V
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
bigger yields with guano
- Thread starter pedrodepaco
- Start date
Did your temps drop early? Beans are legumes, don't need N from the soil. They get it right out of the air with some help from a special herd.
Check out yesterdays ny times. There us a very sad article about ag runoff poisoning well water and the fed lacks the authority to regulate it, while the local laws are insufficient.
Cow carcasses and shit is strewn all over fields before winter, and an early thaw can send it all to the water table and private wells. Talk about externalized costs. Taxpayers pay subsidies so farmers can make money off the backs of their local community.
We need to lose this npk mentality, which has us throwing way too many nutrients at plants and destroying our environment from the bottom. Even "organic" can be harmful, if too many nutrients are present.
M
mrred
i dont think they do anything to the soil here, its no till, they only spray herbicides and pesticides running up the harvest that im aware of
Does this not suggest to you that nutrients ARE being released form organic material... even in the absence of plants? Of course they are... so nutrient build up is most certainly a fact of life, even for overly heavy organic soils.
Nope. Think of a cubic foot of soil as a single organism that can eat and hold only so much in so much time, and the rest falls off the table. As long as you don't ask soil to absorb more than it can, the nutrients stay put. So 60 dairy cows is one thing, but 1000 in the same space is another. Even simple things like making little ridges in hillsides can make a huge difference. Nutrients held by the microherd do not leach. That is why the water that seeps down from a swamp is so clean.
For our waters, it's the death of a thousand cuts. Point source pollution is easy by comparison.
So you really believe that organic matter needs plants in order to release it's chemical constituents?
Nope.
It just stays put from our point of view, but when you zoom in it's a zoo down there. That's the food soil web, and that's why dr ingham asks who fertilizes the forests. Stuff just moves around in an endless feedback loop powered by the sun. Obviously this is simplistic, otherwise nothing would ever make it to the ocean. There are little gaps in there where a root can het what it needs, but if it doesn't take, something else does. Good soil actually cleans water, just like a good swamp. We humans depend on that for hydration in many areas.
In some cases, as in the very well touted mycorhizae, nutrients are literally traded from an organism that's got to an organism that's got something to trade. Too much P in the soil cuts out the middleman, but to the detriment of everything downstream. I believe it's claimed N is also traded for sugar, but here ends my knowledge of how the process actually unfolds.
Some times my life feels like a feedback loop, but that's a different story.
It just stays put from our point of view, but when you zoom in it's a zoo down there. That's the food soil web, and that's why dr ingham asks who fertilizes the forests. Stuff just moves around in an endless feedback loop powered by the sun. Obviously this is simplistic, otherwise nothing would ever make it to the ocean. There are little gaps in there where a root can het what it needs, but if it doesn't take, something else does. Good soil actually cleans water, just like a good swamp. We humans depend on that for hydration in many areas.
In some cases, as in the very well touted mycorhizae, nutrients are literally traded from an organism that's got to an organism that's got something to trade. Too much P in the soil cuts out the middleman, but to the detriment of everything downstream. I believe it's claimed N is also traded for sugar, but here ends my knowledge of how the process actually unfolds.
Some times my life feels like a feedback loop, but that's a different story.
Yes... but I think you're missing the point that forests aren't cesspools of organic matter, they release fairly slowly, therefore there's very very rarely an overabundance of heavy organic matter all rotting in the same place at the same time. Organic systems in nature are mostly based on a slow release system. In deciduous forests the leaves fall in autumn, freeze on the ground during winter, then thaw in the spring, giving a burst of nutrients to the forest at that time. The cycle continues, of course... but for indoor organics... I don't really see how running a forest soil indoors can be very productive. Yes, you can get it to work... but there's a waiting period while your beds renew themselves... which means lots of wasted space and time. I, personally couldn't imagine looking at a whole bed's worth of space just sitting there waiting for the last crop's roots to decompose. Outside, yes, but inside... wasteful for my situation, or anyone who doesn't have the luxury of letting large areas of their flowering space sit for weeks without action.
So... I see now what you guys have been arguing for... outside organics, or as close as possible... but indoors. But the reason this method isn't applied more often indoors is because it's time and space demanding, and the results are no better in the end. If the results are no better, then why go through all the effort and waste time??? Just to to be able to say that your style is more like a natural forest, I suppose.
Now... if you dump a bucket of chicken shit next to a rhubarb plant, and nothing next to another rhubarb plant... which will grow faster? That's right... the one with the extra chicken shit added. I grow indoors with an organic microherd that is suitable to break down bat and seabird guanos and deplete the soil down to almost nothing by harvest time. If feeding guanos is not organic, then you'll have to tell people that giving rhubarb --outside-- a bucketful of chicken shit is also not organic... which is ridiculous, of course.
maryjohn... the organic system is not that complicated in reality. Establish the micro beasties, feed them, water. In nature, as you so love to emulate... rightfully so... the natural organic process needs NO ONE standing around understanding every last interaction between organisms to have it work right. In my experience... messing too much with the process only serves to increase the chances that your actions will become overzealous and harmful to the process. Provide the basics, be patient, and let Prime Creator do the rest.
So... to the main point... does organic matter give off nutrients without plants... I believe you're completely incorrect in saying that manure needs plants in order to break down into nutrients. If the bacteria/fungi eat at the manure and release a certain amount of nutrient... the process will slow down only because the levels of soluble nutrient prevents any further bacterial/fungal life. However, if the rains flush the pile of it's soluble nutrients, the bacteria and fungi can begin eating at the pile again.
In Florida, and in many other places, cow manure leaches nitrogen into local ponds, rivers, lakes and swamps. This leads to an excess of green algae and slime. The reason this Nitrogen (and other nutes of course) are released from the manure??? Bacterial and fungal deterioration of the manure piles. The rain washes the soluble nutrients from the piles, and it washes into the water shed. No plants are needed to release these nutrients. Do you not agree? I mean, there's no way that the deterioration of organic matter is solely dependent on plants. Otherwise the entire process of rotting would be impossible without plants. This is what I hear being said by some in this thread... Which is completely false and not healthy to new growers trying to get a grip on this process.
So... I see now what you guys have been arguing for... outside organics, or as close as possible... but indoors. But the reason this method isn't applied more often indoors is because it's time and space demanding, and the results are no better in the end. If the results are no better, then why go through all the effort and waste time??? Just to to be able to say that your style is more like a natural forest, I suppose.
Now... if you dump a bucket of chicken shit next to a rhubarb plant, and nothing next to another rhubarb plant... which will grow faster? That's right... the one with the extra chicken shit added. I grow indoors with an organic microherd that is suitable to break down bat and seabird guanos and deplete the soil down to almost nothing by harvest time. If feeding guanos is not organic, then you'll have to tell people that giving rhubarb --outside-- a bucketful of chicken shit is also not organic... which is ridiculous, of course.
maryjohn... the organic system is not that complicated in reality. Establish the micro beasties, feed them, water. In nature, as you so love to emulate... rightfully so... the natural organic process needs NO ONE standing around understanding every last interaction between organisms to have it work right. In my experience... messing too much with the process only serves to increase the chances that your actions will become overzealous and harmful to the process. Provide the basics, be patient, and let Prime Creator do the rest.
So... to the main point... does organic matter give off nutrients without plants... I believe you're completely incorrect in saying that manure needs plants in order to break down into nutrients. If the bacteria/fungi eat at the manure and release a certain amount of nutrient... the process will slow down only because the levels of soluble nutrient prevents any further bacterial/fungal life. However, if the rains flush the pile of it's soluble nutrients, the bacteria and fungi can begin eating at the pile again.
In Florida, and in many other places, cow manure leaches nitrogen into local ponds, rivers, lakes and swamps. This leads to an excess of green algae and slime. The reason this Nitrogen (and other nutes of course) are released from the manure??? Bacterial and fungal deterioration of the manure piles. The rain washes the soluble nutrients from the piles, and it washes into the water shed. No plants are needed to release these nutrients. Do you not agree? I mean, there's no way that the deterioration of organic matter is solely dependent on plants. Otherwise the entire process of rotting would be impossible without plants. This is what I hear being said by some in this thread... Which is completely false and not healthy to new growers trying to get a grip on this process.
CC, I think you have a couple things mixed up, and I'm sorry I am not better at communicating this. I'll start with the forest - dead leaves are not nutrient rich. In a forest, most of the nutrients are locked up in the trees, and when those leaves turn, that is a sign that nutrients are returning to the core for next year's use. If a tree had to operate like an annual, it would be as limited in size as annuals are.
As for manure runoff, you are describing the runoff of urea produced in kidneys of animals from the surface directly into watersheds. Urea is water soluble by nature, otherwise your kidneys would not work. If the same material is given enough time to percolate (I believe you are saying this too) through a healthy soil system, then the water that comes out the other side is clean. By nature, there is a certain amount of nutrients any given system can handle over a give period of time. Everything else will as you said run off or leach downwards. We can reduce nature's ability to absorb in many ways, from compaction to impervious surfaces (probably the biggest one). Yes you are right though, some nutrient content has always run off into the water table or oceans. The oceans are systems that work just like soil, and they can also process the nutrients - given not too much is present at one time.
A working fertile system is like a filter, and the water found below (not surface runoff) is free from excess nutrients, but may still be non-potable due to mineral content or other factors.
No, man does not need to help nature for nature to do its thing. However, if we take a given that there will be intensive food production, the soil food web ceases to be a merely a natural system and becomes something more: a technology. As good stewards, it becomes incumbent on us to know when we are making excessive demands and look for ways to mitigate or eliminate the cost. In the case or terracing, we increase the amount of time given for the system to process the nutrients and counteract the effect of soil compaction.
We can also take sick soil and bring it back into balance - through various methods some sustainable some not.
To sum up, we have altered the topography itself, while drastically increasing the nutrient content. Nutrients that percolate through a healthy system, rather than washing into the water table, are sequestered by the soil life because they are valuable. The situation you describe - the algal bloom - is exactly the same: nutrients are being sequestered because they are valuable. The problem is, it's too much, and the algae block light to the lower layers, which causes the algae below to die, which causes microbes to use 02 to break them down, which results in more free N (or P), more algae, and the creation of a dead zone. That's the microherd of the pond, poorly managed by us.
Nobody said only plants can unlock nutes, not sure were that comes from. the food soil web includes macro organisms vertebrate and invertebrate that are also grabbing nutrients from each other. nutes and microorganisms were here long before plants. The point is that in a healthy system there is no glut of nutes, just like a healthy economy does not have too much easy money. Just like you will stop to pick up a 1$ bill, a nitrogen ion in a living soil does not go far before it is picked up by someone. I don't believe your description of this model as stagnant makes any sense. Take a step back or forward and all you see is activity. Von would say Taetigkeit.
As for manure runoff, you are describing the runoff of urea produced in kidneys of animals from the surface directly into watersheds. Urea is water soluble by nature, otherwise your kidneys would not work. If the same material is given enough time to percolate (I believe you are saying this too) through a healthy soil system, then the water that comes out the other side is clean. By nature, there is a certain amount of nutrients any given system can handle over a give period of time. Everything else will as you said run off or leach downwards. We can reduce nature's ability to absorb in many ways, from compaction to impervious surfaces (probably the biggest one). Yes you are right though, some nutrient content has always run off into the water table or oceans. The oceans are systems that work just like soil, and they can also process the nutrients - given not too much is present at one time.
A working fertile system is like a filter, and the water found below (not surface runoff) is free from excess nutrients, but may still be non-potable due to mineral content or other factors.
No, man does not need to help nature for nature to do its thing. However, if we take a given that there will be intensive food production, the soil food web ceases to be a merely a natural system and becomes something more: a technology. As good stewards, it becomes incumbent on us to know when we are making excessive demands and look for ways to mitigate or eliminate the cost. In the case or terracing, we increase the amount of time given for the system to process the nutrients and counteract the effect of soil compaction.
We can also take sick soil and bring it back into balance - through various methods some sustainable some not.
To sum up, we have altered the topography itself, while drastically increasing the nutrient content. Nutrients that percolate through a healthy system, rather than washing into the water table, are sequestered by the soil life because they are valuable. The situation you describe - the algal bloom - is exactly the same: nutrients are being sequestered because they are valuable. The problem is, it's too much, and the algae block light to the lower layers, which causes the algae below to die, which causes microbes to use 02 to break them down, which results in more free N (or P), more algae, and the creation of a dead zone. That's the microherd of the pond, poorly managed by us.
Nobody said only plants can unlock nutes, not sure were that comes from. the food soil web includes macro organisms vertebrate and invertebrate that are also grabbing nutrients from each other. nutes and microorganisms were here long before plants. The point is that in a healthy system there is no glut of nutes, just like a healthy economy does not have too much easy money. Just like you will stop to pick up a 1$ bill, a nitrogen ion in a living soil does not go far before it is picked up by someone. I don't believe your description of this model as stagnant makes any sense. Take a step back or forward and all you see is activity. Von would say Taetigkeit.
I agree with the above. Now... back to the original issue... how is it better for an indoor gardener to grow with the beds, using an outdoor style organic process than it is to grow in containers, inoculating the medium with beneficials, and top-feed guanos to the plant? How is the long, drawn out process described by microbeman better? I like his ideas, but if the results are the same or better in containers... what's the point?
Well the best reason IMO is that it is elegant, and also I like the idea of a pet soil. Had I the space I would be doing it that way.
but on a large scale, if we were all growing this way we would make a small but significant impact on our environment (completely offset by using the light, but never mind).
in short, I see your point. which is why I amend my potting soil.
but on a large scale, if we were all growing this way we would make a small but significant impact on our environment (completely offset by using the light, but never mind).
in short, I see your point. which is why I amend my potting soil.
V
vonforne
First MJ....great post on the above.
Crazy, lol the main reason for the containers on my part was time and I do believe tat in the long run it will be more beneficial to the plants to maintain a living soil on a long term basis. Unless you use square containers there is a loss of space that to us in the indoor growing environment is precious. Although it does require some space as MJ stated and time to maintain as I am finding out. In America it was no problem for me to have it but here in the EU......well things are a bit smaller. I do follow the Soil Food Web closely. So, as an advocate of that I think the bed growing has a lot of benefits. If any of you have ever watched my grows they are always an ongoing experiment.
And of course I inoculate with BB. Some say I use too much.
V
I grow few plants, very large. Containers are generally 2-4 feet apart, with plants at about 5-6 feet tall, and at least 2 feet across. This is better for many reasons (in my situation). Same yield as a garden with wall-to-wall containers, but many fewer individuals to look after and treat right. And I also like the idea that if I was ever busted, the judge would hear about a, meek, paltry number of plants, instead of being impressed by hundreds of plants. As far as the law goes... I aim to NOT impress.
V
vonforne
As you see we grow along the same lines. Fewer plants to be exact. I view the same yield much like you do. LOL with plants that big you must have a large space.
V
