A common sense report that reveals the deception of corporate sponsored studies. Most credible research never seems to make it to the press... or even the journals.

It have long been my belief that basic NPK fails to take into consideration that so many of our essential nutrition can require a vast number of other minerals. So many of those minerals never are expressed in soil testing but are important to the normal growth of plants; a few are highlighted in the linked newsletter.

Face it, if it is not in the plants, it is absent to the rest of the food chain.

Since what is today called "conventional" gardening only really took root in the 1950's I think everyone has it backwards and this "conventional" gardening should have another name.
As some of us are learning "living better chemically" is not better.

No matter how one is trying to grow plants the macros and micros are of vital importance, they are all essential to plant growth; hence the expression, the 16 essential elements. Maybe organic farmers as a group pay more attention to the micros. than do other farmers, beats me, never seen anything but anecdotal evidence and opinions on that one.

Kimmsr: you say potato and I say potahto and I'll get to Ireland before you!

It seems that most of these discussions center on organic verses more chemical methods. I wonder what happens when an abundance of humus is paired with some chemical fertilizer. It seems to me that the middle ground is not getting tested properly.....Why?

On our blueberry shrubs, I use both "organic" compost, made mostly from shredded tree leaves, and also Schultz's plant food, the formulation for acid loving plants. The shrubs are healthy and productive. The fruit has good flavor, although I tend to pick a bit early, since I have to compete with the local birds. I have not found it necessary to use any pesticides. Given the small scale of my growing operation, it is simple and inexpensive to use a pre-mix comprehensive plant food, and skip the soil testing. I do test for pH, however.

Good point wayne. I imagine there is a huge group of middle grounders but I wonder if they remain silent for the most part because they don't want to suffer the slings and arrows from the extremists from either side.

Lloyd

They can sling all they want at me Lloyd. I've been around long enough to know manure when I smell it and call it for what it is.

Wind must be blowing out of the south, I smell the feed lot 5 miles south :)

I believe in an abundance of organic matter and humus for good soil health. Still, I would like to know the truth [the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth] concerning fertilization. It seems that organic draws a person into an almost religious devotion. Where the soul is concerned, I can see whole hearted devotion to truth, but I would like to learn from unbiased (where oh where?] sources just what is the end of the matter.

We who are raising crops are able to experiment, but it takes time to prove all things.

I've been to Ireland and talked with, and still talk with, Irish organic gardeners. They have, as I have, made their soil better and more productive using organic methods only, no need for synthetic inputs and no need to buy organic fertilizers either.

I hear ya michael, bovine scatology can run rampant that's for sure.

wayne, I've wondered a few times if I would increase yield/quality significantly if I added some synthetics to the fields. Combined with all the organic material I put into the land, it just might be a worthwhile endeavour. I suspect some serious soil testing would give some answers but I wonder what would result if I just ran a test plot area, say half of a small field, where I added some small amounts of synthetics. But then I'd have to compare increased yields (if any) against costs (both time and financial) to see if it would be practicable. Something to ponder.

Lloyd

P.S. Up here in Canuckistan, some of us use a hand passing over our heads whilst making an 'airplane going by sound' (nnnneeeerrrommmmee) to signify that someone has missed the point completely, do you have that in the States?

LLoyd, I don't recall that here in flyover country

Lloyd: I think that has been a pretty common expression everywhere I've lived in the states from FL to ID and many points in between. Probably not as widely recognized as a middle finger though!

Lloyd, I have no doubt you would increase yield significantly in the short run, just like coffee increases energy significantly in the short term when someone is not used to caffeine. Long term though?... And quality?...

Greenleaf, as long as the soil is kept in place and nurtured - and fert applied appropriately - there is zero reason why Lloyd couldn't keep quality going long term. None.

Dan

Keep in mind we are mostly talking about adding yard trimming materials (leaves and grass clippings) and utilizing very small amounts of synthetics to make up for any shortage of nutrients based on plant needs.

I've already proven that yard trimmings alone, under favourable weather conditions, can increase yields substantially (pretty well double) over an alternating fallow/cropping rotation.

Maybe next year I'll get a couple of soil tests done just to make sure I don't go overboard on nutrients and add a bit of synthetics over a portion of the field if warranted. My gut says between the large amounts of organic materials and the readily available synthetics, I could increase the yields and protein content with little expense. Whether it would be worthwhile long term, that I don't know.

This may require more pondering. Thank Dog it's winter and I have time to ponder! ;-)

Lloyd

Dan, you may be right as long as the conditions you specified were met. I am more of a purist, but then I understand organic fertilizer is not cheap either. On an individual case basis there are probably even some instances where conventional produce is superior to organic, although I do believe that is the exception.

Research at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania indicates that yields from fields where organic methods were used are comparable to those from fields where "conventional" methods were used except in years when rainfall was short and then the yields from the organic fileds were better.

Commoditized, industrialized ag tested against organic or a small farmer who cares will likely not be the same.

The overarching, relevant, germane issue is care and knowledge, and petrochemical fertilizer is simply a delivery vehicle for ions. Nothing more. How it is used is what should be focused on, just as whether too much chicken manure will turn out badly.

Petrochemical fert will likely become much more expensive as cheap energy goes away, making this well-worn (threadbare) topic moot as time goes on.

Dan

It stills seems to be coming out either/or. My question is how well organic works when tweaked with some stimulant fertilizer?

The challenge with chemical fertilizer is maintaining the organic cycles. By adding the soluble nutrients (fertilizer) you are adding spikes of available nutrients.

Consider also the potential destruction of soil organisms that contribute to the natural cycles.

Add the nutrients per your soil test or nutrient management plan, but in the forms most suited to maintenance of natural soils. Addition of organic matter is a prime driver of an organic system.

Have a little compassion for a plant(s) which will be stressed by the feast or famine concept of chemical fertilizer. Lean towards the even, consistent provision of organic management.

Nutrients that are processed by soil organisms (physical and chemical processes) are more likely to be retained in the soil.

Think organic and sustainable. Feed the soil.

Natural systems receive nutrient flushes as a matter of course, and they don't degrade as long as their resilience hasn't been compromised. As long as petrochemical fert isn't overapplied there should be no "destruction" or "potential destruction" of soil biota.

Dan

Wayne - I just posted a thread you might find interesting.

Al

Thank you Al. I know that overall our nation's soils need improvement and most of that improvement needs to be organic tilth.

I can do that in a garden setting, but in a way it is utilizing [and sometimes robbing] outside sources to do that........note to kimmsr- I just do not have enough leaves and such on my property to greatly enrich the soil.

Hi Wayne,

I don't know if you live in town or country. The reason I mention this is that for me, living in the suburbs, I have access to bagged leaves sitting curbside from at all my neighbors. I just snag them and bring home while walking the dog, etc. I then top dress/mulch plants for winter protection as well as use for adding to the compost pile.

(It never ceases to amaze me just how much organic material this sun beaten hard pan clay soil in this part of Texas can absorb and still be sun beaten hard pan clay soil!)

All the best,

Roger

"I know that overall our nation's soils need improvement and most of that improvement needs to be organic tilth."

I strongly agree, but ..... from the thread I linked to above:

"To be clear, this isn't a 'What came first, the chicken or the egg' thing; it isn't the fertilizer chemicals that cause the ravishment of the soil, it is the ravishment of the soil that is causal of the necessity/tendency to use the chemicals, particularly where expedience is key."

The point at which we perceive need for the use of chemical fertilizers is more a symptom of what happened before we get to that point.

Many would have you believe that adding fertilizers like Miracle-Gro to your nutritional supplementation program amounts to holocaust against soil denizens, but these fertilizers actually increase populations of microorganisms. When we take wood from the forests and grass from the prairies and lawns, and clear the debris from our gardens and beds, never replacing it, we upset the natural balance and absolutely ensure future nutritional deficiencies we need to correct or live with. While I would always hope that growers would make the effort to return sufficient OM to the soil an a frequent continuing basis, I have to say that if you don't have the resources to do enough of that, it makes little sense to live with the deficiencies when there are reasonable remedies.

Healthy plants are about soil structure and nutrition (we'll disregard other potentially limiting factors for the moment).

good structure: poor nutrition = poor plants
poor structure: good nutrition = poor plants
good structure: good nutrition = good plants

Technically, if you have good soil structure, you can raise beautifully healthy plants with nothing but soluble synthetic fertilizers, and it won't hurt the populations of soil life. The rub arrives on the shoulders of the fact you need to continually add OM to the soil to retain good structure.

It's all about balance. People who come down somewhere in the middle of the issue are in charge of all the options. Self-limiting options through dogma and rigid ideology seldom yields the best results.

Al

I'll say it in public: Al should write a book.

If I may pull out the penultimate paragraph's topic and expand upon it, as it echoes my systems and botanical training: farming and gardening the way humans practice it is unnatural, esp if we have non-natives growing in bulldozed/plowed soil. In soil, attempting to replicate natural processes is probably always the best way to go, and we will almost never match natural processes in the built environment and/or disturbed soils of subdivisions, gardens, farms. Since we cannot match natural processes, we must use the best practices to ensure best plant growth. Note I said 'practices', plural. Self-limiting options through dogma and rigid ideology seldom yield the best results.

Dan

I want to believe that, Al. The organic purists have made me feel guilty.

Roger, I do find lots of organic material, but to be abundant, I have to go outside my acre and a half, and utilize/rob those sources which can be both free and bought for a sum.

That's because you're allowing yourself to be judged guilty by someone else's standards. If a hundred strangers pronounced you guilty, while your own conscience absolved you, how many friends would you be lacking .... and would you take time out to hate yourself?

We can feel just as guilty about what we didn't do as we can about what we did. So if you ignore reason, you can pile some confliction on your guilt. ;o)

Of course, I'm just making light because the opportunity was there; but there's prolly abundant truth in what I said, if you think about it.

Thanks, Dan - a nice compliment that's appreciated.

{{gwi:3244}}

Al

I add lots of organic matter (leaves, woodchips, food scraps) and chemical ferts(mostly N)... I really have no idea if what i'm doing is good/bad/evil... I do tend to go light on the chemical ferts. I really need a soil test to know where i'm at.

I say once you add and get your garden producing, if you were to compost all old plants, leaves, compost all waste (human) and add that back to the garden bed...it would almost be a closed system. I realize the human body is going to grab some of the nutrients for building bones/etc???

Good discussion. I've always used fertilizer with micronutrients with my container plants.

I agree that conventional gardening should have another name because its been arround for such a short time. My wife and I have been gardening for about 40 years, most of this time we have used some very bad stuff on our garden poisons, NPKs and just about anything else someone tried to sell us. A few years ago we went totally Organic(at least I think we have). with
in a couple of years we have gotton the earthworms back the bees back and bennificial back. Yes we do loose some stuff to the bad bugs but in general our garden is better. Oh ya over the past 40 years I couldn't tell you how much compost we have put in our garden tons and tons in both types of garden but it wasn't until we swore off the bad chemicals that we started to get a really good garden, possibly our tomatoes are not a good looking as the have been in the past but they taste as good or better. I feel so much better about the garden as a result as well

The October/November 2010 issue of Organic Gardening magazine has a very good article by Greg Bowman about "The Delicate Dance", the balance your soil needs to produce good healthy plants and how that balance is obtained and maintained.
Pretty much what Sir Albert Howard wrote about years ago.

kimmsr,

I believe these things can work fairly well in the home garden, but it gets harder with the more acreage you have. Still, it's fine for this forum, but I kind of feel that it's what is not said that begs attention.

There are numbers of large scale farms growing what they produce organically in the United States, ireland, England, France Germany, Switzerland, Spain, New Zeland, Australia, Laos, numerous African countries that I am aware of and there probablt are more that I am not aware of. There are also large numbers of Bio Dynamic gardeners all over the world. Not only can organic gardening be done there are a very large number of people that practice organic gardeneing, successfully.
Organic gardening/farming works and works quite well. Research at the Rodale Institute has shown that yields per acre in good years is comparable to those of "conventionaly" farmed fields and is better during years of little rainfall because soils containing adequate levels of organic matter will hold more soil moisture, longer.

kimmsr,

Usually in this country the organic buying group is the ones with discretionary income because organic farming is costlier and then dependent on that more niche market....and may they prosper.

Rodale Farms did reveal their experiments with larger scale farming in that they rigged up a tractor to crimp rye and plant in one pass. In my opinion the trials were very poor in results...couldn't make a living that way. Also 6 or less row grain farming would be uncompetitive unless a premium is given for the crop. Still, we need organics.

It's kinda like the mom and pop stores of today. Some can make a go of it with a special clientelle and perhaps higher prices.

The Rodale institute has done much more than what you describe in research on yields of organic versus using synthetic fertilizers and the work Heifer International has been doing in third world countries has been largely to teach people there to use organic mathods since few can afford the fertilizers and pesticides what is termed today "conventional" farming requires.
Organic gardening and farming can be done, and is being done, all over the world at much less cost per acre then "conventional" gardening and farming.

That's because the labor is so cheap. 'Cheap' energy replaces expensive labor, especially in First World countries. Once cheap energy goes away, we'll look for alternatives and people will be forced to work again. Hopefully this won't affect grain productivity, which is steadily decreasing per capita as is arable land and aquifers.

Dan

Dad's second income was from raising tobacco. It is a very heavy feeder and while it doesn't rob the soil as bad as corn, it still is hard on ground. Because the farms were not large enough to allow crop rotation, we used the same acreage years in a row.

Dad didn't either believe in or know about organic growing - he knew how to get the most out of the land though. Every fall we sowed winter wheat and then scattered tobacco stalks on the ground. The wheat would grow until usually the middle of April or so and by then the stalks, though not decompsed, had added quite a bit of nourishment. We plowed all that under. Sometime the foliage would be close to three feet tall - that was a lot of organic matter! He would always have the soil tested, every year. Not always, but usually we would apply lime. He also used 10-10-10 ferts and sidedressed once each spring with 33-0-0.

That fall, repeated the cycle. Back then, 3,000 pounds of tobacco per acre was decent, dad would get more than 4,000 in good years.

As others have pointed out - it is about feeding the soil.

Mike