you must spread reputation around before giving it to Seaf0ur again.
archived.
archived.
-
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!
Living organic soil from start through recycling CONTINUED...
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
If you were using it only for ACT it sounds as if it was not totally digested by bacteria/archaea & fungi.
I felt it may have been the sources of molasses since it did not happen when I used it before. It was doing the same thing earth juice did, and I was using organic molasses and other non typical brands. It didn't seem to change after a few days of bubbling so after a couple failed tries I abandoned the practice.
The necessity to bolster microbiology seems less necessary the more established it becomes so I haven't been sweating it.
It was the reason I asked you about molasses in the past. Haven't had the need to figure it out so I have been slow looking into it.
I will answer this question from my own experience. In containers i have that are over 5 or 6 gal US i have/had both red wrigglers and larger earthworms populations. For the larger worms populations is a bit misleading. Probably no more than a handful of the big ones can inhabit a container that size. I would feed them the same way people feed their pets. Every week i would have pulp from making apple cider vinegar or shredded slightly fermented banana peels and bury some of that under some of the mulch.
Low and behold within a few days all the food is gone and i am left with a pile of worm castings as well as excellent aeration from the semi-persistent tunnels they leave. Not to mention the buffering capacity of the calcium carbonate in worm castings as well as an abundance of beneficial micro-organisms. The CaCo3 buffers on it's own, but the bacterial polysaccharides also have buffering capacity alongside binding soil particles together.
Natural doesn't mean it isn't complex. It just means we want to leave those tasks to the organisms best suited.Worms love drilling holes and eating bacteria and leaving me with all those benefits that otherwise people use chemicals, tilling, etc to achieve.
Nature. What won't it already have answers for next?
I found evidence earthworms can produce 'calcites', but nothing on red wigglers specifically. Do you have any articles on this?
I don't think the high pH of my media is from worm castings, but next time I mix it into my irrigation water I will give it a test.
I thought the pH buffering qualities of castings lie in the humic acids.
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. I laughed quite a bit the first time i read it, but i now think that perhaps you were trying to make an actual point.
Been through the reductionist point of view. I know how to slice any point razor thin, but that doesn't really help. Observing natural systems and emulating them as much as possible has been a clear path to higher quality medicine, lowered carbon footprint, no toxic chemicals in my wake, and last, and least really, costs less.
thanks for whatever it is you said. I hope it makes sense to someone.
I was not claiming that the pH of your media was due to worm castings. If anything they would lower pH and act to buffer pH swings. If you can access the entire article great, but otherwise i would direct your attention to line 4-5.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852405001707
I agree that the humic content is another key element in buffering capacity as well.
As for other studies? I will have to get back to you as i have none stored on the computer i am at. I will see what i can dig up.
thanks for adding to the discussion.
Perhaps you may have reached the stage in your passionate curiosity where a microscope would serve you well.
Someone important to me once said; "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." This certainly applies to me.
FWIW I do not think that Joe is a troll. He is just having trouble grasping the picture of natural growing (term meant as previously described) He wants the whole sap testing thing and balances of this and that to be true. It simply cannot be due to the incorrect premises it is based upon (AFAIK) in terms of the actual correct way to do such tests. I did try raising this previously in another thread far away but it was ignored. Of course I could always be wrong.
I listened to an interview the other day with John Kempf and was happy to hear that his gardening methods (at least as far as I've researched) are based upon the microbial nutrient loop and the provision of organic matter and rocks. In this sense, he must have been reading my stuff that I've been harping on since the
90s
The only inaccurate statement was that salt fertilizers kill soil microbes...not quite that straight forward (but its only one interview. I made the same mistatement myself once)
As for the ROLS group. What the heck is that? One can have recycled soil. One can have organic soil. One can have recycled organic soil. And I was going to say but one cannot have recycled living soil, however I guess that depends on one's definition of living and how often it is re-mixed.
In my definition for living soil, I would not want to remix it more often than every 5 years. [growing in bins/beds]
CannaBrix you can easily find out that one of the primary ingredients in worm castings is CaCO3 which has well documented chemical properties.
If that isn't enough there is also plenty of evidence of disease suppression from using VC.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0434.1999.147003155.x/abstract
If that isn't enough there is also plenty of evidence of disease suppression from using VC.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0434.1999.147003155.x/abstract
I love to learn and while I would jump at the chance to use a proper scope, I don't see the necessity in regards to my use.
Not that it is not an excellent tool in your hands.
Well if that is truly the case and I am being an insufferable prick, my sincerest apologies to all those I accused of being trolls who were really just seeking answers.
I have no desire to metric my grow in the ways people desire, it is counter intuitive to my way of working with the plant.
I am happy with my relationship with the plant as I have been for many decades, but I don't understand the plant from a traditional horticultural standpoint.
I think this works in my favor tbh.
I wish I could comment. I don't know who Jack Kempf is, TBH just being born on a farm would give someone an advantage over me.I listened to an interview the other day with John Kempf and was happy to hear that his gardening methods (at least as far as I've researched) are based upon the microbial nutrient loop and the provision of organic matter and rocks. In this sense, he must have been reading my stuff that I've been harping on since the
90s
I spend decades learning about the plant from an experiential relationship not based on understanding from a scientific lens. I work in the sciences so I am not ignorant of them.
Every time I call out bullshit in the name of science I look back at my anecdotal experience and Google the evidence for me observations.
Past that it delights me to practice it and see it work, bores me to learn about it from conceptual standpoints.
Seems too much like work.
I am very much grateful for the information and knowledge you share as well as others. I just can't comment on the impact on agriculture because I am so far from it in any way shape or form.
When I came here I was a grew synthetically and my only regret was my lack of knowledge regarding plant nutrition required I go to stores that were known to cater to illegal marijuana growers and I was sick of having to "out' myself.
Legality was not a potential reality at the time and I really wanted to be free of any connection to marijuana horticulture.
I started recycling well before I went organic and on the way to organic "broke" the rules. I went from synthetic to transitional to organic to living soil, and did it in steps and measures so I could see what how each step effected the plants.
With that said, salts and organics do mix and mix well, imho it was the easiest way to grow beautiful plants. I could go into great detail but I didn't stay on that course.
I have recycled synthetics, I have grown with many varieties of organics and I have done hybrids of the both. I have done extensive experimentation with microbiology in my grows and just because there is living microbiology in a soil I don't think it classifies it as living.
Many people are trying to coin a term because of primitive need to own and market it. That is the one thing you never find me doing.
(not saying you do please dont let it be interpreted as such).
I extol what works for me because it works for me, not because I profit from it. I only say this because in essence I think I am one of the least biased persons in regards to this factor.
That said the functional differential and the reality of it is that reality living soil is a living ecosystem that has a healthy balanced microbiology, one that is established before and exists after and requires nothing more than raw natural inputs to maintain health, labor or organic material.
For me in small containers earthworms are the apex of my desired soil ecology, I fulfill the rest of the duties required to maintain that environment.
It is part of the natural environment and we can choose what part of the natural system we replicate.
I am not here to split hairs about how far to replicate it past its relative context with the pot I grow.
I have found that if I make an organic soil from amendments (or any other method that included microbiology including transitional) and run it once I do not get the same secondary metabolite production that I do on subsequent uses.
IMHO the last plants rhizosphere interactions have jump started the next plants rhizosphere interactions if they are similar genetically.
If there wasn't a measurable difference I could appreciate without scientific measures I wouldn't be doing it or bothering to share the efforts.
It has to be meaningful enough to effect my senses.
Nothing would delight me more than a few people coming to the table who have had great success and extensive experience with many other methods of growing who have also grown successfully using variants of living soil and hear their testimony.
It seems like most people who comment grow in an ivory tower
It seems like most people who comment grow in an ivory tower
Hi guys, please forgive me I just read the last few pages.
On molasses. I think it depends on your soil if it works for you or not. I'm not talking about molases in a act, but just in water drench fed. It seems to attract a microbe that lowers soil ph, a good microbe population should bring it back in several days though. I used some recently in some pots that have went 6 straight cycles in the same pots, dirt and whatever. I re-remembered why I used it before. It worked, everything that was stalled went back into gear. I could look at this and say, it's simple my high ph water built up calcium in the soil causing high ph, and the bacteria attracted to molasses lowered the ph, and restarted the plants. But I took it as a microbe imbalance because I had neglected to feed enough N towards the end of the last cycle. And with a pot full of roots the microbes need fuel to both grow the plant and break down roots, continually in a no till grow. So along with a sprouted alfalfa seed tea, I added molasses to feed hungry microbes. Same thinking I guess but my twist on this.
If I fed molasses all the time there probably would not see a benefit. I'd have a bunch of junk food microbes, lol. And plants exude sugars on there own to direct microbes, so prolly not good to interfere too much.
It may not have a benefit in low ph soil, IDK.
Another observation. The transition from harvest to a new cycle, its easy to have nitrogen diffciencies unless you provide enough N. I was not feeding after 5 weeks on 10 week plants, and my well water is ph 9, lol. Anyway those 10 week pots needed extra attention. A slurry of fresh compost, molasses, and alfalfa seed tea did the trick.
I see Weird uses neem meal in the soil, and I think that was part of my problem as well, I ran out of neem meal last year and never reorded. It's a fairly powerfully nitrogen source. Without neem I would replace with another high N source, as a top dress. Crab meal is nice but goes fast. So I'll order more neem meal! And again like Weird does, and feed a N tea to the pot right after harvest.
On molasses. I think it depends on your soil if it works for you or not. I'm not talking about molases in a act, but just in water drench fed. It seems to attract a microbe that lowers soil ph, a good microbe population should bring it back in several days though. I used some recently in some pots that have went 6 straight cycles in the same pots, dirt and whatever. I re-remembered why I used it before. It worked, everything that was stalled went back into gear. I could look at this and say, it's simple my high ph water built up calcium in the soil causing high ph, and the bacteria attracted to molasses lowered the ph, and restarted the plants. But I took it as a microbe imbalance because I had neglected to feed enough N towards the end of the last cycle. And with a pot full of roots the microbes need fuel to both grow the plant and break down roots, continually in a no till grow. So along with a sprouted alfalfa seed tea, I added molasses to feed hungry microbes. Same thinking I guess but my twist on this.
If I fed molasses all the time there probably would not see a benefit. I'd have a bunch of junk food microbes, lol. And plants exude sugars on there own to direct microbes, so prolly not good to interfere too much.
It may not have a benefit in low ph soil, IDK.
Another observation. The transition from harvest to a new cycle, its easy to have nitrogen diffciencies unless you provide enough N. I was not feeding after 5 weeks on 10 week plants, and my well water is ph 9, lol. Anyway those 10 week pots needed extra attention. A slurry of fresh compost, molasses, and alfalfa seed tea did the trick.
I see Weird uses neem meal in the soil, and I think that was part of my problem as well, I ran out of neem meal last year and never reorded. It's a fairly powerfully nitrogen source. Without neem I would replace with another high N source, as a top dress. Crab meal is nice but goes fast. So I'll order more neem meal! And again like Weird does, and feed a N tea to the pot right after harvest.
Not passionately curious? okay
I just don't think the physical observation of microbiology is the only way to gauge their presence or required in my scenario to benefit from them.
Even if I had the best microscope, a brix meter, a ecc/ppm pen, light meter, thermometers, humidity meters, etc. the best they would do is tell me my conditions are perfect for optimal growth.
Conversely optimal growth is an indicator that those variables are in a favorable balance.
Conversely optimal growth is an indicator that those variables are in a favorable balance.
dociron
Active member
Yes.
At the end of the day,, we must listen to the plant,, watch what the plant tells us, and see/hear what we're being told...
If you use the meal it still has the fat content intact. The fat feeds fungi. You can do the same thing with fish that still has the fat intact (a little harder cause you are dealing with some omega 3 v primarily omega 6 in seed meal) or raw whole fat milk. Anything with fat content along with the protein actually
Fer F sakes guys - read what I say not what you think.
necessity???
necessity???
You make it sound dirty, lol
Hi microbeman!
Hey buddy.
I thought that because why would suggest something that isn't especially at the cost?
My guess is that you suggested it because when you started understanding microbiology it revolutionized your agricultural experience and you are trying to share that with me.
Much appreciated MM and YOUR command of microbiology was all I needed to be able to have faith that if I learned about it in a practical manner I would.
For me, it is simply counter intuitive to my methodology which is required for my desired objective.
People dismiss the power of causation and observation on a macro scale, I do not.
I do take the testimony of others objectively and use it to my advantage without having to becoming married to the process.
I test them with my variables and in my hands and gauge their relative effectiveness by the results.
Also my methodology is very much a reflection of the pressures of prohibition I live within, so for me less is more in every regards.
There is a reason I don't do beds (I want to be able to break down fast), there are reasons I use minimal equipment (one fan to scrub and exhaust air, one osculating fan), there is a reason I am in such a tight space (5x10). There is a reason I only run a limited number of plants. This list goes on.
If I had the freedoms to operate in a different context I would, but it doesn't make sense.
I don't doubt the value is there for the use of it in other scenarios, the use of necessity was relative to me in the course of making a decision in regards to popping for a scope that would serve me properly.
It wasn't an inference that you said EVERYONE required one and since I was talking exclusively about myself there was no reason it should be construed that way.
