On biodynamic and seaweed application, it would seem to me that the actual
and intended effect is less in provision of micronutrients than in
stimulation of 'soil life' - to use an expression to capture a lot of
things, without a list, also to suggest that the whole of soil life might be
more than the sum of the parts (see below). And that thus these are
potentially beneficial in terms of the increase in soil nutrient and mineral
quality.
I agree with Bart's comment on absolute depletion of some elements. In
Australia, the ubiquitously low level of phosphorus, for geological reasons,
is reflected in the altered ATP processes in Eucalyptus trees; and in a
century and more of grazing, much phosphorus has departed in wool bales, as
well as in grain and meat. No wonder in such circumstances the arrival of
superphosphate produced miracles. And 'super' is still an article of faith,
despite hard pan effects, lowering of pH and evidence that there is a pretty
quick lock up of the fertiliser. Heavy (calcium) liming to adjust declining
pH is no doubt altering availabilities of a number of elements, especially
Mg, which may be [I speculate] another factor contributing to the rise of
osteoporosis. Widespread use of superphosphate has also produced widespread
dieback in native plants, including Eucalypts, which eventually comes back
to bite the farmer as tree losses raise water tables. There are limits to
which the basic factors of geology and climate can be disregarded for the
sake of growing exotic plants.
Bart is not attracted to the use of sewage, but it seems to me that there
needs to be public policy development, in the first instance to encourage
the redevelopment of sewage systems (a big need in many cities anyway), over
time (a period relevant to the decline in phosphate rock reserves), to
ensure separation of potentially toxic chemical waste streams from
recyclable sewage.
I do know some organic vegetable farmers who keep pigeons - let loose during
the day to forage - to collect high phosphate droppings to add to compost.
Pigeons require a diet around 27% protein. Their droppings, in my
experience, will eat paint on a Ford more quickly than anything else.
I added the word nutrient back into the title, because I think it important
to have regard for the manner in which a healthy, colloidal soil provides
minerals in molecular form to the plant, rather than simply as ions of
elements. We can look on the ways this stuff gets into plants as dumb or
smart processes. If you put enough soluble ions around a plant root yes,
sure, poisonous or nutritious, they are likely to be taken up - a dumb
process. But I suspect that much smarter processes are at work in molecular
transfers between roots and a healthy environment and these are what is
critical.
I have been trying to find my copy of Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All
Directions, Penguin 1990 [still in print] which has a useful review, chapter
4, of the debate, as regards the origins of life, on the issue of whether
'the cell', protein or RNA came first. The current overwhelming
preoccupation of biology is on genes, but there is quite a case for arguing
that the cell and protein may come first. Whereas the 'origins of life' hunt
is carried out mainly in geology, it seems to me that a whole lot of it is
happening all the time under our noses in the soil, particularly in the
formation of coacervates associated with clay microcrystals. I agree with
Ronald that this ain't magic, unless you define magic as biological
processes which, for lack of understanding, some people prefer to give
supernatural explanation. Carl Lindgren discusses the coacervate issue in
'Cold War in Biology', Ann Arbor, 1966.
So, I think it is important to think not only about assays of elements, or
the idea of
"deep rooted plants to bring them up again from the subsoil and deposit them
in the top soil in leaf litter and other residues" [Nigh]
It may have not been Ronald's intention for this to sound a mechanical
process, but it can be read that way if we don't get a focus on the
intensity of soil activity.
Also the additive accounting view of elements requires me to quote again the
Nobel Prize winning physiologist, Szent-Gyorgi:
"One particle, plus one particle, put together at random, are two particles,
1+1=2; the system is additive. But if two particles are put together in a
meaningful way then something new is born which is more than their sum:
1+1>2. This is the most basic equation of biology. It can also be called
organisation."
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Bioelectronics: A Study in Cellular Regulations,
Defense, and Cancer, Academic Press New York, 1968, p4.
Unless we regard the matter of mineral management as organisational rather
than additive we are likely to treat plants the soil and plants
disruptively.
Ronald and Steve offer the anecdotal evidence of smarter animals knowing the
good from the bad. They are talking about mammals. But what about insects?
The evidence of observation is that insects are attracted to the
nutritionally deficient. Some fresh observations: I have recently been
pruning citrus trees neglected for several years. These have been attacked
by leaf miners and by borers. I am struck by the nifty way that the leaf
miners trimmed the top and edges and by the way the borers have ring-barked
the trees where I thought it sage to prune - some of the borer work was
obvious with leaves yellowing, but in some cases the borer work was very
recent, no die back apparent, and as I reached in with the pruners,
exercising my big-front-brain genius, there was the saw-dusty ring-barking
where I planned to cut. Fukuoka, in one Straw Revolution, notes the pruning
and thinning effect of one particular rice pest, and observes that leaving
that pest in the rice field actually increases crop yield - he emphasises
the selection of stronger plants in the process and the provision of more
light and better heading to plants, but there would seem also to be a prompt
sheet composting effect of both vegetable and insect wastes..
So, presence of insect pests (I am not talking of grasshopper plagues,
though there are broader management issues no doubt there) represent both
signs of nutritional deficit, and adjustment requirements for the plant. So,
another bag, another dollar? My point is that there are ways of seeking to
minimise inputs to the farm, and that these should come first, and that
where there are inputs they should be soil nutritional rather than either
force feeding or allopathic in effect. And I suggest that for the long term
the focus ought to be on recycling the losses from the farm. Put all those
odd wool socks in the compost, unwashed, perhaps, to hasten degradation.
Which, of course, raises the entirely irrelevant but nonetheless intriguing
question: why are all odd socks clean?
Dennis
[maybe if I put my tongue in my cheek earlier in the message I might bite it
sooner...]
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail