Tomatoville® Gardening Forums - View Single Post

TheUrbanFarmer · February 28, 2016

PureHarvest, in regards to post #31 - let me explain why that statement is blasphemy.

The ingredients I listed on the previous page is just what was being used as a topdressing for the beds last year. The actual soil is much more complex than that.

The base soil is a structured ratio blend of thermophilic compost (hardwood shavings, leaf litter, pine straw, grass clippings), peat moss, coconut coir, earthworm castings, perlite and vermiculite. The soil is then amended with a combination of:

alfalfa meal
aragonite
azomite
biochar
blood meal
calcium bentonite
crab meal
diatomaceous earth
dolomite limestone
fish bone meal
greensand
gypsum
kelp meal
leonardite
soft rock phosphate
seabird guano
sulfate of potash
sul-po-mag

I also inoculate my soils with various beneficial fungi and bacteria:

glomus intraradices
glomus deserticola
glomus etunicatum
glomus clarum
glomus claroidium
glomus mosseae
gigaspora albida

arthrobacter globiformis
azotobacter chroococcum
azotobacter vinelandii
bacillus subtilis
bacillus thuringiensis israelensis
pseudomonas alcaligenes
pseudomonas fluorescens
pseudomonas putida

trichoderma harzianum
trichoderma koningii

I'll leave it up to interested parties to research the benefits of each of these independently.

Bio-availability of raw organic inputs is 100% dependent upon the bacteria in the rhizosphere. Chemical nutrients (ionic salts readily available for plant uptake) weaken the natural ecosystem within soil.

If all nutrition provided is in a plant available form, the need for soil biota is reduced as they no longer serve a function and what feeds them is no longer present in the soil. If the bacteria become weak and and their populations dwindle, then your soil effectively becomes biologically inert, and the end result is an environment that allows various pests and diseases to take hold because the natural system that prevents them from populating in the first place has been hindered or destroyed.

Thus the problem with chemical fertilizers and why I don't believe in a quasi organic approach to gardening. IF there was an issue with "solubility" of nutrients it is not because of what is being applied, but rather a result of what is not present in the soil to convert those raw materials to the proper ionic forms. That is not the failure of a fully organic system to provide for the plants; it is a failure of the farmer to adequately take care of the soil.

There would be zero need to apply a "real-time" solution if the soil had been maintained and amended properly in the first place.

My approach to gardening is not to attempt to feed the plants what they need but rather and attempt to feed the soil what it needs. If the soil is healthy and flourishing, the direct consequence of that is a healthy, productive plant.

I feel most people fail to understand the true science behind organics and think the application of "N-P-K" from an organic source should behave the same as "N-P-K" from a chemical source and that is simply not how it works. Successful organic gardening requires a completely different approach to agriculture. It is not a 1:1 comparison.

Countless university and scientific studies have shown that organics are every bit as productive as conventional agriculture when done right. Not to mention cheaper on a year to year basis as soil health is improved.

The average soil test in my area (when looking at CES records) shows the CEC of farm lands to be between 3-5. My CEC ranges between 18-25. Who do you think has less agriculture leaching/run off? Whose soil do you think is more fertile? It is certainly not the farmers using chemical fertigation. They have no choice but to apply nutrition in "real-time" because they have decimated the rhizosphere and prevented the soils from having any true nutrient retention.

Their farming methods have left them two alternatives as a direct consequence of improper soil management: To go without income for a couple of years while they rebuild the soil or to continue applying chemicals in the same manner. It is a vicious cycle they find themselves stuck in. Completely reliant on agricorps to sell them chemicals to put in the soil and chemicals to spray on their plants because they have completely obliterated a natural ecosystem with the chemicals they bought to put in the soil. Go figure.

February 28, 2016	#46
TheUrbanFarmer Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Zone 8a Posts: 64	PureHarvest, in regards to post #31 - let me explain why that statement is blasphemy. The ingredients I listed on the previous page is just what was being used as a topdressing for the beds last year. The actual soil is much more complex than that. The base soil is a structured ratio blend of thermophilic compost (hardwood shavings, leaf litter, pine straw, grass clippings), peat moss, coconut coir, earthworm castings, perlite and vermiculite. The soil is then amended with a combination of: alfalfa meal aragonite azomite biochar blood meal calcium bentonite crab meal diatomaceous earth dolomite limestone fish bone meal greensand gypsum kelp meal leonardite soft rock phosphate seabird guano sulfate of potash sul-po-mag I also inoculate my soils with various beneficial fungi and bacteria: glomus intraradices glomus deserticola glomus etunicatum glomus clarum glomus claroidium glomus mosseae gigaspora albida arthrobacter globiformis azotobacter chroococcum azotobacter vinelandii bacillus subtilis bacillus thuringiensis israelensis pseudomonas alcaligenes pseudomonas fluorescens pseudomonas putida trichoderma harzianum trichoderma koningii I'll leave it up to interested parties to research the benefits of each of these independently. Bio-availability of raw organic inputs is 100% dependent upon the bacteria in the rhizosphere. Chemical nutrients (ionic salts readily available for plant uptake) weaken the natural ecosystem within soil. If all nutrition provided is in a plant available form, the need for soil biota is reduced as they no longer serve a function and what feeds them is no longer present in the soil. If the bacteria become weak and and their populations dwindle, then your soil effectively becomes biologically inert, and the end result is an environment that allows various pests and diseases to take hold because the natural system that prevents them from populating in the first place has been hindered or destroyed. Thus the problem with chemical fertilizers and why I don't believe in a quasi organic approach to gardening. IF there was an issue with "solubility" of nutrients it is not because of what is being applied, but rather a result of what is not present in the soil to convert those raw materials to the proper ionic forms. That is not the failure of a fully organic system to provide for the plants; it is a failure of the farmer to adequately take care of the soil. There would be zero need to apply a "real-time" solution if the soil had been maintained and amended properly in the first place. My approach to gardening is not to attempt to feed the plants what they need but rather and attempt to feed the soil what it needs. If the soil is healthy and flourishing, the direct consequence of that is a healthy, productive plant. I feel most people fail to understand the true science behind organics and think the application of "N-P-K" from an organic source should behave the same as "N-P-K" from a chemical source and that is simply not how it works. Successful organic gardening requires a completely different approach to agriculture. It is not a 1:1 comparison. Countless university and scientific studies have shown that organics are every bit as productive as conventional agriculture when done right. Not to mention cheaper on a year to year basis as soil health is improved. The average soil test in my area (when looking at CES records) shows the CEC of farm lands to be between 3-5. My CEC ranges between 18-25. Who do you think has less agriculture leaching/run off? Whose soil do you think is more fertile? It is certainly not the farmers using chemical fertigation. They have no choice but to apply nutrition in "real-time" because they have decimated the rhizosphere and prevented the soils from having any true nutrient retention. Their farming methods have left them two alternatives as a direct consequence of improper soil management: To go without income for a couple of years while they rebuild the soil or to continue applying chemicals in the same manner. It is a vicious cycle they find themselves stuck in. Completely reliant on agricorps to sell them chemicals to put in the soil and chemicals to spray on their plants because they have completely obliterated a natural ecosystem with the chemicals they bought to put in the soil. Go figure.