bigger yields with guano

Are there any tricks to gettin chem like yield with guano tea?

pedrodepaco said:

Are there any tricks to gettin chem like yield with guano tea?

Click to expand...

I suppose you could treat organic liquids like chem..

Have a read of the stickies ..


Organic growing is about a living system.. Chemicals are not.

IMO (tm)

Jack

I've seen some pretty sweet yields with organics on here, I'm not sure I'd say they are worse than chemicals as far as yield. It's all about how you use it.

Test in the corn fields, I think I am going to see what a mix of chem and organic can do. Because I can't find just organic fields, but I see a lot of no till going on. I think a mix might be okay, I'd rather go all organic but I think most farmers go very light on the chemi's compared to chemi pot farmers. I just hope the soil isn't to dead, but whatever it is like. I can bring it back to life, just not as well as say working on a plot for years.

a corn field will either have tons of nitrogen if it is active, or very little if it is not. Corn is an extremely heavy feeder, so during the season tons of N is added, and after the season is over the soil is very depleted.

The runoff from cornfield can be so bad that babies downriver turn blue. When you hear "blue babies" that's what you're talking bout. The high nitrates in the water cause a condition called methemoglobinemia.

If you stick to the no-till fields, you will be better off. They don't need quite as much (still quite a bit).

i am a big fan of guano but i dont make teas - i just add it to my soil mix at the start. Personally i dont like using dead animal products like bone meal (although im sure they work just fine)

i will say in general though that animal manure is pretty magical stuff and that there is nothing like it for bringing fertility to soil. i keep chickens as much for their manure which i add to my compost heap as i do for their eggs (i dont eat the chickens as i am a veggie

Someone should have told the Native Americans that N was needed to grow corn. I believe it was them who taught us to grow it using fish left overs (fish hydrolysate?). Adding something which is converted to available N is very different than adding available N.

Here is an excerpt from something I wrote previously which may help explain;

"The forms of N which plant roots are able to uptake are in ionic form or soluble. These soluble forms of N are ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-). Very simply stated these soluble forms of N are instantly available in chemical N and there is no need for any bacterial/archaeal (B/A) mineralization to make them available to the roots of plants. There is some indication that some soluble ammonium is utilized by B/A and mineralized into nitrates, however this appears (to me) somewhat an opportunistic occurrence (from the B/A perspective). So yes we can concur that B/A eats and thrives on some chemically provided ions (there is a very large but) but this action is not a necessary one for the plant to uptake exactly the same ions as are being consumed by the B/A. In certain circumstances the B/A will be in competition with the plant for these nutrients. So it appears that plants can grow in this fashion without interaction by mineralizing B/A. It appears that the chemically provided ions (soluble N) completely bypass the microbial nutrient cycle.

With natural or organic growing, N ( R-NH2 ) for the plant is contained (sequestered) in a non-soluble (non-ionic) form in organic matter (or in the case of the gardener; compost, soil foods). It is true that there are certain known bacteria (and now some archaea) which directly fix and supply ionic forms of N to the roots of plants and this is an area where we are still learning so all is not known by any stretch. However soil scientists have discovered and it is common knowledge (as knowledge goes) that the bulk of NH4+ and NO3- are delivered to the roots of plants by protozoa (flagellates, amoebae and ciliates). This occurs in a complex network ostensibly, controlled in large degree by the plant. The plant releases compounds from the roots which feed B/A, thereby increasing the B/A population. The B/A consumes/processes forms of R-NH2 or forms which are pre-degraded by fungi and or other B/A. The B/A further multiply with a good supply of food and their large population encourages the excysting (hatching from cysts) and dividing of protozoa. The protozoa prey upon the B/A and in an approximate 30 minute period complete the excretion of NH4+ and/or NO3- available to the roots of the plants. Apparently protozoa only utilize 30 to 40 percent of the nutrient consumed (60 to 70% available to plants) and many have a division cycle of 2 hours so the efficiency of this nutrient delivery system is considerable. Just as it began, the microbial N cycle can be rapidly shut down by molecular emissions from the plant. It is apparent that the nutrient needs of the plant can change within short periods (perhaps in hours). There is much yet unknown, however even disease control may be effected by a sudden reduction of N in the rhizoshere. This is certainly something which cannot be effectively manipulated by chemical N applications and the leaching of unused N is potentially exacerbated."

Citations of References;

Protozoa and plant growth:
the microbial loop in soil revisited
Michael Bonkowski
Rhizosphere Ecology Group, Institut für Zoologie, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Schnittspahnstr. 3, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany

From the book; Modern Soil Microbiology
Chapter 6; Protozoa and Other
Protista in Soil
Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski,
and Bryan Griffiths

Soil protozoa: an under-researched microbial group gaining momentum
Marianne Clarholm
Department of Forest Mycology and Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7026, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37 (2005) 811–817

Soil microbial loop and nutrient uptake by plants: a test
using a coupled C:N model of plant–microbial interactions
Xavier Raynaud Jean-Christophe Lata
Paul W. Leadley
Plant Soil
DOI 10.1007/s11104-006-9003-9

SOIL BIOTA, SOIL SYSTEMS, AND PROCESSES
David C. Coleman
University of Georgia

http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eco/biogeo/biogeochemical.html

http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1722/eb1722.html

microbe, the native americans you are thinking of never cultivated corn as a monoculture. the leftovers were always put back into the soil, and they were always planted with beans (using the corn as a pole) to replenish N, as well as squash to shade the ground and keep down weeds. This method of planting/worship is called the Three Sisters. Fish was used as fertilizer off the coast but I doubt that was done inland where fish in such massive quantities was harder to come by (If you live off lakes and streams, the fish you catch is not gonna go in the dirt if you can help it.)

make no mistake though, the green manure was always there, and you can't grow corn without N, even if you are native american.

Microbeman said:

Someone should have told the Native Americans that N was needed to grow corn. I believe it was them who taught us to grow it using fish left overs (fish hydrolysate?).

Click to expand...

The very reason I use fish emulsion Bro!

http://www.cobbranch.com/Corn Maze/cornmaze_facts.php

Smart gardeners indeed.. Three Sisters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)


Jack

maryjohn said:

microbe, the native americans you are thinking of never cultivated corn as a monoculture. the leftovers were always put back into the soil, and they were always planted with beans (using the corn as a pole) to replenish N, as well as squash to shade the ground and keep down weeds. This method of planting/worship is called the Three Sisters. Fish was used as fertilizer off the coast but I doubt that was done inland where fish in such massive quantities was harder to come by (If you live off lakes and streams, the fish you catch is not gonna go in the dirt if you can help it.)

make no mistake though, the green manure was always there, and you can't grow corn without N, even if you are native American.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the news on how to work with green manure was known. There is evidence that the Northern Americas traded with the Southern Americas and they practiced soil building. I can't think of the name it is called now. Anyone the amazing soil in the Jungle... Bad brain bad brain.. Puff puff pass.

I'll bet there was nothing wasted and even more important with a much larger population today we shouldn't waste either.

Jack

maryjohn said:

...Fish was used as fertilizer off the coast but I doubt that was done inland where fish in such massive quantities was harder to come by (If you live off lakes and streams, the fish you catch is not gonna go in the dirt if you can help it.)

Click to expand...

wouldnt the salmon run each spring provide huge amounts of fish waste in many places inland? after all the great forests are a result of the salmon spawning and dying every year - its one of the biggest forms of nutrient recycling from the oceans.

Chemical ferts are made to be in a form in which they are immediately available for uptake by plants. Guanos and any other organics must be broken down and processed by soil microbes into a form which is available for uptake by plants.

If you're really tuned in you could possibly get comparable yields with organics, but it may take longer given the nature of the process. There are no tricks, you can't fool natural process like you can a synthetic one.

But you'll never get chemy buds to smell and taste like dank organic nuggets.

Guano is the shit, however.

verdant, if you've ever seen a school of menhaden, or heard of the legendary schools of striped bass that used to be in the chesapeake (they say so thick you could walk on them), you'd have an idea of why whole fish could be used as fertilizer (we are not talking leftovers).

a salmon run is a different story. It's once a year (and at the wrong time for planting), and it has to last. Now how much of those fish do you think went into the ground? And remember, there were no pickup truks to take a bunch of fish carcass over to the areas they planted (not necessarily near the salmon). Now go to the great lakes area and fish becomes even more precious. I guess you could use the stripped carcass, but now we're not talking the same thing as using the whole fish. Now this is really getting over my head, as my knowledge is so general. But i do know that the image of the native american making a mound and burying fish when he plants comes from the chesapeake, where they definitely did use green manure as well.

In any case, they knew to always plant legumes with corn. So they may not have known about N, but they added it back in. You can't grow good corn without N. Fish fertilizer may be part of the picture, but a source of N is crucial, whether delivered by protozoa or not, it has to be there to begin with, unless we speak of legumes.

Microbeman said:

Adding something which is converted to available N is very different than adding available N.

Click to expand...

depends on which distinctions are most meaningful to you. I call it adding N no matter how you do it. I stay away from synthetic but I won't shy away from natural sources of available N, like horse piss. In the case of using legumes as companions, you are literally pulling N from the air and putting it in the soil when you bury the waste.

maryjohn said:

verdant, if you've ever seen a school of menhaden, or heard of the legendary schools of striped bass that used to be in the chesapeake (they say so thick you could walk on them), you'd have an idea of why whole fish could be used as fertilizer (we are not talking leftovers).

a salmon run is a different story. It's once a year (and at the wrong time for planting), and it has to last. Now how much of those fish do you think went into the ground? And remember, there were no pickup truks to take a bunch of fish carcass over to the areas they planted (not necessarily near the salmon). Now go to the great lakes area and fish becomes even more precious. I guess you could use the stripped carcass, but now we're not talking the same thing as using the whole fish. Now this is really getting over my head, as my knowledge is so general. But i do know that the image of the native american making a mound and burying fish when he plants comes from the chesapeake, where they definitely did use green manure as well.

In any case, they knew to always plant legumes with corn. So they may not have known about N, but they added it back in. You can't grow good corn without N. Fish fertilizer may be part of the picture, but a source of N is crucial, whether delivered by protozoa or not, it has to be there to begin with, unless we speak of legumes.

Click to expand...

Hi Mary,

I was not implying that the Natives would have used only fish. The person making the point about the salmon runs and your point that there are fish everywhere supports that it could be used in many areas. I would think that the natives, being clever enough to engage in horticulture, might also figure out that old dead fish and leftovers could be stored in a vessel (and produce a sort of hydrolysate) to be used in the Spring or even better added to the soil in the Fall. I did not say that N was not necessary to grow corn but that soluble N is not. This is what you inferred by the runoff bluebaby issue. All forms of 'natural organic N' are delivered to plants via the microbial nutrient cycle, even when using green manure. Even plants which release N through nodules in the root system depend on microbes for this process. Sure, there may be minor amounts of soluble N in green manure and it is irresponsible to use lots of it, especially close to a waterway but the majority of organic N is sequestered and the majority of organic N is ONLY delivered to plants via protozoa (or other microbes like nematodes) consuming bacteria/archaea. I'm not proposing some alternate way. This is the 'main' way organic N is processed (for these types of plants). Soluble N (chemical already in ionic form) is different and can leach into water.

maryjohn said:

depends on which distinctions are most meaningful to you. I call it adding N no matter how you do it. I stay away from synthetic but I won't shy away from natural sources of available N, like horse piss. In the case of using legumes as companions, you are literally pulling N from the air and putting it in the soil when you bury the waste.

Click to expand...

Hi Mary,

This is not the first time, you have mentioned 'natural sources of available N'. Can you please diect me to some reviewed research which demonstrates that the N in horse piss is in ionic form.

you know, I just assumed because it works so damn fast, but I had to look it up to be sure.

Urine is full of urea, right? And on a box of Miracle Grow, it lists "urea" as the source of N. One comes from the liver of an animal, the other is synthesized in a lab, but it is chemically the same stuff, and highly soluble in water.

I also assumed the N in blood meal comes from urea. Am I wrong again?

My opinion on this subject is that if you give the plant what it needs, the genetics will be the determining factor of the yield. And you can do that with guano, meals or chemicals.
Burn1

maryjohn said:

you know, I just assumed because it works so damn fast, but I had to look it up to be sure.

Urine is full of urea, right? And on a box of Miracle Grow, it lists "urea" as the source of N. One comes from the liver of an animal, the other is synthesized in a lab, but it is chemically the same stuff, and highly soluble in water.

I also assumed the N in blood meal comes from urea. Am I wrong again?

Click to expand...

It is converted to forms of ammonia or nitrate (to my knowledge) by microbes. The ammonia smell in a barn is even attributed to microbial activity. Do some googling. I believe nature protects itself by not having a lot of compounds which are directly soluble. I still have not had one person answer my challenge providing evidence that blood meal provides a significant amount of N in ionic form. I am prepared at anytime to learn, if this is the case.

Microbeman

Just in case you're not familiar with the farming methods used by the pre-Columbian group known as the 'Tiwanaku' (circa 400 B.C.) in South America (specifically Boliva), you might find this link an interesting read.

Here's part of the cite:

They practiced a unique form of agriculture, conducive to the climate and soil in the area. We call it raised field agriculture today and it enabled them to utilize wetlands in the area. They dug canals 16-30 ft. apart some of which were 650 ft. long and piled the dirt in between to be used as plant beds. The canals held fish and aquatic plants used for food and fertilizer. The water also served to create warmer temperatures protecting the crops against frost. This method is actually beginning to be used again today by the Aymara, after some Anthropologists experimented with it and it proved to be quite successful (Richardson 127).

Click to expand...

2,400 years ago and they had it figured out.