SOS by Christine Jones

[grassfarmer]

Found this an interesting article and thought I'd share.

http://amazingcarbon.com/PDF/Jones_ACRES_USA%20(March2015).pdf

[FarmRanger]

Some facts intelaced with some error. I always find it interesting that these pseudo scientists like to extoll the benefits of mycorrhizal fungi, something I completely agree with. Then they proceed to advocate for a production method (organic) that requires massive amounts of tillage which destroys mycorrhizal fungi. If you wonder why our grandfathers started using fertilizer on the prairies, it was largely because of having to replace exported nutrients, but also they were compounding their nutrient problems by massacring the mycorrhizal fungi with tillage, (along with much of the other life in the soil).

I find it funny that the author would blame the addition of nitrogen fertilizer for killing soil flora and fauna, when the act of getting fertilizer into the soil (tillage) is responsible for far more destruction than the fertilizer itself. Especially considering that organic advocates won't replace far more destructive tillage with a single application of 180 grams per acre of glyphosate, (a very small amount of a substance with about the same toxicity as table salt).

We've all heard about the large amounts of "unavailable" phosphorous in the soil, these same mycorrhizal fungi are great at helping plants get at and use this phosphorus, converting it into more usable forms. Doesn't stop nutrient removal, but the fungi greatly help gain access to what's there. I'm not sure why organic people would want to kill these fungi with tillage when they would greatly help with the "mining" of soil nutrients. That's the trouble when the organic industry's philosophy clashes with science, they end up doing and advocating for things that are conflicting and counterproductive.

[grassfarmer]

What makes her a "pseudo scientist"?
She has a PhD in soil biochemistry - have you?

[wilagro]

grassfarmer: Great article...thanks. Will print it out for one of my neighbours who doesn't have a usable computer.

[Louee]

Grassfarmer, I second that that it is a great article. No where in it does Ms. Jones advocate for "massive amounts of tillage". If anything she is very against having bare ground. The 11 farmers in Oz are using a pasture cropping method and the 3 fellows in the states use either glyphos to kill their cover crops or they crimp them. For those of you interested in more "pseudo-science" search Dr. Elaine Ingham and SoilFoodWeb.

[FarmRanger]

I read the rest of the article, and I apologize for judging to soon (prejudice). In my defence, when I read the first bit, I assumed it was the same stuff I'd seen many times before. I do agree that we as farmers should be more aware of the dangers of herbicide resistance.
Just because there can be a problem with overuse of a good tool like pesticides, doesn't make pesticides a bad tool. It all comes down to what you do with the tool. Tillage is a tool that has destroyed soils around the world, and now that we have other tools to avoid tillage, there are those who villify the new tools. and blame all our current production problems on pesticides. If we'd had the modern tools that we have now from the beginning, the judiciuous use of pesticidess could have preserved the productivity of the soils that we shouldn't have lost. That being said, I am concerned that we can misuse and reduce the effectiveness of any tool through over-reliance and overuse and repeat the kind of mistakes in pesticides that were made with tillage.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems begin to look like nails.

[greybeard]

I'm going with FarmRanger on this one.
For 40 yrs we have been hearing how mycorrhizal fungi and brix are the key to a yield break out.
So where are the results on a field wide adoption on commercial scale?
Not even used on strawberries, Forgit about Wheat.
Keep up the research, but that's all it is.

[tweety]

Great article on how to mine nutrients more effectively. Pass the nutrient mortgage on to the next generation!

If you're taking off grain, cows, whatever off the land, nutrients need to be replaced. whether its sulfur from tar sands processing, nitrogen from agriums' Hydrogen Off Gas plants, phos and K from deep under the ground, taking your neighbours manure, or mining from your own soil, it has to come from somewhere cuz dead people, the energy they emit and all their poop don't come back to your land.

Even Gabe Brown admits you can't get around that extremely simple fact in the balance and equilibrium of nature.

[grassfarmer]

greybeard, I can't speak for 40 years ago but these methods are being adopted commercially now led by the likes of Gabe Brown and it's spreading into Canada too.

I can see from the response to this thread why it hasn't been adopted by mainstream commodity grain producers on the prairies. They are considered "wingnut" "organic" ideas something that 90% of the posters wouldn't even consider because they are tied to a system of heavy commercial fertiliser and pesticide use. They laugh at organic because of the low yields, weeds and tillage required. They wouldn't consider running livestock because it would cut into their vacation time and they no longer have the skills to run animals.

I see this not as organic but as a blend of the best of organic and the current commercial production systems.

What Gabe is achieving is remarkable - corn yields higher than the district average after dropping his fertiliser usage by over 90% and chemical usage by over 75%. Imagine that translated across the prairies. It would be a paradigm shift, but one that would lead to more profitable farms and healthier soils.

I see tweety's suggestions followed all the time - using "dead" soil as a medium to grow crops by adding every nutrient needed every year. Good for the input suppliers, poor for the farmer, the soil and ultimately the planet.

[tweety]

Grassy, please explain in easy to understand how you can replace nutrients without adding them from another source.

I am absolutely the first to admit, i don't see or understand how it can happen. I would be forever grateful if you could explain it so this seemingly slow sk farmer can understand.

Let's take a very simple one and make this topic very helpful to all.

How do you replenish the 20 to 40 lbs of sulfur yearly without adding it from another source (elemental or ammonium sulfate etc) or continually mine what is on your own land as proposed by Dr Jones?

Please?

[greybeard]

Here's one for you Tweety.
Where does that sulfur come from that you are using to replace the little you used?

[tweety]

I use elemental, and the majority comes from the oilsands, and greybeard its not a little, its a lot. Think of the tonnes of grain that come off your land. The complexity of its nutrients and makeup.

To make it very simple i'm just asking how one of those nutrients, sulfur, is replaced if you don't use an inputs source as above as claimed by Dr Jones, Gabe, et al.

I'd love to not buy inputs, but, if you're soil is low in sulfur, i have no option but to buy it. It just isn't there.

While the articles go on and on about the beauty of the system, the details are very short. Grassy, you claim to do it. I'm asking you to explain how i can increase the sulfur content on my soil without buying it and dumping it on?

I think the question is quite clear and concise.

[rkaiser]

Great article gf. The one thing that can not be dealt with by folks like tweety who are caught in the web is the fact that they are caught on the web. Monoculture farming and growing the same crops year after year. Rotating of course, but why? Please tell us tweety, what is the meaning behind your rotation besides trying to stay ahead of the banks and paying your bills. Is it to feed the hungry?

[tweety]

Your post kaiser is exactly what i mean. You say great article, you obviously are well educated in soil science.

Please explain how you can replenish sulfur without mining it. Or are you just gonna personally attack rather then talk about soil?

[grassfarmer]

You seem to have things back to front tweety. Before settlement the prairies were in a state of climax vegetation which meant the mob grazing of the buffalo had done a great job of keeping the soil and the grasses/plants healthy. Funny how nature can do that eh?
There was no need to supplement sulphur then as there was plenty - it's largely derived from organic matter and of course there was plenty of that. It wasn't being "mined" because there was nothing leaving the cycle.

Conventional agriculture is what is mining the soil - growing a grain crop every year - removing it and shipping it to Vancouver and turning around and having to replace the nutrients from a bag.

Can't you see that what Gabe Brown and others are recreating is the healthy high OM soils of the tall grass prairie? Diverse species of plants with animal impact returning a lot of the nutrients back to the soil. They are creating organic matter faster than people thought possible even 5 years ago.

If you use diverse plants - not just the shallow rooted typical crops farmed today - but plants that can root down to 5 feet you can pull up all kinds of minerals and nutrients that are unavailable to shallow rooted plants. Most minerals are in abundance in the soil but they are not plant available because the plants either can't access them because they are deep down or you don't have the soil microbiology needed to convert them to plant usable form. Your sprays and fertilisers ensure that these organisms will never flourish so you are locked into buying inputs for ever. Nitrogen of course can be fixed for free by legumes so why would you want to buy it?

So much of what we do today is governed by one dimensional, reductionist thinking so it's a breath of fresh air to me to see the ideas and practices Christine Jones and Gabe Brown are teaching and implementing.