Interveiw With Agricola

[Pangea]

there is nothing new to transitional organics, but this discussion is a discourse in marketing, especially one that looks to tout opinion and allude to facts that can't be qualified or quantified

As they and everyone is well aware this is not new info, I believe they are just trying to spread the info to the common gardener, not a farmer.

he opens up stating "fact" that he can't qualify and quantify and then says i don't want to discuss that

please state the pure empirical scientific facts that prove a claim before you sell around it

the fact that he puts an "inexplicable" horror of government and greed as the catalyst to abandon organics is sensationalist marketing at its finest as is the land is already tainted rationalization

saying that direct mineral amendment is the future when modern "science" still lacks a complete understanding about microbial composition of soils and the allelopathic relationships they are part of

another of the fallacies he mentioned was that no organic research has been done since the 50's

most of the latest agricultural studies have shifted to studying the microbes (thanks to the modern microscope) and their influence on the plant rhizosphere

I challenge his initial statement of "Specifically, why most Organic food isn’t necessarily more nutritious than chemically grown food." with "how about a discourse of the cycle of trace elements in the soil and how they effect the human body or any other organisms in an ecosystem"

here is a good place to start

http://books.google.com/books?id=bS-9x8TdXB8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

besides what you call marketing, how about focusing on the information trying to be disseminated.

what about soil microbial biodiversity or the long term sustainability of these minerals stores

There we go! No one is suggesting to over look either, quite the opposite.

what ecosystem pays for our mineral amendments?

Local ecosystems, utilized sustainably ideally, obviously.

what about the cost of homogenizing soils, does the author think soil diversity is unnecessary?

I highly doubt the author or anyone with half an interest in organic gardening would think soil diversity is unnecessary.

what about the thread of soil homogenization on ecosystem diversity, since the living soil and the ecosystems they are natural to?

I think I missed the thread you referring to or i'm too high but I don't understand this question.


Sure the dude is not perfect nor does he claim hes got it all figured out, I HIGHLY suggest you guys read a hundred and change pages of the book before you criticize the author and its contents.

 

[waveguide]

i don't want to read all that.

reading the first bit... it brings the focus to bear on whether food is nutritious.. great n'all.. who bloody cares if it's nurtitious if it's toxic. you can take the most nutritious food in the world and put toxins in it, they're not mutually exclusive.

i'll stick with primarily valueing non-deleterious methods of production.

 

[xmobotx]

actually one thing the article reinforces is that some of our conventionally farmed produce is not "bad" for whats in it but for whats not in it

i have to agree and should have pointed out immediately that yes there is some of that "ohhh noes big corp is ruining everything!" flavor like; "hey its critical we get out and start mineralizing before the farmers grow all the micorbes out of the soil!" its marketing and kinda "more of the same" that we get from the conventional sources.

but the message is there too that yes, earth is getting exploited by big bizzz and the farm industry is as polluted as many others. more to the point he shells out "the calcium secret" and thats what i liked NTM the kinds of amendments offered coupled w/ the soil test advice is something many gardeners hobbyists and farmers would benefit from - it leads to the kind of organic agriculture that disproves that dupont myth about organics being inadequate to feed the world

pangea 'wierd' meant to say "threat" of homogenization/ if everyone just ran out and bought all these products and started dumping them on soils everywhere; we lose a little of the very diversity we encourage. how realistic is that? idk cause its not already imbalanced is it? guess its like a concern that eventually, all the soil in the world will be blended together into one big potpourri? lol anyway,,,,

other than a chuckle at the cheeky marketing though i see not much to detract about since its a message we all want to get spread around

of course "cheeky marketing" might be a bit harsh/ the truth is that there are still a lot of manure farmers and responsible organic/natural commercial operations. nonetheless it would be nice to see the balance tip in favor of that sustainable stuff right?

 

[c-ray]

easily the best 25 bucks I ever spent on gardening.. has anyone here actually read The Ideal Soil Book?

 

[h.h.]

We interview ourselves or our friends interview us with soft questions, I don't see much difference. Mostly a writing style. I really don't think the guy was named agro. Possible my brother and I were both named after dirt, dad being in the soils trade...
None the less, the material should be taken at face value with the usual amount of skepticism. There is little wrong with selling what you believe in.
We are depleting our soil. Compost and manure are good replacements as they contain minerals as well. One reason I harp about monocots is their large vascular systems, which from my observations can be somewhat "dirty", full of minerals. I've also used sand in my teas. Ant hill dirt.
On the other hand, what I see from the organic crowd, is a one size fits all answer using compost or ewc with little regard for the origin of said materials. There is little understanding of potential hydrogen, osmosis, or cation ratios. The need for mineralization.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC6437.html
I don't claim I do.
For the most part it's all being recycled with the exception of what we consume. When we pile it up, or when we pen in livestock is when we incur nitrate problems. While straw may steal nitrogen, the two in combination.
Never heard of this supergrass growing out of the cow paddies. I remember pulling thistles cause they made the milk taste bad, but not any kind of grass. I'd like to have some.

 

[Green Supreme]

The book lol. Most haven't even read the interview. Peace GS

 

[Montana]

"I'm not reading all that".........<<<<.^^^^..true that GS

 

[xmobotx]

its a lot of info would be real easy to tl;dr then just post away; i think i will read it again

 

[h.h.]

These people have nothing to sell other than world dominance.
Well worth the read. I ain't gonna cut and paste it. Just follow the damn link...
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5053e/y5053e0e.htm

 

[TLoft13]

Tagged, very much appreciated.

 

[c-ray]

well it's been a coupla weeks, anyone order the book yet? I'd hate to see all you organic fanatics miss out on a perfectly good and easy opportunity to take your game to a higher level

 

[c-ray]

google dr. william a. albrecht

 

[Hydro-Soil]

when he talks about depleted land......he's talking about a hundred years or more of using chemical ferts which have killed most farmland...

Yep... but that's not the underlying point of importance.

The issue is the actual farming practices being used today. The soil is being used like it's perlite or rockwool, since it's now inert. The entire infrastructure of mass farming is contrary to natural farming... the use of NPK's are mandatory, as long as those growing practices remain in place.

Real farming doesn't need a plow. *shrug* Real farming takes years to build up the soil through returning plant material for decomposition and crop rotations. The resulting fields are more productive and have much greater resistance to pests and diseases than other crops in the same areas.

Should I find the link to the pdf book... I'll post it. 'Modern' Farming practices are butchers to the quality of soil.

Stay Safe!

 

[c-ray]

from http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2008/09/founding-fathers-the-albrecht-heritage/

Founding Fathers – The Albrecht Heritage

Dr William Albrecht was above all a student of nature, and perhaps his greatest credential related to the fact that his system worked successfully with, rather than against, nature. As a scientist, writer and educator, Albrecht worked tirelessly to empower the farmer with the knowledge required to increase “real” fertility via soil balance and appropriate nutrition. Unlike earlier resistance fighters like Austrian Rudolf Steiner, Albrecht’s approach remained practical and accessible. While Steiner philosophised about cosmic forces and spiritual influences in agriculture (alienating more than he converted), Albrecht set about delineating actual measurable parameters of fertility. Through a comprehensive study of clay chemistry, he concluded that the smallest particle of the soil – the clay colloid – stored positively charged nutrients called cations, which attached to the colloid magnetically. These cations were exchanged with hydrogen by plants seeking nutrition. The relative cation storage capacity of a soil varied depending upon the clay content of the soil – a light, sandy soil storing less than a heavier clay soil. This relative storage capacity was called cation exchange capacity (CEC). As is often the case, no discovery occurs in a vacuum. Albrecht’s initial work was inspired by earlier European research in clay chemistry. However, his great personal breakthrough related to his identification of the exact ratios of each cation required in any given soil to achieve maximum fertility and associated plant health. The major cations include calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and hydrogen.

Albrecht and his research team devised an experiment where clay colloids were spun in a machine at a speed fast enough to dislodge the attached cations. The research team collected hundreds of kilos of naked clay colloids, located them in numerous research plots and began the painstaking task of adding the cations in different ratios and evaluating the related plant growth response. In this manner, Albrecht was able to ascertain the exact ratios of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium required for maximum plant growth and vitality. The magnitude of his discovery did not escape him when he commented that the Missouri University research plots located at Sanborn fields represented “a few small acres that have contributed more to the understanding of plant growth than any area on the planet.”

The enormous significance of Albrecht’s breakthrough can only be fully understood within the context of his complete approach. Albrecht’s system centres around the primacy of calcium as the most important nutrient for healthy plant growth. Lime is viewed as a major fertilliser contributing to both quantity and quality of produce. The criteria for liming recommendations within conventional agriculture has been soil pH levels (If pH is low, then lime is recommended), but Albrecht insisted that, as magnesium, sodium and potassium can actually have more effect on raising pH than calcium, then the conventional pH approach could never accurately assess calcium requirements for maximum fertility. This misunderstanding has serious fertility consequences in modern N-P-K agriculture, where the overuse of nitrogen destroys calcium and contributes to an imbalanced calcium / magnesium ratio. Magnesium has 1.4 times more power to increase soil pH than calcium, so using the pH criteria for liming requirements in high magnesium soils is doomed to failure. The majority of Australian soil laboratories still use the unreliable and inaccurate pH criteria to determine calcium requirements. Albrecht established his own soil laboratory in the US, which measured cation exchange capacity and specified base saturation percentages (the cation ratios he had discovered, which determine fertility). The laboratory he established 40 years ago, Brookside Laboratories, continues to flourish today, with consultants covering most of the globe, including Australia.

 

[FlowerGarden]

I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to read all of that and actually think they can grow better or know more then the next guy in organics. Monoculture farming is a whole other world. As far as some cow not eating something that doesnt look good... Wait until that pasture is almost depleted for the season and those cows would run to eat whatever they could. If you are hungry enough you will eat anything. Period. Is there any actual facts behind any of this scribble? No. And I don't understand how any of this is logical at all. It sounds like some dude just getting confused in his own ramblings....

 

[grapeman]

Very good article and interview.

I have repeated my opinion here several times that there are many good reasons to use organic methods, but growing healthier more nutritious products is not one of them.

I realize that fact burns like hot coals to some organic devotees, but facts are facts regardless.

 

[xmobotx]

i dont think anybody in their right mind would join a forum just to make 1 post discrediting something

grapeman have you messed around w/ a brix meter or done some analysis of your own? i think your point is "as long as the minerals are present the delivery is irrelevant?" i would think this albrecht stuff is right up your alley? you know theres folks applying the ratios to conventional farming?

 

[grapeman]

Yea x-man - but I didn't do my own soil analysis. But we have them done 2x per year and we plan our fert applications with that info.

We use brix meters (refractometers) all the time to quantify sugars as crops near harvest.

I did spend several years in the early '80's doing my own weekly petiole analysis and correlated these results with fertilizer programs. I learned some things. Mostly that I was using too much N & P. Post #34 hit a few things on the head IMO, in that Ca is one of the most important minerals in growing fruits, veggies and flowers for quality and tonnage.

 

[xmobotx]

guess i mis spoke since i meant had you done your own research and drawn your own conclusions; though soil testing/analysis would/could be part of that

i know you do a lot to refine your process and wondered what determinations you may have made

 

[c-ray]

I have repeated my opinion here several times that there are many good reasons to use organic methods, but growing healthier more nutritious products is not one of them.

why not?

sorry I don't mean to come off as rude but that statement kinda blew my mind..