Development and Harvest Yields of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Six Orgnaic Growing Systems

[Microbeman]

From what I can see Netunes Harvest has about 2% ionized N. I did not read through the whole tomato paper but notice a list with enormous numbers given for inonic elements but (in my breezing through) noticed no independent lab analysis of this (might have missed it). Perhaps they have some other meaning? Regardless, I'd be interested in a study but would not wish to be involved in this sort of growing. I like my soil old.

 

[mad librettist]

So how does ammonia become nitrate and why?

 

[Microbeman]

The excess N is excreted as ammonia and hence is readily available for other soil organisms, including plant roots (Zwartet al., 1994).”

and the last third was excreted as ammonia readily available for uptake by the plant.”

Protozoa and Other
Protista in Soil - chapter 6 'Modern Soil Microbiology' 2nd edition 2007
Marianne Clarholm, Michael Bonkowski, and Bryan Griffiths

 

[secondtry]

Due to a post by Trich I thought I would post some paper that's helped and are still helping me:
(files are attached)

Tropic issues in the soil...who's in control? Roots or microbes? (...well, both, kind of)


--------------------------------------------

Mathew Dornbush, Cynthia Cambardella, Elaine Ingham & James Raich (2008)

"A comparison of soil food webs beneath C3- and C4-dominated grasslands"
Biol Fertil Soils (2008) 45:73–81 DOI 10.1007/s00374-008-0312-4​

(what I took from this paper: greater OM and inputs means the less the plant is in control)

Abstract
Soil food webs influence organic matter mineralization and plant nutrient availability, but the potential for plants to capitalize on these processes by altering soil food webs has received little attention. We compared soil food webs beneath C3- and C4-grass plantings by measuring bacterial and fungal biomass and protozoan and nematode abundance repeatedly over 2 years. We tested published expectations that C3 detritus and root chemistry (low lignin/N) favor bacterial-based food webs and root-feeding nematodes, whereas C4 detritus (high lignin/N) and greater production favor fungal decomposers and predatory nematodes. We also hypothesized that seasonal differences in plant growth between the two grassland types would generate season-specific differences in soil food webs. In contrast to our expectations, bacterial biomass and ciliate abundance were greater beneath C4 grasses, and we found no differences in fungi, amoebae, flagellates, or nematodes. Soil food webs varied significantly among sample dates, but differences were

Conclusion
We draw two main conclusions from our work. First, we found a strong temporal effect on the soil food web that was not associated with either seasonal climatic trends or plant growth patterns. Future sampling protocols will need to account for this temporal variability when assessing average soil food web structure. Second, we interpret the modest effect of vegetation identity on the soil food web to reflect a dominant influence by pre-existing soil properties. The most likely candidate is soil organic matter content, as it simultaneously influences multiple soil properties including soil structure, available energy, and soil resource pools. Stated directly, we hypothesize that high levels of soil organic matter provide a stable environment and energy source for soil organisms and thus buffer soil food webs from short-term dynamics of plant communities. As such, we put forth the testable hypothesis that plant-species effects on soil food webs are a function of the interaction between differences in tissue quality among the plant species compared and the size or quality of the existing soil organic matter pool.

-----------------------------------------



Lijbert Brussaarda, Mirjam M. Pullemanb, Elisee Ouedraogoc, Abdoulaye Mando, Johan Six (circa 2006)

"Soil fauna and soil function in the fabric of the food web"
Pedobiologia 50 (2007) 447—462​

Summary

Over the last four decades, spanning David Coleman’s career, and in no small measure thanks to him, soil ecologists have made tremendous progress in describing and understanding the overwhelming complexity of biological, biophysical and biochemical interactions in soil. These interactions shape the soil as a habitat for the soil food web and the vegetation and, thereby, regulate the two main life-supporting processes on Planet Earth: production and decomposition. Changes in decomposition and production processes are governed by (human-induced) changes in vegetation composition/cover, the amounts and quality of organic residues and (in)organic fertilizers entering the soil. Such modifications alter the physical environment and the soil biota. Hence, decomposition and production processes cannot be understood and/or manipulated without explicitly addressing the composition and activity of the soil food web[/b]. Using a conceptual model, we argue that quantitative understanding of biophysical interactions, in particular those between soil fauna and soil structure, are paramount to understanding biological and biochemical processes in soil and the availability of water and nutrients to plants. The need to increase the efficiency of crop production worldwide, to reverse soil degradation and to increase soil resilience will set the agenda for soil ecologists in the near future.

-----------------------------------------





Mary E. Power (1992)

"TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP FORCES IN FOOD WEBS: DO PLANTS HAVE PRIMACY?"
Ecology, 1992, pp. 733-746. Ecological Sociey of Amreica​

CONCLUSIONS

Plants have obvious primacy in food webs; in particular, their primary productivity is a fundamental control of higher trophic levels. Other plant attributes, such as architecture (e.g., Bernays and Graham 1988, Kareiva and Sahakian 1990) or chemical constituents (e.g., Price et al. 1980, Price and Clancy 1986) clearly also have strong effects on the performances and interactions of higher trophic levels. These other attributes, however, are often molded or constrained by plant growth rates, in either physiological or evolutionary time (Bloom et al. 1985, Coley et al. 1985, L. Oksanen 1990).

Food chain dynamics models linking primary productivity to trophic structure are exciting, because different assumptions about mechanisms lead to distinguishably different predictions about ecosystem level patterns. For example, if consumers affect their own functional response, their densities should correlate with those of resources over large-scale gradients of ecosystem productivity. If instead the classical assumption that predator attack rates depend only on prey density is correct, consumer and resource density should remain uncorrelated across productivity gradients, until food chain length changes. It is quite uncommon in ecology for simple (and observable) differences in the behavioral and population dynamics mechanisms assumed by different models to lead to widely divergent predictions about large-scale community-level patterns.

Despite the growing enthusiasm for multi-trophic level investigations, most ecologists would agree that there are real difficulties in applying food web theories to the real world. We need to resolve methodological issues concerning appropriate spatio-temporal scales, agree upon operational definitions for concepts like trophic levels, and evaluate the assumptions of the variety of available models of top-down and bottom-up forces, to decide which apply in which settings.

Perhaps most challenging, we must also devise testable theory that can address dynamic feedbacks between adjacent and nonadjacent trophic levels (e.g., when is primary productivity a dependent variable, responding to top-down forces? How will accruing plant cover affect predator-prey interactions?). These feedbacks may create indeterminacies that will impede the test of mechanistic food web models (Sykes 1984, Hastings and Powell 199 1), but they are too pervasive to ignore.

-------------------------------------


Katarina Hedlunda, Bryan Griffithsb, Sœren Christensenc, Stefan Scheud, Heikki Setalae, Teja Tscharntkef, Herman Verhoefg (2004)

"Trophic interactions in changing landscapes: responses of soil food webs"
Basic and Applied Ecology 5 (2004) 495—5​

(this study uses no and low inputs)

Summary[/]]
Soil communities in landscapes that are rapidly changing due to a range of anthropogenic processes can be regarded as highly transient systems where interactions between competing species or trophic levels may be seriously disrupted. In disturbed communities dispersal in space and time has a role in ensuring continuity of community function. Stable communities, in undisturbed systems, are more dependent on competition and other biotic interactions between species. We predicted how food web components would respond to disturbance, based on their dispersal and colonizing abilities. During decomposition, flows of energy and nutrients generally follow either a bacterial-based path, with bacteria as the primary decomposer and bacterial-feeding fauna and their predators forming the associated food web, or a fungal-based channel. Trophic links that were generally resistant to change were the organisms of the bacterial pathway that have high abilities to disperse in time and passively disperse in space. Organisms in the fungal pathway were less resistant to disturbance. Resource inputs to the soil system are derived from plants, either through root exudation and root turnover during active growth or from

 

[secondtry]

So how does ammonia become nitrate and why?

If there is ammonia in the process it is often basically as I posted is below, but it is often directly into ammonium, not ammonia when OM mineralization:

OM mineralization or microbial-loop > ammonia > ammonium > nitrite > nitrate

HTH

 

[mad librettist]

yeah but who is doing that?

I'm asking, because if MJ prefers nitrate, and it's not from protists as I thought, where is it coming from?

I've just learned I need my protists to be happy, but is the nitrate coming from something eating their poop, or from somewhere else? And if it's not the protists, why do I need them in a container? I know I do need them and I go after them by introducing outside soil, but why?

 

[secondtry]

Hey all,

I need to go out so I will respond to the other posts soon, but for now anyone interested in plant lighting I would think you may like to read this post of mine I just made:

"Investing in new lights LED or HID?"

(I cover UV-b, Co2 levels, irridiance, etc...lots of info people always want but don't have access to, until now , it's big post with maybe 100 or more references and lots of pics)
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3242078&postcount=30

 

[Microbeman]

There are gobs of protozoa in your worm bins; BTW there are protozoa in the protist group but protists does not equal protozoa.

Who has said that protozoa only emit NH+4? I know those articles imply it but... Who said cannabis only uses NO-3?

 

[mad librettist]

well, I just said it prefers NO3, as I assume most annuals do. From Dr. Ingham's site I learned that giving a plant the "wrong" N makes it sick.

Thanks for the protist/protozoan correction. I always figured they were interchangeable.

So protozoa excrete all kinds of N waste?

Worm bin - did they get there in the worms? I occasionally sprinkle outdoor soil in them, telling myself I am maybe collecting new microbes.

 

[Microbeman]

Dr. Ingham is one of the greatest proponents of needing protozoa for N so your guess is as good as mine. I've never had a problem but I never interviewed my flagellates and amoebae to ask which kind they are releasing.

It would be my untested hypothesis that protozoa excrete a large range of molecules. They also [I think] encourage ammonifying bacteria and archaea which produce nitrates.

They come in on the food and from who knows where?

 

[mad librettist]

It's so weird that this is cutting edge. You would think soil microbes would have been in the spotlight since Louis Pasteur.

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

Yea that is a good thesis paper for sure. It validates everything I have been writing, thanks! (where the hell is my Ph.D.??? ) if you give me the URL I can get it tomorrow for us. I did find some aspects of the abstract worth writing about to offer some more fine grain detail:

When protozoa consume bacteria, excess nitrogen is excreted as ammonium nitrogen. This relation is based on a similar carbon:nitrogen ratio for protozoa and bacteria.

and...

Several mechanisms for the action of protozoa with respect to mineralization of nitrogen have been proposed (Chapter l):
1) by grazing bacteria, protozoan biomass is produced at the expense of bacterial biomass and excess nitrogen is excreted as ammonium

I assume this is what you were referring to when you wrote to Mad.L., that ammonia is not represented? That is my understating too, ammonia and ammonium, but I also have learned (maybe wrongly) that by % more ammonium is produced than ammonia.

Soil provides a very heterogeneous environment with its network of pores with sizes from 0.2 μm to 2000μm.

This correlates to my data I presented about the three types of capillary pores: "mesopores" (416-10 micron), "micropores" (<10-0.2 mirons) and "ultramicropores" (<0.2 micron). I also wrote more info like protozoa ideally feed in pores sizes from <9.8-2 micron, and that pores under 2 microns are termed "protection pores" because protozoa can't eat bacteria in pores that small, bacteria can use water from pores as small as about 0.2 microns and tend to colonize pores larger than 0.75 microns IIRC. The wet/dry cycle is what really boosts protozoa feeding, after the rewetting the N goes way up, and nematodes feed better when media is drier because it excludes bacteria (for example) into smaller areas (pores) thus decreasing the food/space ratio; like reining in cattle for slaughter. And because measuring pore sizes is hard I correlated pore sizes to water tension thus with a relativity inexpensive tensiometer one can test media at container capacity (CC) and correlate the kPa to pore size to find the average pore sizes of media. Plants use water most easily at water tensions from about 1-10 kPa, while microbial-loop (protozoa predation) seems to peak around 15 kPa but 10-15 kPa seems like a good range. Thus for my media I am shooting for a water tension at CC of 8-13 kPa for happy roots and soil food web with high predtation rates by meso and microfauna.

Microorganisms have been shown to be neither randomly nor uniformly distributed through the soil fabric (Foster 1988). Part of the habitable pore space for bacteria in soil is not accessible to protozoa (Vargas and Hattori 1986).

Those are the protection pores I wrote about before on page 1 or 2 of this thread.

The numbers of protozoa that are found in natural soil ranges from 1 x 10 4to 1 x 10 6per gram dry soil.

That is interesting, I would love to read how he came to that figure!

Protozoa are in essence aquatic organisms and therefore water is essential to their functioning. Based an the average cell sizes of 10-50 μm for amoebae and 10-20 μm for flagellates, these protozoa can only enter and feed in pores with a pore neck diameter 3- 20 μm and larger (Darbyshire 1976). The availability of water was shown to strongly regulate the grazing activity of protozoa (Chapter 5)

There are actually protozoa that can eat bacteria in pores from 3-2 microns, I think 2.7 micron is the limit, that is why I and others write protection pore are <2 microns.

In soils kept at a low soil moisture tension (3 Bar), protozoa were not active. It was estimated from a water retention curve (Postma et al. 1989) that at this moisture tension, pores with pore necks larger than 3 μm are devoid of water. Hence, protozoan movement and feeding was restricted because waterfilms were too thin or even absent. Only at higher soil moisture contents (0.1 Bar and 0.3 Bar), the activity of protozoa reduced the number of bacteria and increased the mineral nitrogen content in soil (Chapter 5).

0.1 bar = 10 kPa as (0.1/0.01)
0.3 bar = 30 kPa as (0.3/0.01)

The data I read states 15 kPa is about ideal for protozoa to munch on bacteria (and the needs of nematodes are pretty darn similar).

Upon drying of the soil, protozoa encyst to survive dry conditions. Little information is available on the signals and the time needed to excyst and return to trophic stages when favourable soil moisture conditions are restored.

and...

Protozoa exhibited a very fast, immediate reaction to restoration of favourable moisture conditions in previously dried soils. The pulsed addition of water to dry soils have a significant impact on the dynamics of food-chain reactions in soil in terms of microbial activity and of carbon and nitrogen mineralization.

I have data and studies that very thing:
(I atteched them to this post)

"Effect of Soil Moisture Regime on Predation by Protozoa of Bacterial Biomass and the Release of Bacterial Nitrogen"

"N-Ntirogen Mineralization from Bacteria by Protozoan Grazing at Different Soil Moisture Regimes"

"Faunal Activities and Soil Processes - Adaptive Strategies That Determine Ecosystem Function"

"Contributions of soil micro-fauna (protozoa and nematodes) to rhizosphere ecological functions"

"Structural and functional succession in the nematode fauna of a soil food web"

"Uncoupling of carbon and nitrogen mineralization - role of microbivorous nematodes"

In soils that were incubated under conditions with modest soil moisture fluctuations, protozoan activity resulted in an even higher mineralization and plant uptake of 15N from bacterial cells than in soils that were incubated with a stable soil moisture regime.

That is why I suggest my watering method which keeps media from about 50% moisture content to 65-70% moisture content (the CC). Below about 45% moisture content and protozoa predation is greatly reduced, and like the author wrote a small flux of media moisture is ideal, that is why I suggest the range of 50%-65% moisture content.


Thanks again MM that was a good read.

 

[Microbeman]

I assume this is what you were referring to when you wrote to Mad.L., that ammonia is not represented?

Don't know what you mean? Did I say that ammonia is not represented?

Thought you would like the thesis as it covers what you were talking about.

IMW, ammonium = ionized ammonia = NH+4 = ammonia gen speak

 

[Microbeman]

2nd try; have you watched my video footage of protozoa encysting in drying environ?

 

[secondtry]

Hey Fista,

2nd.

Let me just paraphrase here, see if I'm getting the gist...

We know what critters we want - We do not know what numbers of each is ideal.. (this must shift with environmental conditions surely).

Yea, tho the paper MM posted cites figures for protozoa, I just don't know where the data came from.

The issue of how to assess soil microbe counts is still up for debate?

I am not sure what you mean, do you mean what MM teaches (direct microscopic enumeration) verses plate culturing the microbes and then using microscopic enumeration? If so I don't think there is, like MM wrote, SFI doesn't need to plate out but they still do. However, I am only parroting MM at this point.

This is my sticking point. I need reasonable figures to do the math and knock up some graphs and start comparisons.

This respiration thing - what comes out determines what is in there?

Sure, counts of types of microbes and ratios, etc. And I can ash test pro-mix bx to find OM for a test figure; additionally, if I find data on lignan, cellulose and hemicellulose (f peat for example) I can calculate the % of OM (as carbon) that is bio-available to microbes. Is that what you want?

RE: respiration:
I would more so write that what goes in (water, roots, microbes, organic amendments, OM) determines what is comes out (gas wise as Co2) if not considering the media properties like air porosity, etc.

Wish we could do a microbe count in this manner.

What manner? Have you read MM's site about looking at ACT? I think it's what you are asking for.

Could we work towards devising one with what we're doing. There might be many birds we can kill with this stone. Have a think about other information we might want, and if we can make it so we start collecting this information as we progress.

I don't follow.


Thanks, good luck with callles

 

[secondtry]

Hey MM,

Don't know what you mean? Did I say that ammonia is not represented?

No I guess not, I misread this sentence:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=3242398&postcount=268
"Who has said that protozoa only emit NH+4? I know those articles imply it but... Who said cannabis only uses NO-3?"

Thought you would like the thesis as it covers what you were talking about.

I think I will email the author, and compare notes. I would like to pick his brain.


All the best

 

[secondtry]

Hey LocalHero,

So, new questions for you:

1) What would you replace in this recipe with Pine bark fines and biochar?
5 parts peat
3 parts perlite
2 parts worm casting

Hmmm. I would only suggest you try this in a conter or two, the mix you want to use works, better to test slowly.

5 parts peat
2.5 parts screened aged pine bark
0.5 part biochar
2 parts worm castings

2)now this mix works with lots of lime to stabilize ph and provide cal mag. Do the same principles of PH apply with pine bark fines as peat?

Yup. For aged pine bark 5-10 lbs/yrd^3 is suggested.

3) I'm very interested in also replacing the worm castings. I believe they compact my soil, as well as the store bought ones contain kelp and sand. I'm trying to make enough of my own compost to do this for the outdoor. but concerned it will not be rested enough or be enough before its needed. I'm in los angeles, the LA zoo and dep of sanitation make their own organic compost using zoo doo and clippings from griffith park. Would using a compost with zoo manure mess up the amount of org ferts i toss in my recipe? Any good sources of reliable WELL RESTED compost?

If it is mature compost it sounds like a good source, tho human pathogens are a concern with manure compost, as long as they know what they are doing it should be fine.

I am going to order 30 lb bags of compost (at 1,400 lb/cubic yrd bulk destiny at about 40% moisture content) from MidWest Biosystem, compost like CMC from the Luebke family:
http://www.midwestbiosystems.com/

Here are the sizes of the bio char found through this site http://www.lazzari.com/industry_hardwoodcharcoal.html :

Granular Charcoal, bulk, per specification
Horticulture granular Charcoal, screened 7 mm - 13 mm, 40 pound bag
Horticulture granular Charcoal, screened 14 mm - 25 mm, 40 pound bag
Avian granular Charcoal, screened 3 mm - 7 mm, 40 pound bag

Hey yea, go for the 3mm to 7 mm for sure. That's pretty cool, great find! If you contact them can you ask them if all the wood lumber to make the charcoal is chemical free? (if so that could be a good replacement for cowboy charcoal).

HTH

 

[secondtry]

Hey again MM,

(I'm happy to see you and MrFista are interested)

In reviewing the original material I realized that the earthjuice maxes out at around 3.3% ionic nutrient so not as big a deal as I anticipated.

And hydrolyzie fish was what 2%? That is the Total Nitrogen express on a wegight percntahge basis. Of that I thoguth ammonium as repored (by the gram) as was nitrates (by the gram)? I need to look at that again.

Mr. Fista, the microbial count/ratio is going to alter with a number of variables but the goal to me would be to just do a count of what is there, not try to establish what the ratio should be. BTW there have been a number of studies already carried out where both, counts of soil microbes and respiration rates were taken. Perhaps you could find some with your school pass.

If you can post paper titles, author or keyword I can get it tomorrow if MrFista doesn't have time.

Thanks.

 

[secondtry]

2nd try; have you watched my video footage of protozoa encysting in drying environ?

I thought I had but maybe not, I will go do so soon. Thanks.

 

[Dave Coulier]

Secondtry, what do you do with the pine bark fines that pass through the 2mm screen? Im still screening through the 3.5mm screen, and I have no clue how much will pass through the 2mm screen.

If its alot, Id feel like im wasting money, if I didn't use it. I was thinking once I run out of compost, I could use it as a substitute. Maybe 7.5% EWC, and 2.5% Fines.

Edit:

I decided to test the AP of the nursery mix screened through the 4mm, and I got 12%. It looks like Ill be doing the sift through 2mm. I was hoping I wouldn't have to haha. Sifting isn't fun

Well, Ive sifted some through the 2mm and tested for AP. It came out at 33%. Huge difference those fine particles make. Once I get some EWC, compost, azomite, and dry organic nutes in there Ill retest it.

Ill do a test with and without perlite, to see what type of results I get. Like you already said, perlite isn't necessary with APBF if it has been screened. Looking like that already.