-------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence F. London, Jr. - london@sunSITE.unc.edu
http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london/Information_By_Topic.html
http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london/permaculture.html
-------------------------------------------------------
[Save everything below the ":" as a file then call it as a folder
in your mail reader to view the concatenated mail articles individually]
:
>From cbannon@cce.cornell.edu Mon Feb 27 17:46:05 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:34:59 -0500 (EST)
>From: Carl Bannon <cbannon@cce.cornell.edu>
To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca>
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Describing N behavior
Hi,
Sorry about getting into this conversation late. I was suprised to hear
that research on N behavior in some institutions would like to dis-regard
organic N because of its inherent complexities. Our research and
extension programs have focused on using organic N to its greatest
potential and minimizing fertilizer N. This is mostly because we are a
major dairy state that where alfalfa and corn rotations are dominant
cropping systems and manure is a problem in many situation because of
nutrient excesses in dairy farms. This approach seems to be the focus of
most soil fertility research in dairy producing states.
While the PSNT (pre-sidedress nitrogen test) for corn is not a substitute for
poor soil or manure management it can help in nitrogen use decision making.
In fact demonstratin the PSNT on 111 fields here in Central NY has resulted
in a 50% decrease in N fertilizer use. The economic savings averaged over
a $100 in fertilizer savings per PSNT taken, along with the environmental
benifit. No their are not percise N applications that coincide with a
given PSNT value but it can help make sense out of the complex N system
that Nancy describes.
I also agree that we need to examine cropping systems that more
efficiently recycle N and reduce soil loss, ie grasslands ag. But those
of us in extension need to work with farmers within their present
situation and goals and many times this involves corn silage and a lot of
manure.
Carl Bannon
Area Field Crops Specialist
Cornell Cooperative Extension
60 Central Avenue
PO Box 5590
Cortland, NY 13045
(607) 753-5077
cbannon@cce.cornell.edu
>From thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Mon Feb 27 17:47:05 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:54:27 GMT
>From: Hodges <thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: sustag-public@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: USA Farm Bill (long)
There are plans in the US Congress (sorry non-US netters) to cut
agricultural research as part of the Contract with America. Programs
may be eliminated or greatly reduced if the suggested $80 million in
cuts are carried out. Whether this will be good for the US and the
world will, of course, depend on the details. How much and where.
It is my opinion, as an agronomist and scientist, that research
programs leading to better understanding of the interactions among
physical/biological/chemical components of agricultural systems are
vital to getting to sustainable agriculture in the future, as we
don't know enough about these interactions. Much past research was
done within disciplines so that factors or processes were looked at
in isolation from most other components of a crop system. Example
research questions would be "how many grams/hectare of Monitor are
needed to kill 99.9% of Colorado potato beetle in a potato field
during a humid period in July in Idaho" or "how does grain yield of
Pioneer 3370 hybrid corn change with increasing N application on a
silt loam in Eastern Nebraska with irrigation".
Rather we need more emphasis on "Systems Research" where we ask how
a process of interest will respond to many aspects of the environment.
Examples are 1) What are the factors controlling transformation of
nitrogen in the soil between its various mineral (NH4+, NO3-) and
organic forms, how does carbon:nitrogen ratio of soil organic material
affect such transformations, how is that modulated by soil moisture/
temperature/microbe population. Then how can we manage crops, crop
residues, tillage operations, and water and chemical applications so
that soluable nitrogen (NO3-) is not present in high concentrations
when water is moving down through the soil.
2) Study the life cycle of an insect, identify critical points and
what management actions can be done at those points to control/reduce
its effects. I.e. introduce predator insects, don't kill predators
by spraying when they are vulnerable, maintain habitat for predators
in or around crop fields, introduce diseases and parasites, etc. An
excellent understanding of the life cycles of several insect species
is needed to develop these control measures so that we know that
they are effective and economical and can be tailored to a wide range
of environmental situations.
Currently these kinds of systems are developed by individual farmers
by inefficient trial and error methods, with unlucky operators going
bankrupt when their trials fail badly.
Anyway if you want to express yourselves about agricultural research
and sustainable agriculture, this is a critical time to telephone,
write, or fax your House and Senate representatives.
Does anyone know where to find such address/phone/email information
on the Internet?
Apologies for the length, especially to those outside the US,
Tom
Tom Hodges, Cropping Systems Modeler
USDA-ARS email: thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Rt. 2, Box 2953-A voice: 509-786-9207
Prosser, WA 99350 USA Fax: 509-786-9370
== ## Rent this space ## ==
If this represents anything, it is only my opinion.
.
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Mar 24 11:11:15 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:24:30 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: re: soils for class presentation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:27:59 EST
>From: WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: re: soils for class presentation
You may wish to check out Vol. 7, No. 1-2 of American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture (1992), which devoted a double issue to the subject of soil
quality. This is closely related to what you inquired about. The issue has
10 articles by a distinguished international panel of authors, and addresses
most aspects of the topic, including soil organisms (both microorganisms and
invertebrates), physical and chemical soil characteristics, management
effects, and so forth.
William Lockeretz
P.S. In the interest of full disclosure in this ethics-conscious era, to
avoid apperanace of conflict-of-interest I should mention that I am technical
editor of the journal that published that exhaustive, definitive and
exceptionally well-done treatment of the subject.
>From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA Fri Mar 24 11:20:02 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:57:06 EDT
>From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural
Responding to Dick R. on the issue of composting. Just curious about
the comment that it is better if composting occurs in the soil. Just
finished an M.Sc. student doing a study on composting and we didn't
come across this idea in the lit. I'd be interested in learning what
it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil -
as against ahead of time. Evidence from the literature?
Conventional organic wisdom hereabouts sees placement of raw manure
directly into the soil as a net negative, because of a) rapid release
of N which destabilizes cycling, b) VFA's which can be caustic, and
c) potential for anaerobic decomposition when high moisture substrate
(whether animal manure or direct cut red clover) is plowed into the
soil. As an example, they recommend cutting and wilting red clover
plowdown before plowing it in, to avoid this problem.
Good points on "waste" management at landfills! Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
>From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Fri Mar 24 11:36:06 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:02:26 -0500 (EST)
>From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: Sanet List <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Soil Quality Ref.
Here is a publication on Soil Qualtity, sorry if it duplicates
a pervious post.
Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment
SSSA Special Publication Number 35
ISBN 0-89118,807-X
$32 from
SSSA,ASA Headquarters Office
Attn: Book Order Department
677 South Segoe Rd.
Madison Wisconsin 53711-1086
>From fmagdoff@moose.uvm.edu Fri Mar 24 11:45:09 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 06:58:48 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Frederick R. Magdoff" <fmagdoff@moose.uvm.edu>
To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca>
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural
Ann,
The issue of composting vs. adding directly to the soil is an
interesting one and there is at least one article that discusses some of
the chemical differences (Chromec, FW, and FR Magdoff. 1984. Alternative
methods for using organic materials: Composting vs. adding directly to
soil. J. Environ. Sci. and Health 19:697-711). However, it is an area
that could use some more work.
FRED
Fred Magdoff
tel:802-656-0472
fax:802-656-4656
>From hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Fri Mar 24 11:46:07 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:02:18 CST
>From: Thomas Hansmeyer <hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: HUMUS (fwd)
I operate under the assumption that native soil levels were much higher
than the current averages, so that some of the atmospheric CO2 which
stimulates the global warming debate was once in the form of soil
carbon. It seems rather ludicrous to debate whether or not we
"should" decrease atmospheric CO2 in order to increase soil humus
levels. Many of the forgotten pages of debate over atmospheric warming
deal with "carbon banks" such as the biosphere and humusphere as "sinks"
which are capable of reducing global CO2.
My concerns were not directly related to the benefit or detriment of
placing more atmospheric carbon into the "humusphere/soil". In fact, I
think the majority would agree that to remove carbon from the atmosphere,
banking it in the soil, would only benefit all cylces involved. My main
concern is to assert that one could build soil organic carbon by 13% in
10 years without importing carbon from an off-farm source. I am totally
in agreement that those off-farm sources of carbon should be cycled back
through the soil. The merits of the Luebke soil management system was
partially based on their ability to increase organic matter. I felt that
more information was needed regarding the source of their carbon and scale
of operation. To increase the soil organic matter of 200 acres by
promoting soil life and crop rotation is much different than a heavily
managed garden.
The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments
HH> with the local village to use the carbon, in the form of organic
HH> waste, as a cost effective amendment to their soil. Would all
HH> farmers need to compete for these contracts, or could the carbon be
HH> produced on-farm.
If you are looking at the long term mass balance of available carbon
such as residuals from the public sector, I am afraid that the volume of
organic material landfilled, about one wet ton per capita, is inadequate
for the demand of our acreages of soil needing organic matter. It is
doubtful that even half of the landfilled organic waste can be recovered
into a usable form without carrying with it all manner of pollutants and
undesirable particulates. The composting process itself converts up to
1/3 of its volume into heat and CO2, so even 50 million tons of organic
matter to be recovered annually is a liberal estimate.
My numbers may be off, but it is my understanding that we have upwards
of 350 million acres of farmland, so this represents about 1/7th of a
ton per acre. Sustainable compost demand would be more in the 5 to 10
tons per acre annual range. To bring soil humus up to ambient, which I
claim is a sustainable level, would require upwards of 200 tons per
acre. This represents a "topsoil debt" as high as 7 trillion tons of
compost.
Focusing on recovering the wasted organic fraction which is
thoughtlessly landfilled seems a reasonable place to begin development
of a carbon management infrastructure in modern agriculture. This
material is capable of being subsidized in the form of transportation,
landfill and disposal fees whereas on-farm organics must pay their own
way. I look at diverting urban organic matter from landfills to farms
as an important first, and more than symbolic step toward increased
interdependence between agricultural producers and consumers.
But you are correct, Thomas, in pointing out that ultimately farms must
eventually be responsible for their own carbon debt and annual carbon
requirement. This may occur within various bio-regions where certain
farms might become biomass cultivators capable of supplying the carbon
requirements for farms within their region. But unless our mentality
concerning renewable carbon gets some infusions of entepreneurism, the
fossil carbon commodity infrastructure will continue to supply the
chemical dependency addiction with few compunctions.
I am intrigued by the discussion related to types of microbes and other
means of determining the organic fertility of a soil. I would add to
the discussion some questions concerning phosphorus limits which are
increasingly becoming an environmental driver (revenue source) related
to non point water pollution.
The synergistic interactions of a healthy soil ecosystem including
microbes, fungi, earthworms, and the various other organisms which
thrive in a healthy humusphere may have values related to soil tilth,
water holding capacity, pH buffering, nutrient availability, and cost of
tillage. Unknown or currently unquantified values such as growth
hormones, pheromes, anti-biotics, disease suppression, and pest
retardation may be unexpected but indicated assets resulting from humus
rich environments.
In summary, other values of humus such as water quality, energy, waste
disposal, and atmospheric warming might increasingly become economic
levers in which to wean agriculture from the dependency on fossil carbon
and help make the transition to renewable carbon based farming. To me,
the focus on renewable carbon should be at the heart of the sustainable
agriculture debate.
Mr Compost~~~
Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
* RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil?
------------------============<>=============-----------------
Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
--
Thomas Hansmeyer
St. Paul MN
hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>From d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu Fri Mar 24 21:00:17 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 18:18:02 -0600
>From: Dick Richardson <d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu>
To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca>
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural
Ann, you pose the question:
I'd be interested in learning what
>it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil -
> as against ahead of time. Evidence from the literature?
The direction I'm speaking about in management of manure may be different
in the "north country" where you're working. I'm referring to the role of
dung beetles, earthworms, and such. The dung beetles can bury 6000 lbs
fresh manure per acre per day, from the estimates of Walt Davis, a
colleague in southern Oklahoma, when he begins managing his livestock to
avoid poisoning the invertebrates in the soil -- grazing plans that break
lifecycles of parasites without pesticides -- and the dung beetle
populations build up as the soil temperature reaches 50 degrees F or
thereabouts. There are no piles of manure after two days! The result is
that the soil health and vegetation really jump, and toxicity is not found.
We also tested raw sewage and the dung beetles went for it with great
vigor, but the treated sewage (biosolids) was not palatable. This is no
surprise, since the treatments required for "health reasons" are partly for
reduction of smell and attraction of flies. For treatment of sewage, most
of the proteins have been converted to ammonia, and the same loss holds for
readily available carbon. Further, composting causes a net loss of organic
matter that soil organisms can use, but the organisms have to be present in
the soil in suitable numbers and have conditions favorable for matching
their growth and utilization with the amounts of uncomposted materials
applied. This requires good management, matching the supply with the
demand, so to speak.
If we look at the sewage as microbial and invertebrate food, and we are
trying to increase these populations in the soil, then there surely will be
some balances needed to avoid over-doing the application, which you pointed
out. If we dump even good stuff on at the wrong time or in the wrong
amounts, then we certainly can expect problems. The direct metering out by
livestock as they are grazing helps stay "within the window". Bringing
urban equivalents to the rural sites doesn't have such a built-in meter.
In Austin we have had land applications of biosolids for several years, and
other locations, such as near St. Paul, MN have injected biosolids before
de-watering. It's been fine for corn and great for the land in general.
However, it seems to me that the key is blending the return process of such
resources into the needs of the soil organisms.
In another recent post, Karen Grobe commented
"... All farmland should not receive compost. Some farmland is used to
produce cattle, and it would not be appropriate to use compost ... on
grazing land."
I would disagree to the point that sometimes compost (or biosolids) may be
needed to "jump start" to get grazing land into a good state of health.
The importance for the soil health may be less in terms of the production
of "food" products than in the fact that it is watershed. If land managers
are able to increase infiltration rates and water holding capacity
sufficiently, we see springs return to perennial flows, and watertables
high enough to maintain perennial vegetation (grasses and others) in
healthy states even during drouth conditions. However, if properly
managed, grazing land (pasture or rangeland) seems capable of improving and
remaining healthy through the recycling of organic matter from the
livestock alone. Certain minerals in certain soils, however, may be
another matter.
R. H. (Dick) Richardson Office: 512-471-4128
Zoology Dept. Home: 512-476-5131
Univ. of Texas FAX: 512-471-9651
Austin, TX 78712
>From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA Sat Mar 25 09:48:27 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 03:30:57 EDT
>From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be
Dick: thanks for your usual insightful response.
I had heard about dung beetles etc. from Australia and the southern
US, and I very clearly recall an undergrad field trip (this is from
several centuries ago when I **was** an undergrad) at UC Davis to a
tomato processing plant that was irrigating their wastewater onto a
nearby hayfield which had been "seeded" with specific microbes to
break down and clean up the water sufficiently for it to drain into
municipal tiles. The notion that the soil can and should be managed
to accept/process/cycle the "returns" from human ingestion is valid
and appropriate.
What I am not clear on is how doing this in situ, in the field, is
more advantageous than doing it in a compost windrow on an organic
dairy or beef farm. I am trying to recall a study reported by
Herbert Koepf (biodynamic, German, most recently with the Michael
Fields Institute) when he came up and spoke here several years ago.
If recollection serves, the study involved the same quantity of
manure, land applied in two ways - one as raw manure and the other
after composting. Composting lost about half of the C and N, I
think, prior to land application, which is typical. I don't recall
for how many years this was done. But the take home message was the
the soil was "healthier" - in various measured parameters - when the
manure had been applied composted rather than raw. I think this
included soil OM, but can't remember what all else, or when it was
measured.
Koepf's composted manure had, I think, been treated with a
biodynamic preparation as well. I recall another most amazing study,
Swedish I think, that tested the effect of the biodynamic preparation
on composting and soil quality thereafter. It was an old paper, and
unreplicated I think, but surprisingly to me, the biodynamic
preparation did something distinctly different than other treatments.
It was a soil study, and involved detailed measurements at multiple
locations within unreplicated plots.
The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the
composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil
improving properties of livestock manure. As noted by one respondant
in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research,
because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and
economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the
field. It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits
outweigh the pre-application benefits. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
>From benbrook@hillnet.com Sat Mar 25 09:50:13 1995
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:30:01 -0800 (PST)
>From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
To: sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Another Question re Soil Quality
I must say I am impressed with the recent dialogue/exchanges re soil
quality and am learning a lot. But to inspire you all to rise to the
occassion of educating those of us trained in the less than relevant
disciplines, I have a basic question. Is the amount of carbon in the
world fixed? Do humans simple move it around by what they do with
biomass and soils? How is carbon different from nitrogen?
I would welcome some general discussion of carbon,
supply-uses-balances-fluxes, and how these are impacted by agricultural
management practices.
I have been spending serious chunks of time in recent days
writing re soil quality and its importance in protecting water quality
and in assuring a sustainable, profitable, fulfilling future for American
agriculture, and society as a whole. I need to understand carbon better
to take my discussions to the next level.
>From d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu Sat Mar 25 21:06:14 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:13:25 -0600
>From: Dick Richardson <d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be
Ann, you've nailed the issue!
> The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the
>composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil
>improving properties of livestock manure. As noted by one respondant
>in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research,
>because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and
>economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the
>field. It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits
>outweigh the pre-application benefits. Ann
I find that what I think is "healthy soil" is probably a long way from what
"healthy" potentially can mean. Therefore, I claim at least 95% ignorance
on what the advantages/disadvantages of composting are for general
recommendations. the research is needed, for sure. Furthermore, in the
meantime, just clear thinking, careful observations, and trial and error
are the way's I'm TRYING to proceed. For my contexts, formal research is
too resource demanding to try on these questions, so I'll join the cheering
section for those who can do it. In my practice, I'm composting, and
letting the cattle directly apply manure. I use the compost in the "bad
spots" to the extent I have it. (VERY limited quantities are available to
me at present, but I'm hoping to get the local towns to give me the chipped
tree clippings rather than put them in the land fill. Chipping is too
expensive if I have to pay for it.)
I wonder if the feeding of antibiotics to livestock is related to the
improvement seen in composting. This gives a chance for recovery of the
microbial community if it has been modified by the antibiotics.
R. H. (Dick) Richardson Office: 512-471-4128
Zoology Dept. Home: 512-476-5131
Univ. of Texas FAX: 512-471-9651
Austin, TX 78712
>From jxl161@email.psu.edu Mon Mar 27 21:34:21 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:38:28 -0500
>From: Jeannie Leggett <jxl161@email.psu.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
At 10:30 PM 3/24/95 -0800, Charles Benbrook wrote:
>I have a basic question. Is the amount of carbon in the
>world fixed? Do humans simple move it around by what they do with
>biomass and soils? How is carbon different from nitrogen?
I suggest that you read a basic book on soil microbiology, such as
"Introduction to Soil Microbiology" by Martin Alexander. It has a chapter
on the carbon cycle and a chapter on the nitrogen cycle, as well as an
overview of the soil environment. It is basic enough to understand with
little or no biology background. Good Luck.
Jeannie Leggett
246 Agricultural Engineering Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-7710
FAX (814)863-1031
>From iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk Wed Mar 29 23:15:59 EST 1995
>From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural
Date: 27 Mar 1995 18:31:10 GMT
Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Ed
ucation.
Dick Richardson (d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Composting is fine, and avoids lots of problems that have regulations tied
: to them, but actually, it's even better if the composting occurs in the
: soil. Lots of benefits are lost in having the composting first as a
: "treatment" of the organic materials in order then to produce a soil
: amendment. The microbes in the compost pile are also needed in the soil.
The way of nature is composting on the topsoil (sheet composting). If you
bring down compostable material in the soil, it may harm the soil, because
the process could go anaerobic. The products from such a process
(fermentation) are not good for a soil and are harmful to the crop.
Remember that composting is strictly an aerobic process. I think that
composting for agricultural purposes should be done in controlled piles,
and the products spread on the topsoil.
Sheet composting on the topsoil is allright, but inefficient.
The microbes that are responsible for the composting process in a pile
are not the same microbes, as those that inhabit the soil. I don't
believe, that is a need or use for bringing special microbes to the soil.
The soil breeds it's own microbes.
Kind regards,
Torsten Brinch
--
;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';
; Torsten Brinch If you understand nothing but chemistry, ;
; iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk you do not really understand chemistry. ;
; 6640, Ferup, Denmark G.C. Lichtenberg (1742-1799) ;
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;
>From houghten@chdasic.sps.mot.com Thu Mar 2 00:54:21 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 09:14:07 MST
>From: Jon Houghten <houghten@chdasic.sps.mot.com>
Reply to: agenvir-l@pentagon.io.com
To: agenvir-l@pentagon.io.com
Subject: Re: How to create a sustainable agriculture?
I feel that organic methods are sustainable agriculture. Perhaps we should con
sult the farms that are already doing this on a large scale. I believe one is
arrowhead mills. Other farms, (i.e. Piedmont - CO) are also doing large scale
organic farming.
I recently visited an organic farm on Kauai (Hawaii). At one time, they receiv
ed 24 inches of rain in less than 2 days. This farm was able to market their g
oods the following week while modern farms had lost 2-4" of topsoil.
Buy organic,
JH
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Mar 3 12:48:14 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 05:59:35 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 10:12:20 WST
>From: Warwick Rowell <warwick@bettong.eepo.dialix.oz.au>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd)
The definition of productivity for a biological system
is fine, and one that is generic - it fits business and
other systems as well.
My original post, and this one, urge people to regard the
system as more important than its productivity.
Manfred max Neef said it well: sustainable productivity
leads us to accept the goal of productivity, and argue
about what we mean by sustainability, and the level of
it that we will pursue.
Reverse the terms, and talk about "productive sustainability"
and we are taking a vastly different, and in my view, a more
realisitic approach; Many natural systems will close down
productivity dramatically if their survival is threatened.
One of the most fundamental lessons we have learned from
thousands of years of military experience is "conserve your forces".
It is time we started applying this dictum to the task of using
soil to meeting our needs for food, shelter, fuel, etc etc.
Wx
--
__________________________________________________________
| warwick.rowell@eepo.com.au |
| |
| Management Consultant Permaculture Designer |
|_"Helping Managers Learn"___"Helping Land Managers Learn"_|
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Mon Mar 6 10:22:13 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 06:00:08 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 20:16:19 WST
>From: Warwick Rowell <warwick@bettong.eepo.dialix.oz.au>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd)
My paraphrase of Manfred Max Neef:
"When we talk about "sustainable productivity" we accept "productivity" and
argue about the meaning and amounts of "sustainability". If we turn the
words around: "developing sustainability" we are talking about a
totally different paradigm."
It was from a paper he wrote for the South Commission report about foure
years ago. It contained a number of very good articles on the problems
of measuring economies, about the problems of GNP as a measure, and
about alternative measures.
Even in this series, Manfred's clarity and quality of thinking shone
through.
Now, the exact reference..
It hasn't emerged. But I have just shifted my office. My apologies.
Can anyone else help?
__________________________________________________________
| warwick.rowell@eepo.com.au |
| |
| Management Consultant Permaculture Designer |
|_"Helping Managers Learn"___"Helping Land Managers Learn"_|
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:22:51 -0500 (EST)
> >From: llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov
> To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Defining soil quality (fwd)
>
> YES, YES, YES!!!!
>
> A definition of soil quality that is not tied to crop production is
> where we should be heading. I've thought about this problem a little,
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Thu Mar 16 23:08:05 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:07:52 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Soil qualities (fwd)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:46:00 +0000 (GMT)
>From: "Nachtergaele, Freddy" <Freddy.Nachtergaele@fao.org>
Subject: Soil qualities
To: Sustag <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Cc: Sunet <sunet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>, Sombroek/Florin <Reto.Florin@fao.org>,
"Brinkman, Robert" <Robert.Brinkman@fao.org>,
AGL-Registry <AGL-Registry@fao.org>
I have been observing fragments of the ongoing discussion on soil
qualities and could not shake off a feeling of deja vu. Careful consideration
of the difference between land characteristics and land qualities as spelled
out in the Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976 (!)) might help to focus
the discussion better.
If you have no direct access to this publication which is now out of
print, I can send you copy of the relevant pages if you e-mail me your
address.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
F. Nachtergaele
Technical Officer
Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service
Land and Water Development Division
LA 29/13
cc: Nachtergaele, chron.
AGLSR Group
>From hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Fri Mar 17 12:30:41 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 09:47:57 CST
>From: Thomas Hansmeyer <hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Humus
This is a very interesting debate. In thinking about and discussing soil
quality, organic matter is usually mentioned within the research circles.
And discussion is ongoing as to which portion of the soil organic matter
reactes (changes up or down) in a grant oriented reseach time scale. That
which seems to be lacking in the discusion is the role of microbes.
Including the types of microbes and how to foster there existence. I find
it amazing the the Luebkes were able to increase there organic matter
levels 13% over only 10 years. If I have understood the claims, this
was accomplished on a farm scale, using that carbon which available
specifically from the Luebke farm. I guess I am asking if the Luebkes
needed to import Carbon from other sources? Which gets into further debate
as to whether enough carbon exists within the current system to allow all
of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy levels, 5% or so. The
Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments with the local village to use the
carbon, in the form of organic waste, as a cost effective amendment to
their soil. Would all farmers need to compete for these contracts, or
could the carbon be produced on-farm.
--
Thomas Hansmeyer
St. Paul MN
hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Mar 24 11:10:40 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:24:30 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: re: soils for class presentation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:27:59 EST
>From: WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: re: soils for class presentation
You may wish to check out Vol. 7, No. 1-2 of American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture (1992), which devoted a double issue to the subject of soil
quality. This is closely related to what you inquired about. The issue has
10 articles by a distinguished international panel of authors, and addresses
most aspects of the topic, including soil organisms (both microorganisms and
invertebrates), physical and chemical soil characteristics, management
effects, and so forth.
William Lockeretz
P.S. In the interest of full disclosure in this ethics-conscious era, to
avoid apperanace of conflict-of-interest I should mention that I am technical
editor of the journal that published that exhaustive, definitive and
exceptionally well-done treatment of the subject.
>From breivog@ornews.intel.com Tue Jan 31 20:11:30 EST 1995
>From: breivog@ornews.intel.com (Bob Breivogel)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: indicators of sustainability?
Date: 30 Jan 1995 15:19:39 -0800
Organization: Intel Corporation
JimGlass@ix.netcom.com (James Glass) writes:
>In <3g83bg$654@rhino.cis.vutbr.cz> zbynek@pok0.vszbr.cz (Zbynek Ulcak)
>writes:
>>Keywords: sustainability, sustainable agriculture
>>Can anyone help help with the indicators of sustainability of agricultural
>>systems - indicators of environmental quality, productivity, and
>>socioeconomic viability?
>>Any ideas, suggestions, refferences would be greatly appreciated.
>>Zbynek Ulcak ULCAK@pok0.vszbr.cz
>>Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry Brno
>>Department of Landscape Ecology
>>Zemedelska 1
>>613 oo Brno, Czech Republic
>Sure: The more expensive, impractical, and unpopular a "system" is, the
>more "sustainable". The goal here is not really to "sustain" anything;
>in fact, quite the opposite. If the eco-nuts could persuade farmers to
>begin tilling the soil by hand, using spoons instead of farm machinery,
>then THAT would become the "sustainable agriculture" of choice.
>Always glad to help out.
>Jim Glass
You're no help at all! I guess this is happens when everything is viewed
>from an ideological perspective.
In the case of farming, I think that sustainable *means * that the land will
maintain its output, given *present* level of inputs, indefinitely. This means
that Having to add ever increasing level of fertizers amd pesticides to stay
where we are is nonsustainable. Organic farmers have shown that soil quality
improves when chemical agriculture is replaced with "organic" methods. One
does trade off greater labor costs (organic) for chemical/fuel costs (non
organic), but labor is inherently "sustainable" (available indefinitely,
as long as people exist), while chemicals are not.
Bob Breivogel
Aloha, OR
>From a16msafley@attmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:42:42 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 13:09:18 -0500
>From: Marc Safley <a16msafley@attmail.com>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Hot Sandy Soil
This is in response to the message from Chuck Benbrook concerning
soil quality and its relation to production. He stated that "...the
capacity to support high yields with inputs that are accessible, and
relatively sustainable is an important soil quality attribute."
In common usage, quality is used todenote the degree of excellence of
an object, substance, idea, etc. While it is true that sandy soils
in tropical climates can support high crop yields given appropriate
modifications and inputs (irrigation, drainage, fertilizer, pest
management, improved crop varieties, etc) the soil itself has low
inherent quality for intensive production. In the past agriculturists
have spoken of the soil suitability for certain crop production. This
is in recognition that sooils differ in chemical, physical,and biological
character and are varied in their "suitedness" for particular crops.
Soil quality discussions are not the same as soil suitability discussions.
Soil quality has referred to the inherent characteristics that make the
medium good-fair-poor in relation to its native state. In some
discussions it has been stretched to include some of the characteristics
of suitedness.
It seems that we should be focusing soil quality deliberations toward
those definable characteristics of soil that can be distinctive
markers of inherent or altered form, ie quality. The hot sandy
irrigated soils may be high quality media for growing crops but
they may still be very poor quality soils.
Marc Safley
a16msafley@attmail.com
>From a16msafley@attmail.com Thu Feb 23 11:09:39 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 07:58:03 -0500
>From: Marc Safley <a16msafley@attmail.com>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Soil Quality Attributes
Not to try to beat this issue to death...that is not the point of this message;
the distinction between soil quality and soil attributes that make them
usable is one that needs to be ironed out in a better way if we are to
clearly conceive and test soil quality indicators.
The fact that soils of all types can respond to management inputs
is one upon which the industrial model of agriculture has depended. In
many cases soils that would otherwise be unsuited for crop production
have produced bumper yields. The question is not whether or not this
should be a consideration for agriculture so much as it is whether or
not this should be a criteria for determining soil quality.
The discussions of soil quality have focused on improving or
regenerating lost capacity of soils that have been damaged by intensive
agricultural management. I suggest that this is the proper avenue of
thought. If it is necessary to describe the ability of soil to respond
to physical and chemical management so that production is made
either possible or profitable then perhaps there should be a separate
parameter by which we assess soil response...we could call it
response to management for lack of a more creative term.
Thank you for the quality discussion.
Marc Safley
Natural Resources Conservation Service
a16msafley@attmail.com
>From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA Thu Feb 23 11:14:46 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:50:37 EDT
>From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes
I have been observing the discussion on soil quality and would like
to add a query. An issue which has been taken up with fervor by my
colleagues in soil science has been the notion that potential for
nitrate contamination of groundwater is **reduced** by using chemical
rather than organic sources of N.
The logic presented is that organic matter mineralizes in
ways/rates/timing which a) is not controllable, and b) is not easily
predictable, and hence, c) has the potential to continue to pump out
labile N long after the crop has been harvested. On this basis, they
discount the merit of long-held organic farming wisdom, namely, "feed
the soil" as a source of immobilized and slowly released mineralized
nutrients to feed the crop. The next dimension to this logic is that
perennial forages, which enhance soil OM, are hazardous to the
environment because when they are plowed under, they mineralize and
release copious amounts of N - with again, the potential to pollute.
In response, I can only agree with their logic **if** one continues
to crop in conventional ways - with the land bare or under dead
stubble for 7- 10 months of the year. However, a great deal of the
rationale behind organic field crop agriculture is to keep the land
covered with a live - and predominantly, growing - crop year-around.
This practice, in addition to supplying a sink for labile nutrients,
also keeps the soil colder longer and enhances the synchrony between
such T-sensitive processes as microbially-based mineralization and
plant-based uptake.
I would be interested in the comments of SANETers on these issues,
particularly as they pertain to the definition of soil quality, and
ultimately, the attributes of the "ideal" soil that we should be
shooting for. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Thu Feb 23 19:37:19 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:51:51 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:59:21 -0600 (CST)
>From: Rex Dufour <rexd@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Cc: Preston Sullivan <prestons@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
Subject: Re: Soil Quality
The concept of soil quality is indeed a difficult one to pin down
as evidenced by the interesting discussion about this subject in
the last week or so.
My initial posting noted that I felt that the discussion (up to
that point) had perhaps been biased toward temperate zone soils,
which exist in quite a different context than tropical soils. I
still feel this bias has not been addressed.
Perhaps one way of evaluating both temperate and tropical soils
using a level playing field is the amount of external energy inputs
required to produce a sustainable yield of a given crop.
The advantage to looking at soil quality from this angle is that
for temperate soils, there is a lot of energy stored in the organic
matter (in the form of chemical bonds) of the soil, but temperate
soils do not receive the same flux of solar energy that tropical
soils receive. Tropical soils do not store their enery as soil
organic matter, but as living plant material and associated soil
organisms.
Temperate soils, with their generally higher organic matter may
or may not need fewer inputs to provide a sustainable yield of a given crop.
However, tropical soils have the advantage of a high solar flux
which can be converted into plant material (in many cases, legumes,
which are much more common in the tropics than in temperate
areas).
This is a simplistic model, but is perhaps a starting point. Rex
Dufour
rexd2ncatfyv.uark.edu
>From benbrook@hillnet.com Mon Feb 27 11:18:24 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:30:07 -0800 (PST)
>From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
To: sanet <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: More Soil Quality and Def.
The long post on Ikerd's sus ag discussion paper is interesting and
raises all the right questions/admonitions etc. But as I have said
before I think the community has reached about as explicit, useful,
concrete definition of sus ag as now possible, or possible at any given
time, given the differences of opinion, world view etc that exist. At
any point in time, in any society, the definition of any concept like sus
ag is going to be a compromise among differing world views, sets of
values etc, no one of which has any way to prove the other wrong, or
illegimate. So the sus ag tent is now relatively stable; its shape and
inards perhaps fully pleasing to no one, but I am certain there is no
real point in debating the fine points anymore because we will simply
document more crisply the differences that are out there, and have been
all along.
One of the other realities is that the "definition" of something
like sus ag is going to remain fluid, driven by changes in politics,
idealogy, science, community values, etc. If we re-open definition of sus
ag in 1995 farm bill, I guarentee the result will be displeasing to those
who advocate a social justice leaning definition. But while the political
arena has moved underneath the definition, the scientific community seems
to be moving in other, positive directions. Abelson's recent editiorial
in Science on sus ag, with at least some mention of soil quality, along
with its discussion of trends, etc is better than what I would have
expected given his views about pesticides, risk assessment, and the need
for environmental protections.
So, I hope people will stay focused on things that are amendable
to meaningful change, like studying the economic tradeoffs of farm bill
proposals that will shift the relative profitability of different systems
and technologies. People worried about corporate hog farms should focus
on IFPs and manure management because that is where that industry is
vulnerable. I also think there is a firm enough concensus now on the
essential dimensions of soil quality to craft some useful provisions
focusing on identifying soils that are seriously impaiired for reasons
other than erosion, and providing farmers technical and financial
assistance for starting along the path to enhance their quality.
On the issue of N leaching and fertilizers versus organic matter,
it all boils down to the ability of a soil to store and cycle nutrients.
Recall the excellent work of those who developed and have adapted to
various regions the side dress N test kit; there needs to be 21 ppm, if
memory serves me correctly, of N in the root zone to support maximum
growth of a corn plant. The fertilizer guys are right that they can
control/predict levels, but are dangerously misguided in thinking that it
is better to meet N needs with fertilizer on dead soil than with largely
organic matter sources/cycling in an alive soil. There is lots of
research basically proving this, but the fertilizer guys know how to look
creatively at numbers, and will put forth studies/data that show that N
loss can be great from orgo systems. Of course they can. Do not
underestimate mankind's ability to mismanage an agroecosystem, regardless
of its genetic heritage. But in general a trashed, low soil organic matter,
compacted soil, like so many in America today, will lose more N per average
bushel of corn yield than a healthier, well managed soil. Period. If
you set two soils up in a fair comparative trial and use the same degree
of "best available technology" for meeting N needs and controlling N
losses, the higher organic matter soil will support same yields with
manybe 20-30% less N, and loose less than 1/2 to the environment, if the
research I have been reading over the last few years is to be believed.
What is amazing to me is that the scientific community has not
been able to convince itself of these conclusions, nor communicate them
to policy-makers. Until that happens, why should we expect, or ask for
policies to change?
.
>From fmagdoff@moose.uvm.edu Thu Mar 16 09:39:15 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 08:15:59 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Frederick R. Magdoff" <fmagdoff@moose.uvm.edu>
To: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
Cc: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus
Steve Diver and Jim McNelly,
Although the issue of amounts and quality of humus is in my
opinion very important, it is the broader concept of soil organic matter
(in all its complexity) that is really the key to sustainable
agriculture. The approach I took when writing my book (Building Soils for
Better Crops: organic matter management - Univ. Nebraska Press) is that
by managing soils to build up and maintain high levels of soil organic
matter most of the problems farmers run into when growing plants will
either be lessened or eliminated. Issues of biodiversity of soil
organisms, non-humic materials helping stabilize soil aggregates, etc.
indicates that one must do more than just consider the humus portion of
soil organic matter.
Fred Magdoff
tel:802-656-0472
fax:802-656-4656
.
>From hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Fri Mar 17 12:30:41 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 09:47:57 CST
>From: Thomas Hansmeyer <hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Humus
This is a very interesting debate. In thinking about and discussing soil
quality, organic matter is usually mentioned within the research circles.
And discussion is ongoing as to which portion of the soil organic matter
reactes (changes up or down) in a grant oriented reseach time scale. That
which seems to be lacking in the discusion is the role of microbes.
Including the types of microbes and how to foster there existence. I find
it amazing the the Luebkes were able to increase there organic matter
levels 13% over only 10 years. If I have understood the claims, this
was accomplished on a farm scale, using that carbon which available
specifically from the Luebke farm. I guess I am asking if the Luebkes
needed to import Carbon from other sources? Which gets into further debate
as to whether enough carbon exists within the current system to allow all
of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy levels, 5% or so. The
Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments with the local village to use the
carbon, in the form of organic waste, as a cost effective amendment to
their soil. Would all farmers need to compete for these contracts, or
could the carbon be produced on-farm.
--
Thomas Hansmeyer
St. Paul MN
hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
>From steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu Fri Mar 17 14:53:26 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:49:50 -0600 (CST)
>From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Cc: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Humus
> This is a very interesting debate. In thinking about and discussing soil
> quality, organic matter is usually mentioned within the research circles.
> And discussion is ongoing as to which portion of the soil organic matter
> reactes (changes up or down) in a grant oriented reseach time scale. That
> which seems to be lacking in the discusion is the role of microbes.
> Including the types of microbes and how to foster there existence.
Siegfried Luebke is a microbiologist and much of their
work is based on the role of microbes in soils. They've
released a video titled "Microbial Life in the Soil"
that includes incredible micro-photography of the
clay-humus crumb. One analogy is that of a beautiful cave-like
structure with "lots" of surface area due to the undulations on
the stalagmites.
[Incidentally, the WSAA in asssociation with MOA released a video
titled "Life in the Soil" that has a similar focus; i.e., poorly
managed soils and healthy soils compared via micro-photography].
In related work, the Luebkes prepared microscopic slides dyed with
acrodyne orange and flouresced under UV light to show the presence
of microbes in soils and composts managed appropriately.
The chroma test and buffered pH test are other indicators of
microbial activity.
> I find
> it amazing the the Luebkes were able to increase there organic matter
> levels 13% over only 10 years. If I have understood the claims, this
> was accomplished on a farm scale, using that carbon which available
> specifically from the Luebke farm. I guess I am asking if the Luebkes
> needed to import Carbon from other sources?
The Luebkes run an organic dairy sheep and vegetable farm.
Their forage-based rotation (alfalfa-grass mix) is important for
both the sheep (which provide animal manure to compost),
and as a source of green chop for use in compost. The third compost
ingredient needed is either farm-produced straw, or
alternatively, municipal yard waste like wood chips and tree trimmings.
This municipal yard waste is highly valued by compost-making
farmers in Europe.
> Which gets into further debate
> as to whether enough carbon exists within the current system to allow all
> of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy levels, 5% or so.
It is my impression the microbial inoculants play a
major role in building the %O.M. and humus levels to these
levels. Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer was instrumental in introducing the
practice of microbially inoculating green manures at
plowdown. The B.D. Field Starter he devised (and is still available
through The Pfeiffer Foundation in New York) contained 55
different types of microbes. The Luebkes have since modified the
original recipe, which they initially obtained years ago.
Instead of a standard 3-4 week green manure waiting period, the
Luebkes are planting back into digested residues within a few days.
Does this have implications for grain farming in regions
where leguminous green manures are frowned upon becasue they put
on N too late in the spring and therefore corn planting is
delayed beyond the preferred soil moisture period as a
result of lag time for green manure breakdown?
> The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments with the local village
> to use the carbon, in the form of organic waste, as a cost effective
> amendment to their soil. Would all farmers need to compete for these
> contracts, or could the carbon be produced on-farm.
> Thomas Hansmeyer
> St. Paul MN
> hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Veganic compost comes to mind as one solution. First, put
up a stock of hay or straw. Next growing season, make green
chop from a pasture or cover crop and then build a compost pile
using chopped, stored dry fodder. A small amount of soil or
finished compost would be an important amendment.
Veganic compost was described by Daziel O'Brien in "Intensive
Gardening."
Animal manures, on the other hand, seem to be a vital
component of good quality compost, however, so without
first-hand experience or research, I wonder how veganic
compost would compare.
Good questions! Perhaps each day we sprout a new bud or
fill out a finely-divided leafy branch on the "Sanet Sustainable
Agriculture Learning Tree"
Steve Diver
Fayetteville, AR
>From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Fri Mar 24 11:07:56 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:02:26 -0500 (EST)
>From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: Sanet List <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Soil Quality Ref.
Here is a publication on Soil Qualtity, sorry if it duplicates
a pervious post.
Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment
SSSA Special Publication Number 35
ISBN 0-89118,807-X
$32 from
SSSA,ASA Headquarters Office
Attn: Book Order Department
677 South Segoe Rd.
Madison Wisconsin 53711-1086
>From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Mar 24 11:10:40 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:24:30 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: re: soils for class presentation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:27:59 EST
>From: WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: re: soils for class presentation
You may wish to check out Vol. 7, No. 1-2 of American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture (1992), which devoted a double issue to the subject of soil
quality. This is closely related to what you inquired about. The issue has
10 articles by a distinguished international panel of authors, and addresses
most aspects of the topic, including soil organisms (both microorganisms and
invertebrates), physical and chemical soil characteristics, management
effects, and so forth.
William Lockeretz
P.S. In the interest of full disclosure in this ethics-conscious era, to
avoid apperanace of conflict-of-interest I should mention that I am technical
editor of the journal that published that exhaustive, definitive and
exceptionally well-done treatment of the subject.
>From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduSat Aug 19 00:01:24 1995
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:58:38 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: PLacey@intr.net
Cc: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Plant nutrition
> I'm a newbie to this column, but not to Agriculture. It seems that the
> term "sustainable" is sort of code for "organic". OK. Can someone
> answer this?
Sustainable agriculture is a goal, organic farming is a
method. Sustainable farming "practices" are those employed
to strive towards the goal of environmental soundness,
economic viability, socially acceptable jobs and norms, and
resource efficient energy usage. These practices are
usually seen as an alternative to conventional practices, although
as conventional agriculture has already shifted somewhat,
the lines are not so clear cut anymore. Generally speaking, though,
conventional agriculture is typified by monoculture and a
primary reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to
supply fertility and pest control.
Alternative practices tend to place more emphasis on
biological processes. The bridge between alternative and
conventional is low input ag, which reduces but not
necessarily eliminates the use of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. More advanced alternative systems--based on
years or decades of practitioner experience--include organic,
biodynamic, Nature Farming, and Albrect/Reams biological
farming systems. Permaculture and Regenerative agriculture,
like Sustainable agriculture, are systems oriented, thus
they adopt pieces of whichever alternative practice is most
appropriate for the specific site.
So, quite literally, sustainable agriculture is not just
another word for organic farming, although organic farming
done well is a nice model of a sustainable farming system.
> Given that a plant requires Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphourous
> as macronutrients, and calcium, zinc, copper, etc. as micronutrients,
> can the plant discern wether the source of these nutrients is derived
> from the application of "processed"
> fertilizers or from decaying vegetation. It seems to me that while we
> like to call it "organic" farming, the fact
> of the matter is these fertilizers are all inorganic elements.
>
> I don't dispute the advisability of plowing leftover organic matter
> into the soil, helping to create a more fertile
> soil, but to suggest that this method of delivering nutrient to a plant
> is inherently superior to building the soil nutrients
> through any other method is somewhat disingenuous.
> Open for discussion.
>
> Pat
This is an old viewpoint, but since Western science is so
entrenched in a linear world view, it is certainly valid
to ask such a question, keeping in mind that organic farmers
quit messing with this tired out logic several decades ago.
A few quick notes:
Synthetic fertilizers feed the plant, organic fertilizers
feed the soil.
Synthetic nitrogen (say 33-0-0) provides 33% N out of a ton.
Organic nitrogen (say cottonseed meal at 7%) provides 7% N,
but also full ton of organic food for soil microbes.
Plant roots absorb massive organic molecules directly into the plant,
not just ions.
Indeed, the "practice" of turning down green manures and
applying compost is vitally important in feeding soil
microbes and in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, WHICH
IS JUST AS IMPORTANT as the simple elements derived from the
decomposition of these organic materials.
Finally, various fertilizers have different qualities than
just their elemental composition. These vary within and
between chemical and organic fertilizers. Thus, the
Albrecht and Reams school of fertility programming do not
view all chemical fertilizers to be bad, nor organic
fertilizers to be superior. The radionics school takes this
a step further and uses a biofeedback-type system to
ascertain which products are best for the particular soil or
crop system. Homeopaths, chiropractors, and veterinarians do the
same thing for humans and animals.
Perhaps the best things since sliced bread is how soil
health is now being viewed and evaluated. Thus, now farmers
and scientists whose minds have not turned into granite--no
matter where they fall on the conventional-organic
spectrum--have new ways to see and feel how their soils are
doing besides those plain old N-P-K/pH->lime tests.
Steve Diver
>From steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu Sat Aug 19 00:01:54 1995
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 12:19:24 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
To: Lowell Zelinski <lowell@cybergate.com>
Cc: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, Steve Diver <steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
Subject: Re: Plant nutrition -> Humus, Biological Farming
> > >Plant roots absorb massive organic molecules directly into the plant,
> > >not just ions.
> >
> > Do you have a reference to support this claim? I don't believe plants can
> > "absorb massive organic molecules". Maybe I was sleeping in botany class
> > that day.
> > tracy
>
> Tracy..
> Plants do not do this.. the orginal poster is wrong
Oh ye intellectuals of little faith!
My source of information on this topic is Dr. Bargyla
Rateaver of San Diego, CA. Rateaver has published
extensively on organic farming topics.
Some of her references to absorption of large molecules
were published in the Acres, U.S.A. magazine. Her
point is that ion absorption is not the only process.
In her book, "The Organic Method Primer: Update Special
Edition", which had a special run of 2,000 copies, contains
596 pages, and costs about $135, Rateaver includes a
section that addresses this topic.
Included in this section are scanning electron micrographs
that show endocytosis/exocytosis. The source of micrographs
include USDA-ARS and the Univ. of Saskatchewan.
Illustrations and photos were also obtained from:
"Biology of Plants", 5th ed, by Peter Raven, et al.,
1992, Worth Publishers, New York, NY.
Thus, if you need more data, here is a starting point.
My views on this matter focus on the role of biological
farming practices (crop rotations, green manuring,
composting...with rock minerals viewed as a supplement
rather than a staring point) on humus formation and rhizoshpere
influences. This view, that humus and soil health in
general is the foundation of farming, and not bagged N-P-K
combined with a dependence on biocides, is an old view expounded
upon by Sir Albert Howard and Lady Eve Balfour. In modern times,
it has been borne out to be true by numerous farmers and scientists.
As an interesting aside to this discussion, the aerial counterpart
to the rhizosphere, known as the phyllosphere, is where biological
farming practices like foliar feeding of seaweed, fish, hydrogen
peroxide, cinnamon, baking powder, etc, as well as the
specialized practice of foliar applications of compost watery
extracts, play an important role in plant health, disease control,
and insect control.
Cinnamon? This was worked out by a radionics specialist to
be an effective foliar feed for control of aphids. The
source of this data is Dr. Arden Anderson, biophysicist and
alternative agricultural consultant, at the Radionics
Seminar hosted by Nitron Industries, Fayetteville, AR, June
1993.
Steve Diver
Fayetteville, AR
P.S. The Rateavers publish a series of reprints from
classic organic literature, much from Europe.
For a list in the Conservation Farming and Gardening
Series, contact:
The Rateavers
9049 Covina Street
San Diego, CA 92126