What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

GROW CONTEST WINNER: Chief Bigsmoke's Perpetual Groove and Nerdatorium

heady blunts

heady blunts

prescription blunts
Veteran
chief bigsmoke said:
Dynamic accumulators at work.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure grasses qualify as dynamic accumulators, and certainly that title doesn't fit while growing in a container.

a living mulch maybe?

dynamic accumulators are so called because they send down deep tap roots and access a deeper strata of soil, pulling nutrients up that are otherwise unaccessible to the neighboring plants.

as the dynamic accumulator plant cycles through the seasons, it drops leaves or dies or is consumed and redistributed via dung, and the nutrients which it accumulated during its life cycle are returned to the soil, enriching the upper layers.

the strong tap roots also open up hard-packed layers so that more delicate roots of other plants can access otherwise unavailable soil zones.

it has been suggested that dynamic accumulators can also share nutrients with other plants via endo-mycorrhizal associations with the roots of other plants.

dynamic accumulators include the common dandelion, stinging nettle, comfrey, dockweed, etc. Masanobu Fukuoka notes a specific tree in his book the one-straw revolution with a deep tap root that he plants in his orchards to act as a dynamic accumulator, the Morishima acacia (pp 63).

grasses are opportunistic plants, they move in quickly by focusing their growth laterally. that said, there are varieties which can establish roots as deep as 6 feet in the right conditions.

i don't know what type of grass you have there, but it seems to me that the main benefit would be from the enhanced soil structure and moisture retention inherent in a container full of healthy roots.

i have been experimenting with a "living mulch" of white, rose, and crimson clover, and rye and barley grass in my vegetable garden. unfortunately i had to abort the project after receiving a rather threatening letter from the head of my community garden. oh well, gotta play by the rules if you're leasing i guess!
 
MileHighGuy

MileHighGuy

Active member
Veteran
Heady you're awesome. That explanation rocked and I cannot believe that you quoted Masanobu Fukuoka. One Straw is amazing and blew my mind when I first read it.

Anyways, just jumped when i saw that and had to say something.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
well put Heady! great response. now for a fun chat may I try and understand it further:

From what I understand:
- all though MOST dynamic accumulators have long tap roots it does not define a D.A.

- D.A's can be used in a number of different ways: to increase a specific nutrient, as a cover crop, as a mulch, as a compost and as a companion plant.

-although grass isn't mentioned. Microbiologist Kristine Nicholas[1] showed that grasses like switchgrass, blue gama, bluestem, Indian grass not only send down deep roots but increase glomalin levels and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi that help "glue" the soil together, make it coherent, and most importantly, shuttle biologically available nutrients from soil to plant. Some land reclamation companies are now using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and triticale to accomplish a similar end, and most likely Orchard grass (especially in combination with chicory and clover), and yacon, Jerusalem artichoke, chicory and many other plants will also eventually be shown to increase glomalin. Whatever that mysterious quality of "fertile" and "fertility" turns out to be in the soil, it must have something to do with these processes.

-my grass also has long roots that reach the bottom of the containers and when the plants are young they would deliver nutrients from the soil below

So I'm a little stuck on definitions... wouldn't my grass/clover combo in someway be a dynamic accumulator - since it increases a specific nutrient, composts, mulches, and is a companion plant?

Whatcha think Heady?.. you guys and gals are the pros here. I just have conflicting definitions. I'm sure you're right though. I'm more often than not, wrong. Since i'm at the bottom of the steepest learning curve ever. haha :) I've asked one of my profs but he's writing a book in his spare time so he might not get back to me in time. ;)
 
heady blunts

heady blunts

prescription blunts
Veteran
heady blunts said:
i
grasses are opportunistic plants, they move in quickly by focusing their growth laterally. that said, there are varieties which can establish roots as deep as 6 feet in the right conditions.

i don't know what type of grass you have there, but it seems to me that the main benefit would be from the enhanced soil structure and moisture retention inherent in a container full of healthy roots.
Click to expand...

as i said before, i dont know what variety of grass you're growing, but certain grasses, mostly wild varieties adapted to prairie lands, can have extremely deep roots that will draw nutrition up from deeper soil stratas to the upper crust.

look, they can go even deeper than six feet!

NPGp5_rootsys.gif


i was simply saying that in a container, you will not be experiencing the same kind of "dynamic accumulation" that would occur in the wild with plants that have been established over a long term.

perhaps for the container gardener who uses pots that are over 6 feet deep and practices no-till techniques, an established "mother weed" would provide dynamic accumulator benefits to an annual crop planted at the surface.

but for the rest of us in our normal-sized containers, the benefits of growing a cover crop are mostly going to manifest as improved soil structure and moisture retention, IMO.

the article you cited does not mention nutrient production from the grasses listed. glomalin is a protein that helps soil aggregation. in other words, it is sticky and it makes smaller particles combine into larger pieces, increasing soil structure and porosity.

have you checked out Cocannouer's weeds: guardians of the soil? another great read regarding dynamic accumulators, cover crops, and mother (companion) plants.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
thank you so much Heady. That clarifies things. I in noway wanted to come off "challenging".

I'm stoked for the help. I edited D.A. to living mulch on the post. :)
 
heady blunts

heady blunts

prescription blunts
Veteran
no problem! i am just interested in good conversation :D

i've always thought that ganja would grow really well in an established prairie ecosystem.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
Just for Fun

images


This is one of my homework questions. Take a try at answering it...


Are there differences in plant uptake of the nutrients in commercial fertilizers (e.g. urea, 46-0-0) and organic services of nutrients (composts)? Why or why not?
 
silver hawaiian

silver hawaiian

Active member
Veteran
Here goes, pardon my inability to articulate:

The chemical makeup of synthetic fertilizers vs organic compounds can be quite different, for one. Not all N is created equally. In an organic ecosystem, the roots can essentially "dial up" whatever nutrition they need from the soil (provided it's there) by changing its exudates.

By that same mechanism, I'm not sure that the medium would "react" to the change in the plant's root exudates, in a synthetic situation. A large part of the logic behind organic gardening is that there are billions of "lunchboxes" containing all manner of nutrients, locked up in the soil. (In the form of carcasses/other organic matter which has consumed the nutrient source and essentially "locked it up" in its, .. Self?)

I think I'm tapdancing on the line of "force-feeding" with synthetic nutes vs. organic nutes. (That is, I think this halfassed line of reasoning is why we have claims that it's easier to burn plants with synthetic nutes vs. overdoing them with too much guano, for example. In an organic system, the plant has more control over what nutrients it's taking up and when).

:dunno:

:joint:
 
S

SeaMaiden

heady blunts said:
i'm not sure grasses qualify as dynamic accumulators, and certainly that title doesn't fit while growing in a container.

a living mulch maybe?

dynamic accumulators are so called because they send down deep tap roots and access a deeper strata of soil, pulling nutrients up that are otherwise unaccessible to the neighboring plants.

as the dynamic accumulator plant cycles through the seasons, it drops leaves or dies or is consumed and redistributed via dung, and the nutrients which it accumulated during its life cycle are returned to the soil, enriching the upper layers.

the strong tap roots also open up hard-packed layers so that more delicate roots of other plants can access otherwise unavailable soil zones.

it has been suggested that dynamic accumulators can also share nutrients with other plants via endo-mycorrhizal associations with the roots of other plants.

dynamic accumulators include the common dandelion, stinging nettle, comfrey, dockweed, etc. Masanobu Fukuoka notes a specific tree in his book the one-straw revolution with a deep tap root that he plants in his orchards to act as a dynamic accumulator, the Morishima acacia (pp 63).

grasses are opportunistic plants, they move in quickly by focusing their growth laterally. that said, there are varieties which can establish roots as deep as 6 feet in the right conditions.

i don't know what type of grass you have there, but it seems to me that the main benefit would be from the enhanced soil structure and moisture retention inherent in a container full of healthy roots.

i have been experimenting with a "living mulch" of white, rose, and crimson clover, and rye and barley grass in my vegetable garden. unfortunately i had to abort the project after receiving a rather threatening letter from the head of my community garden. oh well, gotta play by the rules if you're leasing i guess!
Click to expand...

Well damn it. I've misunderstood both the definition and role of a dynamic accumulator. Do I have to plant more mustard now? I've been trying to take advantage of all this woolly mullein we get growing around here, beyond leaving it for the gold finches. My goal with that was to get the milk and bull thistles replaced with mullein.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
Excellent Answer SH. you are articulated it perfectly. you get full marks for your answer. you kept it simple covered the facts. I turne my questions in last night, so I'll have to compare notes when it returns to me. :)



I would hold on seamaiden. My professor has just returned my inquiry to him in regards to whther a common grass in a container would be considered a dynamic accumulator or living mulch and he replied:

"it probably won't surprise you that i'd like to answer your question with another question, chief: what plant isn't a 'dynamic accumulator'? i imagine some are better than others at the task but, don't they all meet such criteria? i.e., i think you're onto something. thanks for sharing in the fun."

I've answered his question now I'll wait for his answer specific to container growing. I've sent pictures etc. stay tuned.. :)
 
S

SeaMaiden

Ooo... I like it!

And in that same vein, then what about all this fucking STAR THISTLE that I keep having to whack back? Now it's setting seed at 2" tall. My ag inspector lady told me that star thistle seeds can remain viable for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Holy Lord God Mary and Joseph!
 
silver hawaiian

silver hawaiian

Active member
Veteran
chief bigsmoke said:
Excellent Answer SH. you are articulated it perfectly. you get full marks for your answer. you kept it simple covered the facts. I turne my questions in last night, so I'll have to compare notes when it returns to me. :)
Click to expand...

Phew! Good thing, 'cause I'm fresh out of anymore knowhow. :blowbubbles: Not really, but what's in my mind is a lot of conceptual stuff, not sure how practical or "true" it is. These kinds of discussions are what I need to firm up what I've got clunkin' around in my noggin'..

What's chief's answer? I'm sure it's probably more fleshed-out than mine. :)

Hell, I'm just happy to play along! Do I have to show my work next time?
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
hahaha awesome SH: :) The only thing I added was the risk of N toxicity but you covered it all: Conversely, too much nitrogen can also be detrimental to plant growth. Excess nitrogen causes weak and spindly growth and delayed maturation (flowering and fruiting). As a result, crops such as fruit may be low in sugars when harvested. This affects the taste and quality of the fruit.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
SeaMaiden said:
Ooo... I like it!

And in that same vein, then what about all this fucking STAR THISTLE that I keep having to whack back? Now it's setting seed at 2" tall. My ag inspector lady told me that star thistle seeds can remain viable for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Holy Lord God Mary and Joseph!
Click to expand...


hahahaa damn you star thistle........at least its only a hundred years... haha also I'll repost a D.A list for everyones enjoyment. A more complete list, including information about nutrient specialities.
 
heady blunts

heady blunts

prescription blunts
Veteran
SeaMaiden said:
Well damn it. I've misunderstood both the definition and role of a dynamic accumulator. Do I have to plant more mustard now? I've been trying to take advantage of all this woolly mullein we get growing around here, beyond leaving it for the gold finches. My goal with that was to get the milk and bull thistles replaced with mullein.
Click to expand...

SeaMaiden said:
Ooo... I like it!

And in that same vein, then what about all this fucking STAR THISTLE that I keep having to whack back? Now it's setting seed at 2" tall. My ag inspector lady told me that star thistle seeds can remain viable for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Holy Lord God Mary and Joseph!
Click to expand...

sea, i'm not familiar with wooly mullein, but after a quick look at the Cal-IPC web site's profile on the plant, i would not expect it to out-compete your thistles.

maybe pigs would eat them?
 
heady blunts

heady blunts

prescription blunts
Veteran
chief bigsmoke said:
Are there differences in plant uptake of the nutrients in commercial fertilizers (e.g. urea, 46-0-0) and organic services of nutrients (composts)? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

i think SH covered most of this, so i won't repeat anything he's already mentioned, but i wanted to add that organic sources of nutrition have the potential for a much broader availability than any synthetic product can hope to replicate.

by allowing the plant to request what it wants when it wants, plus a rich living soil with diverse inputs, your plant will have access to a huge range of micronutrients, vitamins, proteins, etc.

in terms of organic chemistry, there's no difference between a synthetically produced nitrate and one made available through the soil-food web.
 
chief bigsmoke

chief bigsmoke

Active member
heady blunts said:
i think SH covered most of this, so i won't repeat anything he's already mentioned, but i wanted to add that organic sources of nutrition have the potential for a much broader availability than any synthetic product can hope to replicate.

by allowing the plant to request what it wants when it wants, plus a rich living soil with diverse inputs, your plant will have access to a huge range of micronutrients, vitamins, proteins, etc.

in terms of organic chemistry, there's no difference between a synthetically produced nitrate and one made available through the soil-food web.
Click to expand...


you are too smart heady. I'm happy we are friends

Analogy: A larger pantry of food to choose from... who doesn't love choices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top