Re: [compost_tea] soil chemistry facts

From: Mike Harvey <mharvey_at_westnet.com.au>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:55:15 +0800

"........OK? Did I make the message clear this time? I apprecaite you ask=
ing when something I say isn't clear. and I apprecaite that your resopnse =
isn't nasty, attacking or arrogant. I try my best not to be any of the abo=
ve, but sometimes I don't always get the fact that people take what I say a=
s me attacking. Hope you don't interpret my response in that light. Just =
trying to be arrow-clear......"

Elaine R. Ingham,

 This seems like great info however would you be able to point us to the da=
ta that supports this. I have not seen the data that shows this to be the c=
ase. I am not saying this is not the case I am just asking where the data i=
s that shows there is no need to add any minerals and that the soil biology=
 can release all the required minerals. I would say that I am beginning to =
see this on my farm however it would be good to have the data that shows th=
is "to be scientific" to be able to proceed with confidence in a certain di=
rection and to be able to advise others to do the same.


It should be noted that the addition of inorganic minerals has been very s=
ucessful and soil biology has benefited. Case in point on the volcanic plat=
aux in N.Z the addition of Cobalt stopped cattle from dying- called bush si=
ckness. Cobalt and Selenium in Western Australia - allowed sheep to be farm=
ed. Similar examples come from Texas I believe?? I could go on.
Super phosphate in west aus and Queensland has been beneficial to soil biol=
ogy and earth worm numbers.
I do however believe that without the soil biology, as you promote, these s=
ystems will not perform.
It is clear that we need to release calium and Phosphate from the soil and =
make it available - this can only be done with soil biology. How much compo=
st tea is required to do this on western australian soils??
I hope to be able to tell you this in the future.
It is clear that the bank of phosphate in our soils is waiting to be unlock=
ed by the Golden key-the only key that seems to fit this is soil biology an=
d compost tea is the lock smith.
If there is data available now, showing this, - trials etc then it would be=
 great to have this info so we can proceed with greater accuracy.
regards Mike Harvey
www.newlifesoils.com

 

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: soilfoodweb_at_aol.com
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [compost_tea] soil chemistry facts



  Lynton asked -
    My first question is about trace elements. For eg, in NZ there is said=
 to be a shortage of Selenium (among other things).
  Nope, no shortage of Selenium in any of your soils. It may not be availa=
ble for your plants, but there is definately plenty of Se in the soil.

  Locked up - correct. But how do you "un-lock" any locked up nutrient?

  You get the proper biology back in the soil.

  Just exactly how do you do that? You have to have GOOD compost. That me=
ans checking the compost for organisms.

  If you don't bother making sure you have the organisms, just quit now and=
 apply toxic chemicals for the rest of your life.

  Not checking to make sure you have what you THINK you have is like assumi=
ng that when someone says there's anti-biotic in your medicine, it is actua=
lly there. Why do we have the FDA? People try to sell bad things all the =
time. Regulations are unfortunately necessary.

    Also, of course, the result of the NPK mindset is that what Se there is=
 has been further locked out). Isn't there a case for 'dosing' the soil (=
via compost preferably) (or plants or animals) with the likes of Se, Cu, et=
c?

  Only if you REALLY are out of nutrients. And we are looking at the FACT =
that there is NO AGRICULTURAL SOIL, in the US or in Austrailia where we rea=
lly have LOST anything!!!!!

  Do you have soils in NZ where you have actually lost, completely, or to b=
elow plant-requirement levels, any nutrient? I am not aware that anyone ha=
s ever documented that. Perhaps the nutrients are not available, but that =
doesn't mean you need to add back in more nutrients. It's a waste of your m=
oney, and destroys water quality.

  Lynton wrote:
  Then there is the question of soil type. For example could a sandy soil =
be lower in nutrients and need suppliments? (extreme case: sand itself).

  Any hard data for that? No - there's plenty of any nutrient in any soi, =
straight sand or otherwise. The nutrient is present in the soil - not avai=
lable, perhaps, but again, that doesn't mean you add more of something you =
already have plenty of.

  Lynton wrote:
  And thirdly, what about climate? I am thinking that a wet climate would
  have more opportunity to leach minerals, while a dry climate would retain
  them (one of Albrecht's theories).

  That's the theory, of course. But where's the data? All we have is that=
 exchangeable nutrients are lacking.

  That doesn't mean add something that is in plenty in your soil. You have=
 to get the biology back. That's all, They'll move those nutrients from t=
he huge storage concentration of nutrients, but not-available nutrients, in=
to the available nutrients.

  Why buy something you don't need? Get the biology back, and never add mo=
re chemicals.

  This has been an eye-opener for me. I've been saying, you have to add ba=
ck into the soil the nutrients you take off in the crop.

  But the DATA show that is not true! We have 15,000 years of PO4 sequeste=
red in most ag soils. You don't need more!

  Lynton wrote:
  I've done a bit of reading of different theories recently, and one thing
  that stands out is the health of plants and animals grown on the
  Albrecht-Reams-Beddoe chemical approach. And when I buy vegetables and f=
ruit (organic of course), most have blemishes and don't keep long - signs o=
f lack of health, and I'm assuming mineral deficiency. (One exception that=
 stands out in memory is some BD apples grown in Hawkes Bay).

  Lynton, think this through. Just because you stop using toxic pesticides=
, have you got your biology back? Properly balanced?

  No. Many organic people do not make compost properly. They kill the bio=
logy by using copper sulfate, rotenone, peroxide, and so forth. Aren't tho=
se toxic chemicals? what's the effect on the biology?

  Death.

  Albrecht - Reams are looking at EXCHANGEABLE nutrients. Are the nutrient=
s in your soil in a plant available form? No, they aren't.

  Why not? You don't have the biology you need to make teh nutrients avail=
able.

  Start working on how you get the biology right. The sign that you are do=
ing it right is when you don't need to add nutrients, when your roots are d=
own a metter or more into the soil. Easy to assay? Sure.

  OK? Did I make the message clear this time? I apprecaite you asking whe=
n something I say isn't clear. and I apprecaite that your resopnse isn't n=
asty, attacking or arrogant. I try my best not to be any of the above, but=
 sometimes I don't always get the fact that people take what I say as me at=
tacking. Hope you don't interpret my response in that light. Just trying =
to be arrow-clear.

  Elaine R. Ingham
  Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
  Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
  Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
  Soil Foodweb Institue Cambridge, New Zealand
  Soil Foodweb Inc., Hilversum, The Netherlands
  Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
  Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/compost_tea/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service=
.





Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 02:48:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:27 EST