I can also see a number of good reason for preferring organic fertilizers -- more complete plant nutrition, humus content and promotion of good tilth, promotion of soil biota, slow and better timed release and thus low loss and leaching potential, recycles wastes, etc. Lots of good reasons.

It is not clear to me though what the outright objections are to chemical fertilizers per se, OTHER than such obvious problems as nitrate contamination of groundwater (phosphorus contamination of surface water is more a matter of uncontrolled soil erosion, not the fertilizer type used).

I read occasional claims of eventual "poisoning" or "ruining" or "destroying" the soil but don't see any obvious way that will happen. It is true, that unwanted and readily sorbed trace element could build up with certain phosphorus fertilizers (uranium, for example) but how would calcium nitrate or potassium sulfate, for mere examples, in proper doses as fertilizers, ever truly degrade the soil?

I can see the reasons for organic preference, but what are the reasons for the concerted avoidance of synthetic fertilizers?

The different micronutrients and trace elements not found in synthetic fertilizer that are in organics is the very thing that makes organic crops different. The natural buffering allows all of the elements to be uptaken by the crops in a thriving organic system allowing for top nutrition.

Adding organic matter is needed to keep any soil healthy.

I really think your post is one of the best topics I have viewed and I wish to return later to talk more.
Thanks.

I specifically avoid N-salts, since they are always high-index, and N is not difficult to source in organic form.

It is easy to see why chemical fertilizers are popular. It is a bit harder to rely on only "natural" fertilizers, but many are convinced it is better for them. I can see both sides. IU don't think that when rightly used that the more chemical fertilizers are quite the ogre that some have made them. I also believe that the more organic approach has many pluses that are not properly appreciated.

When I was trying to build the nutrient load/reserve/organic component in the soil on my property - I was buying 150-200 lbs of commercial fertilizer every summer. So I ended up buying bags of fertilizer with small blobs of black tarry glop throughout, went back to the store and they lied to me about it being from the mixing machinery, found out about the deliberate contamination later, and thats about the last time I've used it.

also not using those applications makes gardening simpler and less costly.

len

About one or two decades ago around here, some executive types were imprisoned for selling slag from an electrical equipment recycler to Australia as micronutrient fertilizer. Sure, it may have had a lot of copper, but it also had a lot of lead?

I dont know about that. The only advantage of synthetic fertilizers is to save time and labor.

I am all for recycling and composting btw.

"makes the soil into a good healthy soil that will grow strong and healthy plants. "

I wish I had a dollar for every time you have posted this as the one and only solution for every problem. One size (the addition of some unspecified kind of OM) fits every type out of the thousands of possible soils and the hundreds of possible climates. I won't bother going into all the reasons why this is untrue, been there done that. Just in case some newbie is reading this I'll just say: read actual expert opinion and knowledge about soil and crops Albrecht, Walters, Kinsey, Agricola, Solomon and others. Do not simply go wholesale for the typical intensive organic approach or the typical land-grant extension service approach.

Episode 314: Just Because Its Organic

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/episode314/

of course our gardening is lots simpler and less expensive as we use no man made concoctions or manures just green mulching and recycling.

you will notice i don't have vested interests in these forums we have nothing to sell all we offer is free and works for us.

we ahve no affiliations political, scientific or business interests to cloud our judgements and actions.

we offer our experiences free of any charge and it is for others to do what they choose to do, we never come back with the 20 question syndrome, it's up to others to follow up if they need.

apparently from online research the gaia greek mythology has claimed organic as its own so our garden is more natural just like it happens in nature in lots of ways.

i will itterate our gardening is cheaper and less involved because at least we buy and use no scientific concoctions. believe it or not.

len

I think a boost of compost tea is a great way to never have to use synthetics. Crop residue, old fruit, kitchen waste is all great to start a compost pile. You can then make compost tea from that material.

Because you are both low on probably the same nutrients. Calcium is the Prince, start there.

Because then you could not call it 'organic' ;)

That is about the only reason...

Lloyd

Hopefully, the people coming to forums like this are learning how to look beyond all that expensive hype and create the proper soil environment (or create their own amendments) without bleeding their wallets dry.

I very rarely use chemical pest/disease controls (once in the past 5 years), but I do use chemical fertilizers because they're cheap and not detrimental to the home garden when applied properly (right amount at the right times). I make/use compost, too, but that's more for soil structure and the positive interaction with my native clay as far as nutrient exchange goes. I bought a small box of Miracle Grow with micronutrient additions about 4 years ago and I've barely dented it. Unless you're growing something intensive like corn most plants don't need as much fertilizer as some people would think...unless your soil is in poor condition to hold/exchange the nutrients you put into it.

The answer would require considerable research free of ideological bias one way or the other.

The prairie soils further west were enriched highly to a deeper horizon and are easier to manage.

In the East we have to work hard to keep the soil rich in nutrients and organic matter. Usually it takes cover crops and also bringing large amounts of organic matter from sources away from home.

This view is way too simplified to be accurate.

Plants don't know the difference between petro-chemical NO3 and "naturally" created NH4/NO3 conversion.

Plant insect infestations are mostly attracted to plants feeding high-N. The reason some total-organic plantings may see less pest pressure is the availability of more attractive plants near by or the over-N fertilization of chemical fertilized plantings in the area. There is nothing about organic soils that resist grubs, nematodes, or other soil borne pests. Also, many insects move in weather-like patterns (that we, today, actually track like weather via movement in order to better time pesticide application, be it organic or chemical). Living in MI, you don't have to deal with many seasonal pests those of us in the South-East have to deal with. Heck, you don't have to deal with many of the disease/blights some of us in warmer climates have to deal with. Unless a plant nursery introduces it in-season it usually doesn't come that far north.

Also, much disease pressure is caused by environment (especially moisture, localized) as well as pH. pH can be the difference between seeing clubroot in brassicas and seeing none at all. pH balance needed to eliminate club root in some areas can also raise the chance of fungal root rots. Knowing what your area is susceptible to is very important in how you manage your soil, water, and pesticide use...chemical or organic.

Part of what we're seeing now is great advances in seed hybridization, but what we can get per acre with modern fertilization, herbicide, and pesticide use can run laps around what we were producing per acre 50 years ago and totally stomp what we were producing 100 years ago. These advances trickle down to other areas of farming, such as the influence on the amount of cheap meat compared to even the 1970s.

There's no reason to wax romantic about what was going on in the 1900s-1940s in the US with destructive agriculture practices that we have learned from which nearly destroyed mass agriculture in the middle-US. Going back beyond that we have huge parts of Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and Australia that have been laid nearly barren thanks to horrible agriculture practices. All of this is before "chemical agriculture" came on the scene.

Soil management is something that's been being addressed so much better than in the past. My biggest "fear" about modern agriculture doesn't involve input uses beyond water, really. I'm a lot more concerned about the use of aquifer water in middle-US and the Colorado River (which feeds Cali + Arz + MX fields as much as Colorado) than chemical or GMO influences, myself. We produce such an enormous amount of food in the US...we produce so much milk that a surprising amount is dumped in order to keep farms profitable and from going out of business.

The water tables under middle-America are being tapped enormously and the Colorado River feeds fields where there's less than a foot of natural rainfall per year. The cities will survive, but the mass agriculture in those areas could face issues.

Take a look at Google Maps satellite view over the Yuma, AZ region up to Cali and into Mexico...almost all of that relies on the Colorado River and the snow/rainfall that feeds it 100s/1000s miles away from those fields. That entire region gets about 6-12" of rain a year. It's an amazing piece of human engineering over nature, but it's not very sustainable given current practices.

As nc-crn said, We can polish our gardens with all kinds of extra touches, but most farmers cannot do that so lovingly. As I type this I can look out the window upon the home farm that now is farmed by my second cousins along with his grandsons...along with about 3300 other acres.

Does it have to be this way? Perhaps so in this present time.

And actually, I was thinking of contacting the leprechauns this year because I've already tried everything else.

On the flipside, too much organic N that's not broken down to a more plant accessible NO3 can lead to NH4+ buildup which can "burn" plant roots and sometimes leaves. It gets more complex for grains (such as corn) which enjoy both NH4 and NO3 depending on the time of life/growth in the plant. In a healthy organic amendment system the conversion from NH4 to NO3 happens so quickly via "natural" chemical reaction that it's effect isn't worth worrying about.

Conventional farming especially in areas with good rainfall [which leaches calcium to lower horizons] does tend to make the soil a bit more acidic. but then today's farmers add lime.

Zackey, IMO also except I would make the distinction between diseases caused by too much under-mineralized and over-processed food (sometimes called the diseases of affluence) and infectious diseases and plagues (sometimes called the diseases of poverty).

Well said.

There is no new information about Soil Microbiology that is mentioned in this link. All of it to me was very basic.

It's chemical imaging of microbes/bio-materials on a DNA/RNA level for mapping purposes.

It's a way to help pick which crops to plant, when to apply fertilizers, what depths, and in what amounts...especially in relation to soil pH (and if it needs adjusting).

By researching how different types of biological creatures react to different conditions...and the type you're working with in your fields...you can use more effect (and therefore less) inputs to get a better yielding crop.

There's a lot going on the field of genetic research in cropping systems and it's not all GMO research.

The great thing about this kind of mapping is you can find boundaries and expected areas (and soil conditions) where you're more likely to find certain organisms (especially if changing pH or applying excessive nutrients isn't economically reasonable) and being able to deliver a crop in the most effect manner using the least amount of external inputs.

https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-life_sciences-nit rogen_fixation

This is an experimental extract on the study of how cyanobacteria fixates nitrogen in soil (a process with is known, but not understood).

Still...while, there is the use of genetic research, there is no modification of organisms going on in this research. It's merely a quest for understanding on a cell-by-cell (and inner-cellular) level of "why stuff happens."

Hey, if you can make your own compost your good to go.

How in the world can they be so blind on how to control a fungus that destroys the crop in a sandy loom?

If you think they will be just telling the Farmer which crop to harvest and where, I promise you they will be GMO.

Do you think this kind of funding does not involve GMO?

For those that want to be led to the truth, try this link for starters: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/mediacentre/media-releases/food /Response-to-the-Governments-Grains-Research-and-Development-Corporati on-GRDC/

Understanding soil microbes, how they effect soils, and the mechanisms that make them work is an important and untapped area of science that not only warrants investigation, but is long overdue.

To dismiss this work because of an off-chance fear isn't fair to society or science.

In case you're wondering, most all of this work (I can't speak for every country's study) has nothing at all to do with GMO companies.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the importance of this work, a quest for understanding exactly how the microbes do their action rather than just accepting "it simply does."

There's so many strains of the same bacteria, nematode, microbe, etc. that matching them to areas of desirable pH, soil type, crop, etc ranges could lead to using less external inputs...therefore less nutrient losses/use.

If fear is more important than pollution control and straining of resources, so be it.

The role of soil microorganisms has been understood for a very long time. That is why it was a red flag for me when I watched the video. Too many basics in Soil Microbiology were made to sound as if were some mystery, "the black box" for instance.

If you want to discuss Soil Microbioloby then we can do so but don"t make Soil Microbiology the scapegoat for GMO research.

There has been plenty of Scientific research that has proven the role of microorganism's in Soil Microbiology a long time ago. It really is no mystery, the roots are king in the underground world. The roots control the microorganism's by a signal that is sent out with a code, a very specific code indeed.

You couldn't be more incorrect in your assumptions. I linked to a single paper (out of many) that shows this. Knowing why an organism does something can be as important and open up new areas of discovery than blindly accepting "it does this so that's the end of it." The goal of science is understanding, not blind acceptance. We can live with blind acceptance, but we can grow with understanding.

I have degree in soil science and horticulture in case you're interested.

I also work for a GMO company as a researcher just for the sake of full disclosure. Also, your assumptions this is being used for GMO is so far off base it's not even based in fact.

We can discuss soil microbiology all you want, but it would help if you had a basis in understanding it's role and existing science.

The only red flags you're raising are caused by a lack of being able to separate genetic/micro-biological research from GMO research. You fail to grasp how wide of a research field this is.

This "root code" you speak of is only a half-truth. A biological organism (the point of these studies) doesn't care about a nutrient/symbiotic/osmotic relationship with a root system...they are opportunistic given the proper environment for them to thrive. If this wasn't the case we could take care of root knot nematodes a lot easier. Wouldn't it be a lot better to find out which parasitic (good) nematodes you can put into a soil system to combat the bad ones, why they work, and at what level they are most effective in a given environment?

You totally fail to see that this research can lead to better cropping choices, less suplimental inputs, and the proper inoculations of ORGANIC CONTROL in crop systems by finding out how/why they microorganisms do their job and the best conditions to make this work possible.

Once again, your comparison of this research to GMOs is unfounded and insisting it is so is ignorant.

If you'd like to know what's "hot" in GMO research currently we can make another post about that and it sure as heck won't involve any of this research. You're giving GMO research way too broad of a reach given what they're really out there doing.

To keep on the subject of the paper I linked, we know cynobacteria can fixate N (this is important in rice fields, btw), but we don't know how it does it.

Learning how this works could open up new areas of understanding the best conditions for this to take place. If it is found that a certain cluster of cells are mainly responsible for this mechanism, cynobacteria can be cultivated (out of the many types/strains out there) which can do this more efficiently.

Now, let's delve a bit into how an organism can be something that's the same organism, but different types/strains can do different things.

Pseudomonas putida...a soil gram bacteria...

One strain KT2442 "eats" beneze heavy Naphthalene (moth ball chemical) contaminates...which can remediate contaminated soils.

Another strain M10 can turn morphine into hydromophone via what it "eats" and the bonds that reform afterwards.

So, here we have 2 types of the same bacteria doing 2 very different things. There's many other types of this bacteria that do many other things, too. One strain can turn polystyrene plastics into a biodegradable form and is already inoculated into some polystyrene plastics marketed as "biodegradable."

Just what I thought.

"To keep on the subject of the paper I linked, we know cynobacteria can fixate N (this is important in rice fields, btw), but we don't know how it does it."

You mean, "lichen symbiosis involving cyanobacteria"

The cyanobacteria produce several different types of immobile spores. They are usually found within a filament or trichome, arising from a vegetative cell. They form a thick wall after being filled with food reserves. Many filamentous species can form sporelike cells called heterocysts, which are involved in Nitrogen fixation.

If it was true what you are saying nc-crn, about this not being about GMO's in the end, I would be jumping up and down with excitement. I don't buy it. This research was funded 2 billion dollars which the Australian Government is involved in. When you are talking that much money funded for research, there will always be GM and GMO's in the picture, period.

Why do you think they are looking at all the soil microoganism's and keeping track of each ones DNA?

GM and GMO's are your answers.

I know where this type of stuff goes.

You do realize that I've actually worked with what I'm talking about and you're going out on a limb to assume something is right and making it right in your mind?

also, your "lichen symbiosis involving cyanobacteria" rant still totally ignores the point of the video that you seem to want to ignore...knowing how all of this works, and why it works on an inner-cellular level, not a physical structure level. Your rant is more akin to talking about the shell of a car rather than the parts that make the car work, or more specifically why one metal is in a spark plug flint and another metal is used in a crank shaft.

This research goes deep into cellular biology. This isn't about filaments/tricomes or other physical structures...this is delving deep into the genetics on an inner-cellular level.

You don't "buy it" because you've already made up your mind what it is based on a world you've created around it even though you don't understand it.

You already said what you need to. I agree with 100% of what you say. I wonder why? O yea thats right, I cant disagree with science even if I wanted to.

We don't fully understand the mechanism(s) that causes peppers to ripen. If that's discovered we could have an ethylene-like (maybe) ripening agent that could result in green shipping peppers becoming sugar-enhanced colored peppers by the time they reach the grocery (and hopefully not as taste-bare as ethylene ripened tomatoes). If that agent can be measured in certain varieties which naturally have a natural abundance of this mystery mechanism, those can be used as a more desirable breeding stock.

There's all kinds of applications for trying to understand why something is happening on an extremely small cellular level...the pathways of genetic/chemical exchange within the cells that pass the information we take as granted in an end result.

Additionally I have found it hugely satisfying and feel a more complete cycle between my garden and my table. I am increasing my knowledge and experience of composting, and feel my compost is becoming better with every batch by adding simple things such as alfalfa and seaweed (always take my pack when I visit the ocean). Having a microscope I have also been able to see for myself the change and increase of microbial life in my soil and assume that will lead to a more healthy relationship between plant and soil.

Now I have to find someone to give my leftover chemical ferts to..