Is there a soil and/or a climate that is currently considered less than desirable that would NOT be imporved by the addition of some great leaf compost?
Not sure what anybody's POINT is anymore in this discussion. :)

I live in a farm area...fields all around me. Pat is right when it comes to farming...you just have to grow it when you have 3,000 acres.

When it comes to gardens and market gardening, you can import all the organic matter your truck, money, time, desire, and back can stand.

If your soils do not contain enough calcium, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, boron, copper, manganese, sulfur, molybdenum, strontion, and several other micro minerals, you will have trouble. Yes, some of them lie tied up in insoluble compounds, but can be released with the right soil chemistry and CEC.

shebear, Many crops are not that long rooted in a major way, and if the subsoil minerals are not there in an exchangeable chemistry and abundance, likely a shortage is happening.

Composts and most organic additions work pretty well as long as the minerals are available in a practical sense.

"Is there a soil and/or a climate that is currently considered less than desirable that would NOT be imporved by the addition of some great leaf compost?
Not sure what anybody's POINT is anymore in this discussion. :)"

The original post was titled, Improving Soil so I take it that we are supposed to be learning how to improve soil which can include adding OM, minerals, soil amendments like sand and such, nitrogen, and improved ways to till or not to till.
What is not to like?

There are some few soils, swamps for example, where the soils have too much organic matter and would not be improved by adding more.
If one adds minerals to a soil, but no organic matter, what will convert those minerals into something the plants can use? The Soil Food Web needs organic matter to exist in your soil and the Soil Food Web is going to convert whatever nutrient sources are there into nutrients the plants can use. Part of the Soil Food Web are the fungi that create the Mychorrizal relationship with plants and even it you add something someone sells you as being Mychorriza fungi and you have too little organic matter in your soil they will not function.

Yes, I believe we can agree that we need all the good things working together.
There is a proverb:" God helps those who help themselves."
A very wise man said that is was better like this: God helps those who cannot help themselves. Those who can help themselves, He expects them to do it."

"so there are subsoils in NA that are completely devoid of the necessary minerals and thus deep rooted plants couldn't bring them up?"

The way I understand it (which could be wrong), is that no soil is completely devoid of the necessary minerals. It is a question of degrees. I believe it is fair to say that most soils have some minerals deficient enough to be a problem to some extent. The problem could be slight to severe. The problem might also not be readily noticeable (carbonaceous low-quality produce, as an example). Right now I am in florida so once again dealing with a soil base that is naturally very deficient in many of the minerals. And yet, some trees and shrubs grow large and look healthy. Clearly they are able to get minerals that most annual crop plants cannot. Presumably from much deeper in the sand, where there is also always some moisture. The top 6 inches to a foot of drained florida soil is quite dry most of the time, even in the rainy season. OM in that zone desiccates and most of what is in it is lost to the atmosphere. The exception is heavily forested areas, where the ground is shaded enough that OM can be broken down by moisture and microbes.

So, we can ask the question: is a drained sandy soil in a warm climate improved by the addition of OM? Answer: depends on what is meant by improve. You can add some very rich and well-broken down OM, like animal manure, and you will get a very short benefit to annual crop production. After another season all evidence of that change will be gone, quite different from heavier cooler soils in wetter, cooler climates where the effect will be noted for years. In light soils and warm climates the natural condition is that the results of photosynthesis tend to exist almost entirely above the ground. So the suggestion of this OP that all soils can be improved (and should) have OM put into the ground does not make sense to me.

"You can add some very rich and well-broken down OM, like animal manure, and you will get a very short benefit to annual crop production. After another season all evidence of that change will be gone, quite different from heavier cooler soils in wetter, cooler climates where the effect will be noted for years."

There you go, you just said adding OM to your sandy soil will benefit it. Yes, you will have to add it more frequently, but it does help.

Anybody else want to kick this dead horse with me?

Not quite dead yet.

Pat, Really sandy soil doesn't need OM to make it looser and more permable as it already is that way. So, is there a longer lasting OM substance? I believe that peat would last many years, but I am not sure it would add much food for soil microbes [to feed the soil rather than feeding the plants more directly].

In a way I kind of hate to keep flogging this nearly expired equine,but I think the word you might be looking for is humus. ooh-wa. Do we really want to re-open that old bag of leaves?

We've given up on the sand/clay mix then? 'Terra Preta', may be the next step. 'Charcoal in sand', made an interesting point of how well it stays in root zone or not.

We should start a new thread, this one is toooooooo long to "SCROLL". :)

"There are some few soils, swamps for example, where the soils have too much organic matter and would not be improved by adding more"

As far as the swamp dwellers are concerned, that soil doesn't need improving - in fact, for most natural systems, the soils are by definition just what they should be. Perhaps the better approach would be to learn to grow what thrives in the soil we have. Gardening is an inherently unnatural process, as practiced by most people. We manipulate growing conditions, introduce plants from far-off lands, fiddle their genetics with centuries of breeding, and try to maximize yields with a huge assortment of inputs - and that still can qualify as "organic practice" if we follow accepted guidelines. Seems like it would all have been so much easier if only Eve had been allergic to apples.

Well, I am about done with bringing in off-site OM at my florida place. It is wildly unsustainable. It makes far more sense to add minerals in the cheapest and easiest-to-haul form and grow the OM. This year I have pigeon peas up to 8 feet tall and hairy indigo 5-6 feet tall with stems 1.5 inches for peas and 3/4 for indigo. Lusty plants growing in soil with very low OM by percentage. Where the soil is mineralized these legumes are out-competing bahia grass.

" if only Eve had been allergic to apples.

It wasn't apples billme, but that would be another topic.

We are so far astray, that 'gardening' is UNNATURAL' in this day and age. The way we do it, is what's unnatural. :)
That's what I'm hearing, Isn't it??
What do farmers do that is 'unnatural'? Perhaps there is a NATURAL way in which plants automatically feed people if we would just quit messing with the ground. :)

Meanwhile, let's understand the root zone. We talk about soil as though the roots will respond to whatever we do.
Why do roots do better in improved soil?

Sandy soils drain, mostly, too well and do not hold nutrients well because those nutrients follow the water through the soil so easily. However, adding organic matter to sandy soils will help close thoose spaces between the soil particles and aid in holding both nutrients and moisture in that sandy soil.
Adding organic matter to clay soils, these soil particles cling tightly together which then inhibits the movement of plant roots and keeps both nutrients and moisture from those roots, will open up the spaces between the clay soil particles and allow better movement of them, and plant roots, through the soil.
Adding minerals to soil might be something to do, however, if there is too little organic matter in the soil and the Soil Food Web is not functioning well then those minerals will not get converted to nutrients the plantse can use. Without adequate levels of organic matter in the soil the Soil Food Web cannot function well to feed the plants.

There is a natural way to garden, but it's inefficient and requires the acquisition of knowledge and some serious concessions that few modern humans are willing to make. It's called foraging. Anything else, if you can free your mind from an anthropocentric view, is by definition unnatural. There is, however, some evidence of birds and insects and possibly fish being involved in the intentional propagation of crops, and the processes of seed fertilization and dispersal that involve other species could arguably be considered a form of agricultural practice, if one wished to paint so broadly, but the continued existence of most species would not be adversely affected by the sudden disappearance of Monsanto, John Deere, and Kelloggs. Some cows might suffer. Gardening, and particularly farming, has provided mankind the ability to dominate an unnatural proportion of the global ecosystem. It is in large part at the root of all our other technologies being possible, and has contributed to unsustainable population growth worldwide. We have higher survival rates, unproductive longevity, and enormous consumption of non-renewable resources because of advances in agriculture that started thousands of years ago. It is highly debatable whether or not that dominance is at all good for the other species with whom we share the planet. Farming is "natural' in the same way that pencils are, it is an accumulation and manipulation of elements to create a particular result, but it is inherently a technological process. By the same token, most of the crops we now enjoy are not "natural", they are the result of years, and in some cases centuries, of human influence.

Human influence IS natural. Just like murder is natural. We were created to be gardeners, but it is also natural for people to congregate into cities and live in boxes. It may be odd to me, but it isn't unnatural. :)

Again, anthropocentric. Human influence is, at this population density, only natural to humans, but not in the broader context of the ecosystem, or possibly even the solar system. If one chooses to believe that we were created, to begin with, and that gardening is inherent to our nature as an intentional result of that purported creation, then your argument might hold merit, but it is not applicable to the broader context of what is normally accepted as the definition. People congregate in cities not because it is inherent to natural traits, but for social ones, our natural tendency is more likely to be a nomadic lifestyle, but because of our unnaturally high population density, augmented by our technological advancements, it is not only possible but arguably preferable for us to congregate in large centralized areas. Leaves more room in the hinterlands for making long piles of compost - a technological adaptation for encouraging a natural process to occur at an advanced (and thereby un-natural) rate.

Definition of NATURAL
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted;

Here is a link that might be useful: it's only natural

The philosophizing is fun, but getting back to the OP, and Kim's refrain that adding some form of OM is always the best thing to do, in any climate or soil (that is what I think Kim is basically saying, in a number of slightly different versions).

That above statement is what I disagree with. Kimmsr, I find it very strange that you will not admit for climatic variation. Fortunately most people can learn from experience. Gardeners in warm climes and drained soils learn from experience that constantly hauling and adding large amounts of OM is not worth the effort. Not when careful management of cover crops can allow for the modest production of some non-leguminious crops without that constant effort and expense. More land area is required in such places to produce x amount than in more blessed soils.

Pat, Go ahead and add that silt stuff to your Cape Cod sand. You have my blessing.

We keep hearing that adding sand to clay will make concrete. Perhaps it will in some clays with certain meager proportions. What bothers me is that now it is like a law. I suspect that this information has just been parroted from one source to another.
I will give a parallel.....Remember how for so many years that eggs were considered unhealthy except in meager amounts? I read where it went back to some dried kind of eggs way back in WW2 era. Yet the legend lived on. J.I. Rodale was telling us Prevention readers way back in the '60s that the yolks contained lecithin that emulsified the cholestrol and that they were an extremely healthy food. Finally the lie was busted, but oh my! Also remember the coconut oil scare on popcorn...another gene splicing of the truth.
And yet again, there was a recent report out that vitamin E was not helpful. Likely the they used the synthetic [chemical] fractional part of vitamin E without likely even knowing that real vitamin E has 8 natural parts instead of one synthetic part...But these reports get passed on and parroted as true.

"But these reports get passed on and parroted as true."

Like less than five worms equals unhealthy soil?

;-)

Lloyd

Yes, I apologize for the hijack, entertaining as it was. In my own practice, compost is one amendment that has consistently been added to my marine clay-based soil, and after almost 30 years it is truly a joy to garden in. I am also a big fan of shredded leaves, and particularly leaf mold, and have on occasion added chipped wood, crushed rock, and rock powders as conditions and soil-tests have indicated. I think it's important to remember two things though, and the first is that we're all dealing with individual parameters - not only in terms of the native soils and climates, but crops, growing methods, physical ability - the list is endless. As such, it is inevitably risky to make blanket statements using any type of absolute - all, every, always, never - because cantankerous codgers like me (and clearly several of you) will invariably find an example to refute the premise. Secondly, much of what gets written here is as much a reflection of observation and opinion as it is science, and who's really to know if what works for one gardener will be applicable to all?

Vive la difference, and let the conversation continue!

Very little of what passes here could be termed science. Some good knowledge, and lots of anecdotes.

Posted by bi11me 5b (My Page) on Thu, Feb 2, 12 at 10:42

"Again, anthropocentric. Human influence is, at this population density, only natural to humans, but not in the broader context of the ecosystem, or possibly even the solar system "

In other words, everything that 'evolved' was natural, except the human.
In the broader sense of course. ;)

I am still waiting for discussion of the rhizosphere to make sense of what even constitutes "good soil" AND an answer to which soil and climate would NOT benefit from the addition of OM, outside of mucky soils. :)

Maple, is it not obvious that the minus side of the equation clearly does not "benefit"? Adding OM necessarily means subtracting it (and the nutrients and thus fertility) from the other place. Debates like this one are based on a myopic starting viewpoint.

Here I am trying to protect two fronts... but the issues are related.

When we talk about "improving soil" we are doing so in the specific context of gardening - mucky soils in swamps, arid soils in deserts, and sandy soils at the beach require no improvement - in their natural state the world has found ways to utilize these particular soils to support some kind of life. It is only in the context that humans bring to the equation that soils "need" improvement, and those of a certain religious or philosophical bent might argue that creation is already "perfect", it is only human misunderstanding and dissatisfaction that makes it seem not to be so. Returning to the original premise, AS GARDENERS it is often best, on average, to amend existing soils with compost or organic matter, but this is to disregard the needs of such things as saguaro cacti, sundews, and saltwort, and the thousands of other plants that grow independent of human influence in environments that
we consider unlikely to be capable of providing humans with sustenance. The very concept of improving soils is (sorry) anthropocentric.

My second argument, veering briefly again away from the original topic, but, actually, related, is that my understanding of what is "natural" is not limited to all non-human evolution, humans are, fundamentally, biological constructs and therefore, natural. Humans, however, have the ability to reconfigure the biosphere in ways that would not occur outside of the influence of humans - and this applies to composting or adapting existing soils as much as creating rare isotopes of atoms that exist only for fractions of a second in highly rarefied environments of pressure and temperature that would not normally occur on the surface of the earth. It is human behavior, and its effects, which can be unnatural, but certainly not all human behavior. Eating is natural, cannibalism is natural, but debating philosophical concepts, though it seems to "come naturally" to you and me, is NOT natural, because nowhere else in the biosphere but in human interaction does it take place. I would further posit that composting, and by extension improving soil, is also not natural, it is the human manipulation of a natural process to create an effect that would not, without human intervention, otherwise occur in the form or rate that it does.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming. My gardening practices follow an organic regime, and it is one that presumes the addition of organic matter. The source of that organic matter can be problematic - when I take other peoples' bagged leaves, or a truckload of seaweed that has washed up on the beach, or horse manure or lobster shells or wood chips or coffee grounds, I am removing organic matter from its place of origin and artificially introducing it where it does me the most good. By that removal, it could be argued that I am depleting some other ecosystem of matter that is necessary to maintain a certain biological equilibrium. By following this line of thinking, choices like that of pnbrown to stop importing OM to his FLA soils and start growing it in place instead make sense, both from a biological and ecological point of view. Once we have a soil that is able to at least sustain some type of plant life, there exists the potential of using that 'homegrown' organic matter to then create soils that will eventually be able to produce nutritive crops. We are, ideally, harvesting sunlight, but we must use minerals and water and the physiological processes of plants to do so. I believe that that methodology is the ideal, and that is why, in addition to my incessant collection of off-site OM, I also grow cover-crops and green manures, and remove from my land only that which will be consumed. The reason we gardeners improve soils, and do so with such relentless enthusiasm, in most cases, is because we are concerned with accelerating the rate of return from the soils. In the natural environment, the creation of soils takes a long time - the breakdown of rocks, formation of humates, decomposition of biological matter - all take place on a scale that is, at least, inconvenient, for the production needs of gardeners. Our penchant for improving soils is an adaptation that accommodates our impatience, and reflects a one-sided way of looking at the world. Why not, given our technological advances, stop trying to "improve" soils, or plants, for that matter, via hybridizing and genetic modification, and instead try to find a method of deriving nutrition from the world as it exists that depends less on the manipulation of what the world has to offer? Nearly all of existence (or creation, if that is the path you choose to walk) exists free of the need to manipulate the environment in order to find adequate sustenance, but that is because they limit their existence to, and the size of their population is limited by, the biological carrying capacity of the ecosystem they inhabit - otherwise we'd more often find moose in Miami and manatees in Maine - it is only humans' penchant for calling the entire globe their natural habitat that makes it necessary for us to "improve" on nature.

Not trying to pick fights, but to explicate a view that is not entirely in sync with the OP's premise. Again, sorry for the detour.

I used to use the soil as it already was ....with the addition of fertilizer and the rare manure application and leaves.

After retirement I had more time to indulge something. As farmerdill said, "I don't golf so I garden." Me too. I don't winter in the south and I am not on excursions all summer, so I indulge my love of raising plants

I don't consider myself a perfectionist....that would be too exhausting for me, but neither do I desire the status quo. I really enjoy seeing healthy corn and large,sweet, juicy,crispy, and flavorful watermelons I have grown. I thank God for the health and means to do this. I know there is more beyond this veil.

Although I doubt that even Keith Baldwin, Professor of soil science at North Carolina State University would have much influence on some here, here is an article he published about this subject.

Here is a link that might be useful: improving soil

Kimm, That is a good link. Where Keith says that you are pretty much stuck with your soil texture [percentage of sand, silt, and clay], I agree that is so for large acreages. However, it isn't necessarily true for home gardens. I have changed the texture on perhaps 3500 square feet. I also work to change the structure to be more permable and soak up rains like a sponge.

Billme, I pretty well agree with your last post.

For myself, I am not totally opposed to moving stuff around, I just want it to be very effective. When it proves itself to be quite ineffective then it is time to stop, regardless of whether it may be the recommended thing. If one listened to typical florida organic horticulture 'experts', one would continuously, every year, bring in manure, mushroom compost, rotted bark, peanut shells, and whatever to grow temperate-latitude crops. The OM burns up in the hot climate and the temporary surge in crop growth succumbs rapidly to the aggressive nematodes and fungal problems. Why? Perhaps because all that OM is from fla with it's naturally deficient soil, for one thing. Not to mention growing crops that are not well adapted.

OTOH, I have no objection to expending some fuel on moving something really useful like azomite or granite dust or highly microbial humate from one place (where it isn't serving much purpose) to another place (where it can greatly improve crop production).

This discusion of what one can add to soils to improve them, although interesting and mostly appropriate, misses the issue of what mixed cover crops can do to improve soils, especially in the area of diversity of soil fauna. I learned as a child that plants make soil, and that would seem to make it a good jumping off point for considering the improvement of all manner of soils. Regards, Peter.

What do mixed cover crops do for soils? They add organic matter whuich the soil fauna, the Soil Food Web, needs to function in the soil so they can feed your plants.
Plants make part of soil. Soil is composed of the mineral, the clay, sand, or silt, or a combination of those, that are the basis of your soil plus organic matter.

Posted by pnbrown z6.5 MA (My Page) on Fri, Feb 3, 12 at 9:35

"Maple, is it not obvious that the minus side of the equation clearly does not "benefit"? Adding OM necessarily means subtracting it (and the nutrients and thus fertility) from the other place "

Around here we make compost from "Debris" on the streets, on the lawns, in the lakes, and other places where we do not want debris.
Not sure what your "equation" comment was supposed to mean. :)

By equation I meant the function of existing OM from one place and adding it to another to produce some quantity of new OM. If the two places have essentially the same soil and climate conditions then the long-term improvement to the receiving place is little to none, independent of horticultural practice, maybe. There can always be an improvement by changing a poor system (like a typical constantly-cropped hayfield) to a better one (like a labor-intensive no-till garden).

"Soil is composed of the mineral, the clay, sand, or silt, or a combination of those, that are the basis of your soil plus organic matter."

Which is why the ultimate level of available minerals (with the exception of N and possibly S) is fixed unless outside minerals are added. Or shall we discuss the possibility of the mineral "accumulator" plant species?

I think the accumulator point is an important one. The motivation for growing OM in place is at least in part to reduce the issues that surround the relocation of OM. In the case of such things as coffee grounds, the negative impact is probably negligible, because the coffee will continue to be imported until something truly catastrophic occurs. It makes sense to use the grounds whenever possible, despite the distance at which it originates. Collecting seaweed, on the other hand, is highly controversial, because it extracts OM from a sensitive ecosystem from which the effects of its' removal are not fully understood, so the precautionary principle comes into play, and with good reason. The same holds true for local leaves - once they are collected and bagged and put out for disposal, I consider them fair game, but I wouldn't endanger the local indigenous lady-slippers by raking the copious quantities of leaves that exist in my own woods. The advantage of growing OM on site is that all plants are in some degree mineral accumulaters, and over time the effect of that accumulation allows a gardener to introduce plant species that would not have otherwise survived - the cycle is eventually self-perpetuating, but far slower than most gardeners will tolerate. Ideally, we would pursue our gardening efforts in well-balanced soils, but as long as we are trying to raise a wide variety of plants in unnatural settings (or climates or seasons) some type of modification will be necessary. Commonly, adding compost will address many of the immediate needs of a particular plant, as kimmsr adamantly argues, but it is hardly a panacea. Growing OM on site and incorporating it will gradually produce the same result, provided that there is enough variation in crops to introduce the widest possible number of mineral accumulators - monocultures very rarely exist in natural systems because inevitably they deplete certain resources faster than those can be replenished. Utilizing multi-species green manure crops is a very effective way to creat better soils in as little as one crop rotation, and the effects are cumulative over time. I do not think that compost is the cure for all soils and crops, but it is an important tool in a very big box of tools, and most garden soils benefit from its' use. Growing on-site OM and accumulating soil materials with crops is a different approach to the same end result.

Again, we agree. Are we twins separated at birth?

Indeed I have long felt intuitively that growing the widest possible range of plant families that are possibly adapted to a climate/soil paradigm is the number one priority. How could that do anything but good? Then figuring out what is missing from a soil is next.

kimmsr: with respect, I think you miss the point about "plants make soil". It doesn't mean "plants are soil", which is obvious nonesense. It means that, before plants get involved, the inert mineral matter isn't soil at all, plants transform it into soil. That understood, we should think a bit harder about the role plants can play in improving soil. The crucial fact is that 60% to 80% of phoptosynthates is exuded into the soil, and each plant species has a different array of content in its exudates wherewith to customize the soil fauna that it wants to proliferate in its root zone. Adding compost, while very necessary, is a blunt instrument in this endeavour. That's why mixed (very mixed) cover crops shouldn't be dismissed as the latest fad, rather it needs to be in the forefront of soil improvement thinking. And I do mean thinking. Regards, Peter.

I did not miss the point Peter. Plants are organic matter. Adding plant material, organic matter, improves soil.

Here is a link that might be useful: Improving soil

Right on, Peter.

This becomes increasingly obvious in more fragile environments and severe climates. Last year I introduced large amounts of various kinds of OM to florida sand. Legumes growing near it but not in it did well, sweet potatoes growing in it made inedible tubers whereas I have grown good tubers in sand with 1% OM. It is a very complex biological world out there that does not admit for simple absolutist thinking.

This was stated in the "Improving Soil" link.

"Sphagnum peat is recommended, because it is acidic and therefore helps alkaline soils. It, however, is expensive. Hypnum and sedge peats are of less value as soil amendments."

I am a cheap gardener and I still use peat because I cant make much compost where I live. However, if I lived where I could make my own compost, and a lot of it, I could then use only compost to produce my crops. I think that about sums it up.

In my locale 90% sphagnum peat moss is $20 a cu. yd. if you pick it up. It is 6+ miles away. Leaf compost is $10 a cubic yd. and 18 miles away................I like them both.

My family and I operate a tiny market garden where we use both organic and biointensive garden methods. We have added OM to our planting beds via our own compost, green manures, decaying plant matter, and mulches like straw and hay. We have not added peat or sand and, up until just a few weeks ago, we had not added any soil amendments either.

2012 is only our second year of raising crops and already we see the great benefits of adding OM. Our double dug raised beds have a much improved tilth, water is more easily absorb (this time last year the soil's surface would become so compacted that water would just run off), water drainage within the bed has improved, we've seen many earthworms where there was nothing before, and the winter weeds that were just removed last week had very deep root systems.

In 2010 our garden area was an overgrown mess of pines, young hardwood, brambles, wild privet, honeysuckle, kudzu, and lots of other nasty stuff we didn't want or need. We had two acres cleared with a track hoe. Unfortunately, we lost all the topsoil and the ground became very compacted from the weight of the track hoe. We literally had to use picks to break the soil for our first six 3'x50' planting beds. It was awful, but we were determined, and now we reap the benefits of that determination.

We will not spend time and money on any type of soil conditioner but will instead learn more about building our soil through proper composting, planting green manures & cover crops, mulching, and adding natural soil amendments such as alfalfa and kelp meals. OM is where its at!

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:134126}}

RockyCrop, that looks and sounds a lot like mine did starting out, except under the rocks was clay. 30 years from now it will be beautiful and productive. Make sure you go on the Market Garden page and introduce yourself... they aren't quite as active as Soils, Organic, or Veg, but helpful with some of the marketing stuff.

I tried to send you an e-mail via the website but either the link isn't working or you don't have it activated. Feel free to send me a line if you wish.

My family and I operate a tiny market garden where we use both organic and biointensive garden methods. We have added OM to our planting beds via our own compost, green manures, decaying plant matter, and mulches like straw and hay. We have not added peat or sand and, up until just a few weeks ago, we had not added any soil amendments either.

2012 is only our second year of raising crops and already we see the great benefits of adding OM. Our double dug raised beds have a much improved tilth, water is more easily absorb (this time last year the soil's surface would become so compacted that water would just run off), water drainage within the bed has improved, we've seen many earthworms where there was nothing before, and the winter weeds that were just removed last week had very deep root systems.

In 2010 our garden area was an overgrown mess of pines, young hardwood, brambles, wild privet, honeysuckle, kudzu, and lots of other nasty stuff we didn't want or need. We had two acres cleared with a track hoe. Unfortunately, we lost all the topsoil and the ground became very compacted from the weight of the track hoe. We literally had to use picks to break the soil for our first six 3'x50' planting beds. It was awful, but we were determined, and now we reap the benefits of that determination.

We will not spend time and money on any type of soil conditioner but will instead learn more about building our soil through proper composting, planting green manures & cover crops, mulching, and adding natural soil amendments such as alfalfa and kelp meals. OM is where its at!

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:134126}}

I recently read the classic "ecofarming" by charles walters. Quite an incredible compendium of info. Regarding OM in the soil, he says that less than 2.5% makes it impossible to control mineral leaching, and over 6% causes other problems. Depending on climate it is not difficult to raise garden soil well over that, one of mine is well over and it certainly has problems.

So the idea that adding OM must always improve a situation is not correct.

What kind of problems with too much OM are being talked about ......in a hushed up way? LOL

An example would be the common method of introducing OM as animal manure, in which case it is easy to have excess P.

Animal manure is one type of organic matter that can be added to soil and it should not be the only form that is added. At the beginning of this discussion I stated that soil needs about 6 to 8 percent organic matter. Since one thing OM does is help hold soil moisture more can create problems with excluding air from the soil which then encourages root rot.
If one adds too much of any one material you can create more problems. Another reason why testing your soil, periodically, is necessary.