMPers liars, I just have trouble wraping my mind around it. Perhaps one of you can set me straight. Green Washing is becoming the new Enron. For instance, guess what Chem Lawn is called now - TruGreen. That stuff drives me crazy.

[JDUtah]

organic based is my keyword. I inform my customers up front that I might use synthetics from time to time. Honestly, many "organic" people out here are looking for a bridge company.

[ecoguy]

I meant IPM. Thanks for letting that one slide JD. ha.

[DeepGreenLawn]

As you can see my name is Deep Green Lawn. Some of my cards and advertising say "your local organic-based lawncare company"

I agree 100% that it too pisses me off to see companies like TGLC who advertise organics but then absolutely REFUSE to give a price for them. It is a marketing tool for them. As well as companies that offer organics but push against it hard, then they run out and put down processed chicken poo as their product.

I did try the chicken poo on my own yard and that was the first and last time I will use it. It made my neighborhood turn into a chicken farm minus the rows of chicken houses. Had the same awful smell though. I don't see organics expanding or keeping a good name with products which smell like that.

I not only offer organics but prefer and "push" them toward my customers. Synthetics for my company are a fall back service.

[quackgrass]

Synthetic offerings can be very sustainable and eco-friendly. If you call "organic lawn service" that operates with vehicles, fuel, mined machinery, and electronic technology sustainable anyway.

To exclude the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides while servicing our world of billions of unnatural landscapes and crop formations is close minded.

There simply wouldn't be enough fertility and yield to go around without all our synthetic agronomy and transportation.

Sustainable organic sources would literally poop out on the first 10% of farmland, millions would starve until crop land multiplied itself.

Now if we only populated to sustainable hunter gather numbers.......hmm

[Tim Wilson]

JD, as you are aware I disagree. Chemical (ionic form) fertilizers certainly do kill microbes. This is not in a way that if I apply some chemical nutrients to a given area of soil that the soil will then be devoid of microbes. Will the structure and balance of the microbes be altered? Quite likely. Over an extended period if using chemical fertilizers this alteration will be exacerbated having a longer lasting effect on the microbial population, likely lowering one groups population while allowing the increase in population of other not so desirable microbes. The other aspect is when one depends on only chemical ferts over a long term the soil does generally become devoid of nutrient cycling microbes. Those who maintain that chemical fertilizers do not cause the demise of (kill) soil food web microbes have flawed logical thought processes. There are admitedly varying degrees of effect.

Some examples which come to mind from my own observations/studies; 1/ The application of phosphorous (P) causes the inhibition and death of endomycorrhizal type fungi 2/ The application of P promotes the growth of powdery mildew {PM} (and/or inhibits the growth of microbes which prevent PM) 3/ The use of ionic form NPK over an extended period promotes the growth of erwinia bacteria (not a nice soil microbe) 4/ a hayfield accustomed to chemical applications since pre 1985 cut off fertilizers last season produced almost no hay (guess at 1/100th of a ton per acre) and had very few visible worms while a hayfield next door which has had no fertilizers since 1990 (outside of harrowed droppings; the chemical field also had harrowed droppings) produced almost 3 tons per acre and has worms galore everywhere.

Quackgrass: I just don't buy the story that humans cannot produce just as much food worldwide using intelligent natural growing methods rather than NPK. This is actually being proven in some areas of the world, including in an area of Texas.

[Marcos]

I understand why people use synthetics and spray 2-4-d. I really do. What I don't understand is how a company can attach an Eco or Organic name to their business while still using chemicals.

Some people who use chemicals do this kind of thing these days because of the bandwagon attractiveness of the 'green' movement & have no conscience whatsoever.
For that matter, there are bucco non-LCOs out there clogging up the roads like painters, roofers, HV/ACs & dog poo clean-up companies using green-friendly names without any apparent or obvious tie-in, either.
But from my perspective, any bridge organic LCO that uses chemicals to any extent, as long as they fully disclose in their sales/marketing materials that they do so should be ethically entitled to use any 'green'-related name they're able to register within their state.

[quackgrass]

Quackgrass: I just don't buy the story that humans cannot produce just as much food worldwide using intelligent natural growing methods rather than NPK. This is actually being proven in some areas of the world, including in an area of Texas.

I agree that a crop can be fed naturally to net a similar yield to a synthetic fertilized crop, if given enough material.

But if you had to take all the sustainable natural fertilizer sources and divide it amongst every farm today, there simply wouldn't be enough for everyone to maximize yields.

You would certainly be able to apply synthetic fertilizers in conjunction and increase yields on many of the farms.

The problem is population though, natural fertilizers could easily sustain a sustainable population. A case could be made that synthetic fertilizers allow us to overpopulate.

[Marcos]

Synthetic offerings can be very sustainable and eco-friendly. If you call "organic lawn service" that operates with vehicles, fuel, mined machinery, and electronic technology sustainable anyway.

To exclude the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides while servicing our world of billions of unnatural landscapes and crop formations is close minded.

There simply wouldn't be enough fertility and yield to go around without all our synthetic agronomy and transportation.

Sustainable organic sources would literally poop out on the first 10% of farmland, millions would starve until crop land multiplied itself.

Now if we only populated to sustainable hunter gather numbers.......hmm

Hey quackgrass, haven't heard from you in a while! :waving:

Excellent point!
We buy and/or make our own compost when & where possible to take care of our little microcosms of customers.
We're seeing more & more municipality contracts spec'ing compost or other organic materials.
We see homeowners who have adequate lot space & the gumption to, trying more & more to compost household BDs for the benefit of clearing their global conscience and/or to help satisfy their own landscape needs.

But if suddenly the unimaginable happened & the world urea market totally collapsed or dried up due to war, embargo or whatever, would we as a nation be able to fill that massive void with OM means quickly enough? :confused:

Like quackgrass said...
No way....not by a long shot.

And of course this void wouldn't be just in overall materials, but certainly in labor to get the job done.
Labor, transportation and means of application on a broad scale (especially ag-wise) in the end would all probably prove to be the more expensive components to the equation ...as compared to merely composting enough OM in each region and having it available to ship.

[Marcos]

A case could be made that synthetic fertilizers allow us to overpopulate.

Synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides & insecticides, too for that matter.
So as repayment to the planet, anyone who's ever applied any of the above in their lifetimes should just oft themselves. :rolleyes: :laugh:

[ecoguy]

Some people who use chemicals do this kind of thing these days because of the bandwagon attractiveness of the 'green' movement & have no conscience whatsoever.
For that matter, there are bucco non-LCOs out there clogging up the roads like painters, roofers, HV/ACs & dog poo clean-up companies using green-friendly names without any apparent or obvious tie-in, either.
But from my perspective, any bridge organic LCO that uses chemicals to any extent, as long as they fully disclose in their sales/marketing materials that they do so should be ethically entitled to use any 'green'-related name they're able to register within their state.

I totally agree Marcos. Honesty and integrity in business is paramount, especially if people are going to take the green/eco/organic movement seriously.

Tim, as usual you expressed my intended point better than I. From now on I think I'll just message you and say "I'm thinking of writing on this....would you mind...":)

Quackgrass. I'm not sure if I totally agree with you. I do think that because argriculture is based on a chemical model, quitting cold turkey would likely generate more problems then it would solve. That is why I am fond of the drug addiction anaology. First an intervention is needed. Then a bridge is created. Then we walk forward towards a healthy future.

[quackgrass]

Hey MARCOS:waving:

To put this in perspective, my compost plant receives all of our cities treated sludge when the ground is to frozen to inject it into farmland. (about half the year) 99% of my compost is used in reclamation work on mined soils.

ONE local farm has the contract to use the other half of the sludge produced. His yields are awesome, but we have hundreds of farms in the area that don't get to use any Bio-solids.

[Marcos]

99% of my compost is used in reclamation work on mined soils.


Sounds like a beautiful contract you've got there! :waving:

[DeepGreenLawn]

As to the names, such as TruGreen... you have to remember that the ideal that they are working toward is a green lawn... as in the color... so their name would not be misleading in a way, it is just all in how you look at it.

[Tim Wilson]

But if you had to take all the sustainable natural fertilizer sources and divide it amongst every farm today, there simply wouldn't be enough for everyone to maximize yields.

Like quackgrass said...
No way....not by a long shot.

I disagree and have seen yields on our own farm and elsewhere using minuscule amounts of organic matter which easily dispute this. It is a case of utilizing non-exploitive (or less exploitive) scientific techniques based on the microbial nutrient cycle (which are easily applied on farm). Even South American Aboriginals did it many years ago. There are people like Paul Stamets in this world who will increase the acceptance and use of these techniques.

Here are some excerpts from a statement by Elaine Ingham which I think help illustrate the point.

“In the chemical world, the emphasis has been on what controls taking nutrients from the available form, in solution, to the absorbed form, tied-up on the surfaces of sand, silt, clay, and organic matter.
Plants can only take up the soluble form. Once a nutrient is in a tied-up form, the plant can't get that nutrient.
In the strictly chemical world, the only control on how much nutrient is tied up, or how much is in solution, is knowing something about pH.
But in the real world, you have roots and the food web. What is the action of the soil food web on nutrient cycling?
Another strictly chemical approach that has been brought up, but hasn't worked particularly well in the real world, is to add a soluble form of a salt, something that has a higher affinity for the binding sites on the clays, in order to "knock off" the element in question.
Really stupid way to try to deal with anything, because there is no way to "knock off" just one nutrient. And of course the now soluble salts leach out of your soil. So, not only did you whammy any life in that soil, microbial, plant or otherwise, but you causing a whole herd of some important chemicals to leave the soil, forever gone downstream.
Not too bright.
But in a strictly chemical world, what other ways could you affect nutrient availability or too-much nutrient? OK, pour the nutrients on in high concentration..... we all know that is destroying our ability to have clean water to drink.”

“Can we speed up biology getting back into really bad conditions? Yep,that's what compost, extract and tea are all about.
Once you add biology back into the mix, that whole pH story gets thrown out the window.
Once you begin to understand that organisms will pull any nutrient off ANY surface, and convert it from one form to another, releasing plant available nutrients, right where the plant needs them, then the whole loading-chemistry-on approach to doing things will be thrown out. Messing with pH is NOT the way to do anything!
Once you realize which organism is really in control of nutrient availability in soil, and which sets of organisms it is controlling, you start to understand that the destruction of soil life that occurs when the strictly chemical approach is used has resulted in the mess our "modern" agriculture is in.”


“Now, the chemical salesmen always like to say, "But you are removing nutrients everytime you harvest, and therefore, you have to replenish the nutrients you take off".
Now wait, the amount of biomass that is locked up in a forest each year, a healthy forest, is more than the harvested materials removed from most corn fields, or crop field. But the forest isn't running out of nutrients.....the forest keeps growing next year.
Look at the low, low, low nutrient concentrations in most forest soils.
Have some fun with your chemical salesman.....tell them you have a new field and want his recommendation, and send a healthy soil sample in, and watch him go ballistic! You can't possibly grow anything in this soil, you will have to put on tons and tons and tons of nutrient to make this a productive soil.
But the forest is growing more plant material on an annual basis, than is removed from a productive crop field. Explain that. Where are the nutrients coming from in that forest? No one is putting fertilizers on that forest...... “

[JDUtah]

Tim,

I will accept that particular minerals can harm particular microbes, However, the first problem I have is that even your post relates information as reason, not as fact. We are still awaiting some test result that proves that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts (even over an extended time period) kills soil microbial life.

Your observations/conclusions relating to you and your neighbor’s farm seem to be a little pre-mature. No yield could be caused by many reasons. What was the compared volume of tissue removed from each site over the last 20 years? What varieties of hay were planted in each field? How long had each of those varieties been planted in each field? What was the previous 5 years of irrigation history in each field? What is the angle of each field to the sun? What are the wind patterns on each field? What about a 10' soil profile confirming similar soil structure and permeability? etc. etc. etc.

As far as endomycorrhizal type fungi... I think your wording could be a little less biased. The application of Phosphorus does not kill endomycorrhiza, no credited study will ever make such an absurd claim. However, there are studies that claim that the over-abundance of P in the soil can inhibit said myco colonization and growth. Slight wording change, very different principles.

Now using your example of Myco population/colinization let us investigate a real world example of someone's basic organic program. A 1/4 inch application of compost annually. In the linked thread we learn that the program can add roughly 4 to 9 lbs of Nitrogen per 1,000 square feet annually.

All seems fine and dandy until we think of little Mr. Myco. ...Poor Mr. Myco

Let's say we apply this compost (http://www.lacitysan.org/srpcd/pdf/sta_lopez.pdf) (thanks Kiril).

At 400 lbs dry N per 1k we get 3.92 lbs of Nitrogen applied. Now what about the P? When we apply 3.92 lbs N we are also applying 2.56 lbs P!

Compare that to the same amount of total N applied via a commonly used 32-3-8 2%Fe synthetic fertilizer. It takes 12.25 lbs of this fertilizer to apply 3.9 lbs N. With the same application you are applying .3675 lbs of P per 1k.

Let's see which one of these looks better to your P sensitive Mr. Myco friend...

2.56 lbs P via organic methods ....... or ........ .3675 lbs P via synthetic methods?

We will emit soluble vs. insoluble ratios as they will skew the ratio in even more favor of the synthetics.

Now don't get all bent out of shape here. I understand that compost is not the most efficient way to apply N to a lawn, but the same comparison can be done via any organic method and it will NEVER have a less risky NP ratio than Urea which has 46% Nitrogen and NO Phosphorus.

Remember what started this, I mentioned that {u]sometimes[/u] synthetics are necessary to bring things into balance. But once in balance, organics are lovely.

This is an example why it is important to know everything about every organic product available to you, and then use that knowledge to select the best one for the job. Sometimes no organic products will not suffice and you may have to use a synthetic fert that allows more "targetable" nutrient applications.

[JDUtah]

Here are some excerpts from a statement by Elaine Ingham which I think help illustrate the point.

She also published that a super saturated soil solution (which would never happen in a soil that supports grass life) would cause a cell to "explode" based on osmotic principles when in reality the exact opposite would happen, it would wilt.

Again I wish I could find the test results that her lab performed that suggest even high levels of soil microbes in a synthetically tearted turf.

If you haven't noticed... I find her to be more of a publicist than anything else... you knew my opinion of her, you knew I would respond like this.

[Tim Wilson]

She also published that a super saturated soil solution (which would never happen in a soil that supports grass life) would cause a cell to "explode" based on osmotic principles when in reality the exact opposite would happen, it would wilt.

Again I wish I could find the test results that her lab performed that suggest even high levels of soil microbes in a synthetically tearted turf.

If you haven't noticed... I find her to be more of a publicist than anything else... you knew my opinion of her, you knew I would respond like this.

JD; This is not about Elaine nor what she has said previously. It is about only what she said in this instance.

As far as me knowing anything of your opinion of Elaine bears as much stupidity to my retort, that I have an enormous reputation of disagreeing with Elaine openly posted on my website and my expectation of you knowing this at all times.

Of course the point is that you can disagree with many things someone says but agree with many things the same person says.

[JDUtah]

...

"So, not only did you whammy any life in that soil, microbial, plant or otherwise, but you causing a whole herd of some important chemicals to leave the soil, forever gone downstream.
Not too bright."

An example of her absurdity... in this instance.

:hammerhead:

BUT you and I have both wasted enough time with our pride and ego fights. Say what you want I will ignore you for the next little while.

[Tim Wilson]

Tim,

I will accept that particular minerals can harm particular microbes, However, the first problem I have is that even your post relates information as reason, not as fact. We are still awaiting some test result that proves that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts (even over an extended time period) kills soil microbial life.

Your observations/conclusions relating to you and your neighbor’s farm seem to be a little pre-mature. No yield could be caused by many reasons. What was the compared volume of tissue removed from each site over the last 20 years? What varieties of hay were planted in each field? How long had each of those varieties been planted in each field? What was the previous 5 years of irrigation history in each field? What is the angle of each field to the sun? What are the wind patterns on each field? What about a 10' soil profile confirming similar soil structure and permeability? etc. etc. etc.

As far as endomycorrhizal type fungi... I think your wording could be a little less biased. The application of Phosphorus does not kill endomycorrhiza, no credited study will ever make such an absurd claim. However, there are studies that claim that the over-abundance of P in the soil can inhibit said myco colonization and growth. Slight wording change, very different principles.

Now using your example of Myco population/colinization let us investigate a real world example of someone's basic organic program. A 1/4 inch application of compost annually. In the linked thread we learn that the program can add roughly 4 to 9 lbs of Nitrogen per 1,000 square feet annually.

All seems fine and dandy until we think of little Mr. Myco. ...Poor Mr. Myco

Let's say we apply this compost (http://www.lacitysan.org/srpcd/pdf/sta_lopez.pdf) (thanks Kiril).

At 400 lbs dry N per 1k we get 3.92 lbs of Nitrogen applied. Now what about the P? When we apply 3.92 lbs N we are also applying 2.56 lbs P!

Compare that to the same amount of total N applied via a commonly used 32-3-8 2%Fe synthetic fertilizer. It takes 12.25 lbs of this fertilizer to apply 3.9 lbs N. With the same application you are applying .3675 lbs of P per 1k.

Let's see which one of these looks better to your P sensitive Mr. Myco friend...

2.56 lbs P via organic methods ....... or ........ .3675 lbs P via synthetic methods?

We will emit soluble vs. insoluble ratios as they will skew the ratio in even more favor of the synthetics.

Now don't get all bent out of shape here. I understand that compost is not the most efficient way to apply N to a lawn, but the same comparison can be done via any organic method and it will NEVER have a less risky NP ratio than Urea which has 46% Nitrogen and NO Phosphorus.

Remember what started this, I mentioned that {u]sometimes[/u] synthetics are necessary to bring things into balance. But once in balance, organics are lovely.

This is an example why it is important to know everything about every organic product available to you, and then use that knowledge to select the best one for the job. Sometimes no organic products will not suffice and you may have to use a synthetic fert that allows more "targetable" nutrient applications.

"The application of phosphorous (P) causes the inhibition and death of endomycorrhizal type fungi " is what I said meaning that in many cases inhibition eventually leads to death. For published studies look to 'Doud' (hope the spelling is correct) at Rodale Institute.

I'm thinking you are still not getting the difference between sequestered and ionic form nutrients as in P.

[Tim Wilson]

An example of her absurdity... in this instance.

:hammerhead:

BUT you and I have both wasted enough time with our pride and ego fights. Say what you want I will ignore you for the next little while.

Granted not every word in every monologue that everyone says is 100% sensible. That is why we learn to read, learn to learn and learn to draw the relevent info from what we encounter.

I do not understand your response. I have not said anything undermining your stature, nor am I feeling particularly egofull at the moment. I honestly had absolutely no recollection of your opinion of Elaine and obviously you did not have any recollection of my prolonged debates with her, otherwise you would not have said that 'you knew' thing.

[quackgrass]

So Tim I'm curious,

Tell me how you would farm 10,000 acres of wheat using only natural inputs.

I want to know how you will maximize yields so much that the neighboring farm (which uses your techniques plus synthetics) can't exceed your production.

I want examples to be available to every farmer, not just one that gets rights to a surplus of bio-solids or Dairy farm manure.

[ICT Bill]

I just do not understand why you guys need to make it so complicated

foods applied to soils select for certain outcomes in the soil

bulk soils are different from the Rhizosphere

if it is leaves from trees or nitrogen from urea, they both select for who is going to be the dominant colony in the soil

if you are growing trees you may want one outcome, if you are growing beans or turf another

for 600,000 million years (or more) plants have selected for the microorganism or soil microorganisms have selected for the plant

what Elaine was saying is, the bulk soil arguement is irrelevant in healthy soils

[Smallaxe]

... Tell me how you would farm 10,000 acres of wheat using only natural inputs.... .

The best answer you are gonna get - is some Fairy-tale about 600 Million Years Ago, everything was mutating to become Super-Duper NPK producers...

Today however, the Magic is over, and Mutations only lose, genetic information.
So maybe, that's, the reason we have to use synthetic ferts to increase crop yield. They are becoming dumber... :laugh:

Nutrients, are all here, on the planet.
It's just that they are - all - in different places, in different amounts.

That is why we "mine", most of these elements and Remix, one little truckload at a time. This concept, built our economy, to the point of being - the bread basket to the World.

Nutrient Cycling only works, if you never remove the elements that is has, originally.

So maybe if we all became 'Hunter/Gatherers', if - we stop and defacate on the tree, when we pick an orange.
Sound like fun to you?

[Kiril]

Nutrient Cycling only works, if you never remove the elements that is has, originally.

Nutrient cycling works when you don't exceed the capability of the soil to provide the nutrients naturally.

[JDUtah]

Nutrient cycling works when you don't exceed the capability of the soil to provide the nutrients naturally.

Actually soils don't provide nutrients. Soils are simply a medium that contain nutrients provided by other sources. Decomposing Rocks and Organic Lifeforms are what "provide" nutrients... well and of course the atmoshpere.

I don't find it negative to use all three sources (via organic, synthetic, or mined nutrients) when producing the worlds food crop.

[Kiril]

Actually soils don't provide nutrients.

Back to school JD.

[JDUtah]

Think primary succession...

[Kiril]

Think primary succession...

Think back to school.

[JDUtah]

Ahhhh, those were fun days....

[Kiril]

Ahhhh, those were fun days....

I see .... you mean you realized that limb you were standing on broke.
.
.
.
BTW buddy .... organic matter decomposes, rock/mineral parent material weathers, ....... and not primary succession, pedogenesis.

Clearly someone who might want to appear as having an extensive knowledge of soils should know this.

[ICT Bill]

I see .... you mean you realized that limb you were standing on broke.
.
.
.
BTW buddy .... organic matter decomposes, rock/mineral parent material weathers, ....... and not primary succession, pedogenesis.

Clearly someone who might want to appear as having an extensive knowledge of soils should know this.

Kiril
If you could translate your knowledge into a simpler form it would be helpful

I am not sure everyone on here has the background to follow what you are saying, certainly not me

I always (well mostly) appreciate your input, but gee whiz the attack part is not very conducive to a nice debate about what we disagree on

Is it possible to tone it down a little?

[Kiril]

I always (well mostly) appreciate your input, but gee whiz the attack part is not very conducive to a nice debate about what we disagree on

Don't see what you are talking about. JD felt the need to correct me, but with inaccurate information, so I corrected his post with the correct information. He of all people should know my background, and he should double, no, triple check his info before making statements he really has no hope of ever substantiating. So whatever followed, he brought it on himself.

[Marcos]

Kiril
If you could translate your knowledge into a simpler form it would be helpful

I am not sure everyone on here has the background to follow what you are saying, certainly not me

I always (well mostly) appreciate your input, but gee whiz the attack part is not very conducive to a nice debate about what we disagree on

Is it possible to tone it down a little?

Kiril the all-knowing Earth-czar strikes again...:dizzy:

[ecoguy]

Hey boys. I was at an Organic Turf Management course all day and wow, I learned enough for a lifetime. I'm planning to go through all the info and I'll do up a top 10 cool thing I learned list. I'll start a new thread, if you care... Thanks.

[JDUtah]

Kiril
If you could translate your knowledge into a simpler form it would be helpful

I am not sure everyone on here has the background to follow what you are saying, certainly not me

I always (well mostly) appreciate your input, but gee whiz the attack part is not very conducive to a nice debate about what we disagree on

Is it possible to tone it down a little?

Ah Bill it's ok. I expected his tone of response. We all know that he has to be the one that knows the most. And I mean... I dare challenge his elite knowledge? What was I thinking!?

The thing he didn't get is that his ego makes it rather fun for me to word play with him. Or maybe he did get it... but is so ego driven he can't let go of something that challenges what he said... even if it was a tease.

If you think about his post in a literal context.. he is still inaccurate...

"Nutrient cycling works when you don't exceed the capability of the soil to provide the nutrients naturally."

Soil isn't capable of providing nutrients. Organisms eating rocks and dead things are what are capable of providing nutrients.

But I have had my fun. And of course I don't dare waste time bickering with him. He embarrasses himself bad enough fighting with other folk.

(Do you think he will take the bait again?)

[NattyLawn]

Wow...How come when JD is presented with an opposing argument to his own, to which he can not explain or continue the argument, it's OK for him to leave things go? He never answered Tim, and attributed his non-response to "ego". Huh? Now with Kiril, there would have been no response, but Bill and Marcos "sided" with JD and hence we get a "Look I was right response" and he was "baiting" Kiril. Whatever...All fluff and no substance JD.

[Smallaxe]

Nutrient cycling works when you don't exceed the capability of the soil to provide the nutrients naturally.

I take issue with the diversion, from my point, about nutrient cycling. From here on out I will simply call it - 'recycling'.
Exa,
A bushel of corn is produced one a piece of ground and gathers up 'x' pounds of P, then is removed, from the field. Now - that P is gone. We have a net loss of P.

If the corn was allowed, to rot back into the soil, in its entirety; then, what would be the end result?
Is there a net loss, - or - net gain of P, or any other element used in the growth of that corn?

So in Layman's terms, I am talking about maitaining soil fertility. Not exceeding it. When in continual harvest, the problem is not likely to be exceeding.

Now that the diversion is past - I will put it out again - Make 10,000 A. of wheat grow , by organic means. Answer - how that can be done, with your millions of years of evolving fungi. :)

[Kiril]

Ah Bill it's ok. I expected his tone of response. We all know that he has to be the one that knows the most. And I mean... I dare challenge his elite knowledge? What was I thinking!?

And if you would have the decency and common courtesy to make sure your information is accurate before correcting me then .......

The thing he didn't get is that his ego makes it rather fun for me to word play with him. Or maybe he did get it... but is so ego driven he can't let go of something that challenges what he said... even if it was a tease.

This is funny, coming from the guy who argues over multiple threads that synthetics ferts don't kill microbes so he can justify his "organic" program. But heh .... nice back peddle attempt.

If you think about his post in a literal context.. he is still inaccurate...

"Nutrient cycling works when you don't exceed the capability of the soil to provide the nutrients naturally."

Soil isn't capable of providing nutrients. Organisms eating rocks and dead things are what are capable of providing nutrients.

And you talk about ego, yet continue with your absurd statements. Is there a good reason for your circular logic word games? Maybe to bait people into an argument? Kinda like your fertilizer and microbes argument?

Perhaps if you had bothered to read the material I have presented to you over the past couple of years you might actually speak intelligently on the subject. But wait .... you feel it appropriate to redefine pedogenesis for what reason?

Now what was it Hans Jenny said about the soil forming factors?

s = f(cl, o, r, p, t, • • •) or simply known as CLORPT

So JD ... perhaps you would like to explain why there are five primary variables when you claim only one?

But I have had my fun. And of course I don't dare waste time bickering with him. He embarrasses himself bad enough fighting with other folk.

You mean, kinda like how you are fighting with numerous people over multiple threads about fertilizers and microbes?

Anyhow ... we close out with the typical JD .... "I'm wrong" exit statement. Been nice talking to you JD ... see you in about 2 months or so when you come back to justify your program again and argue about synthetic ferts and microbes.

[Kiril]

I take issue with the diversion, from my point, about nutrient cycling. From here on out I will simply call it - 'recycling'.
Exa,
A bushel of corn is produced one a piece of ground and gathers up 'x' pounds of P, then is removed, from the field. Now - that P is gone. We have a net loss of P.

If the corn was allowed, to rot back into the soil, in its entirety; then, what would be the end result?
Is there a net loss, - or - net gain of P, or any other element used in the growth of that corn?

Biomass removed = net loss.

So in Layman's terms, I am talking about maitaining soil fertility. Not exceeding it. When in continual harvest, the problem is not likely to be exceeding.

It is not that simple Axe. The ability of a soil to naturally provide a crop with the necessary nutrients to maintain acceptable yields depends on many factors. It is not simply a matter of returning field residue to the system, but rather the soils ability (as a system) to provide the required nutrients in a timely fashion.

[phasthound]

Yesterday I attended seminars at NOFA NJ Winter Conference.
One was taught by David Douds http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=1437
regarding how Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi can increase crop growth and how farm management impacts native populations of AM.

[Tim Wilson]

Yesterday I attended seminars at NOFA NJ Winter Conference.
One was taught by David Douds http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=1437
regarding how Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi can increase crop growth and how farm management impacts native populations of AM.

Lucky you. He is a smart man. That is who I suggested JD google.

[JDUtah]

Wow...How come when JD is presented with an opposing argument to his own, to which he can not explain or continue the argument, it's OK for him to leave things go? He never answered Tim, and attributed his non-response to "ego".

I have Tim on ignore. What question did Tim ask me that I have not answered? Did you notice he didn't answer mine?

Now with Kiril, there would have been no response, but Bill and Marcos "sided" with JD and hence we get a "Look I was right response" and he was "baiting" Kiril.

I'm so impressed that you knew exactly what goes on within my head that motivates and/or encourages me. You must be a phsychic. Any good stock tips?

Whatever...All fluff and no substance JD.

That's ironic. This thread was started because I was the one asking a fluffy idea to be backed up with substance. If you haven't noticed... no-one has presented any real data that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts kills soil microbes.

I'm not the one filled with fluff on this subject, sorry. The challenge is open to you too NattyLawn. Do you have any data? Or are you fluffy like the others?

[JDUtah]

You mean, kinda like how you are fighting with numerous people over multiple threads about fertilizers and microbes?

Want to shut me up? It is simple. Show me a decent study that proves that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts kills soils microbes. Until then you better believe I will call people out on that bull crap.

(you took the bait again? Man, why do I have to be the one to shut up to stop this immature arguing? But mom....)

[dishboy]

Want to shut me up? It is simple. Show me a decent study that proves that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts kills soils microbes. Until then you better believe I will call people out on that bull crap.

"appropriate" is kinda arbitrary don't you think?

[JDUtah]

ok.. "regular" meaning 4 to 6 lbs N per year applied over 5 applications.

[phasthound]

Lucky you. He is a smart man. That is who I suggested JD google.

He has documented that adding P will reduce AM innoculation and reduce AM spore production.

[phasthound]

And why is it so important to maintain a high root colonization of AM?

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2005/050609.2.htm

The results show that the symbiotic relationship between mycorrhizal fungi and plants may have a much more significant role in the worldwide nitrogen cycle than previously believed. With this in mind, farmers may benefit from promoting the proliferation of mycorrhizal fungi through diminished fertilizer input, thereby making more efficient use of the nitrogen stores in agricultural soils.

The better the soil biology, the fewer inputs required.

[phasthound]

Regarding the question, can organic farming produce as much food as chemical farming:

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Review Article
Publication Acceptance Date: November 1, 2006
Publication Date: December 2, 2006
Citation: Hepperly, P.R., Douds, D.D., Seidel, R. 2006. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial 1981 to 2005: Long Term Analysis of Organic and Conventional Maize and Soybean Cropping Systems. Long-Term Field Experiments in Organic Farming. p.15-31

Technical Abstract: The high cost of farmers transitioning to organic agriculture, the low nitrogen availability, and high weed competition associated with organic production systems are viewed as the chief obstacles of organic competing with conventional agriculture. The Rodale Institute, in collaboration with USDA Agriculture Research Service, designed a well replicated and randomized field trial to respond to theses performance gaps. This trial, known as the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST), is the longest running comparison of organic and conventional maize and soybean cropping systems in the world and is presently in its 25th season. Over the years, this experiment has demonstrated: 1)increased soil carbon and nitrogen levels in the organic vs conventionally farmed plots, 2)crop yields are similar for organic vs conventional in years of average precipitation, and greater in organic in drought years due to higher moisture availability, 3)fossil energy inputs for organic crop production were over 30% lower than for conventionally produced maize and soybeans, 4)labor inputs averaged about 15% higher in organic farming systems than in conventional, 5)the neteconomic return per hectare for organic is often equal or higher than conventionally produced crops because organic foods frequently bring higher prices in the marketplace. Inaddition to yield and economic benefits, enviromental benefits of organic agriculture potentially include enhanced sequestration of carbon in the soil, in addition to less nutrient leaching into groundwater than in conventional agriculture.

[ecoguy]

Speaking of synthetic vs. organic, IPM and all that jazz. Anyone heard of this? It appears to be a compromise of sorts.

http://www.arborjet.com/landscape-pro.htm

[starry night]

phasthound: What you cited mentioned increased weed competition. But you included nothing more except for the result that yields were similar. I didn't grow up on a farm but do weeds cause any other problem such as making crop harvesting more difficult?

[ICT Bill]

Speaking of synthetic vs. organic, IPM and all that jazz. Anyone heard of this? It appears to be a compromise of sorts.

http://www.arborjet.com/landscape-pro.htm

My old buddy Peter Wilde, great products, great company

[starry night]

Speaking of synthetic vs. organic, IPM and all that jazz. Anyone heard of this? It appears to be a compromise of sorts.

http://www.arborjet.com/landscape-pro.htm

It's only a compromise in that it doesn't get directly into the air we breathe.
It does go into the tree's nutrient stream. I'm not a scientist; could it eventually reach the soil? This product is becoming fairly widespread in my part of the country to fight emerald ash borers in ash trees.

[quackgrass]

Regarding the question, can organic farming produce as much food as chemical farming:

[/I]

That wasn't the question, the question is:

Can Organic only farming produce the same amount as Organic plus Synthetic farming on a large scale?

The soy farm you referenced is tiny, and they use tons of manure. Remember, this question is based on every farm dividing up the manure and bio-solid fertilizer sources.

Comparing an organic farm that has unlimited manure or bio-solid resources is pointless. If all farms where to switch over to a manure based system it would leave each with very little. (therefore synthetic inputs would, and did increase yield tremendously)

The question was also referenced to a non legume crop (wheat). Legume crops (soy) pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, therefore synthetic nitrogen (from the atmosphere) isn't going to effect yield very much.

Rodale is way far from an independent unbiased source anyhow.

[Kiril]

Want to shut me up? It is simple. Show me a decent study that proves that the appropriate use of synthetic ferts kills soils microbes. Until then you better believe I will call people out on that bull crap.

I see, so now deflection.

Ignoring the fact that I have already provided ample journal publications demonstrating potential impacts from use of synthetic ferts & pesticides .... why don't you go ahead and tell me what a "decent" study is comprised of .... you know, so I can go and find one. :rolleyes:

The fact you can't wrap your head around what is implied by reduced microbial biomass and diversity, reduced community structure and function, etc, etc, as a result of use of synthetic ferts does not change the fact it happens. Numerous studies have demonstrated this .... as well as numerous studies demonstrating the negative impact of soil salination .... which also happens. But then I guess those studies aren't "decent" because they don't tell you what you want to hear.

...... and so you continue to play word games. So tell me JD,

I have a soil with an EC of 3.5 dS/m and I am using a Class 4 irrigation water at 1" applied water per week. I have a "crop" with an effective root zone of 20 cm. Answer the following questions, knowing they are not in any way all inclusive.


What is the "appropriate" amount of synthetic fertilizer I can use?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when surface applied?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when injected at 8 cm depth?
What impact will the increase in salinity have on microbial functioning, community dynamics and diversity, total biomass, plant-microbial relations and benefits?
How will continue synthetic fertilization impact system dynamics and capability as a whole over 5, 10, 15, 20 years?
What impact on ground water will there be from repeated leaching of salts?



If JD, you are certain of your position on this issue, it must come from knowledge you have obtained from either study or experimentation. Therefore you should easily be able to answer these questions ..... right? After all, you are the one who keeps insisting the "appropriate" amount of synthetic ferts will have no negative impacts on the system.

[phasthound]

That wasn't the question, the question is:

Can Organic only farming produce the same amount as Organic plus Synthetic farming on a large scale?

The soy farm you referenced is tiny, and they use tons of manure. Remember, this question is based on every farm dividing up the manure and bio-solid fertilizer sources.

Comparing an organic farm that has unlimited manure or bio-solid resources is pointless. If all farms where to switch over to a manure based system it would leave each with very little. (therefore synthetic inputs would, and did increase yield tremendously)

The question was also referenced to a non legume crop (wheat). Legume crops (soy) pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, therefore synthetic nitrogen (from the atmosphere) isn't going to effect yield very much.

Rodale is way far from an independent unbiased source anyhow.

I don't know much about farming and did not make those posts to be part of a debate. I was just throwing out some info & avoiding working on my taxes. :)

But, I would rather my food was grown by Rodale's method rather than AgriBusiness. Unfortunately some of my tax money goes to AgriBusiness instead of Rodale.

[starry night]

I was just throwing out some info & avoiding working on my taxes. :)

If you don't work on your taxes, how you gonna get that HUGE refund you so "richly" deserve?

[Tim Wilson]

That wasn't the question, the question is:

Can Organic only farming produce the same amount as Organic plus Synthetic farming on a large scale?

The soy farm you referenced is tiny, and they use tons of manure. Remember, this question is based on every farm dividing up the manure and bio-solid fertilizer sources.

Comparing an organic farm that has unlimited manure or bio-solid resources is pointless. If all farms where to switch over to a manure based system it would leave each with very little. (therefore synthetic inputs would, and did increase yield tremendously)

The question was also referenced to a non legume crop (wheat). Legume crops (soy) pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, therefore synthetic nitrogen (from the atmosphere) isn't going to effect yield very much.

Rodale is way far from an independent unbiased source anyhow.

I still have not completed my summary in between other work but thought I should note that, where climatically conducive, legumes are integrated with small grains but of course you knew that; right?

[quackgrass]

I don't know much about farming and did not make those posts to be part of a debate. I was just throwing out some info & avoiding working on my taxes. :)

But, I would rather my food was grown by Rodale's method rather than AgriBusiness. Unfortunately some of my tax money goes to AgriBusiness instead of Rodale.

Ugh, taxes...

Right, but my point is that ALL of our food couldn't be grown in the Rodale model. Its a pipe dream take on Organic farming, it assumes every farm has unlimited manure and natural pesticides. Very unrealistic when you input real farm acreage and place one farmer on 10,000 acres, versus 20 scientists on 20 acres.

Your argument would support the claim that nutrients plus 4-4-2 out performs Screamin Green 16-2-3. Is that the case?

[quackgrass]

I still have not completed my summary in between other work but thought I should note that, where climatically conducive, legumes are integrated with small grains but of course you knew that; right?

Yes, and that is another example of how small scale organic farming doesn't work on a larger scale.

A few farms can do this, but if every wheat farm alternated with a soybean crop it would produce a lot of wasted soybeans - and broke farmers.

[phasthound]

If you don't work on your taxes, how you gonna get that HUGE refund you so "richly" deserve?

Yes, I do deserve to have my money refunded. I also deserve the interest that should be paid on this loan to the government. But Uncle Sam has a different viewpoint. :mad:

[phasthound]

Ugh, taxes...

Right, but my point is that ALL of our food couldn't be grown in the Rodale model. Its a pipe dream take on Organic farming, it assumes every farm has unlimited manure and natural pesticides. Very unrealistic when you input real farm acreage and place one farmer on 10,000 acres, versus 20 scientists on 20 acres.

Your argument would support the claim that nutrients plus 4-4-2 out performs Screamin Green 16-2-3. Is that the case?

I didn't make any argument, just posted some information. I do not have any answers for the world's food problem. I don't have a good feeling about the next 50 years.

4-4-2 & 16-2-3 have not been tested in agriculture. I would suspect that both would do well. In lawn care the difference is a higher application rate for the 4-4-2.

[Tim Wilson]

Yes, and that is another example of how small scale organic farming doesn't work on a larger scale.

A few farms can do this, but if every wheat farm alternated with a soybean crop it would produce a lot of wasted soybeans - and broke farmers.

No I believe this is done on very large spreads with soy actually seeded behind the combine. (conventional; not organic) I have worked with one organic grain producer - 4000 acres - not too small

[quackgrass]

I see, so now deflection.

Ignoring the fact that I have already provided ample journal publications demonstrating potential impacts from use of synthetic ferts & pesticides .... why don't you go ahead and tell me what a "decent" study is comprised of .... you know, so I can go and find one. :rolleyes:

The fact you can't wrap your head around what is implied by reduced microbial biomass and diversity, reduced community structure and function, etc, etc, as a result of use of synthetic ferts does not change the fact it happens. Numerous studies have demonstrated this .... as well as numerous studies demonstrating the negative impact of soil salination .... which also happens. But then I guess those studies aren't "decent" because they don't tell you what you want to hear.

...... and so you continue to play word games. So tell me JD,

I have a soil with an EC of 3.5 dS/m and I am using a Class 4 irrigation water at 1" applied water per week. I have a "crop" with an effective root zone of 20 cm. Answer the following questions, knowing they are not in any way all inclusive.


What is the "appropriate" amount of synthetic fertilizer I can use?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when surface applied?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when injected at 8 cm depth?
What impact will the increase in salinity have on microbial functioning, community dynamics and diversity, total biomass, plant-microbial relations and benefits?
How will continue synthetic fertilization impact system dynamics and capability as a whole over 5, 10, 15, 20 years?
What impact on ground water will there be from repeated leaching of salts?



If JD, you are certain of your position on this issue, it must come from knowledge you have obtained from either study or experimentation. Therefore you should easily be able to answer these questions ..... right? After all, you are the one who keeps insisting the "appropriate" amount of synthetic ferts will have no negative impacts on the system.

always splitting hairs kiril......you couldn't answer one of those questions to your own standards of proof, so stop trying to confuse everyone into thinking you are right.

If you were right we could expect that synthetic fertilized lawns would not respond to organic fertilization. But that is not the case, so obviously there are still plenty of microbes to feed.

Ever ponder the awesome performance of microbial released synthetic N? Hum.. how would that work if synthetic N caused a microbe holocaust?

I can look out my window and see where the neighbors gravel driveway has rapidly become his lawn after 'too-greens' nitrogen and herbicide squirtings.

I can only imagine that the once barren soil is now teeming with microbiology and earthworms below the thick shaded grass - Due in part to the synthetic fertilization and herbicide. Herbicide? thats right, it is an organic carbon based food source for microbes...

Pants on the ground Kiril.....

[quackgrass]

.....lookin like a fool....

[quackgrass]

No I believe this is done on very large spreads with soy actually seeded behind the combine. (conventional; not organic) I have worked with one organic grain producer - 4000 acres - not too small

Okay, now wrap your mind around every farmed acre in the world doing this with a Legume crop.....whoa....now what does that 4,000 acres look like?

How does each effect the world soybean supply?

[quackgrass]

I didn't make any argument, just posted some information. I do not have any answers for the world's food problem. I don't have a good feeling about the next 50 years.

4-4-2 & 16-2-3 have not been tested in agriculture. I would suspect that both would do well. In lawn care the difference is a higher application rate for the 4-4-2.

Sorry I meant to debate not argue. On the basis that you kindly argue points and not character like some of us:)

In a way it certainly has been tested and the results do differ.

The bridge fertilizers that include both natural and synthetic mineral(/gas) sources of Nitrogen tend to outperform either all natural, or all synthetic in turf and agriculture.

[phasthound]

Sorry I meant to debate not argue. On the basis that you kindly argue points and not character like some of us:)

In a way it certainly has been tested and the results do differ.

The bridge fertilizers that include both natural and synthetic mineral(/gas) sources of Nitrogen tend to outperform either all natural, or all synthetic in turf and agriculture.

Well you must be right. Several truckload orders for Screamin' Green 16-2-3 from new clients are coming in now. :) Always room for more!

[starry night]

The bridge fertilizers that include both natural and synthetic mineral(/gas) sources of Nitrogen tend to outperform either all natural, or all synthetic in turf and agriculture.

And what would be the measure of the "outperforming" in turf?

[quackgrass]

And what would be the measure of the "outperforming" in turf?

creating more demand...

[starry night]

creating more demand...

That doesn't follow. I'm using only organics on several lawns. You said that combo/bridge products outperform organics alone. My customers tell me that their lawns never looked better. That's creating demand isn't it?

[dishboy]

creating more demand...

That proves nothing except maybe labor and or N unit cost is lower. Please show how turf outperforms using the bride if N levels are equal . Also what are the control factors.

[Tim Wilson]

Okay, now wrap your mind around every farmed acre in the world doing this with a Legume crop.....whoa....now what does that 4,000 acres look like?

How does each effect the world soybean supply?

Sir I do hope you can read because I am spending time working up a prospectus for an operating 10,000 acre wheat farm. I have not pitched the soybean production, merely pointed out it is already in practice and did not imply that the 4000 acre farm practiced this. Are you just an arguer? Am I wasting my time treating you as a peer?

Now as an aside please elucidate what you believe would occurr if climate appropriate wheat farms grew soybeans in between wheat crops? The soybeans do not displace the wheat you know, of course.

[quackgrass]

That doesn't follow. I'm using only organics on several lawns. You said that combo/bridge products outperform organics alone. My customers tell me that their lawns never looked better. That's creating demand isn't it?
You could have gotten the same result using less money and effort with a bridge product.

Sir I do hope you can read because I am spending time working up a prospectus for an operating 10,000 acre wheat farm. I have not pitched the soybean production, merely pointed out it is already in practice and did not imply that the 4000 acre farm practiced this. Are you just an arguer? Am I wasting my time treating you as a peer?

Now as an aside please elucidate what you believe would occurr if climate appropriate wheat farms grew soybeans in between wheat crops? The soybeans do not displace the wheat you know, of course.

It would make more sense to grow them together, either way- synthetic fertilizer would increase yields over organic alone.

[dishboy]

That doesn't follow. I'm using only organics on several lawns. You said that combo/bridge products outperform organics alone. My customers tell me that their lawns never looked better. That's creating demand isn't it?

I have used both and frankly the Organics perform better IMO if you are willing to load up on heavy fall N. This kills the profit for two applications if you are charging a flat rate by application. Most applicators are not willing to put out these resources or the labor to move & spread the pounds of material per K for those N levels ,thus the popularity of bridge. I also have observed much better winter color with 100% Organic vs the bridge.

[starry night]

You could have gotten the same result using less money and effort with a bridge product.

There seems to be two different themes going on this thread but I must comment at least once more on this one about bridge products. First, quackgrass, how do you purport to know how much money and effort I put into these client's lawns? I am one of those who wonders why anyone uses bridge products. To me, you either commit to organics or you don't. I don't need a crutch. So far, my organic lawns have done just great and I'm also making money on them. How could it be better? And, by the way, I don't try to match nitrogen numbers of synthetics.

I want to hear more on the theme of large scale ag use of organic inputs.

[Tim Wilson]

"either way- synthetic fertilizer would increase yields over organic alone."

Arguer it is. Pity.

[quackgrass]

There seems to be two different themes going on this thread but I must comment at least once more on this one about bridge products. First, quackgrass, how do you purport to know how much money and effort I put into these client's lawns? I am one of those who wonders why anyone uses bridge products. To me, you either commit to organics or you don't. I don't need a crutch. So far, my organic lawns have done just great and I'm also making money on them. How could it be better? And, by the way, I don't try to match nitrogen numbers of synthetics.

I want to hear more on the theme of large scale ag use of organic inputs.

Do you receive all your products by horse and deliver it the same way? Do you use mined metals or gasoline in your business, computers?

No,

So how do you even advertise a 100% organic service?

You cater to a niche client that buys into "100% organic" is better.

If the whole world flipped off the switch to synthetic fertilizer, you would soon see their isn't enough organic sources of fertilizer to maintain the same crop yields or even think about fertilizing lawns.

Its the mass availability of synthetic fertilizers that allows us the luxury to fertilize lawns organically and synthetically.

But I guess that small realization makes me an arguer:rolleyes:

[JDUtah]

So tell me JD,

I have a soil with an EC of 3.5 dS/m and I am using a Class 4 irrigation water at 1" applied water per week. I have a "crop" with an effective root zone of 20 cm. Answer the following questions, knowing they are not in any way all inclusive.


What is the "appropriate" amount of synthetic fertilizer I can use?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when surface applied?
What is the "appropriate" leaching fraction and how will that impact synthetic fertilizer efficacy when injected at 8 cm depth?
What impact will the increase in salinity have on microbial functioning, community dynamics and diversity, total biomass, plant-microbial relations and benefits?
How will continue synthetic fertilization impact system dynamics and capability as a whole over 5, 10, 15, 20 years?
What impact on ground water will there be from repeated leaching of salts?


A friend of mine said it best....

I see, so now deflection.

I will leave the definition of "appropriate" and "regular" open. I mean, shouldn't that help you find something to post? Anything.

Show me ANY study that demonstrates synthetic fert users are killing soil microbes. I am STILL waiting. Remember deflection gets us no-where. So how about answering my open question? It was the beginning motive of this thread after all. I was the one questioning the absurd claim.

[starry night]

Do you receive all your products by horse and deliver it the same way? Do you use mined metals or gasoline in your business, computers?

No,

So how do you even advertise a 100% organic service?

You cater to a niche client that buys into "100% organic" is better.

If the whole world flipped off the switch to synthetic fertilizer, you would soon see their isn't enough organic sources of fertilizer to maintain the same crop yields or even think about fertilizing lawns.

Its the mass availability of synthetic fertilizers that allows us the luxury to fertilize lawns organically and synthetically.

But I guess that small realization makes me an arguer:rolleyes:

I wasn't the one that called you the arguer. However, I now agree with Tim's assessment. You are going way off on a tangent with your comments.
I am far from the fringe when it comes to organics. I'm about as conservative a fellow as you will find. I'm not arguing nor do I "advertise" that synthetics are bad. What I have discovered is simply that organics do a better job growing grass and THAT is what I sell my clients.

[starry night]

Do you receive all your products by horse and deliver it the same way? Do you use mined metals or gasoline in your business, computers?

No,

So how do you even advertise a 100% organic service?

You cater to a niche client that buys into "100% organic" is better.

If the whole world flipped off the switch to synthetic fertilizer, you would soon see their isn't enough organic sources of fertilizer to maintain the same crop yields or even think about fertilizing lawns.

Its the mass availability of synthetic fertilizers that allows us the luxury to fertilize lawns organically and synthetically.

But I guess that small realization makes me an arguer:rolleyes:

I wasn't the one that called you the arguer. However, I now agree with Tim's assessment. You are going way off on a tangent with your comments and your judgments about me. I am far from the fringe when it comes to organics. I'm about as conservative a fellow as you will find. I'm not arguing nor do I "advertise" that synthetics are bad. What I have discovered is simply that organics do a better job growing grass and THAT is what I sell my clients.

[starry night]

Sorry about the double-post. My fingers got going too fast. Why doesn't this forum allow you to cancel posts?

[quackgrass]

I'm about as conservative a fellow as you will find. I'm not arguing nor do I "advertise" that synthetics are bad. What I have discovered is simply that organics do a better job growing grass and THAT is what I sell my clients.

Good for you, that is the way to get people to understand organics - results. I have no problem with anyone using just organics.

But you can't expect the whole world to drop synthetics and share the same results when the amount of organic manure sources becomes disproportionately smaller with each new organic farmer. So instead of a bag of chicken crap per 1,000 sqft of turf you now have a cup.

I understand that the world can't support major population growth without also increasing vast acreages of farmland, and/or yields.

I believe in more nature, less farm land.

Food demand and farmland go hand in hand. We seem to wipe out nature with our mouths more than our landscapes.

Synthetics used with organics can net the highest yields of food, thereby reducing farm land and increasing nature.

Its nice that the polarization passes the pendulum back and forth also.:)

[Kiril]

always splitting hairs kiril......you couldn't answer one of those questions to your own standards of proof, so stop trying to confuse everyone into thinking you are right.

Was the post aimed at you quack?

FYI, I could most certainly answer the first 3, and provide estimates for the last 3? Did you even know what a leaching fraction is without looking it up? I'm betting probably not.

If you were right we could expect that synthetic fertilized lawns would not respond to organic fertilization. But that is not the case, so obviously there are still plenty of microbes to feed.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I don't recall stating anything close to this ... perhaps you can help me out with a quote?

Ever ponder the awesome performance of microbial released synthetic N? Hum.. how would that work if synthetic N caused a microbe holocaust?

And once again, putting words in my mouth ... and now we are limited to just N fertilization even though I made no mention of the nutrient(s) being applied.

I can look out my window and see where the neighbors gravel driveway has rapidly become his lawn after 'too-greens' nitrogen and herbicide squirtings. I can only imagine that the once barren soil is now teeming with microbiology and earthworms below the thick shaded grass - Due in part to the synthetic fertilization and herbicide. Herbicide? thats right, it is an organic carbon based food source for microbes...

Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with my post.

Pants on the ground Kiril.....

You might want to pick your brains up off the ground, because your post has absolutely no bearing on what I had stated, nor did it even display a glimmer of intelligence on your part.

[quackgrass]

So what was it you were saying about synthetics and microbes?

Were you saying that microbes increased or decreased?

Pretty sure you said decreased.

Positive I gave examples of them also increasing.

If that isn't relative I don't know what is.

Quit hacking things apart to rearrange in your twisted mine. Its probably why you sleep alone, ever think of that?

Great soil science terms kiril A+ for your wiki, cut, paste education :waving:

[Kiril]

Show me ANY study that demonstrates synthetic fert users are killing soil microbes. I am STILL waiting. Remember deflection gets us no-where. So how about answering my open question? It was the beginning motive of this thread after all. I was the one questioning the absurd claim.

I see. So once again, you cannot refute what I have stated, nor can you back up your own claims. How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously here when you can't even tell us what an "appropriate" amount of fertilizer is in a very specific situation?

Note ..... I already answered your question in the post I linked, or have you forgotten? So who exactly is deflecting here JD? I don't recall you having anything to say about my post or 12 referenced publication initially. In fact, the best you could muster when I reposted my original post was playing word games with the abstract of a single study .... no. Then you quickly drew attention away from my post with irrelevant remarks ... kinda like you are doing in this thread. And then everyone one knows how you have performed an exhaustive review of every relevant publication in the various fields of study that represent this issue ..... haven't you? :rolleyes:

So once again ..... lets review what I stated.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?p=2783136#post2783136


As is all too often the case in these forums, people look for all inclusive answers to questions that do not have an all inclusive answer. This is far too complex an issue to simply state yes they do, or no they don't. Also consider our understanding of these complex soil communities is incomplete at best.

Can synthetics (ferts & pesticides) cause damage to microbes/microbial community .... absolutely. Will synthetics (ferts & pesticides) cause damage to the microbes/microbial community in your soils and climate ... maybe or maybe not. Assess your site and soils to determine if use of synthetics will negatively impact the soil microbial community and your system as a whole.

I will say this however ... anyone sitting on top of an aridosol should approach any type of salt additions to your soil (synthetic or organic) with extreme caution.

Some resources that demonstrate the complexity of the issues (some pdfs, some abstract only)


Pesticide Impacts:


http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/65/3/982.pdf
http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/7.5/317-320.pdf
http://www.scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=pjbs.2000.868.871&linkid=pdf
http://www.znaturforsch.com/ac/v58c/s58c0855.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mk7p10r12776u172/



Fertilizer Impacts (organic & synthetic):



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00004-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.05.007 (Bic take notice)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00297-3
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/70/5/2692.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7qbmkhhgrbu4ubw9/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(95)00154-9




So JD .... tell me again who is deflecting?

[Kiril]

So what was it you were saying about synthetics and microbes?

Were you saying that microbes increased or decreased?

Pretty sure you said decreased.

I see ... so you can't provide the quotes and you are in fact putting words in my mouth.

Positive I gave examples of them also increasing.

Once again, irrelevant to the discussion, and your "examples" mean nothing without data.

Quit hacking things apart to rearrange in your twisted mine. Its probably why you sleep alone, ever think of that?

Great soil science terms kiril A+ for your wiki, cut, paste education :waving:

Show me an example of where I have cut and paste from ANY source without reference. And I assume you mean leaching fraction, which is an irrigation term, not a soil science one.

And then quack presents the

"I don't know a thing about this guy or his education, so I will attempt to draw attention away from myself and my ignorant statements with insults and insinuation".

Does that about sum it up quack?

[NattyLawn]

Quit hacking things apart to rearrange in your twisted mine. Its probably why you sleep alone, ever think of that?

Great soil science terms kiril A+ for your wiki, cut, paste education :waving:

Kiril,

Sounds like Quack's getting close to throwing out another racial slur on the board to you, like he did to Grohrganic.

[NattyLawn]

That wasn't the question, the question is:

Can Organic only farming produce the same amount as Organic plus Synthetic farming on a large scale?

The soy farm you referenced is tiny, and they use tons of manure. Remember, this question is based on every farm dividing up the manure and bio-solid fertilizer sources.

Comparing an organic farm that has unlimited manure or bio-solid resources is pointless. If all farms where to switch over to a manure based system it would leave each with very little. (therefore synthetic inputs would, and did increase yield tremendously)

The question was also referenced to a non legume crop (wheat). Legume crops (soy) pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, therefore synthetic nitrogen (from the atmosphere) isn't going to effect yield very much.

Rodale is way far from an independent unbiased source anyhow.

Just have an issue here with the stated use of manures and biosolids on organic farms. There are very strict rules regarding both, and the use of biosolids is prohibited on certified farms.

http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html

[quackgrass]

Kiril,

Sounds like Quack's getting close to throwing out another racial slur on the board to you, like he did to Grohrganic.

Oh that's cute, pull the race card and snuggle up to Lord kiril's nanny...

Looks like Kiril doesn't sleep alone after all...

Do you support what Grohrganic said before I told him to speak english?

[JDUtah]

How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously here when you can't even tell us what an "appropriate" amount of fertilizer is in a very specific situation?

This coming from someone who only and always resorts to "compost does a soil good"? ...for EVERY situation? Give me a break. :laugh:

[Smallaxe]

Biomass removed = net loss.



It is not that simple Axe. The ability of a soil to naturally provide a crop with the necessary nutrients to maintain acceptable yields depends on many factors. It is not simply a matter of returning field residue to the system, but rather the soils ability (as a system) to provide the required nutrients in a timely fashion.

Nor, is it that complicated.

The bottom line is - There is no such thing as "Organic - Sustainable Agriculture", that doesn't result in population control, (starvation)...
Besides, the definition, of the word, 'Sustainable', is a moving target. Let's call it 'Maintain, shall we? It's more realistic, and more defined by reason, than politicians, from the UN. :)

If - we can maintain the remixing, and balancing, of nutrients, of all the Earth's soil, we can maintain agriculture, at high levels of output.
If - We are also smart enough to maintain adequate, CEC, SOM, Structure, Texture, Water, Drainage, etc., etc. You know - those "many factors" - you mentioned.

[Smallaxe]

Good for you, that is the way to get people to understand organics - results. I have no problem with anyone using just organics.

But you can't expect the whole world to drop synthetics and share the same results when the amount of organic manure sources becomes disproportionately smaller with each new organic farmer. So instead of a bag of chicken crap per 1,000 sqft of turf you now have a cup.

I understand that the world can't support major population growth without also increasing vast acreages of farmland, and/or yields.

I believe in more nature, less farm land.

Food demand and farmland go hand in hand. We seem to wipe out nature with our mouths more than our landscapes.

Synthetics used with organics can net the highest yields of food, thereby reducing farm land and increasing nature.

Its nice that the polarization passes the pendulum back and forth also.:)

There is also the concept that we can live with nature. We don't have to clear-cut every tree to grow a crop. We don't need large tracts of ground devoted to agriculture. What we do need - is an idea in peoples' heads, about how to grow food in gardens and small farms.

I say we pass a law, that says if - you move in to a - Rural area - you grow food enough for your family. Not willing to make that commitment? Then stay in your stinking cities, and quit taking farmland - out of production.

:laugh: Tree huggers got to have "PINE Trees" growing everywhere... Ugly, boring, stinking pine trees! Shading the roadway in winter, rather than providing a crop in summer. Stupid city slickers... :laugh:

[Smallaxe]

You know, I bet all you guys, could get on - "The View". That would make the girls, look rational and wise. :laugh:

[Kiril]

This coming from someone who only and always resorts to "compost does a soil good"? ...for EVERY situation? Give me a break. :laugh:

WOW ... now you are down to one liner lies. Guess that pretty much sums it up then.

[Kiril]

Nor, is it that complicated.

You are right .... it is more complicated.

The bottom line is - There is no such thing as "Organic - Sustainable Agriculture", that doesn't result in population control, (starvation)...

Have you considered that if we made better use of our food resources there wouldn't be a need to "maintain" high levels of output? Take for instance using feed meals as fertilizer. Is that the best use of our food resources?

How about food waste?

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/US-wastes-half-its-food

Besides, the definition, of the word, 'Sustainable', is a moving target. Let's call it 'Maintain, shall we? It's more realistic, and more defined by reason, than politicians, from the UN.

Is there really a need for you to politicize this? It is just a word.

[NattyLawn]

Oh that's cute, pull the race card and snuggle up to Lord kiril's nanny...

Looks like Kiril doesn't sleep alone after all...

Do you support what Grohrganic said before I told him to speak english?

Hey quack...Why don't you inform us all on the use of biosolids and manures on certified organic farms? Oh wait, you were talking out of your arse most of this thread.

Ohhhh....What a dig! You called me gay on the internet! If you knew my race and/or nationality you might go take a dig there....I'm sure you'll post some more info on heavy metals in biosolids, even though biosolids go through very intense testing as well.

[Smallaxe]

...Have you considered that if we made better use of our food resources there wouldn't be a need to "maintain" high levels of output? Take for instance using feed meals as fertilizer. Is that the best use of our food resources?

How about food waste? ...

Agreed. :)

...Is there really a need for you to politicize this? It is just a word.

Words have meaning. When words, are redefined, by politicians, they are , by definition, - political. I don't like it any more than you do.

I believe that farmers, should learn to use ferts, and 'cides, more sensibly. Many of us are.

I do not believe gov't has the 'wise solution'. The reason I do not believe, that gov't makes wise decisions, because, of example after example, of foolish decisions.

I do believe, that 'remixing' of the nutrients, and 'rebuilding' soil structure is a wise choice, even if we produce atmospheric plant food in the process. :)

[quackgrass]

Hey quack...Why don't you inform us all on the use of biosolids and manures on certified organic farms? Oh wait, you were talking out of your arse most of this thread.

What do you want to know natty? Manures are used on certified organic farms because organic growers feel that biosolids are too toxic. From the horses mouth:http://http://www.organicconsumers.org/sludge.cfm Click on sludge news to see how the 100% organic crowd feels about biosolids.

I imagine you feel the same since this is the crowd you associate with?

...I'm sure you'll post some more info on heavy metals in biosolids, even though biosolids go through very intense testing as well.[/QUOTE]

What is very intense about biosolid testing?

Its not even close to the stringent testing that a synthetic pesticide goes through.

Could you imagine if a pesticide came out containing those heavy metals, pharmacueticals, hormones? It would have no chance of hitting the market.

[ecoguy]

haha, Smallaxe. We could start our own show. "Turf Talk."

[Smallaxe]

haha, Smallaxe. We could start our own show. "Turf Talk."

"ReView Turf Talk". With a pool table, instead of a round table, for the dudes. Better have Nerf sticks and nerf balls though... :)

[NattyLawn]

That wasn't the question, the question is:

Can Organic only farming produce the same amount as Organic plus Synthetic farming on a large scale?

The soy farm you referenced is tiny, and they use tons of manure. Remember, this question is based on every farm dividing up the manure and bio-solid fertilizer sources.

Comparing an organic farm that has unlimited manure or bio-solid resources is pointless. If all farms where to switch over to a manure based system it would leave each with very little. (therefore synthetic inputs would, and did increase yield tremendously)

The question was also referenced to a non legume crop (wheat). Legume crops (soy) pull nitrogen from the atmosphere, therefore synthetic nitrogen (from the atmosphere) isn't going to effect yield very much.

Rodale is way far from an independent unbiased source anyhow.

What do you want to know natty? Manures are used on certified organic farms because organic growers feel that biosolids are too toxic. From the horses mouth:http://http://www.organicconsumers.org/sludge.cfm Click on sludge news to see how the 100% organic crowd feels about biosolids.

I imagine you feel the same since this is the crowd you associate with?

...I'm sure you'll post some more info on heavy metals in biosolids, even though biosolids go through very intense testing as well.
What is very intense about biosolid testing?

Its not even close to the stringent testing that a synthetic pesticide goes through.

Could you imagine if a pesticide came out containing those heavy metals, pharmacueticals, hormones? It would have no chance of hitting the market.

Is the first quote yours? Where you claim organic farms use biosolids and unlimited amounts of manure? Fact is, they don't.

[quackgrass]

Is the first quote yours? Where you claim organic farms use biosolids and unlimited amounts of manure? Fact is, they don't.

That really went over your head didn't it. Read it again and tell me where I said certified organic farms use biosolids.

I was saying that without synthetics, farmers would only have manure and biosolids to fertilize with.

And if that were the case, manure and biosolids wouldn't stretch far enough to maximize everyone's yield.

Farmland would have to increase. Get it?

[NattyLawn]

That really went over your head didn't it. Read it again and tell me where I said certified organic farms use biosolids.

I was saying that without synthetics, farmers would only have manure and biosolids to fertilize with.

And if that were the case, manure and biosolids wouldn't stretch far enough to maximize everyone's yield.

Farmland would have to increase. Get it?

My bad....I misread that.

[Kiril]

I was saying that without synthetics, farmers would only have manure and biosolids to fertilize with.

Why are these the only two options?

And if that were the case, manure and biosolids wouldn't stretch far enough to maximize everyone's yield.

1) Got some numbers to back this statement up? I know you don't, but gotta ask anyhow.
2) Once again, why are manure and biosolids the only two options?
3) Why must yield be "maximized"?


Farmland would have to increase.

Why? Because you say so? All I have seen you present here is an opinion without substantiation.

[quackgrass]

Why are these the only two options?



1) Got some numbers to back this statement up? I know you don't, but gotta ask anyhow.
2) Once again, why are manure and biosolids the only two options?
3) Why must yield be "maximized"?




Why? Because you say so? All I have seen you present here is an opinion without substantiation.

I've made my point and its very clear. I can bring up numbers when a viable argument presents itself.

If you want to debate me then you must offer up points of your own argument.

And by debate I mean deal with the topic in its entirety, not the evasive line by line dissection you are famous for.

You can certainly use figures and studies but try to stay away from your typical pasting of multiple PDFs that can only be read after purchasing. Its unlikely anyone will purchase those documents if you can't even surmise a compelling counter thought.

In case you've confused yourself too much already, your side of the debate is to prove that synthetic fertilization will not produce an increase in crop yields.

Apparently you know of some method of farming that is so efficient it leaves synthetics with no place for improvement.

Start pontificating lord kiril, this is what the world has been waiting for!

[Landscape Poet]

Lord, will someone please load the material that the other is asking for, I keep checking back in on this thread to learn, but out of 13 pages I think 8 are just back and forth banter, IMHO - all parties involved in the conversation have more knowledge than most of us here on lawnsite (self included), I would prefer you guys argue in a manner in which I might learn something. Just asking repetitive questions and asking the other guy to show his first is not very educational for me. What you guys say, put up or shut up and move onto another topic so that the rest of us can pick your brains rather than listen to you bicker?

[Kiril]

I've made my point and its very clear. I can bring up numbers when a viable argument presents itself.

So in other words, you have no answers to the questions.

You can certainly use figures and studies but try to stay away from your typical pasting of multiple PDFs that can only be read after purchasing. Its unlikely anyone will purchase those documents if you can't even surmise a compelling counter thought.

Typically the good/high demand studies you have to pay for. Not my problem if you don't have a subscription. BTW, I got plenty of free PDF's on the subject of microbes and ferts as well buddy. How about you stop arguing on this forum and do your own leg work.

In case you've confused yourself too much already, your side of the debate is to prove that synthetic fertilization will not produce an increase in crop yields.

Well given I never made that argument, and only a fool would make that point, where does that leave us? Oh yea, you backing up your statements about the impossibility of organic farming.

Apparently you know of some method of farming that is so efficient it leaves synthetics with no place for improvement.

Apparently you can't back up your statements .... again, so why exactly do you make them?

[Kiril]

I keep checking back in on this thread to learn, but out of 13 pages I think 8 are just back and forth banter

What material are you looking for?

[Landscape Poet]

What material are you looking for?

Kiril,

I am not looking for any material in particular for myself. I do however find myself usually enjoy your debates, as long they are productive. My journey into understanding soil, and how organics work is still very young, so I have much I can learn from you, bill, jd, tim's and many others, however reading you guys in sitting here going back and forth essentially just calling each other liars does nothing for my knowledge or any others following your all's threads.

As far as material - send me pm's or throw up links about the benefits of compost alone or anything you feel may be beneficial to a noob. I do like your common simple philosophy that compost is best. Remember to keep the reading material simple if possible, most of my background is in business and not science of any kind.


I must say as far as this argument goes, am I correct in regards to synthetics in regards to fungicides, are capable of changing the soil microbes? I THOUGHT I had read that somewhere, correct or not?

[Smallaxe]

Lord, will someone please load the material that the other is asking for, I keep checking back in on this thread to learn, but out of 13 pages I think 8 are just back and forth banter, IMHO - all parties involved in the conversation have more knowledge than most of us here on lawnsite (self included), I would prefer you guys argue in a manner in which I might learn something. Just asking repetitive questions and asking the other guy to show his first is not very educational for me. What you guys say, put up or shut up and move onto another topic so that the rest of us can pick your brains rather than listen to you bicker?


I never watched "The View", so I can't make a real comparison for sure. I was asked, if I'd like the job, to work back stage of 'The View'; gathering up the eggs, and sweeping up the feathers.
Here, I think we could use a shovel for the fertilizer, and solve the soil deficiency problems, right now. :laugh:

At some point you realize, it has nothing to do with science or rational possibilities. It only has to do with the pre-concieved notions, developed by the educational establishment. Some propagandized one way, others propagandized another, then pitted against each other, to generate confusion. After which, the wise elite make the decision for us.
DNR owns Wisco by this method.

[Kiril]

Kiril,

I am not looking for any material in particular for myself. I do however find myself usually enjoy your debates, as long they are productive. My journey into understanding soil, and how organics work is still very young, so I have much I can learn from you, bill, jd, tim's and many others, however reading you guys in sitting here going back and forth essentially just calling each other liars does nothing for my knowledge or any others following your all's threads.

I agree, it gets ridiculous .... doesn't it? The length some people will go to avoid substantiating their statements is astounding.

As far as material - send me pm's or throw up links about the benefits of compost alone or anything you feel may be beneficial to a noob. I do like your common simple philosophy that compost is best. Remember to keep the reading material simple if possible, most of my background is in business and not science of any kind.

That is a difficult request to satisfy. My background is scientific, so much of the material I have available is geared in that direction.

I see compost as a invaluable tool in just about any soil management program. It is the most cost effective and sustainable way to increase and maintain SOM. I have more publications about SOM and compost than you can shake a stick at, but once again, most are not geared for laymen. The benefits from maintaining a decent level of SOM are almost too numerous to list. Therefore, the quicker you can achieve an acceptable level in your soil, and maintain that level, the quicker you will see the benefits.

I must say as far as this argument goes, am I correct in regards to synthetics in regards to fungicides, are capable of changing the soil microbes? I THOUGHT I had read that somewhere, correct or not?

Yes, it is true. It is also true that organic additions to soils can produce significant changes in microbial communities. It is also true the type of plants you choose to grow, how you maintain soil water status, how you manage soil structure, etc..... can produce significant changes in microbial communities.

[ICT Bill]

I must say as far as this argument goes, am I correct in regards to synthetics in regards to fungicides, are capable of changing the soil microbes? I THOUGHT I had read that somewhere, correct or not?


Michael

continued applications of anything will begin to select for certain microbes

If a soil is flooded and it continues to be very wet you begin to select for anaerobic microbes that like that environment, if the soil is compacted you are often selecting for the same thing, but in compacted soils everything has a hard time living

The healthy soils that we would like to promote are aerobic, there is air, water, respiration and aggregation

If you are applying good to great aerobic compost you should be in good shape, the stuff out of a bag is usually junk. see if you can find a composter that knows what he is doing. The guys that know what they are doing will have testing data for you like bio-assays, nutrients analysis, heavy metals, etc they should be pleased that you asked for it, that means they take pride in what they make

The only issue that most folks have is that compost is a PITA to apply, it is labor intensive and hard to find good to great stuff

The best time IMO to apply compost is in the fall as the turf is beginning to go dormant or in your case with a 12 month season October, November time frame

Most folks that have been doing this a long time apply compost to sites until the SOM get above 5% to 7%, they use compost teas during the season, compost in fall if needed, with new customers compost in the spring and fall

One of the draw backs of using compost in someones yard is that it is dirty, every time you walk across the yard you will bring some in the house, some customers are clean freaks and cannot stand it, they are perfect for grains and feed and compost teas

IMO applying chemicals selects for outcomes that we are not trying to acheive, in an organic "soil fertility" program it is kind of "2 steps forward, 1 step back"

I have said this many times and will say it again

You can't do this wrong.............you can just do it better

[Landscape Poet]

Michael

continued applications of anything will begin to select for certain microbes So with this statement does that mean that you would be in favor of changing the feeding process (inputs) to achieve the max for of beneficial microbes? For example - doing teas, compost and a meal here or there to create a wider range of beneficial microbes?

The company I have now Bolling Forest Products ,they provide Disney with mulch at least in part, is a mulch company at heart that does some landscape soils etc. This is the product (http://www.mulch4you.com/shop/shredded-mulch-copy) I used on my own lawn recently - what kind of tests data should I inquire about? I mean - do I just ask for test data in regards to the bio-assays, nutrients analysis, heavy metals, etc? Is it likely that a mulch company would do this type of testing?
I asked this in another thread, but since they turn so much of this stuff is the nutrient test is really reliable in regards to the material on hand right? I am just looking for more of a constant of what to expect? I mean one batch may be made out of leftover cypress trees and the next batch oaks.

[QUOTE=ICT Bill;3396334]
The only issue that most folks have is that compost is a PITA to apply, it is labor intensive and hard to find good to great stuff
So the "good stuff" issue I addressed above. It is still a PITA to install (looking for a small compost spreader that is inexpensive), however I think for most of the lawn sizes down here - compost is actually a pretty good option for the customers since true green and others charge them $65 per month, the cost of compost and labor for these size lawns is withing reason. I am not sure it will be nearly as messy in the St. Augustine due to the Density of the turf and the fact that most people here know it does not hold up well to a large amount of food traffic and generally stay off it, well that and the fact that it is hot and humid as hell down here so the generally stay inside the house in the AC:laugh::laugh:


The best time IMO to apply compost is in the fall as the turf is beginning to go dormant or in your case with a 12 month season October, November time frame Bill, am I correct in thinking that compost would break down quicker down here with our weather conditions and steady supply of rains during times? Well especially in regards to the wood based compost I will be using?


Most folks that have been doing this a long time apply compost to sites until the SOM get above 5% to 7%, they use compost teas during the season, compost in fall if needed, with new customers compost in the spring and fall Most of my clients that did soil test this year SOM is less than 3%. Is that normal for down here? I never paid much attention to SOM% before, I have tried researching off net and not found a answer to this, lot of info on the benefits, but not what is a normal range for my location. For example - my soil tested at 1.7% Organic matter this past summer. Is there a general guide to expect how long with two annual applications of compost (2 cubic yard per 3500 sq ft), and CT once a month etc on how long it will take to expect to get the SOM to 5%? Again I said general, I know nothing is exact!


One of the draw backs of using compost in someones yard is that it is dirty, every time you walk across the yard you will bring some in the house, some customers are clean freaks and cannot stand it, they are perfect for grains and feed and compost teas Most of the lawns I care for are St. Augustine. It is the most common turf by far in these parts. When I spread it - I spread 2 yards on my 3500 square ft. This appear more than enough due to the thick nature of the turf, did not want to cover any of the blades. So bill would YO be it would it be better (needed) to do two smaller applications down here rather than the suggested 1/4 to 1/2 inch per k? Similar to what JD is doing? Small more frequent apps.


I have said this many times and will say it again

You can't do this wrong.............you can just do it better I like this, makes it sound so simple, and I am sure it is true. However I think that is what I am struggling with. With NPK I know I can do X and expect X results, :laugh:. At the same time, this is what I am also enjoying about this, it is like starting all over and it is new and exciting, I find myself wishing the organic forum here was a little more active. Anyone want to send me a link to some other good organic forums so I can keep going when this one is dormant!;)

[Landscape Poet]

That is a difficult request to satisfy. My background is scientific, so much of the material I have available is geared in that direction.

I see compost as a invaluable tool in just about any soil management program. It is the most cost effective and sustainable way to increase and maintain SOM. I have more publications about SOM and compost than you can shake a stick at, but once again, most are not geared for laymen. The benefits from maintaining a decent level of SOM are almost too numerous to list. Therefore, the quicker you can achieve an acceptable level in your soil, and maintain that level, the quicker you will see the benefits.


Kiril, I am not scientific but I am not uneducated, so I think I could make it through some materials -but the more simple the better - KISS :hammerhead: Send me some research on SOM and the benefits of compost! I will try to decipher, anything that I pick up will be more than I knew before:confused:
Of course if I have any questions about the info, I will just hijack a thread and question you about here :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[quackgrass]

Organics does a soil good - real good. That is why I make compost and sell truck loads of it. I also try to get every one of my lawn customers to use it.

My only limiting sales factor so far is the amount of manure and biosolids I can accrue to make compost. If people ever learned to mulch their leaves, branches and grass clippings I would really be hurting, 2/3rd's of my product by volume would vanish! I also use tons of machinery, diesel and electricity.

The main problem with compost is that there simply isn't enough of it to go around. Like I said earlier, one local farm uses about half of the biosolids our town produces (50,000 people) That farm also uses synthetics.

I receive the other half of the biosolids for composting, and other than the tiny amount my lawn care business uses, the rest goes to the EPA for soil reclamation on mine sites. They source from 4 different states because our state can't produce enough for this one small task, let alone our farmland.

Just the thought of supplying every farm is so comical I don't even bother looking up the numbers to show how out of balance it would be. Supply is only one factor. The labor of hauling and tilling is another topic entirely.

So when I hear people saying that we should all just switch to organic farming (or lawn care) because we can duplicate the results of synthetics I just laugh. If every farm and yard tried to become the Rodale institute it would never work, we wouldn't have enough to be able to match the yields of synthetic plus organic farming and land use would increase drastically per person.

Synthetics do our world a lot of good and that is why we use them. People that just want to cash in on the green movement will say otherwise to push their own products. It plays into peoples fears and misconceptions. As if biosolids and natural pesticides don't have impacts:rolleyes: Its the ultimate green washing.

If the world switched to only organic fertilization, we would quickly see that lawns were competing with farms for a limited resource and it wouldn't fly to fertilize turf at all.

[Landscape Poet]

The main problem with compost is that there simply isn't enough of it to go around. Like I said earlier, one local farm uses about half of the biosolids our town produces (50,000 people) That farm also uses synthetics.
Just the thought of supplying every farm is so comical I don't even bother looking up the numbers to show how out of balance it would be. Supply is only one factor. The labor of hauling and tilling is another topic entirely.

So when I hear people saying that we should all just switch to organic farming (or lawn care) because we can duplicate the results of synthetics I just laugh. If every farm and yard tried to become the Rodale institute it would never work, we wouldn't have enough to be able to match the yields of synthetic plus organic farming and land use would increase drastically per person.

Synthetics do our world a lot of good and that is why we use them. People that just want to cash in on the green movement will say otherwise to push their own products. It plays into peoples fears and misconceptions. As if biosolids and natural pesticides don't have impacts:rolleyes: Its the ultimate green washing.

If the world switched to only organic fertilization, we would quickly see that lawns were competing with farms for a limited resource and it wouldn't fly to fertilize turf at all.

I am not a "tree hugger" by any means - I am not against synthetics in moderation but you seem to think that there is not anyway for most homes to go organic.
Just my opinion, but would it not be possible for each homeowner to make their own compost, enough to top dress their own lawn, IF they took the time to install a few tumbler bins? Just a thought. The truth of the matter that I seen many many lawns even here in FL that do not do any any form of application to their lawn, chemical or organic and do just fine, perfect no, but fine yes.
Now in regards to farming. I think I read that each horse produces 60 tons of manure a year, I would assume that cows are similiar, not to mention rabbits etc etc. So with that thought process going, if we were to rethink farming, go back to the traditional farmers, not large corporations, would it not be possible for them to raise both livestock for sale, and provide organic fertilizers for their farms?

Not looking to argue, I do not claim to know it all or much of anything for that matter, but it does appear that it would be possible!

[pt03]

It would be difficult to operate a small mixed farm to make enough profit to come up with the funds needed to pay all the taxes, insurance and many other cash required expenses. I farm, but I have sufficient off-farm income so that I can meet all those other expenses.

The closer one is to a large population centre the larger your market but it also increases your property taxes. Living farther away decreases the taxes but increases the shipping costs. If a person clothed themselves in burlap sacks, didn't want cable TV, internet, computers or all those other frivolities in life it would sure cut down on expenses but I'd guess not many would volunteer for this lifestyle. :)

Lloyd

[quackgrass]

Yes, Farmers should and do utilize every scrap of organic matter they can to increase the productivity of farming.

They also need to utilize synthetic inputs, to minimize the area of farmland required to feed the world.

Both together is the best solution.

Read these links to get a better understanding.

http://www.ohiopma.org/pdfs/insight/organics/1567.pdf

[ICT Bill]

I am around organic farming all of the time, the misconceptions are kind of funny really
We have been working with several farmers in California for 3 years trying to perfect a ferment product, we now do over 600 acres on one farm and just over 250 on another. This is leafy greens and spinach, it is then rotated with strawberries
We also work with blueberries, cranberries and azalea/Rhody farmers

It is not only doable but if you look down the isle of your favotrite food store you will see the sky is the limit as far as diversity of foods that can be grown organically

There is LARGE scale farming, 100's of thousands of acres, being done all over the country for wheat, corn, soybeans, you name it, it is being farmed organically

ATTRA.org is a great resource for information on growing organically

One thing that continues to be missed often is that turf is not farmed, it is not plowed tilled, disced, very little of the turf is "taken away" as a product, especially if you leave the clippings. It is not scientifically a closed system but about as close as you can get, especially if you are comparing it to Ag

[DUSTYCEDAR]

ok so each spring i need to go plow under my lawns.
i love the smell of diesel in the morning

[quackgrass]

I am around organic farming all of the time, the misconceptions are kind of funny really
We have been working with several farmers in California for 3 years trying to perfect a ferment product, we now do over 600 acres on one farm and just over 250 on another. This is leafy greens and spinach, it is then rotated with strawberries
We also work with blueberries, cranberries and azalea/Rhody farmers

It is not only doable but if you look down the isle of your favotrite food store you will see the sky is the limit as far as diversity of foods that can be grown organically

There is LARGE scale farming, 100's of thousands of acres, being done all over the country for wheat, corn, soybeans, you name it, it is being farmed organically

ATTRA.org is a great resource for information on growing organically

One thing that continues to be missed often is that turf is not farmed, it is not plowed tilled, disced, very little of the turf is "taken away" as a product, especially if you leave the clippings. It is not scientifically a closed system but about as close as you can get, especially if you are comparing it to Ag

Yes, its being farmed that way for a niche market that is rich enough to pay extra for food. If you took the premium price tag off it wouldn't work.

It does nothing to reduce farmland and feed the world by excluding synthetics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158675/

[ICT Bill]

Michael, you asked a couple of questions
one about applying a diversity of foods, the answer is yes, with diverse foods you will get a diversity of microbes. gasoline would be considered a food to some microbes but not the one we would like to support. This is one of the reasons we have kelp, fish, humate, molasses and a range of micronutrients in our mix



The company I have now Bolling Forest Products ,they provide Disney with mulch at least in part, is a mulch company at heart that does some landscape soils etc. This is the product (http://www.mulch4you.com/shop/shredded-mulch-copy) I used on my own lawn recently - what kind of tests data should I inquire about?
according to florida law any soil amendment bulk or bagged must have a nutrient test and heavy metals available, if they have a bio-assay of bacteria/fungi that would be great but they will probably only have a test for ecoli levels




Bill, am I correct in thinking that compost would break down quicker down here with our weather conditions and steady supply of rains during times? Well especially in regards to the wood based compost I will be using?
yes you have a longer season with moderate temps almost 12 months a year, the microbes are munching longer than my area for instance

Most of my clients that did soil test this year SOM is less than 3%. Is that normal for down here? I never paid much attention to SOM% before, I have tried researching off net and not found a answer to this, lot of info on the benefits, but not what is a normal range for my location. For example - my soil tested at 1.7% Organic matter this past summer. Is there a general guide to expect how long with two annual applications of compost (2 cubic yard per 3500 sq ft), and CT once a month etc on how long it will take to expect to get the SOM to 5%? Again I said general, I know nothing is exact!
you will see a nice return on your investment of organic matter for your clients, the soil is lacking down there and it will improve almost every characteristic. I have seen tests done where SOM was 9%, application of compost have no effect visually to the areas, you will be different

would it be better (needed) to do two smaller applications down here rather than the suggested 1/4 to 1/2 inch per k? Similar to what JD is doing? Small more frequent apps. This you will have to work out yourself for your environment and see what works best logistically. personally I would do 1 or 2 applications of compost per year and the rest compost tea


I like this, makes it sound so simple, and I am sure it is true. However I think that is what I am struggling with. With NPK I know I can do X and expect X results, :laugh:.

it is simple, you are just in the middle of the learning curve so there seems like 100 details, it is all about organic matter, how you apply it effectively and make a profit is the issue, after all it is a business not Michael's charity lawn service

[starry night]

I realize what I'm going to say is a minor detail in this discussion but here goes:
A horse DOES NOT produce 60 tons of manure a year. I've had horses all my married life. I haven't ever weighed it but I would estimate any of our horses poop maybe 20 pounds a day. That would be less than 4 tons a year. And that's before composting which would reduce it much more. I can't cover my whole property of 8 acres.

[Tim Wilson]

Here is a little outline I wrote up. I do not plan on defending it because I do not have the time, It is meant to promote thinking and research. Sorry but I paid little attention to grammar/structure. You can google everything mentioned.

Prospectus;

This is an informal prospectus from my opinion, outlining the steps a farmer could take on a 10,000 acre farm, producing primarily wheat, to provide/manufacture most of the farm’s nutrient requirements on farm. The reason I say most is that it may be necessary or beneficial to purchase some amounts of rock/clay powders, seed stock, microbial seed stock and of course there will be an initial purchase of equipment and building supplies.

This has come about based on the statements which I made;

“ I just don't buy the story that humans cannot produce just as much food worldwide using intelligent natural growing methods rather than NPK.”
&
“It is a case of utilizing non-exploitive (or less exploitive) scientific techniques based on the microbial nutrient cycle (which are easily applied on farm).”

Followed by; THE CHALLENGE

“So Tim I'm curious,

Tell me how you would farm 10,000 acres of wheat using only natural inputs.

I want to know how you will maximize yields so much that the neighboring farm (which uses your techniques plus synthetics) can't exceed your production.

I want examples to be available to every farmer, not just one that gets rights to a surplus of bio-solids or Dairy farm manure.”


Because this discussion is taking place in the USA we will base this outline on an American wheat farm. Someone had brought up a couple of points I thought I’d address briefly which are more politically oriented. One is that wheat and other farm products are competing in the global market and this may be one reason that synthetic fertilizers are necessary. This would be true were it not for the fact that US and European farmers receive huge subsidies which give them enormous advantage in world agricultural trade. The other is that there is just not enough farmland to feed the world. This may end up being true eventually but based on what I see and read there are more and more farms turning into housing, golf courses, recreation land or just being abandoned. Besides this, it is my opinion that food output could be increased simply through more efficiently operated and diversified farms.

Now, I’ve got to say I’m no expert on wheat farming so that puts me at a disadvantage. What I am going to be proposing here is in no way complete but is more of a skeletal outline. It is not based on an operating farm but on a collection of techniques which are either presently being used somewhere or are practical hypotheses. All of the techniques presented can be researched on the Internet. Obviously some techniques will require adaptation to suit climatic region or other geographic circumstances.

I have not addressed the economics of initiating these techniques, which in many cases will be expensive but acquiring and maintaining equipment for a 10,000 acre wheat farm is very expensive anyway. I have also not taken the time to work out the physical size parameters of the technical operations needed to supply 10,000 acres but I might make some guesses as I proceed. Basically it is up to our farmer, through her/his research, to estimate how many square feet of barn he/she will need, etc.

For the ideas proposed to succeed the farmer is going to need to face the fact of some ‘crop’ diversification and there will be a learning curve involved in this. Altogether, what I propose should not occupy more than 10 acres of the farm. From what I’ve read there is already some legumes like soybeans being grown and harvested in between wheat harvests where applicable and this is a growing trend in the US. Not only does this give the farmer additional income but adds a little nitrogen to the soil as legumes do in symbiosis with bacteria. Any other marketable crops which can be grown in similar fashion can only help. Of course green manure crops will also contribute to the soil fertility but these are additional to the techniques I am proposing.

Initial major capital expenditures will or may include 1/ construction of; around 5 to 10, 1000 gallon or larger aerated compost tea brewers which double as liquid compost extract slurry makers 2/ at least one strong irrigation/trash pump and wide open bore irrigation gun with line (or liquid manure applier)
3/ construction of; several barns for housing mushroom growing 4/ construction of; several barns or other containers for housing composting worms 5/ initial composting worms as starter stock
6/ construction of; fermentor/digester and ethanol distiller 7/ tanks or excavations for housing of fish for aquaculture 8/ algae bioreactor and/or ponds 9/ potentially a large greenhouse.

One thing that this prospectus relies upon is at least a medium supply of water, meaning that there is at least enough water to do a heavy irrigation a couple or three times a season and to keep reservoirs filled. A dry land operation would need an altered system.

As a beginning point I’ll choose the harvest. Following the combine removing the wheat the farmer uses something like a mower and hay stacker or silage maker to harvest the straw. This straw is then disbursed into the mushroom barns as a substrate to be inoculated with mushrooms. (Some would be stored to be used later). As it turns out wheat straw is primarily lignocellulose and is a perfect food for lignocellulolytic fungi. Two types of these fungi are very popular edible mushrooms which can be cultivated with relative ease. They are Lentinula edodes, Shiitake mushrooms and Pleurotus sajor-caju Oyster mushroom. There is a growing market for these mushrooms fresh but there is an enormous demand for them dried plus they can be frozen. There may also be other suitable species. This additional crop provides the farmer with additional income, even through the winter. The waste or compost left by the mushrooms is full of nutrients which could be applied to the field but hold on a minute.

The mushrooms have essentially converted the lignocellulose into a form of sugar which can be fermented then distilled to make ethanol which will power the gasoline engines on the farm. Or you can mix in some manure (or…) and ferment for methanol which can operate diesel engines, heaters and stoves. Being able to generate their own energy is a huge savings for a farmer. Something else which enhances the fuel process greatly is the use of algae in the mix. It is easy to create an algae grower by just making a shallow tank with a flow through or by making a form of bioreactor with clear piping or plastic and a pump. It is easier to grow algae than it is to not grow it. All you need is light, water and maybe a little mushroom carbon. And did I mention it is a great organic fertilizer with cyanobacteria one of the greatest nitrogen sources available. There are starter species of algae commercially available. Okay, now we have this wonderful stuff left in the fermentors/digesters after making our fuel of choice. Not only could we spread it on the fields, feed it to the chickens, pigs or fish [oh ya! we’ll get to the fish] but hold on a minute.

We first feed it to the composting worms. As it is shoveled into the worm barn it may be a good idea to add small amounts of rock phosphate and rock/clay powders, depending on the soil requirements. [the farmer may find some powders locally in creek beds, etc.] Once the worms have thoroughly digested the material the farmer will have a super concentrate with sequestered nutrients damn close to the finest humus money can buy. The farmer can verify this by testing over 72 hours and examine microscopically. The farmer could then decide to spread/apply this substance to the fields and almost assuredly have sufficient nutrients to feed the soil but to maximize his results, especially in certain quadrants the farmer may choose to brew aerated compost tea (ACT) which can be checked microscopically for the desired microbial make up prior to application. The brewer design is a simple free suspension format using air lifts and can be brewed in the field and applied using the aforementioned irrigation/trash pump and gun or liquid manure sprayer. The irrigation method will save on the number of passes over the fields with equipment. The vermicompost should be screened as it is loaded into the brewer. If the farmer does not feel that ACT is needed he may choose to use the same device/brewer to create a liquid compost extract slurry [idea originating with author kinda] which is the same as liquid compost extract, in that the microbes are stripped from their binding spots but there is no separation of the liquid from solid. Again rock powders can be added if needed. [note that rock powders should be milled/screened fine] This very thick slurry is applied the same way through the pump and is created as fast as the [1000 gal.] tank can be loaded. In similar fashion algae can be applied, which is virtually free fertilizer.

An additional attribute to composting with worms is that the population increases rapidly so the farmer may derive additional income from worm sales if desired. The going price is $20 to $40 per pound.

You might be saying, boy that farmer really has it together and certainly does not have a shortage of organic matter nutrients but this farmer wants to cover all bases possible. He/she has also fermented lacto bacillus cultures and EM through easy to follow online directions which she/he applies to the soil at appropriate times in accordance with educational resources related to microbial based horticulture [usually post harvest to assist with stubble decomposition & microbial population]. In addition to this she/he has learned to grow certain plants like nettles and comfrey from which nutrients can be extracted in various ways and the residue is used in the fuel digesters and then fed to farm animals, fish and worms. The farmer is also growing cattails in a one acre sewage pond which are used for additional fuel processing and animal feed. The cattails also produce purified water from the sewage pond which, after testing, can be used for irrigation, fish, and worms (moisture).

And what about the fish? Closed water body inland farm raised fish is a growing food industry. Both fresh and salt water fish are being raised but freshwater fish probably are the most logical choice. There are many species to choose from which can be decided upon according to facilities, temperature, preference of farmer, market availability & demand, type of feed required, etc. There are tilapia on one hand which require a warm temperature and possibly a greenhouse setting and catfish on the other which can thrive in irrigation ditches. Perhaps the largest deciding factor will be the ease with which feed for the fish can be raised. Some fish feed on wheat and plant matter….well that’s a no brainer; others may eat worms…another no brainer. Some other choices include trout, salmon (fresh water raised), kokanee, char, bass… Besides providing a potentially tremendous additional source of income through meat sales the aquaculture portion of the farm provides another source of organic nutrient concentrate. The water pumped from the fish holding tanks/ditches/ponds is a great nutrient source, complete with nutrient cycling microbes. If the farm processes the fish itself (e.g. makes fillets, etc.) then they can process the remains enzymatically into fish hydrolysate, another fabulous organic matter fertilizer (soil microbe food). Most fish hydrolysate is a good source of phosphorous and nitrogen.

In preparation for planting time, following instructions available at the Rodale Institute (Doudes)(sp?) the farmer has cultivated her/his own endomycorrhizal spores with which to inoculate seeds. These mycorrhizal spores are likely much more numerous and of a much higher quality than those which are commercially available in freeze dried form. As we know these fungi deliver sequestered nutrients directly to the roots of their host.

If the farmer keeps livestock, he/she has the bonus option of applying manure or thermophylic compost or adding it to the worm food but in this monologue I have purposefully avoided the use of livestock manures per se because there is hypothetically not enough space for enough large animals for this practice to pragmatic.

Now I think I’ve addressed the first part of the challenge and have shown that more than enough soil nutrients can be produced on farm to support a wheat farm and probably any sort of farm. Using these techniques will require more labor but there are trade offs in financial savings overall. There is also the bonus about feeling better about what the farmer is producing. One of the greatest problems will be overcoming potential poor soil life/conditions from previous years of synthetic conventional farming. Based on the author’s experience, studies and observations, through using these techniques the soil, quality of crop and yield will improve progressively for the first few years before leveling off (stabilizing).
The author can only speculate about the yield of wheat but based on experience and observations other crop types have produced as high or higher yields when similar organic methods have been compared to synthetic ones. Crops compared were cut flowers, hemp, grass/alfalfa hay, tomatoes, peas.

A potential drawback to this method which requires research is the negative effect of seeds inoculated with fungicides as mandated by law.

Review of Basic Processes;
Harvest straw from field > growth of mushrooms > growth of algae for fertilizer [bioreactor, pond = cyanobacteria] > growth of plant types [extracted nutrients/animal feed/fuel] > production of ethanol/methane > digester sludge fed to worms [= vermicompost] > cultivate endomycorrhizal spores > lacto bacillus & EM cultures > aerated compost tea/liquid compost extract slurry > aquaculture > fish hydrolysate >

Now for the second part of the question/challenge; “I want to know how you will maximize yields so much that the neighboring farm (which uses your techniques plus synthetics) can't exceed your production.”

I do not know why the farmer’s neighbor would wish to use synthetics in combination with these techniques, as common sense logic alone points to the probability that using synthetics will cause a decline and loss of balance over time in the life, growing over time in the soil. Besides this logical approach, there are many researchers who have reported supportive observations. (Doudes among others). Besides these points, the author has observed the apparent ‘loss of life’ and proliferation of pests and disease over time in fields and garden beds treated with recommended synthetic fertilizers. However, there is a likelihood that in the first season or two that the farm using both methods combined ‘may’ show a higher yield prior to the downhill spiral almost surely to follow. It is doubtful that any long-term economic gains would be seen from this practice.

[NattyLawn]

Tim....You just outlined a blueprint for a farm to become sustainable. Thank you for taking the time to post all of this info. I'm surprised at the lack of responses though.

[nc-jrock]

Thank you Tim! That's awesome!!!! This seems to be a really good out line and without the abundance of manure to.

[Kiril]

Nice Tim. :)

I'd like to add some on site power generation to that formula ... wind, solar, hydro, geothermal.
Also consideration for polyculture and farmscaping.

[starry night]

Geez, Kiril, give the guy a break. "And on the seventh day, Tim rested."

[Tim Wilson]

Nice Tim. :)

I'd like to add some on site power generation to that formula ... wind, solar, hydro, geothermal.
Also consideration for polyculture and farmscaping.

Excellent points.

[pt03]

I agree, nice post, very interesting and thought provoking. I've read it about half a dozen times and some of the concepts are new to me so I have almost zero knowledge of them. Here's the "but", without taking the economics and climate into account, it isn't feasible, certainly in my climate.

I wasn't going to comment as Tim said he wasn't going to discuss it so I took the prospectus as a 'speculation' as to how to generate nutrients as per the challenge. I don't have the education to either refute or support the concept.

Lloyd:canadaflag:

[Tim Wilson]

I agree, nice post, very interesting and thought provoking. I've read it about half a dozen times and some of the concepts are new to me so I have almost zero knowledge of them. Here's the "but", without taking the economics and climate into account, it isn't feasible, certainly in my climate.

I wasn't going to comment as Tim said he wasn't going to discuss it so I took the prospectus as a 'speculation' as to how to generate nutrients as per the challenge. I don't have the education to either refute or support the concept.

Lloyd:canadaflag:

Much of this could be done in Manitoba. Heating the barns would be a large expense but you could do that with your own fuel made from cattails which grow all over Manitoba. You could sure grow some nice char there. Maybe whitefish. As for economics, a new combine is what $120,000?. I can build 4 barns for that. I bought 2 stackers last year for under $1000.

BTW, I don't mind discussing aspects; just not going to defend.

[pt03]

Sure it could be done anywhere given enough money.

One large combine $300K, you'd need two for 10000 acres. Your plan still needs the combines to harvest the wheat.

I built a 40 X 60 shed, not insulated, not heated, gravel floor, $20K. How many of those do you envision and how much more to insulate and heat them? Two for the worms, a couple for the fish and two for the mushrooms?

How do you harvest cattails and from who's land and how many acres? How far do you have to ship them? How do you store them till needed? Who has the time to harvest them? How do you convert to fuel and what kind of equipment does that take and cost?

Like I said Tim, interesting, but not practical. It does seem to have met the challenge that you were given as there was no mention of being economically feasible in any specific climate.

Lloyd

[Tim Wilson]

Sure it could be done anywhere given enough money.

One large combine $300K, you'd need two for 10000 acres. Your plan still needs the combines to harvest the wheat.

I built a 40 X 60 shed, not insulated, not heated, gravel floor, $20K. How many of those do you envision and how much more to insulate and heat them? Two for the worms, a couple for the fish and two for the mushrooms?

How do you harvest cattails and from who's land and how many acres? How far do you have to ship them? How do you store them till needed? Who has the time to harvest them? How do you convert to fuel and what kind of equipment does that take and cost?

Like I said Tim, interesting, but not practical. It does seem to have met the challenge that you were given as there was no mention of being economically feasible in any specific climate.

Lloyd

As I said everything is done on ten acres. one acre of cattails produces 10,000 gallons of fuel. Everything is simple. It is just a work and learn process, the same as learning to farm wheat. It is just the difference which makes you call it impractical. Of course I know you need the combines. The point was, you are spending large sums anyway. See, you build barns cheaper than me. ARTIC char do not need a barn <snicker; you are Canadian?> How far does the wheat ship? Japan? China? It takes work and research. There are aquaculture marketing organizations. See, you are making me defend it not asking about how things work.

[Tim Wilson]

Sorry will say more to follow

[quackgrass]

Nice write up Tim! I understand that its impossible to address every aspect I could bring up, we both have better things to do with our lives anyhow!

I think that the "organic" movement has done a tremendous service by compounding our knowledge of the lost art of natural fertilization. Lets face it, around the globe many farmers have lost the ability to maintain a nutrient cycle because its been cheap and easy to just throw chemical fertilizers and pesticides at the crop to get a great yield. It works but its not the answer.

On the other hand, chemical fertilizers and pesticides have done a tremendous service to us by stabilizing and increasing the food supply. This has diverted massive losses of life through disease and insect famines that previously ravaged crops (and people) at will.

Another great thing about synthetics is that they reduce the amount of farm land required to sustain the population by increasing yields. The biggest foot print man leaves is the farmland he creates. Synthetics have actually caused a decrease in farmland as populations have doubled!

Now back to the problem of synthetics;
because synthetics are so effective, farmers have become complacent about utilizing natural inputs. A rough estimate on CHEMICAL ONLY practices places the average crop at about 80% yield efficiency. The farmer is not utilizing the soil biology to his advantage, so its essentially causing a 20% increase in food cost and land consumption.

Some have taken notice of this poor practice and chosen to run the other way with it-naturally. They claim it will reduce pollution and be more sustainable and healthy. These people have figured out a way to match the yields of our chemical farmers albeit at a higher price. These farms on average also produce about 80% yield efficiency due to the fact that some crops are wiped out by disease and insect problems. These farms also lose yields because they have to wait for green manure crops to replenish the soil and they often compete with weeds. They are also subject to low nutrition during critical parts of the crop cycle especially in cooler temperatures.

Nutrition deficient soils and crops affect every farm to some degree, but there is a method that minimizes it more so than "chemical" or "organic" only.

This system is called Integrated nutrition management (INM), and it has been proven around the world with every crop in about every climate. As you can guess, this method utilizes the most from each method for a synergistic effect that truly maximizes yields. This in turn reduces food costs, malnutrition, and farmland. The cost of food is reduced because the farmer typically sees the highest net return on yield using conventional food pricing (not organic premiums).

Type in "integrated nutrition management" in your google bar and look for yourself, you can read study after study after study that shows farms producing about 20% more than chemical or organic only farms.

This really dispels the myth that moderate chemical inputs ruin the biology of our soils. Tim mentioned that the addition of synthetics would cause a downward production spiral, but I have failed to see any report that shows this. Every report that I read showed that both nutrient sources combined produced the highest yield consistently and over time.

One more thing I would like to add is that "certified organic farming" is a long shot from only using natural inputs. They are allowed to use many synthetic substances including chemical micro nutrients, not to mention fuel burning tractors produced from mines, computers etc...! The whole concept to me seems to divert reality by playing into the effluent's misconceptions and pocket books. Certified organic does nothing to feed the starving, in fact it would cause starvation and malnutrition by inflating the cost of food and displacing our natural habitat.

I'm glad there are people on both sides of this issue, but it seems to make the most sense right in the middle.

[pt03]

Okay

How exactly does one acre of cattails make 10K gallons of fuel? What machinery do I need to do this and how much does it cost? Do I need permits for running this type of industry? Special training or special labour? How much time does this take because a 10K acre farm would already use up a 48 hour day.:)

How do you grow arctic char in shallow water in Manitoba? How large/deep of a lake do I need and how do I build it? I've lived in the Arctic, I've fished for char in the summer and I've seen guys try to farm fish (not char) around here. It ain't as easy as some think but yes it can be done.

My shed is not insulated nor heated and was built 5 years ago. Double, if not, triple the cost for that and then multiply that by the number of sheds you said we need. (I think I counted six not including the greenhouse).

My point is, a 10K acre wheat farm that is already running using synthetics could not be run without those synthetics and make a profit given the parameters given earlier (no outside inputs), unless one has won a substantial lottery.

Having said that, I know of no farm around here that farms nothing but wheat. Most guys use rotational crops including canola, alfalfa, clover, beans etc. as part of the nutrient/weed control plan so the parameters of the challenge may be unrealistic to begin with.

I had no intention of asking you to defend it, sorry for making you go to that trouble. I just wanted the others to know that ya, on paper, it seems it could be done, but in the real world, not so much.

And just as a note, I farm on a very small scale utilizing yard trimmings collected from a local town as my "fertilizer". Only been going a few years doing this but so far, yield is impressive.

Lloyd

[Tim Wilson]

Okay

How exactly does one acre of cattails make 10K gallons of fuel? What machinery do I need to do this and how much does it cost? Do I need permits for running this type of industry? Special training or special labour? How much time does this take because a 10K acre farm would already use up a 48 hour day.:)

How do you grow arctic char in shallow water in Manitoba? How large/deep of a lake do I need and how do I build it? I've lived in the Arctic, I've fished for char in the summer and I've seen guys try to farm fish (not char) around here. It ain't as easy as some think but yes it can be done.

My shed is not insulated nor heated and was built 5 years ago. Double, if not, triple the cost for that and then multiply that by the number of sheds you said we need. (I think I counted six not including the greenhouse).

My point is, a 10K acre wheat farm that is already running using synthetics could not be run without those synthetics and make a profit given the parameters given earlier (no outside inputs), unless one has won a substantial lottery.

Having said that, I know of no farm around here that farms nothing but wheat. Most guys use rotational crops including canola, alfalfa, clover, beans etc. as part of the nutrient/weed control plan so the parameters of the challenge may be unrealistic to begin with.

I had no intention of asking you to defend it, sorry for making you go to that trouble. I just wanted the others to know that ya, on paper, it seems it could be done, but in the real world, not so much.

And just as a note, I farm on a very small scale utilizing yard trimmings collected from a local town as my "fertilizer". Only been going a few years doing this but so far, yield is impressive.

Lloyd

What I am going to be proposing here is in no way complete but is more of a skeletal outline.. I have also not taken the time to work out the physical size parameters of the technical operations needed to supply 10,000 acres Basically it is up to our farmer, through her/his research, to estimate how many square feet of barn he/she will need, etc.For the ideas proposed to succeed the farmer is going to need to face the fact of some ‘crop’ diversification and there will be a learning curve involved in this. . All of the techniques presented can be researched on the Internet. Sorry no Key board

[pt03]

. Sorry no Key board

That's okay, it's pretty well what I expected.

Lloyd

[Tim Wilson]

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id2.html

[Tim Wilson]

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/Butterfield/butterfield3.html

[Tim Wilson]

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/Butterfield/butterfield1.html

[Tim Wilson]

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh1.html#1_1

[Tim Wilson]

http://www.completebiogas.com/

[NattyLawn]

That's okay, it's pretty well what I expected.

Lloyd

I love how some people on this site expect solutions and everything to be outlined for them without doing any of the research for themselves.

[Smallaxe]

I love how some people on this site expect solutions and everything to be outlined for them without doing any of the research for themselves.

That's why we call it a "Forum" rather than a "Research Library". :)

"I love how some people on this site", can't offer -- "indepth discussions, clarification, new and original ideas", so they throw out a bunch of websites. :)

[NattyLawn]

That's why we call it a "Forum" rather than a "Research Library". :)

"I love how some people on this site", can't offer -- "indepth discussions, clarification, new and original ideas", so they throw out a bunch of websites. :)

Well Smallaxe, I guess we need to start another crabgrass barrier discussion or blame some liberals for your woes.

[pt03]

Exciting, you can go to the moon yourself (but I'm too busy to tell you how). Oh what the heck, here's a link, Rockets (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/bgmr.html), you figure out the rest.

I love how some people on this site make up fairy tales and others buy into it lock, stock and barrel. :laugh:

I've learned to never expect solutions from this site.

Lloyd:canadaflag:

[Smallaxe]

Well Smallaxe, I guess we need to start another crabgrass barrier discussion or blame some liberals for your woes.

Why? is there something unclear about root pruning chemicals?

I don't have any woes, caused by anyone.
Sometimes I have irritations, but it has little to do with, 'liberal/conservative", and more to do with illogical, mutually exclusive - "facts".

I could go to a website, that promises 10,000 gallons of fuel, from an acre of Cattails... But... why bother... :)

[dishboy]

Why? is there something unclear about root pruning chemicals?

I don't have any woes, caused by anyone.
Sometimes I have irritations, but it has little to do with, 'liberal/conservative", and more to do with illogical, mutually exclusive - "facts".

I could go to a website, that promises 10,000 gallons of fuel, from an acre of Cattails... But... why bother... :)

ROOT pruning? sounds like lousy job! I hate digging in the dirt.

[JDUtah]

ROOT pruning? sounds like lousy job! I hate digging in the dirt.

Rofl :laugh:

[JDUtah]

Exciting, you can go to the moon yourself (but I'm too busy to tell you how). Oh what the heck, here's a link, Rockets (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/bgmr.html), you figure out the rest.

I love how some people on this site make up fairy tales and others buy into it lock, stock and barrel. :laugh:

I've learned to never expect solutions from this site.

Lloyd:canadaflag:

Well said Lloyd.

[Kiril]

This system is called Integrated nutrition management (INM), and it has been proven around the world with every crop in about every climate.

Where do you come up with this stuff? References? A quick tour of google web and google scholar shows nothing with respect to studies. In fact ..... INM (Integrated Nutrient Management) is an Australian company.

http://www.inmpl.com/default.php?content=home

Type in "integrated nutrition management" in your google bar and look for yourself, you can read study after study after study that shows farms producing about 20% more than chemical or organic only farms

Once again ..... where?

Now if you search for "sustainable agriculture" or "good agricultural practices" or "integrated farming systems" or agroecology or low input farming systems you will find a wealth of information.

This really dispels the myth that moderate chemical inputs ruin the biology of our soils. Tim mentioned that the addition of synthetics would cause a downward production spiral, but I have failed to see any report that shows this.

But of course ... because you haven't seen it means what exactly?

Every report that I read showed that both nutrient sources combined produced the highest yield consistently and over time.

Once again ............ references?

One more thing I would like to add is that "certified organic farming" is a long shot from only using natural inputs. They are allowed to use many synthetic substances including chemical micro nutrients, not to mention fuel burning tractors produced from mines, computers etc...! The whole concept to me seems to divert reality by playing into the effluent's misconceptions and pocket books. Certified organic does nothing to feed the starving, in fact it would cause starvation and malnutrition by inflating the cost of food and displacing our natural habitat.

Who said anything about certified? You have claimed here that it is impossible to produce food without synthetics.

There simply wouldn't be enough fertility and yield to go around without all our synthetic agronomy and transportation.

Sustainable organic sources would literally poop out on the first 10% of farmland, millions would starve until crop land multiplied itself.

I agree that a crop can be fed naturally to net a similar yield to a synthetic fertilized crop, if given enough material.

But if you had to take all the sustainable natural fertilizer sources and divide it amongst every farm today, there simply wouldn't be enough for everyone to maximize yields.

I was saying that without synthetics, farmers would only have manure and biosolids to fertilize with.

If the world switched to only organic fertilization, we would quickly see that lawns were competing with farms for a limited resource and it wouldn't fly to fertilize turf at all.

So you have managed continue to post your (uninformed) opinion without any substantiation for how many pages now?

FYI ... here is one example of a decent review of the subject.

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

[Kiril]

That's why we call it a "Forum" rather than a "Research Library". :)

"I love how some people on this site", can't offer -- "indepth discussions, clarification, new and original ideas", so they throw out a bunch of websites. :)

So, you would rather get a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion rather than read credible sources of information and actually learn something?

Tim presented one method of producing crops without the need for external inputs. The only "discussion" I have seen here is from narrow minded nay-sayers (and their fan boys) who are too short sighted to even begin to understand the methods Tim presented ..... correct? Instead of discussing ways to make it work, you just get the same ol' "can't be done" .... without any supporting evidence for their claims.

[Smallaxe]

... FYI ... here is one example of a decent review of the subject.

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html



"There is such an alternative that has been pioneered by organic farmers. In contrast to the industrial/monoculture approach advocated by the biotech industry, organic agriculture is described by the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) as "a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity."

"... In fact, as a number of studies attest, organic farming methods can produce higher yields than conventional methods. Moreover, a worldwide conversion to organic has the potential to increase food production levels -- not to mention reversing the degradation of agricultural soils and increase soil fertility and health."


I have done a lot of farming. Organic and otherwise. Rotating through cattle manure reduces the mineral loss. Adding and recycling plant material with definately build the soil, and hold more nutrients from leaching. There is nothing new here, in the past 40 years.

Continual harvest of any mineral is, - has always - been the problem.

I want to know "How" that can be reversed, organically? On a 10,000 acre wheat/corn/soybean/potato patch.

That is the only thing of relevance, that would be new. Without it, its all propaganda, not information. It is for City Slickers who outnumber the Farmers, to vote in, an agenda that uses fear to brow-beat suckers, into slicing their own throat, in food production.

The city is what is degraded ecologically, in every concievable way. Not the farmland. We have problems , we fix them. We don't need City Slickers, telling us how it - "Can" be done with cow poop.

Answer the one critical question, then we can move forward. Otherwise, understand, that the song and dance in this article - is just a remake, of the same thing I was reading back in High School.

[Smallaxe]

So, you would rather get a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion rather than read credible sources of information and actually learn something? ...

Yes, I would like the answer, from your own hand, that P can be replaced organically on 10,000 acres of corn/soy/wheat/potato fields, year after year.

After you deliver the explanation, then you could post another website, and guide us to the place, in the article, to where it is. If necessary.

[Kiril]

I want to know "How" that can be reversed, organically? On a 10,000 acre wheat/corn/soybean/potato patch.

First .... I am not going to spoon feed you. Do your own research.

Second .... rice and maize are by far the most important agricultural crops world wide. These are the cropping systems you should be looking at, not wheat.

Yes, I would like the answer, from your own hand, that P can be replaced organically on 10,000 acres of corn/soy/wheat/potato fields, year after year.

After you deliver the explanation, then you could post another website, and guide us to the place, in the article, to where it is. If necessary.

And what good would that do? The number of possible scenarios for the crops you mentioned is enormous. Should I present a hypothetical case for every soil and historical management practices for every farm and related climate on the planet?

I guess I could present a hypothetical situation with hypothetical data ..... and get the same response as Tim did for his work in putting together that post ..... categorical dismissal of what was proposed. And then I could present substantiation (as you suggest) .... and have you and others complain about "throw(ing) out a bunch of websites" and lack of discussion because you (and others) are too damn lazy to read the references and learn something so you can actually participate in an intelligent discussion. If you can't understand the studies, then I must question if you are capable of having an intelligent discussion of the issue.

So tell me Axe ... what do I have to gain by spending a considerable amount of my time to come up with yet another proposal so it can then be categorically dismissed by a bunch of opinionated people who can't even manage do their own research in order to substantiate their own "factual" opinions?

[Tim Wilson]

pt03 Lloyd,

Perhaps you did not realize from my cryptic efforts last night that I had lost use of my keyboard. I cannot presently walk and my friend moved it out of the way to hand me my supper and then went home, leaving me in front of the computer with only the mouse. All I could do was copy and paste. I did everything within these circumstances to answer your questions about fuel production and adaptation. I apologized twice and you quoted my statement (sorry no keyboard) yet you find energy to ridicule. This is juvenile. I will PM you some info but as I stated I have little time to spell everything out. For me to do all that work could take several weeks.

[Tim Wilson]

Why? is there something unclear about root pruning chemicals?

I don't have any woes, caused by anyone.
Sometimes I have irritations, but it has little to do with, 'liberal/conservative", and more to do with illogical, mutually exclusive - "facts".

I could go to a website, that promises 10,000 gallons of fuel, from an acre of Cattails... But... why bother... :)

one estimated 7500; one 10,000, one 12,000

I probably should have gone with 7500 but what does it matter if using mostly mushroom straw waste and algae and a still and methane digester design that many are presently using

[pt03]

Tim, thanks, but don't bother, it is not necessary to go to any further trouble for me.

Lloyd

[Tim Wilson]

Tim, thanks, but don't bother, it is not necessary to go to any further trouble for me.

Lloyd

After all that? I guess that is what I should expect too.

Kiril, people are always resistant to change and try to make it more complex and difficult than it is. It probably took a lot for farmers to start using combines and synthetics when they were introduced. Look at the struggle just to get surgeons to wash their hands. I hope to get the chance to set up a demonstration farm using these techniques.

[Landscape Poet]

So, you would rather get a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion rather than read credible sources of information and actually learn something?


I enjoy both the Kiril. It is often nice to hear from yourself and others (Tim, Marcos, Bill, JD, Small Ax etc. etc) on this site about their opinions, better when doubted that you guys do throw up links to sites that you feel prove your point.
So although I think SA may be looking for a more direct answer out of you guys, many of us enjoy the info.
I am not sure of SA background, how ever it does appear that has real world experience which he is drawing his information on, while you and others (while still may having real word experience) are more text material based in sharing your information.

Now - would anyone like to either A. give me the answer to the questions I had about the microbes and what temps they go dormant, and if CT would help benefit bringing them back quicker (as Tim has stated they are already active after two hours in regards to moisture/under the scope) Or B. Post a link in which I can read and try to understand this more? Main interest is in my kind of climate (Orlando) to know if it is possible to keep them active most of the year (assuming a Freeze is not extended).

Thanks
Michael

[pt03]

Tim

I said don't bother because you seem to be making a big deal about how much work it is, how it is going to take two weeks and you were doing all that work specifically for me. That's fair, I completely understand workload.

I have no requirement to have further details as I firmly believe this prospectus isn't economically feasible here and I don't have 10K acres of land, ergo I said thanks and declined your offer.

Good luck with your program if you ever get a 10K farm.

One thing I have noticed on this site is that there a substantial amount of people who are awfully full of themselves, not my kind of crowd, maybe I'm too juvenile! :laugh:

Lloyd

P.S. I have the consultant on ignore so if he said something to me, well, I guess that is what ignore is for.

[Kiril]

Now - would anyone like to either A. give me the answer to the questions I had about the microbes and what temps they go dormant, and if CT would help benefit bringing them back quicker (as Tim has stated they are already active after two hours in regards to moisture/under the scope) Or B. Post a link in which I can read and try to understand this more? Main interest is in my kind of climate (Orlando) to know if it is possible to keep them active most of the year (assuming a Freeze is not extended).

CT will not help if the system is temp limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Microbial_growth_and_nutrition

start at mesophile, psychrophile, extremophile

[Landscape Poet]

CT will not help if the system is temp limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Microbial_growth_and_nutrition

start at mesophile, psychrophile, extremophile

So essentially from that reading if I understand these correct, microbes (as a group) depending on the type, can survive even the most extreme conditions? However some are only more prone to be non dormant during certain temp ranges!
So essentially the "best" time to apply a tea would be between the 74 and 104 degree mark? And I am assuming we are talking about soil temp correct?

[JDUtah]

So essentially from that reading if I understand these correct, microbes (as a group) depending on the type, can survive even the most extreme conditions? However some are only more prone to be non dormant during certain temp ranges!
So essentially the "best" time to apply a tea would be between the 74 and 104 degree mark? And I am assuming we are talking about soil temp correct?

If soil temps are 90 degree's, brew a tea at 90 degrees to breed out the microbes that thrive in that environment...

There is a reason the US Fed Ag Department requires food to be kept below 40 and above 145-165... bugs bad to humans usually don't like those temps.

[Landscape Poet]

After reading this article - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2120/is_6_80/ai_56022610/

If they are correct, the release of nutrients from microbes, are far more likely to happen in the fall (or off growing season). Is this the reason that many suggest doing a bridge approach during the first year, because the benefits of adding organic materials and feeding the microbes, might not be actually be realized until the following year, but from there, then assuming the correct inputs would allow the soil in essence to build up a supply for the following growth season?

[Landscape Poet]

If soil temps are 90 degree's, brew a tea at 90 degrees to breed out the microbes that thrive in that environment...

There is a reason the US Fed Ag Department requires food to be kept below 40 and above 145-165... bugs bad to humans usually don't like those temps.

So essentially are you saying if you are brewing your tea outside (or in the same environment)temps as what you are going to be applying, you will be supplying microbes that will be beneficial?

[JDUtah]

So essentially are you saying if you are brewing your tea outside (or in the same environment)temps as what you are going to be applying, you will be supplying microbes that will be beneficial?

Not exactly. Soil temps, where the CT will eventually (hopefully) be living, can differ considerably than a brew done outside. Sun shade? Aerated or not? Morning night? Both?

What I am saying is that should you decide to apply a brew... do it in a way that promotes microbes that will be most likely to thrive in your soil environment.

Brew temp same as soil temp. Brew food (IE meals) same as food you apply to soil (if you do). etc. That way they are eating/living in an environment similar to the one they will end up in.

Know that I am against CT's for fertilization purposes. IMO there are much more effective things that could be done.

[Landscape Poet]

Not exactly. Soil temps, where the CT will eventually (hopefully) be living, can differ considerably than a brew done outside. Sun shade? Aerated or not? Morning night? Both?

What I am saying is that should you decide to apply a brew... do it in a way that promoted microbes that will be most liekely to thrive in your soil environmant.

Brew temp same as soil temp. Brew food (IE meals) same as food you apply to soil (if you do). etc. That way they are eating/living in an environemnt similar to the one they will end up in.

Know that I am against CT's for fertiliztion purposes. IMO there are much more effective things that could be done.


JD - I am aware of your opinion that other more effective fertilization methods are out there. I am not sure that I agree or disagree yet. I am just starting into organics.

However my concern is not just fertilization, but helping to build the OM% in my soil due to the low % that is already there.

And I think you are saying that if you use compost as the main food source, then your Compost tea should be made up of that kind of compost correct? Same holding true for CT's made during times of applying say Manure, then you would want a manure tea, or at least manure in with your compost, to in essence breed the same bacteria/microbes to help decompose the food source?

[JDUtah]

JD - I am aware of your opinion that other more effective fertilization methods are out there. I am not sure that I agree or disagree yet. I am just starting into organics.

However my concern is not just fertilization, but helping to build the OM% in my soil due to the low % that is already there.

And I think you are saying that if you use compost as the main food source, then your Compost tea should be made up of that kind of compost correct? Same holding true for CT's made during times of applying say Manure, then you would want a manure tea, or at least manure in with your compost, to in essence breed the same bacteria/microbes to help decompose the food source?

Yup. You got it.

Side note: CT's are not going to help you build SOM, quite the contrary IMO.

[Barefoot James]

Tim - WOW 5 pages I copied and pasted it all. Just awesome. Kiril you are the man keep them all honest. Quack - name suits you!

Bottom line for me and turf grass is - compost and organic inputs - does a soil good.

Synthetics do not raise levels of organic matter in soil (probably because they don't encourage DEEP root growth - synthetics only work with proper irrigation - hydroponics basically). My properties organic matter counts and aesthetics have improved significantly in 3 years since they have gone organic. Shovels that use to only go into the ground a few inches when I stomped on them now go in all the way to the stomp pad (top of shovel). Mag to cal levels have gone from 2 o 3 to 1 ratios to 7 to 10 to 1 ratios. OM from 1 or 2 to 5 +. Why? Probably the organic inputs of compost, humus (humates), myco inoculations, CT, etc jump started pedogenisis in the soil and the roots had what they needed to grow deeper. My top soils are getting blacker and richer every year - you can see it with your eye balls. Used to be tan or rusty red - now BLACK.

I'm not going to argue these points - I have proof in soil tests and 100 plus properties and testimonials from my customers.

Tim, Kiril, ICT - you guys are my organic heros, keep up the good work. I have learned much and I'm carving out a nice niche here in KY following/practicing your advice.

Tim move to KY and we will do that farm!

King Phill and tree I miss you on these threads :cry:. They have a mini version of that 10,000 acre farm working in FL right now!

[Smallaxe]

First .... I am not going to spoon feed you. Do your own research. ...

:laugh: There is nothing there to spoon feed, there is nothing there to research.

Always taking away and never putting back ... is sustainable??? :laugh:

I knew you would not answer the question, because there isn't one.

[Smallaxe]

After all that? I guess that is what I should expect too.

Kiril, people are always resistant to change and try to make it more complex and difficult than it is. It probably took a lot for farmers to start using combines and synthetics when they were introduced. Look at the struggle just to get surgeons to wash their hands. I hope to get the chance to set up a demonstration farm using these techniques.

Perhaps, you can tell us how to replace the P, taken out of the "Cornbelt" and shipped all over the world, organically.

Remember, I have been studying/tweaking, farming realities, for over 40 years, now. I've heard and tried, all the "Pie in the Sky", rhetoric there is.
So with that in mind, tell the Corn Belt farmers, what they should do this Spring. :)

[Kiril]

Always taking away and never putting back ... is sustainable???

When have I ever said that? In fact, I stated the exact opposite in this thread already.

Biomass removed = net loss.

-------------------------------------

Perhaps, you can tell us how to replace the P, taken out of the "Cornbelt" and shipped all over the world, organically.

Can you tell me the soil P status of every farm in the world?
Can you tell me the soil & plant conditions that affect P availability for those same farms?
Can you tell me other inputs into the system (historical & present) that contribute to soil P for those farms?
Can you tell me why are you only concerned with P ... what about the other 14 elements?

[Smallaxe]

...
Can you tell me the soil P status of every farm in the world?
Can you tell me the soil & plant conditions that affect P availability for those same farms?
Can you tell me other inputs into the system (historical & present) that contribute to soil P for those farms?
Can you tell me why are you only concerned with P ... what about the other 14 elements?

OK, you win - Tell me how we are going to replace All the macro- and micro-nutrients, year after year, throughout the Corn Belt in America and the massive land tracts in Brazil, "organically".

If you understand that harvest = net loss, then why are you trying to say microbes will make up the difference, nutrient cycling and crop rotation will make up the difference, it all amounts to net loss.

There is a difference between efficient and effective use, of a nutrient, and the supply, of that nutrient. Not to difficult for anyone to understand...

I know the strategy is to talk about the benefits of organic farming... and then... extrapolate it out... to "Imagine", that all the nutrients are -resupplied...

I've seen that strategy, used in a lot of different ways throughout my life. Nothing new, and not even clever, anymore.
It is a farce for suckers, and insults the ability to reason.

[Kiril]

So essentially from that reading if I understand these correct, microbes (as a group) depending on the type, can survive even the most extreme conditions?

Yes

However some are only more prone to be non dormant during certain temp ranges!

Temp is not the only limiting factor, nor should you expect all microbes to be present waiting for the right conditions. The average conditions of the soil will dictate the dominant type of microbes present. For example, I wouldn't expect to find any piezophiles in your soils.

So essentially the "best" time to apply a tea would be between the 74 and 104 degree mark? And I am assuming we are talking about soil temp correct?

Yes, soil temp, and if I were to apply CT for the benefit of plant growth (and not building/inoculating soil) .... I would probably lean towards times of the year when root growth is most active. Otherwise .... I would probably go with application at soil temps around 25-30 C.

[Kiril]

OK, you win - Tell me how we are going to replace All the macro- and micro-nutrients, year after year, throughout the Corn Belt in America and the massive land tracts in Brazil, "organically".

It is not about winning or losing, but rather about asking reasonable questions. Your question is not reasonable.

If you understand that harvest = net loss, then why are you trying to say microbes will make up the difference, nutrient cycling and crop rotation will make up the difference, it all amounts to net loss.

I have never stated microbes will make up the difference. Are you going to keep putting words in my mouth Axe?

Certainly there will be a need for inputs, especially for your most common limiting nutrients like N. Who stated anything to the contrary?

That said:

Do you understand how a soil develops?
Do you understand how legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen?
Do you understand the difference between labile and non-labile pools of nutrients?
Do you understand what I meant by not expecting more from your soil that what it is able to provide naturally?

There is a difference between efficient and effective use, of a nutrient, and the supply, of that nutrient.

Why don't you go ahead and explain ..... just so we are clear how you see it.

I know the strategy is to talk about the benefits of organic farming... and then... extrapolate it out... to "Imagine", that all the nutrients are -resupplied...

I've seen that strategy, used in a lot of different ways throughout my life. Nothing new, and not even clever, anymore.

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. The "strategy"? What "strategy"?

It is a farce for suckers, and insults the ability to reason.

Still don't know what the hell you are talking about .... but coming from you, I would be careful about comments regarding ability to reason.

[Smallaxe]

Kiril, when you remove nutrients from the soil, and they are depleted, beyond the point of what they can naturally support.

What does :
(Do you understand how a soil develops?
Do you understand how legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen?
Do you understand the difference between labile and non-labile pools of nutrients?
Do you understand what I meant by not expecting more from your soil that what it is able to provide naturally?)

Even matter...???

So you are not familiar with the some of the strategies, of 'debate'. Sorry, I will tone it down, for you.
Then that leads me to believe that you 'actually' believe this claptrap and that labile and non-labile pools of nutrients has an answer. Then spell out that answer... there is none...
Put up all the false irrelevant diversions, you want, but the question remains simple... :)

[Kiril]

Kiril, when you remove nutrients from the soil, and they are depleted, beyond the point of what they can naturally support.

What does :
(Do you understand how a soil develops?
Do you understand how legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen?
Do you understand the difference between labile and non-labile pools of nutrients?
Do you understand what I meant by not expecting more from your soil that what it is able to provide naturally?)

Even matter...???

If you can't see (reason out) how it matters, then this discussion is over.

[Smallaxe]

There was no discussion. It stopped with the simple unanswered question. :)

[Kiril]

There was no discussion. It stopped with the simple unanswered question. :)

You are right Axe .... no discussion because you will not invest the time to actually learn enough to have an intelligent discussion of the issue. My questions should have tipped you off with respect to how .... but alas it appears you only want to argue, not learn. So be it. :waving:

[Smallaxe]

Those ideas are common and limitted, and will not come close to replenishing the soils, in the Corn Belt. Like I said, I've been doing this for 40+ years, and it works well in small plots, but they are not the solution, in large scale operations.

When there is a solution, let us know...

There... Now I've had the Last Word... :)

[Kiril]

Those ideas are common and limitted, and will not come close to replenishing the soils, in the Corn Belt. Like I said, I've been doing this for 40+ years, and it works well in small plots, but they are not the solution, in large scale operations.

WOW .... you have been doing the items mentioned by Tim and myself for 40+ years. Do tell. :rolleyes:

[JDUtah]

Axe,

Don't bother with him. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness. His ego motivates him to be so thourough and use such "precise" words. But on the flip side it also causes him to argue like a 4 year old even when he knows he doesn't have any real support for his arguments.

I will not elaborate on his double standard, but it is there as well.

All for the sake of winning the argument. But Mom he started it!

Axe,
I say let him think he won. The people with brains on their head will be able to see what really happened.

Note: I still have him on ignore.

[Kiril]

Axe,

Don't bother with him. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness. His ego motivates him to be so thourough and use such "precise" words. But on the flip side it also causes him to argue like a 4 year old even when he knows he doesn't have any real support for his arguments.

ROFL .... no support.

Someone want to explain to me why I need to spell it out for Axe? Really .... he has been doing this for 40+ years .... of course that means he knows everything there is to know about managing soil resources. The way I see it, he is too lazy to do the research on his own .... so he expects me to do it for him. Not gonna happen.

BTW ... I'm still waiting for you to defend your statements ... but alas all you are now capable of is personal insults. And you talk about ego. :nono:

[pt03]

So, you would rather get a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion rather than read credible sources of information and actually learn something?

Tim presented one method of producing crops without the need for external inputs. The only "discussion" I have seen here is from narrow minded nay-sayers (and their fan boys) who are too short sighted to even begin to understand the methods Tim presented ..... correct? Instead of discussing ways to make it work, you just get the same ol' "can't be done" .... without any supporting evidence for their claims.

It got too hard to follow so I had to 'un-ignore' the 'consultant'.

Kiril, who said "can't be done"?

Lloyd

[Kiril]

It got too hard to follow so I had to 'un-ignore' the 'consultant'.

Kiril, who said "can't be done"?

Lloyd

----------------------------------------------------


There simply wouldn't be enough fertility and yield to go around without all our synthetic agronomy and transportation.

Sustainable organic sources would literally poop out on the first 10% of farmland, millions would starve until crop land multiplied itself.


But if suddenly the unimaginable happened & the world urea market totally collapsed or dried up due to war, embargo or whatever, would we as a nation be able to fill that massive void with OM means quickly enough? :confused:

Like quackgrass said...
No way....not by a long shot.


IHere's the "but", without taking the economics and climate into account, it isn't feasible, certainly in my climate.


Perhaps, you can tell us how to replace the P, taken out of the "Cornbelt" and shipped all over the world, organically.

Remember, I have been studying/tweaking, farming realities, for over 40 years, now. I've heard and tried, all the "Pie in the Sky", rhetoric there is.
So with that in mind, tell the Corn Belt farmers, what they should do this Spring. :)

[pt03]

Kiril

Well the first two links are from waaayyy before Tim posted his "prospectus" so unless those two guys are clairvoyants I am unable to see how you could infer they were saying "can't be done" to the "prospectus".

As far as mine, I clearly stated that it seemed it could be done a few times so that one doesn't apply. Maybe you're confusing "it isn't feasible" with "can't", it's hard to tell sometimes what you get confused on, there is so much.

As far as the last one it seems that it is a pretty specific question as to how to replace the P. I don't see "can't" anywhere in there either. Having said that, I am sure Smallaxe has most definitely not "heard and tried, all the "Pie in the Sky", rhetoric there is." Someone can and will always come up with more.

Would you like to try again?

Lloyd

[Kiril]

Kiril

Well the first two links are from waaayyy before Tim posted his "prospectus" so unless those two guys are clairvoyants I am unable to see how you could infer they were saying "can't be done" to the "prospectus".

Read the thread again Lloyd. The prospectus was written because of those comments .... and those comments were echoed once again (by quack) following Tim's post.

They were then carried to a new level by yourself, arguing the economic impossibility of his suggestions.

Then by Axe arguing that organic/sustainable methods could not replace mined minerals. Why else would he harp on the issue if he felt it was possible?

As far as mine, I clearly stated that it seemed it could be done a few times so that one doesn't apply. Maybe you're confusing "it isn't feasible" with "can't", it's hard to tell sometimes what you get confused on, there is so much.

No confusion here. You stated on several occasions his proposal was not economically feasible. Not feasible means, can't be done ..... right .... or perhaps you have a different definition of "isn't feasible"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feasible

1 Doable, possible, achievable, workable.

So lets see:

Is Not Feasible = Is Not Doable ..... Is Not Possible ... Is Not Achievable ... Is Not Workable

Sounds like a pretty definitive statement to me Lloyd. :rolleyes:

[pt03]

I've read this thread so many times it makes me want to puke. :rolleyes:

But I have to admit, you have a 'unique' way of interpreting things.:laugh:

Back on ignore.

Lloyd

[quackgrass]

Kiril, I understand now that your knowledge isn't very deep on this subject. I didn't realize you hadn't even heard of integrated nutrient management. I'm not sure what you searched for, but I just tried it with quotes and got 632,000 google hits.

I assumed you had some experience or education in using both forms of nutrients together. That is exactly my line of work, so if you would like some help understanding it I can certainly help.

The main reason that yields and returns are higher using both inorganic and organic fertilizer is that the nutrient supply can better match the nutrient demand of the crop. Using only one or the other to cover peak nutrient demand will lead to over application during the low demand period. That leads to waste and pollution as it leaches away. See:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739191610&db=all And this explains the loss in yilds when switching from conventional to organic:http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/64/1/247.pdf

You can also extend the growing season by applying synthetics before the temperatures are high enough to make organic nutrients available. This is usefull when microbes are dormant from heat and drought stress also.

This combined with IPM and efficient cultivars is the only realistic way to maximize our food production without being subject to the whims of disease and insects. I can site endless crop blights, locust plagues, and livestock diseases if you want. History is full crop failures and famines.

You linked an article that claimed we could feed 6 billion people with only organic farming methods and no increase in land usage because the Rodale institute matched conventional crop yield on their 333 acre science project.

A 333 acre facility dedicated to building the "organic only" industry is a far cry from reality. That's like a kid going to Disneyland and then wondering why the magic stops at the gate instead of encompassing the world.


The reality is that we have tried feeding the world organically. This goes way beyond hypothetical science because it actually happened before we had synthetics. We currently feed the world using synthetics, pesticides and antibiotics, it obviously works. Remember the dust bowl? That wasn't caused by years of synthetic farming, on the contrary - hence no dust bowls since modern agriculture, in fact that area has seen a 5 fold increase in yields.

We can compare the health impacts of synthetics compared to famine, plaque and disease if you are really having a hard time seeing why the world embraced them so well. The risk to benefit ratio is remarkable.

The result of organic farming was massive crop and livestock variability due to losses from insect and disease epidemics. This led directly to famine and millions of deaths from starvation. People who lived the reality of that world welcomed the ability to change it. Now we have a society of well off people who have never been hungry or had a callus, saying that Organic farming is the sustainable solution because they can afford it. I can't even imagine what would happen if the entire world was asked to pay double for food, but I it would get real ugly.

Apparently the Disney minded folk don't understand that people starve when they can't afford food?

Here is a paper from Sweden that compares public perception of organic only farming to scientific fact:http://pub-epsilon.slu.se:8080/508/01/Organic_Crop_Production_Chapter1_2008.pdf

Here are a just a few studies showing Integrated nutrient management:

Maize in ethiopia:http://www.tropentag.de/2007/abstracts/full/486.pdf
in Kenya -depleted soils:http://www.kari.org/publications/10thproceedings/Poster/Integ_Nut_MgtStrategies.pdf
Another :http://www.lei.dlo.nl/inmasp/files/4f7f2dcf65f3e43786d778edd21e1aa4.pdf
And Again:http://www.lei.dlo.nl/inmasp/files/19b41d8dc1ca25c5b02a1fa46c107697.pdf
Moving on to baby corn in India: http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2008.153.159
Rice-Wheat: http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2008.153.159
Carrots:http://203.129.218.157/ojs/index.php/kjas/article/viewFile/304/291
Rice:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1064107030-383193/content~db=all~content=a903734529
Synergistic effect on Maize:http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18797008
Microbe rich vermicompost + NPK synergistic:http://www.jtropag.in/index.php/ojs/article/viewFile/153/147
Mangoes synergistic microbe population with npk:http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=820_43
Poultry litter plus npk synergy on Maize:http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=820_43
Wheat: synergy of Organic plus NPK on yield and water retention:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20712101/Effect-of-organic-and-inorganic-nitrogen-fertilizer-on-wheat

Study showing conventional farmed soil contains as much SOM as organic:http://orgprints.org/8267/1/gosling_shepherd_Theory_soil__fertility.pdf

The person who doubled food production on our planet speaks:http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/26/norman-borlaug-happy-95th-birt

More organic myths:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

[Barefoot James]

Ignoring truth/fact basically also means can't. All I see is opinions from the can't camp and truth/facts BACKED up with facts from published tests from the can camp.
Lot's of folks do things for 40+ years - I know lots of - let's say golfers that play all their life and still suck. You can plug in anything - topic, activity, profession whatever that folks do. Just because you have done it that way forever does not mean there is not a better way.
Instead of trying (very poorly I might add) to argue with Kiril you should listen and learn. Ask constructive questions that further your own education. Nobody is perfect - Kiril seems to know this because he obviously is learning things all the time. But you have to admit, he knows when to call out BS and make you question your own educated knowledge of the subject at hand (or on this thread).
New folks like Michael G and others even me would like to see more substance and teaching - from everyone - not opinions but facts - or positive outcomes from your own procedures/protocols that have worked for you - as it relates to organics.
We are all gleaning from these threads (from Kiril/Tim/Bill) weather we will admit that or not. We should ask how it works and why it works and what can I do to get this to work under this scenario. Trying to defend your own honor is so boring.
BTW (have to :laugh:) JD since this whole thread is about you, your photo sort of reminds me if Kiril vs you :laugh: Argue all you want until you actually listen you will never be a true heavy weight in this industry.
Ignorance is bliss - run from this.

[Kiril]

But I have to admit, you have a 'unique' way of interpreting things.:laugh:

Yes ... it is called the understanding how to use the English language.

[Kiril]

Kiril, I understand now that your knowledge isn't very deep on this subject. I didn't realize you hadn't even heard of integrated nutrient management. I'm not sure what you searched for, but I just tried it with quotes and got 632,000 google hits.

I search for EXACTLY what you stated, and as I said, on both google web and scholar.

Type in "integrated nutrition management" in your google bar and look for yourself, you can read study after study after study that shows farms producing about 20% more than chemical or organic only farms.

Go ahead and try the search you suggested and see what results you get.

FYI ... I have heard of Integrated Nutrient Management .... don't know what the hell "integrated nutrition management" is. I just figured it was one of those attempt by you to draw a (unsuccessful) parallel between human nutrition and managing ag systems.

I assumed you had some experience or education in using both forms of nutrients together. That is exactly my line of work, so if you would like some help understanding it I can certainly help.

Extensive on both, and thanks, I don't need your help, especially given your initial discussion of this topic and the massive amounts of studies on "integrated nutrition management".

But Heh, since you finally provided some references, I'll give you some of mine that I have linked that you can chew (or choke on) until I have a chance to review yours. FYI ... the first 4-5 of yours I looked at aren't even journal pubs ..... so any conclusions drawn need to viewed with a way more wary eye than what you need for peer reviewed pubs.

[Kiril]

A sample of a few of the studies I have collected on some of the issues raised in this thread. There may be some duplicates since I don't track the links together, and some may be dead depending on when I entered them. Some are pdf's, some you will have to buy to read, however you can get the general conclusions of the study from the abstract.


Comparisons and Impacts of Various Agricultural Systems


Effects of Long-term Jute-Rice-Wheat Cropping System on Crop Yields and Soil Fertility (http://www.rwc.cgiar.org/pubs/39/CPS006_13.pdf)

Synthetic Nitrogen Fertilizers Deplete Soil Nitrogen: A Global Dilemma for Sustainable Cereal Production (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/38/6/2295.pdf)

Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885820/pdf/zpq10282.pdf)

The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/36/6/1821.pdf)

Changes in Soil Chemical Properties Resulting from Organic and Low-Input Farming Practices (http://faculty.berea.edu/clarks/documents/agronomy_journal_90.pdf)

Comparison between Organic and Mineral Fertilization for Soil Fertility Levels, Crop Macronutrient Concentrations, and Yield (http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/4/973.pdf)

Fundamental Differences Between Conventional and Organic Tomato. Agroecosystems in California (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/bi430-fs430/Documents-2004/7A-ORGANIC%20AG/Fundamental%20Differences%20Between%20Conventional%20and%20Organic%20Tomato%20Agroecosystems%20in%20 California.pdf)

Long term effects of inorganic fertilizer inputs on crop productivity in a rice-wheat cropping system (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009744719420)

Effects Of Twenty-Five Years Of Fertilizer Use On Maize And Wheat Yields And Quality Of An Acidic Soil In The Western Himalayas (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479702001035)


Studies Related To Soil Fertility Management


Long-Term Field Experiment in Sweden: Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility and Crop Quality (http://www.jdb.se/sbfi/publ/boston/boston7.html)

Effect of Organic and Inorganic Nitrogen Fertilizer on Wheat Plant under Water Regime (http://www.insinet.net/jasr/2006/650-656.pdf)

Urea decomposition by bacteria in the Southern California Bight and its implications for the mesopelagic nitrogen cycle (http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/122/m122p021.pdf)

Organic and Biodynamic Management: Effects on Soil Biology (http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/64/5/1651.pdf)

Modeling Phosphorus Transfer between Labile and Nonlabile Soil Pools (http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/736.pdf)

Nitrogen Fertilization Effects on Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in a Dryland Cropping System (http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/63/4/912.pdf)

Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on Growing Season Soil Carbon Dioxide Emission in a Corn–Soybean Rotation (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/2/325.pdf)

Phosphorus acquisition from non-labile sources in peanut and pigeonpea with mycorrhizal interaction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00093-3)


Agroecosystems and Farmscaping


Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Function (http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope55/scope55-ch11.pdf)

Landscape context of arthropod biological control (http://www.gwdg.de/~uaoe/pdf/paper/EcolEngineeringforPestManagement2004_55-63.pdf)

Species composition in agroecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat, and farm management (http://bie.berkeley.edu/files/Weibulletal2003.pdf)

A landscape view of cereal aphid parasitoid dynamics reveals sensitivity to farm- and region-scale vegetation structure (http://www.eje.cz/pdfarticles/1358/eje_105_3_503_Brewer.pdf)

Refuge habitats modify impact of insecticide disturbance on carabid beetle communities (http://www.landislab.ent.msu.edu/pdf/Landis%20PDF%20Collection/42.Lee.Menalled.Landis.2001.Refuge%20habitats%20modify%20impact.pdf)


Organic & Inorganic Fertility Source Impacts on Microbes & Microbial Communities


The effects of chronic nitrogen fertilization on alpine tundra soil microbial communities: implications for carbon and nitrogen cycling (http://amo.colorado.edu/n.pdf)

Chronic nitrogen enrichment affects the structure and function of the soil microbial community in temperate hardwood and pine forests (http://www.biology.duke.edu/fungi/mycolab/publications/Frey%20et%20al.%202004.pdf)

Chronic nitrogen additions reduce total soil respiration and microbial respiration in temperate forest
soils at the Harvard Forest (http://www.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf/BowdenetalEcosyst.04.pdf)

Changes in Soil Microbial Biomass and Bacterial Community in a Long-term
Fertilization Experiment During the Growth of Maize (http://www.aensi.org/aeb/2008/1-8.pdf)

Bacterial Community Structure and Diversity in a Century-Old Manure-Treated Agroecosystem (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/70/10/5868.pdf)

Seasonal changes in soil microbial communities along a fertility gradient of temperate grasslands (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00016-4)

Responses of the bacterial and fungal biomass in a grassland soil to multi-year applications of dairy manure slurry and fertilizer (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16474557)

Responses of grassland soil nematodes and protozoa to multi-year and single-year applications of dairy manure slurry and fertilizer (http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/afs/soil_science/MSSS/Ecology/Graduate/Forge%20et%20al%202005%20manure%20nema%20proto.pdf)

Soil biological quality of grassland fertilized with adjusted cattle manure slurries in comparison with organic and inorganic fertilizers (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00374-009-0370-2)

Fungal biomass in pastures increases with age and reduced N input (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.013)

Fungal/bacterial ratios in grasslands with contrasting nitrogen management (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.01.008)

Soil microbial community responses to dairy manure or ammonium nitrate applications (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00004-9)

Chemical and biological indicators of soil quality in organic and conventional farming systems in Central Italy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.029)

Application of fresh and composted organic wastes modifies structure, size and activity of soil microbial community under semiarid climate (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.05.007)

Structure and function of the soil microbial community in a long-term fertilizer experiment (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00297-3)

Responses of Active Bacterial and Fungal Communities in Soils under Winter Wheat to Different Fertilizer and Pesticide Regimens (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/70/5/2692.pdf)

The role of tree leaf mulch and nitrogen fertilizer on turfgrass soil quality (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003740050524)

Long-term effect of mineral fertilizers and amendments on microbial dynamics in an alfisol of Western Himalayas (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12088-007-0016-8)

Ground beetle abundance and community composition in conventional and organic tomato systems of California's Central Valley (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(98)00138-3)

Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00187-1)

Long-term effects of organic and synthetic soil fertility amendments on soil microbial communities and the development of southern blight (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.04.001)

Effects of cover crops, compost, and manure amendments on soil microbial community structure in tomato production systems (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.08.003)


Studies Related To Soil Biology & Ecology


Soil Biodiversity � A Sensible Soil Indicator? Considerations On Its Role And Function In Soil Ecosystems (http://webdomino1.oecd.org/comnet/agr/soil_ero_bio.nsf/viewHtml/index/$FILE/AndersonErosion17Sep.PDF)

The Development And Use Of Soil Quality Indicators For Assessing The Role Of Soil In Environmental Interactions (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0306BKIQ-e-e.pdf)

Biodiversity - Bioindication to evaluate Soil Health (http://eusoils.jrc.it/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR22245.pdf)


Studies Related To Soil Carbon Management


Soil Sampling Protocol to Certify the Changes of Organic Carbon Stock in Mineral Soils of European Union (Version 2) (http://eusoils.jrc.it/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR21576_2.pdf)

Changing Soil Degradation Trends In Senegal With Carbon Sequestration Payments (http://www.tradeoffs.montana.edu/pdf/kara-gray-ms-thesis.pdf)

Impact of Nitrogen Fertilization and Cropping System on Carbon Sequestration in Midwestern Mollisols (http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/69/2/413.pdf)

[JDUtah]

BTW (have to :laugh:) JD since this whole thread is about you, your photo sort of reminds me if Kiril vs you :laugh: Argue all you want until you actually listen you will never be a true heavy weight in this industry.
Ignorance is bliss - run from this.

Sharp enough to get the avatar, I'm impressed. Now let's take it a step farther. Kiril is so glutonous on his own ego that he can't do anything but argue. Hence he is so fat because he doesn't know when to STOP.

If you noticed I stopped after a little. (Yes I admit a bit of egotistical motivation. Heck, everyone still posting in this thread has it.)

This thread is about me???? Where is your reading comprehension?? Actually it isn't about me. It is about a myth that has not been proven true yet. Which... I am STILL waiting on. Do you want to take a stab at it? Show me that a regular 4-6 lb N synthetic fert program kills soil microbial life.

This is the third major thread on that subject in this forum in about 7 years and still NO-ONE has given anything of real value to support the idea. Good job Jeff Lowenfells and Dr. I, way to confuse an entire industry!

As far as I am concerned though... there are a few people who, for whatever reason, must prove to themselves that the things they believe are the only way things are to be believed. And they will stop at NOTHING to prove themselves right.

But hey to each his own. Believe what you want.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed. The two leaders against synthetics aren't even in the organic lawn service industry! Yeah, what perfect role models for me to build an organic lawn service company! :hammerhead:

I have had you on ignore before... must I do it again?

[Kiril]

Sharp enough to get the avatar, I'm impressed. Now let's take it a step farther. Kiril is so glutonous on his own ego that he can't do anything but argue. Hence he is so fat because he doesn't know when to STOP.

And more personal insults.

If you noticed I stopped after a little. (Yes I admit a bit of egotistical motivation. Heck, everyone still posting in this thread has it.)

That would be because you couldn't back up your statements .... no?

This thread is about me???? Where is your reading comprehension?? Actually it isn't about me. It is about a myth that has not been proven true yet. Which... I am STILL waiting on. Do you want to take a stab at it? Show me that a regular 4-6 lb N synthetic fert program kills soil microbial life.

And again, you talk about ego. Start reading buddy.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=3404621&postcount=213

As far as I am concerned though... there are a few people who, for whatever reason, must prove to themselves that the things they believe are the only way things are to be believed. And they will stop at NOTHING to prove themselves right.

Damn JD, you just described yourself to the T.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed. The two leaders against synthetics aren't even in the organic lawn service industry! Yeah, what perfect role models for me to build and organic lawn service company! :hammerhead:

Hey, guess what JD, I use bridge programs when needed, as stated on NUMEROUS occasions .... but of course you conveniently forgot that ...... didn't you. Furthermore, I am "in the industry" and have been "in the industry" for about 15 more years than you have .... and that is not even including the education aspect.

I do find it amusing though how about 2 years ago you didn't know the first thing about organic land care ..... and now you act like an "authority" on it. Should I pull up some references to your earlier posts as a demonstration? Should I also pull up some posts of the people who helped you get where you are now? Talk about ego JD ..... :rolleyes:

[phasthound]

This thread is about me???? Where is your reading comprehension?? Actually it isn't about me. It is about a myth that has not been proven true yet. Which... I am STILL waiting on. Do you want to take a stab at it? Show me that a regular 4-6 lb N synthetic fert program kills soil microbial life.

This is the third major thread on that subject in this forum in about 7 years and still NO-ONE has given anything of real value to support the idea. Good job Jeff Lowenfells and Dr. I, way to confuse an entire industry!


JD,

I don't have the time or desire to carry on this conversation, so I'll be short.
I've seen several studies posted here that show detrimental effects on microbes when only synthetic ferts have been used on several crops. Or are you only looking for turf studies with only 4-6lb N applied?

I am a believer in the benefits of Integrated Nutrients Management, just take a look at my ad when it appears on the left side bar.

[JDUtah]

JD,

I don't have the time or desire to carry on this conversation, so I'll be short.
I've seen several studies posted here that show detrimental effects on microbes when only synthetic ferts have been used on several crops. Or are you only looking for turf studies with only 4-6lb N applied?

I am a believer in the benefits of Integrated Nutrients Management, just take a look at my ad when it appears on the left side bar.

detrimental how?

[phasthound]

detrimental how?

The links to studies have been posted, I'm not going to read them for you.
I have to go back out to move more snow. :)

[NattyLawn]

Hey, guess what JD, I use bridge programs when needed, as stated on NUMEROUS occasions .... but of course you conveniently forgot that ...... didn't you. Furthermore, I am "in the industry" and have been "in the industry" for about 15 more years than you have .... and that is not even including the education aspect.

I don't want to speak for JD, but I believe he was referring to Elaine Ingham and Jeff Lowenfels as the people not in the organic lawn care field.

My response to that is, you would be surprised at how many boards she sits on.

[Tim Wilson]

Just a quick note to clarify that what I outlined is not based on organics as practiced prior to the synthetic revolution nor is it based on any sort of present certified organic program. Rather it is a forward looking prospectus which would likely surpass outputs of certified organic crops (by today's standards). More like uberorganics. BTW not every technique I mentioned would need be used.

JD. I believe I mentioned that Doudes (USDA scientist) had published literature concerning inhibition of microbial life brought about by chemical fertilizers. When I have time I'll look for them since you don't want to. The point I think you and others are missing is the 'use it or loose it syndrome' When the microbial nutrient cycle is interupted or altered by the introduction of synthetics it is only logical that the cycle will be negatively impacted, including the death of some microbes which suppress pathogenic microbes. Synthetics repress some microbes while promoting others which is why synthetic fertilizers invariably go hand in hand with pesticides, fungicides and anti-bacterials.

Lloyd, I meant only that I would PM answers to your pragmatic original questions, not that I would do a work up. If you do some research you'll find there are farmers already producing their own fuel and heat. I don't want a 10K farm. That was Quackgrass.

[JDUtah]

lawn service not lawn consulting...

[Smallaxe]

WOW .... you have been doing the items mentioned by Tim and myself for 40+ years. Do tell. :rolleyes:

Manure, is spread on a single hay/corn field, per year. Now only hay. All livestock is rotated in pastures, as a practice dating back b4 me.

I haven't put fertilizer in my gardens, except once, and it made no difference. I got them established, with the recycled, manure, pine mulch, waste straw, etc. And haven't needed anything more, outside a manure tea drench, from the barnyard, during the early sping. It is applied after the second or third true leaf appears, on the seedlings.

Every new garden gets 'double-dug', similar to John Jeavons style. This begins the process of utilizing sub-soil as fertile top soil.

I water, only, if I notice the plants are fading, or loosing turgor, in the heat of the day.

Does that cover it, or has their been something new? :)

[Kiril]

Forget it Axe ... you are a dollar short and a day late.

[phasthound]

I had the pleasure of hearing John Jeavons speak last week. He was inspiring.

[Smallaxe]

Forget it Axe ... you are a dollar short and a day late.

Just like all the New and Exciting peer reviewed discoveries, you keep posting, as facts. The same warmed over, tired old facts, with a new gov't grant.

I do like the Char... that is New... and the details of microbes, is interestting... but the microbes were working, without my knowledge of the details, all along. :)

[Kiril]

Just like all the New and Exciting peer reviewed discoveries, you keep posting, as facts. The same warmed over, tired old facts, with a new gov't grant.

I do like the Char... that is New... and the details of microbes, is interestting... but the microbes were working, without my knowledge of the details, all along. :)

Axe, you really don't have a clue here about what is being discussed, nor what is being researched or the methods involved. You obviously haven't taken the time to do the reading or the research, yet you pretend to have complete knowledge of the issues. It is on par with your whole issue with research on earthworms and northern forests. That which stems from ignorance will always be ........ ignorant.

[Smallaxe]

I had the pleasure of hearing John Jeavons speak last week. He was inspiring.

Really? I haven't heard of him since the book he wrote. I enjoyed the read, figured he was a cool person.

[Barefoot James]

Does that cover it, or has their been something new? :)

Like I said in a prior post compare your old tech program - been doing it how long?? - to Tim's.

Just like golf 90% who play, can not break 100 on a consistent basis, not because they lack potential but because they do not wish to change their method towards how they play. They are content with the results they get - doesn't make it right or wrong.

The pilgrims learned from the Indians that if they planted their corn with some fish it grew better. Somebody else learned that some worm poop helped with their crop yields - fast forward to 2010 we have put together all the knowledge we have and folks like Tim can come up with uberorganics.

Tough to do/ You bet. Takes lots of learning and knowledge? You bet. Better results? You bet. Bottom line is some just want to spread manure, some a little CT but to ignore knowledge that some have and claim organics are inferior to synthetics is just ..... like I said ignorance is bliss. if you are happy with what you got keep doing it - less stress for you but don't give everyone else your ignorant OPINIONS when those that have the knowledge know better and provide us all with proof to see it for ourselves if we choose to learn and train ourselves. This is POWER and many reading this thread are just plain jealous.

Axe sorry to have to use your post as the example hear. If you are happy that is all that matters but don't try to think you know much of anything past what they already knew back in the 1800's cause you sir are still doing the same things they did - based on the protocol you just posted! Compare it to Tims UBERORGANICS!

Yes synthetics hurt the microbes/biology, because it gets out of wack - Roundup ready seed and now the weeds are immune to that - whats next Frankenstein seed?? Then what. Herbs, pests and fungicides why? Cause the natural defenses (microbes/biology) are destroyed by the synthetics. I have read so many links provided by many here that have proven this over and over and over.
Salt kills - what carries the NPK salt. N burn issues, Too much N too little N, P interrupting myco, on and on and on. Why not be SAFE, have higher protein corn (less carbs), better tasting stuff, better grass that keeps harmful chems from getting tracked onto you carpet and you clean it (the carpet) and who knows what biological smorgasbord you will pass on to your family and pets, through these deadly cocktails.

[Smallaxe]

Like I said in a prior post compare your old tech program - been doing it how long?? - to Tim's...
... Tough to do/ You bet. Takes lots of learning and knowledge? You bet. Better results? You bet. Bottom line is some just want to spread manure, some a little CT but to ignore knowledge that some have and claim organics are inferior to synthetics is just .....

Animal husbandry is superficial, without empathy. Plant husbandry is superficial without, empathy. Managing soils and microbes requires empathy, as well.
I spread all the manure available. = 1 field. (so no magic bullet there) I don't use CT, I use a food supply that is more of a meal, than a sport drink. (compost and mulch)

Otherwise I agree... You're preaching to the choir man.... I'm not extremist, though, so I don't fear ferts as much as I can empethise with soils, recieving too much water, and bad timing of those ferts.

My only input to this discussion... has been to challenge the claim... that there is a way to organically replace minerals, on overworked soils... Otherwise we are on the same page with minor differences... I think? :)

[JDUtah]

OK, so I have a question. In Tim's uberorganic, self-sustaining, dream farm, he dedicates space to grow cattails for ethanol production correct?

My question is.. where does the heat source come from to 'cook' the brew? Per one of Tim's links...

"Perhaps in a laboratory or in your own kitchen, burning propane or natural gas (and thus, burning fuel to make fuel), this can be somewhat controlled. This works OK for making small amounts of drinking alcohol, but if it is fuel your are after, you want to burn scrap wood, or anything you can get cheap or free as a fuel source, because you have to minimize your costs and also be adaptable."

How much fuel (ethanol) do you think a 10,000 acre farm would require per year when running it at full capacity (as Tim claimed you could do)?

[quackgrass]

No one bothered to read the studies I linked, so i'm back to pontificating my unsubstantiated knowledge of what I do for a living:laugh: here goes,

Banning ALL synthetic pesticides and fertilizers based on health risks and sustainability is like banning all medicine and surgery because it has side effects, and wont make you immortal.

The belief that synthetic chemicals always pose more risk than reward is the basis of this movement. Now I understand that concerns over environmental stewardship and toxicity is legit, but we are exposed to more synthetic chemicals inside our homes, offices and cars than outside. Killing pesticide technology and synthetic nutrients that have saved millions of lives doesn't seem to support public health:rolleyes:

There are thousands of synthetic products used in food production and pest control, all have a unique purpose and risk. Scientists and doctors have put a massive effort into understanding these risks and designing application uses, procedures, and PPE requirements.

But the organic ideology does not believe that each product should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It is assumed that every product carries a risk which outweighs its reward regardless of benefit. For example, an insecticide that saves millions of lives each year by preventing malaria and crop destruction is considered too hazardous to use, regardless of the side effects. At the same time a natural insecticide that is documented to be more toxic to humans could be available for unrestricted use, even if it wasn't effective at controlling the pest.

It seems the organic only system is based on an ideology instead of scientific reasoning. If it wasn't, I would think the supporters could be more open to using synthetics based on situational needs that do arise. You know, like the IPM programs that are actual practical.

Some seem to defend the anti synthetic belief as if it were their religion. No amount of reasoning will open them up to consideration despite the hypocritical elements that surround it. The main hypocrisy being that its acceptable to use synthetic chemicals in every other facet of life and organic food production including the cultivating, harvesting, transporting, packaging, and dispersal of organic products and produce.

An organic producer can (and did) fly organic milk from newzealand to the U.S. so that they can fill plastic containers with organic yogurt and make a premium, its perfectly fine to blow that kind of energy on transport.

They can also burn diesel fuel through a tractor made of steel which took thousands of yards of ore and a hundreds of different chemicals to produce not to mention all the energy. They can build steel buildings and consume unlimited plastics. Irrigation? no problem! The retail outlets and stands can burn energy and contain thousands of textile chemicals. That stuff doesn't hurt demand or profits so its all good safe and sustainable -for them. Internet, t.v. its all synthetic and good.

The thing that really raises a red flag with me is the ban on synthetic nitrogen. It doesn't get any more natural than nitrogen, but its use is absolutely denied. It doesn't matter that synthetic nitrogen is essentially no different than the nitrogen that greens up plants after a lightning storm.

The argument is that the use of natural gas to break the bonds of atmospheric nitrogen is not sustainable. It consumes 1% of the world energy output to supply the worlds nitrogen supply which feeds half our world. But Its still OK to produce plastic, burn diesel and electricity for running tractors and irrigation pumps on organic farms:rolleyes: .

Another argument regarding synthetic nitrogen use is that synthetic fertilizers harm the soil and cause pollution.

Lets take a look at synthetic nitrogen, does it really hurt soil biology, we've all heard its bad for the soil so it must be right?

This may be surprising but synthetic fertilizer actually has the ability to increase soil biology, organic matter and moisture retention.

Lets take an unfertilized field with a withering crop and poor soil.Lets say in the dust bowl circa 1930's (where farmers have been "organically" farming for decades without returning enough nutrients). Now lets optimize the plant fertility with timed applications of synthetic fertilizer and triple the biomass of the crop. Some of this biomass can now be returned to the soil as organic matter which will feed microbes, increase water efficiency, and minimize erosion. That's right, synthetic fertilizer can take a depleted and dead soil and begin building it up as it increases the biomass. Hence no more dust bowls:)

But you've seen studies that show synthetic fertilized soils have less soil health than organic fertilized soils, it must be killing the microbes! Well its not so much that synthetics reduce soil health, its that an over reliance on synthetic farming won't optimize it like organic farming can. That's not the same as saying synthetics kill the soil. Its saying that a soil that gets organic matter and microbe inputs instead of mineral fertilizer - will likely have more of it. Got that James? I know you might have to reprint some marketing brochures but that's the truth.:hammerhead:

So to recap, lets look at an organically grown field that is constantly receiving tons of microbes, fertilizer, and organic matter from compost and manures, plus teas and even fairy dust. It will be loaded with an artificially high microbe population and organic matter compared to one that isn't getting those inputs. If you sampled of the field you, would find that the microbiology was much lower! It would be lower than the synthetic field also. We wouldn't go around declaring that not farming soils kills microbes though:laugh:

So the reality is that synthetics can in fact increase soil health, but they can't optimize it. That is where synthetics become limited.

Now lets look at organics. Organics provide optimal soil biology, but it can't offer optimal nutrient management on its own. The crop has a variable nutrient demand through its short life which changes drastically from germination to harvest. The soil has a long and slow mineralization process that can't reliably match this demand curve because of weather patterns and demand peaks. that would have to be predicted years in advance to even get close to optimizing nutrient uptake. You would have to really load the soil up heavy to cover peak, but that would cause major nutrient loses and pollution during low crop demand as nutrients leeched.

Organic farming is also expensive and on a grand scale it would consume way more of our arable land and biomass. There wouldn't be hardly anything left to make bio-fuels and such when the oil becomes scarce. If you can't import organic matter to an organic farm it suffers low yields and nutrient depletion. You get stuck playing catch up by growing crops to feed the soil.

Lets just imagine you are the farmer for a bit:

You will likely be stuck on land that is naturally scarce in some types of nutrients and too high in others. You will need to rotate crops to maintain nutrients, but you also have to grow whats in demand, not always what the field is tailored for. It will be a futile effort to try and match nutrient supply with crop demand when you can't always guess your crop. You will plan, predict and make do with what happens. It is variable and you can't just fix it like you can with a synthetic application. Its going to cost a lot to run this farm, and if we're all doing this, we won't be getting that premium price to cover costs. We will also be competing for any organic sources we can get. Insects and disease are going to destroy some crops. We will be powerless to stop some of them just like history shows from the good 'ole days:cry:

You will have to hire kiril to analyze the soil tests and then go buy a flock of penguins, and a kangaroo . He will have you import turtle shells from australia and you must grind them up and feed them to the animals because its the only way to produce a manure with the exact nutrient analysis to feed the cattails you are growing to fuel the alcohol brewer that Tim gave you for posting his bond after the EPA got him for destroying wetlands.:nono:

Soon you will learn that this type of farming is for the birds and doesn't pass the first test of sustainability because it can't support the current situation we're in, let alone higher demands and alternative fuels.

Then you'll really understand that the best solution is to combine nutrient methods so that they can sustain each other. You'll find that roughly 1/2 the organic, and 1/2 the synthetic needs can be combined to create a net increase in yield that surpasses either method alone. This system will seem like a breeze and will be smarter this time and regulate the amount of chemical fertilizer use and encourage the use of organics. You will now meet most of your P and K needs easily using organics, and the N demand will be supplied using synthetic nitrogen. This will net great returns on your investment which creates the lowest price, minimizes pollution and nourishes the most people. People will be able to go back to fertilizing their landscapes without the guilt of starving someone.

Farms will only be using about 1/2 the biomass for nutrient cycling compared to an Organic only farm, so the extra biomass could be used for energy and fuel development. It can also power the Habor bosch process that created the extra biomass in the first place.

The amount of biomass energy Haber bosch creates is 5-7 times more than it consumes, so the possibility is real. Even if it wasn't utilized that way it, can also be powered with renewable energy. It is very much sustainable.:weightlifter:

Think of this method as trading two fifty cent pieces for a $1.25 - versus spending a dollar on 75 cents. Atmospheric nitrogen fixing is to us - what photosynthesis is to plants.

Don't tell people that love certified organic farming that own stocks in wind mill or solar panel corporations that you support Nitrogen power:usflag:

[Smallaxe]

OK, so I have a question. In Tim's uberorganic, self-sustaining, dream farm, he dedicates space to grow cattails for ethanol production correct?

My question is.. where does the heat source come from to 'cook' the brew? Per one of Tim's links...

"Perhaps in a laboratory or in your own kitchen, burning propane or natural gas (and thus, burning fuel to make fuel), this can be somewhat controlled. This works OK for making small amounts of drinking alcohol, but if it is fuel your are after, you want to burn scrap wood, or anything you can get cheap or free as a fuel source, because you have to minimize your costs and also be adaptable."

How much fuel (ethanol) do you think a 10,000 acre farm would require per year when running it at full capacity (as Tim claimed you could do)?

A lot... if your boiling an acres worth of cattails... Get a windmill... and run on air pressure...

[Smallaxe]

.... It seems the organic only system is based on an ideology instead of scientific reasoning. If it wasn't, I would think the supporters could be more open to using synthetics based on situational needs that do arise. You know, like the IPM programs that are actual practical.

Some seem to defend the anti synthetic belief as if it were their religion. ...:usflag:

That is all very true... but they are offended with the idea of being radical religious extremist... It is simple enough to say... majoring in the minors...

Out here, not far from me, there was discovered, aldicarb in the well water, they banned the use of aldicarb. Now they have nitrites, in the well water, but they can't stop farming. The economy of several counties could be devastated. What do they do?

[OrganicsMaine]

I have to say that I think that quack has made some strong points. So lets say that we do need to use some synthetics on our farms....I think that is acceptable personally, but that is just my uneducated and simple opinion. (not being wise, just honest:))

I do like the "fantasy" of Tim's farm, and if it was more realistic, it would be great. I don't think that anyone could argue that it would be a real stretch to pull it off....certainly doable, but a stretch in reality.

All that said, what about the lawn industry? Perfect green and weed free lawns are NOT a necessity. They are nice to have, but since they are no where near as important as our food supply, why not trend organic there?

I feel that if I can make a lawn look almost as good (95%) organically, I can overcome that last 5% of perfection with education and salesmanship. As I am typing and thinking simultaneously, how much acreage is devoted to turfgrass vs. farming? Lets rid our turf of synthetics....it is not a necessity.....and if we need to use SOME on the farm, lets use them responsibly in conjunction with organics and maximize crop production.

My Disclaimer: I am not typing this with any serious scientific research, just what I feel is a common sense approach, based on the little that I know on the farming side of things, and the little bit more that I know about the organic lawn care side of things!

God gave us brains to use, and it would be against Him if we didn't use them to improve our living conditions. However, He also has provided for us, we just need to know how to use what He has provided. (That ought to really get many of you going on a totally different tangent!:waving:) Now I am off my soapbox and going to church.

[Smallaxe]

... I feel that if I can make a lawn look almost as good (95%) organically, I can overcome that last 5% of perfection with education and salesmanship. As I am typing and thinking simultaneously, how much acreage is devoted to turfgrass vs. farming? Lets rid our turf of synthetics....it is not a necessity.....and if we need to use SOME on the farm, lets use them responsibly in conjunction with organics and maximize crop production. ...

So, we believe that organic, natural turf care is inferior to, the synthetic alternative???

That is why a realistic understanding of organic lawncare is important. Oganic/natural turf, is far superior to the NPK, squirt and fert... but we tend to think in terms of extremist mythology, which means we can never get a grasp on what is actually happening in the soil and the plants.

Sometimes, I think this forum is infiltrated, with Monsanto folks, just to promote the mythology that keeps the natural process from coming to light. :)

[JDUtah]

Sometimes, I think this forum is infiltrated, with Monsanto folks, just to promote the mythology that keeps the natural process from coming to light. :)

Oh crap, he's onto me!

[OrganicsMaine]

So, we believe that organic, natural turf care is inferior to, the synthetic alternative???

That is why a realistic understanding of organic lawncare is important. Oganic/natural turf, is far superior to the NPK, squirt and fert... but we tend to think in terms of extremist mythology, which means we can never get a grasp on what is actually happening in the soil and the plants.

Sometimes, I think this forum is infiltrated, with Monsanto folks, just to promote the mythology that keeps the natural process from coming to light. :)

I don't think, nor was I implying, that you or, hopefully, anyone on this thread feels that organic is inferior to synthetic. I also think I have a handle on many of the people that are extremists on this thread, and they do offer a ton of great information, I just don't bother getting into a pissing match with them because they are very much set in their ways.

I personally feel that there is no reason why a lawn shouldn't be maintained organically, it is the expectation management that is the hard part. Especially due to the fact that turf is not a necessity. However, I do feel that in a catastrophic situation, if you have to eradicate a large problem, it is easier, and possibly better, to hit the problem hard once, and rebuild the herd, than it is to allow the turf to fail, and have to totally renovate.

I think I have a decent understanding of the natural process, not in depth, but certainly more than a general understanding, and I can explain/sell it to customers.

[Smallaxe]

I don't think, nor was I implying, that you or, hopefully, anyone on this thread feels that organic is inferior to synthetic. I also think I have a handle on many of the people that are extremists on this thread, and they do offer a ton of great information, I just don't bother getting into a pissing match with them because they are very much set in their ways.

I personally feel that there is no reason why a lawn shouldn't be maintained organically, it is the expectation management that is the hard part. Especially due to the fact that turf is not a necessity. However, I do feel that in a catastrophic situation, if you have to eradicate a large problem, it is easier, and possibly better, to hit the problem hard once, and rebuild the herd, than it is to allow the turf to fail, and have to totally renovate.

I think I have a decent understanding of the natural process, not in depth, but certainly more than a general understanding, and I can explain/sell it to customers.

My statement, was only addressing, the belief of a 95% lawn, in comparison to the status quo, lawn, assuming, they are the 100% standard.
My comment was to emphasize that organic/natural turf, goes far beyond that artificial standard to 150% or better.

No pissing contest... :)

[OrganicsMaine]

My statement, was only addressing, the belief of a 95% lawn, in comparison to the status quo, lawn, assuming, they are the 100% standard.
My comment was to emphasize that organic/natural turf, goes far beyond that artificial standard to 150% or better.

No pissing contest... :)

Gotcha, agreed!:waving:

[Tim Wilson]

"My question is.. where does the heat source come from to 'cook' the brew?"

From the methane digester of course. There are lots of small farms in places like India using simple methane digesters for cooking fuel so it is not difficult.

[Tim Wilson]

Quack, I'm not planning on commenting until I read the links you posted. I answer lots of emails from around the world everyday so my time is cramped.

[Tim Wilson]

A lot... if your boiling an acres worth of cattails... Get a windmill... and run on air pressure...

Good idea. Don't forget the cattails are not just for fuel and are not the only source for fuel. Because the cattails can be classed as part of a sewage filtration system they don't qualify as a natural wetlands. (if you even care to notify the powers that be; I wouldn't unless mandated)

[Kiril]

No one bothered to read the studies I linked

A mini-review of quack's references.

Given quack's claim that an all organic system can't work, and it can't produce similar or better yields to a mixed (INM) system, the references will be rated as follows,

Link to reference


Journal Publication: Yes/No - (If applicable, Journal name & note if not peer reviewed)

Review of Study: Quick review of study

Additional Comments: Further comments if needed

Relevant to Discussion: Yes/No with a reason



So we begin.


http://www.tropentag.de/2007/abstracts/full/486.pdf


Journal Publication: No

Review of Study: 3 year study looking at legume cover crop used for fallow rotation. Two all organic treatments with use of FYM & fallow legume cover crop, however no inorganic + organic treatment. Results demonstrate cover crop + FYM are best combination for improving soil properties. Study shows no statistical difference in yield when comparing FYM to synthetic inputs when used with fallow legume cover crop. In fact, a numerical comparison of yields show both FYM + cover crop treatments gave higher yields with higher protein content than all synthetic + cover crop and synthetic only treatments.

Additional Comments:No support for quacks argument. In fact, shows the opposite results of what quack has claimed here. The all organic system produced higher yield with higher protein content. Support for the use of a legume cover crop is clear.

Relevant to Discussion: Yes. Support for the viability of an all organic solution has been provided. Thanks quack.



http://www.kari.org/publications/10thproceedings/Poster/Integ_Nut_MgtStrategies.pdf


Journal Publication: No

Review of Study: 2 year study .... Another study supporting use of legume cover crops. Shows fertilizer + legume cover crop can be an effective means for mitigating nutrient poor soils with good yield. There was no all organic treatment in the study.

Additional Comments: If anything was demonstrated here, it was the effectiveness of cover crops.

Relevant to Discussion: NO - Did not have an all organic treatment.



http://www.lei.dlo.nl/inmasp/files/4f7f2dcf65f3e43786d778edd21e1aa4.pdf
http://www.lei.dlo.nl/inmasp/files/19b41d8dc1ca25c5b02a1fa46c107697.pdf


Journal Publication: No

Review of Study: A progress report, 1 year and 2 year (second reference combined first year report and second year) of a farming school (FFS). An all organic (FYM) and combination of FYM and synthetics was compared.

Note the following for the first year report:

"Crop yields were interfered with by non -experimental variables before harvest (theft
and destruction by livestock). The yields of the crop stands at the time of harvesting
are shown in Table 3. However, due to these non-experimental variables, the yields
were standardized to the expected plant population that would have been expected
in each plot according to the methods suggested by Hilderbrand (1985). The
standardized yields were used to gauge the impacts of treatments on agro-economic
performance of maize (Table 4).".

Given this, yield numbers, and any findings based on those numbers, are essentially worthless, and IMO this study is now invalid with respect to yield measurement given standardized yields were used instead of true yields.

Additional Comments: This is the first references that quack has provided that has relevance to his claims. Problem is, with respect to this discussion, the study cannot be trusted, and as much is admitted by the authors.

"During the discussions on new round of trials, farmers suggested to repeat the same
set of trials, but in a different location. Their reasoning was that this would improve
the chance of getting harvest, which would not be affected by non-experimental
variables. Early planting was also suggested to be done so that the performance of
test crop, maize, would be easily compared with other maize crops planted in the
surrounding farms."

Relevant to Discussion: NO. Poorly designed study and presentation of results. Due to reasons noted above, conclusions drawn on yield cannot be trusted. The experiment with regard to yield needs to be conducted again, and provide protection for the crop to avoid interference with results. Furthermore, I think the first sentence of the conclusion pretty much sums up the purpose of the report.

"This study has shown that there is a potential to use FFS platform to promote and to
develop Integrated Nutrient Management technologies and practices."

One additional note .... once again, support for use of a cover crop is shown.





http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2008.153.159
http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2008.153.159 (duplicate link provided by quack)



Journal Publication: Yes - Asian Journal of Scientific Research

Review of Study: 2 year study looking at crop geometry, inter-cropping and INM. No all organic treatments.

Additional Comments: Poultry and goat manure seem to be the better organic amendment. Data shows a slight edge for better yield/quality with the addition of organic manures (poultry and goat) over FYM, and all treatments with organic amendments performed better than the all synthetic treatment. No significant loss to primary crop yield as a result of inter-cropping was also noted.

Relevant to Discussion: NO. No all organic treatment.



http://203.129.218.157/ojs/index.php/kjas/article/viewFile/304/291


Journal Publication: Yes Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences (note: does not appear to be a peer reviewed journal)

Review of Study: 2 year field study using various organic amendments with synthetics. No all organic treatment once again.

Additional Comments: Another study that demonstrates the value of organic inputs. Slight edge to castor cake as the better organic input.

Relevant to Discussion: NO. No all organic treatment.




http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1064107030-383193/content~db=all~content=a903734529


Journal Publication: Yes - Journal of Sustainable Agriculture (does not appear to be peer reviewed)

Review of Study: Abstract review only. 3 year study of organic manures & synthetics. No all organic treatment.

Additional Comments: Once again, proof for the value of organic amendments is shown.

Relevant to Discussion: NO. No all organic treatment.




http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18797008


Journal Publication: Yes - Plant and Soil

Review of Study: Abstract review only. 4 year study of synthetics with cover crop. No all organic treatment. Positive results shown with use of a legume cover crop.

Additional Comments: Once again, proof for the value of cover crops (specifically intercropping here) is shown.

Relevant to Discussion: NO. No all organic treatment.



http://www.jtropag.in/index.php/ojs/article/viewFile/153/147


Relevant to Discussion: NO. Link doesn't work.




http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=820_43
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=820_43 (another duplicate link)


Journal Publication: No

Review of Study: Abstract review only. 4 year study regarding use of Azospirillum inoculation and/or VAM with 100% and 50% recommended rates of synthetics on flowering. No all organic treatment. Positive results shown with combined use of Azospirillum inoculation and VAM.

Additional Comments: Improved flowering seen with use of microbial inoculations. No comment on yield or treatments with organic sources of nutrients

Relevant to Discussion: NO. No all organic treatment.




http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20712101/Effect-of-organic-and-inorganic-nitrogen-fertilizer-on-wheat


Journal Publication: Yes - Journal of Applied Sciences Research (does not appear to be peer reviewed)

Review of Study: At last, a reference with an all organic treatment. A 2 year study (insufficient to study an all organic system) .... too bad the study is more about irrigation than fertilizers. Anyhow ... the study clearly shows the benefit of organic amendments on soil physical properties, the best results coming from the organic only treatments.

Additional Comments: As noted by myself, and the authors, 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the impact of transitioning from conventional to organic system on yield.

Relevant to Discussion: Yes. Provides support for positive influence of organic amendments on soil physical properties. Also provides support for bridge programs when transitioning to an all organic system .... which BTW as stated on many occasions, is a transitioning method I support.




http://orgprints.org/8267/1/gosling_shepherd_Theory_soil__fertility.pdf


Journal Publication: No

Review of Study: This "study" is a joke and has no relevance to this discussion. There is a very good reason why this has not been published.

Additional Comments: For those of you looking for a good example of "junk science", here it is.

Relevant to Discussion: NO .... and you should be seriously embarrassed for even linking this "reference".




So what say you quack? I have reviewed all of your "valid" references and they do not support your claims. In fact, only one study even comes close to supporting your claims, but yet .... not quite there.

Let's review. None of the valid references presented lend any support to quacks claims that an all organic solution cannot produce comparable yield to conventional or mixed input systems. In fact, many of the references instead provide more support for use of cover crops and organics inputs than for mixed input systems.

The only walk-away conclusion from these references is the addition of organics and/or covers crops can provide better overall system performance when compared to all synthetic treatments.

No support for the claims that an all organic solution is impossible has been provided.

[Kiril]

With respect to the rest of quacks opinionated soap box rant ... this discussion was not a result of anyone claiming mixed input systems don't work, or can't work, but rather your uninformed position that an all organic solution can't work. And up to this point, you have provided NO evidence to support that assertion. In fact, in the only thing you have done here is provide evidence supporting mixed input (low-input, INM, call it whatever you want) over conventional systems ..... which IMO is a no brainer.

[quackgrass]

With respect to the rest of quacks opinionated soap box rant ... this discussion was not a result of anyone claiming mixed input systems don't work, or can't work, but rather your uninformed position that an all organic solution can't work. And up to this point, you have provided NO evidence to support that assertion. In fact, in the only thing you have done here is provide evidence supporting mixed input (low-input, INM, call it whatever you want) over conventional systems ..... which IMO is a no brainer.

I did show it, then you denied the conclusions of each study and contradicted the content and results that the researchers came to.

More importantly, history has already shown what organic only farming is capable of. History also showed us what food production and population did with the advent of synthetics.

You haven't brought anything new to the table that millions of farmers haven't already done. You do not have enough hands on experience using both forms of nutrients so you hold on to what you want it to be, instead of what it is. You'll keep denying any science that contradicts you, while turning any garbage into scripture.

The raw physics make your way impossible, but I don't think you really care. You are a fanatic priest of the organic only religion so nothing will open your mind.

[Kiril]

I did show it, then you denied the conclusions of each study and contradicted the content and results that the researchers came to.

Well, obviously the difference here is I actually read the provided "references" that were "valid" (i.e.not opinions) and you didn't. Furthermore, I didn't "deny the conclusions" at all. Next time you reference something you might want to actually read and understand the study before you reference it. But heh .... nice attempt at trying to draw attention away from your seriously lacking "support" for your position.

You haven't brought anything new to the table that millions of farmers haven't already done. You do not have enough hands on experience using both forms of nutrients so you hold on to what you want it to be, instead of what it is. You'll keep denying any science that contradicts you, while turning any garbage into scripture.

Actually quack ... I am not denying anything, nor have I made a statement I can't support. I never said a mixed input system won't work, nor did I say mixed input system can't provide higher yields. My "position" here is 100% about your claim that an all organic system can't work .... nothing more .... nothing less.

You see, that is the difference between you and me. I make sure I have valid and credible references before I make definitive statements. It is you who have made statements you cannot support. This whole discussion now is about your statements that an all organic solution can't work. Either you can support those statements with credible publications or you can't .... simple as that. FYI .... your opinionated rants are doing you absolutely no good.

The raw physics make your way impossible, but I don't think you really care. You are a fanatic priest of the organic only religion so nothing will open your mind.

ROFL ..... like JD, when presented with a logical review of your statements, you resort to personal insults that, once again, you cannot substantiate.

BTW .... thanks for checking out the publications I provided. You might want to avoid them .... because they will only serve to shed light on your ignorance.

[JDUtah]

"My question is.. where does the heat source come from to 'cook' the brew?"

From the methane digester of course. There are lots of small farms in places like India using simple methane digesters for cooking fuel so it is not difficult.

http://www.habmigern2003.info/biogas/methane-digester.html

[Tim Wilson]

Thanks David; I really think you will get there and beyond. Feel free to keep on looking up all the other 'fantasy' stuff. The one link I provided is for a book all about building digesters, etc. I have a copy that I traded my DVD to the author for. Also there are plans for a still.

[Tim Wilson]

I should add that diesel engines run on methane with a simple conversion but this is only cheap for stationary diesels because compressing the gas for mobile units is very expensive. Anybody young enough; there is a tremendous future in designing and retrofitting farm tractors powered by electrics which are charged up by various on farm fuel/solar/wind/water-sourced generators.

[JDUtah]

Thanks Tim. I am a little ways off before I start playing with anything like those. But they sure are catching my interest! Do you or anyone know if anaerobic decomposition of vegetable matter will decompose 'cides more or less efficently than aerobic decomposition?