"We have the same bug problems every year"

Because you are both low on probably the same nutrients. Calcium is the Prince, start there.

Ah, Mr. Brown. Apparently you have not paid much attention to the last 25 or 30 years because many garden writers have made the same statements I have. Ann Lovejoy, Rebecca Coles, Lee Reich, Elliot Coleman to name a few.
If you have so many doubts about the value of organic gardening/farming why do you continue coming here where you are exposed to ulcer producing statements?

Kimm, I don't have doubts about organic gardening, as that term is typically understood. I know what it is.

The soil salt-buildup problem from manufactured fertilizers would not exist in the humid eastern and extreme northwestern US, though perhaps it could in the arid areas.

On 50 plant of tomatoes,peppers & egg plants we had less then 6 tomato horn worms & less then 4 tomato fruit worms.
On beans a few worms, on squash, corn, onions,garlic nothing that we saw or worm sign.
pbrown it is funny that you would talk about calcium.
Even tho coffee waste from 2 soil test is rich in nutrients.
I am going to plant peanut this Spring & will need to put down Gypsum for the shells & I am going to take a soil test early to see were my calcium level is. So I can add gypsum if needed.
By the way I agree with you post, just am not sure if a few bugs & no Japanese Beetle(no really) is any thing but the best pest year I have ever had.
This however does not prove that I have all the nutrients, that I need. I am putting down rock dust in a few weeks & the soil test should show a differences in the soil then if I had taken the test now.Which is another reason for the test, before I spread gypsum over my whole garden.
Will post on the test when it comes back this Spring.

In high rainfall areas like ours gypsum can't hurt, and is likely to help.

Never had a pest issue. My plants get plenty of calcium. Who knows if that is the reason.

It's a lot more likely to be the reason than leprechauns, or the price of tea in China.

"Why specifically do organic gardeners avoid chemical fertilizers"

Because then you could not call it 'organic' ;)

That is about the only reason...

Problems with organic designations in Canada.

Lloyd

Here is a link that might be useful: Canada's organic food certification

pnbrown,
You don't have leprechauns or shamrocks in your garden? How do you get anything to grow without them? They are organic.

The notion that many organic gardeners spend less money is a bit of a myth. There's a huge predatory market for organic growers out there who facilitate the spending of huge amounts of money on "fancy" compost teas, sprays that are little more than surfactants + nutrients, and other such nonsense. The chemical-world predators are mostly in the arena of those looking for the "perfect" nuclear-green lawns.

Hopefully, the people coming to forums like this are learning how to look beyond all that expensive hype and create the proper soil environment (or create their own amendments) without bleeding their wallets dry.

I very rarely use chemical pest/disease controls (once in the past 5 years), but I do use chemical fertilizers because they're cheap and not detrimental to the home garden when applied properly (right amount at the right times). I make/use compost, too, but that's more for soil structure and the positive interaction with my native clay as far as nutrient exchange goes. I bought a small box of Miracle Grow with micronutrient additions about 4 years ago and I've barely dented it. Unless you're growing something intensive like corn most plants don't need as much fertilizer as some people would think...unless your soil is in poor condition to hold/exchange the nutrients you put into it.

Well said nc-crn.

In reality organic gardeners/farmers do not avoid chemicals since the nutrients their plants need to grow are chemicals. The N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc. (all chemicals) that organic growers need are readily available from sources other than synthetic, non renewable resources, and the plants that everyone grows evolved over eons in an environment quite different from the fairly sterile soil most people that try to raise them in now have.
Organic growers understand that all the chemicals that plants need for good, healthy growth are available from renewable resouces, organic matter, vegetative waste and animal manures and there is no need to use synthetic forms that are more like drugs, or steroids, that promote unhealthy plant growth that is more attractive to insect pests and plant diseases.

Then you have broad expanses of naturally infertile soils, whole huge regions, and so a reasonable question becomes which is better for the environment, hauling huge amounts of organic matter long distances, or that matter greatly concentrated (which typically uses large amounts of fossil-fuel energy), or much smaller amounts of synthesized chemical fertilizer?

The answer would require considerable research free of ideological bias one way or the other.

Most of the country east of western Indiana was in forest when the white man came. These soils are podzolic and the topsoil usually only goes down about 8 inches deep. These soils if properly managed and protected from erosion and if regularly amended with manures, fertilizers, limes, and such, can yield fairly well.

The prairie soils further west were enriched highly to a deeper horizon and are easier to manage.

In the East we have to work hard to keep the soil rich in nutrients and organic matter. Usually it takes cover crops and also bringing large amounts of organic matter from sources away from home.

"there is no need to use synthetic forms that are more like drugs, or steroids, that promote unhealthy plant growth that is more attractive to insect pests and plant diseases."

This view is way too simplified to be accurate.

Plants don't know the difference between petro-chemical NO3 and "naturally" created NH4/NO3 conversion.

Plant insect infestations are mostly attracted to plants feeding high-N. The reason some total-organic plantings may see less pest pressure is the availability of more attractive plants near by or the over-N fertilization of chemical fertilized plantings in the area. There is nothing about organic soils that resist grubs, nematodes, or other soil borne pests. Also, many insects move in weather-like patterns (that we, today, actually track like weather via movement in order to better time pesticide application, be it organic or chemical). Living in MI, you don't have to deal with many seasonal pests those of us in the South-East have to deal with. Heck, you don't have to deal with many of the disease/blights some of us in warmer climates have to deal with. Unless a plant nursery introduces it in-season it usually doesn't come that far north.

Also, much disease pressure is caused by environment (especially moisture, localized) as well as pH. pH can be the difference between seeing clubroot in brassicas and seeing none at all. pH balance needed to eliminate club root in some areas can also raise the chance of fungal root rots. Knowing what your area is susceptible to is very important in how you manage your soil, water, and pesticide use...chemical or organic.

...and humans were inhabiting Earth, and they were mostly eating wild food, hunted and gathered. A few of them started to intentionally grow things to eat. These humans found that they could then store some food for hard times, and trade this stored food for things they didn't have. These humans now had an advantage, they prospered and became wealthy and powerful, and were able to displace those humans that continued to hunt and gather. These "farmers" eventually took all the best land for farming, and they simply moved on when the soil became depleted, because there was plenty of unfarmed land to be colonized. This went on for at least 10,000 years, and it all occurred "organically". Indeed there was no other way, all farming was organic because there was no such thing as synthetic fertilizer. Most of these "farming humans" didn't have any concept of "fertilizer" or "plant nutrients", they just found new land to farm when things no longer grew well where they were. A few humans learned how to continually recycle biomass/nutrients back into their agriculture, and didn't deplete their soil, and therefore didn't need to move to new land, but these humans were very few in number. Toward the end of this 10,000 year period, fossil fuels were discovered. At first these fossil fuels were used to more "efficiently" grow and gather food, mine fertilizer, and bring water to areas that had little or no water so that more food could be grown. But then some of the humans learned how to make fertilizer directly out of the fossil fuels, and also how to make many other substances out of the fossil fuels that made farming even more "successful". And the composition of the biomass of Earth began to change, from myriad living things, to mostly humans, and the living things that humans can grow, and like to eat. Living things that humans liked to eat, but couldn't grow, disappeared altogether. At one point during all of this, the humans became aware that they were living on a sphere, and they didn't see any other spheres in the vicinity that resembled theirs, with its water & atmosphere. Shortly thereafter humans came to understand that spheres are finite, therefore all physical things on spheres are also finite. A very miniscule and thoroughly ignored fraction of the humans realized that this applied to fossil fuels as well, and that this did not bode well for farming as currently practiced. These same humans remembered that it wasn't always this way, fossil fuels weren't needed to grow things. They were also horrified to contemplate that 7 billion humans were now utterly dependent on finite fossil fuels for their agriculture to continue to provide their food. So this tiny fraction of humanity decided that it might be a good idea to try to grow things without fossil fuels, the way it was done for over 10,000 years, only this time around there is no surplus land that has never been farmed, all the soil has been depleted, so making it work in the same place, over the long term, is the only option remaining. And then some of the humans noticed that the weather was kind of funny lately, and it was making it hard to reliably grow food..........

....... so we might guess at the end of the matter. However, I believe in One who made it all and knows the end of the matter...from before the beginning of the matter.

No one is dependent on fossil fuels to grow anything. Farmers just like extremely high yielding fields while watching their bottom line. Planting 100-1000 acres of corn/wheat/soy is a different animal than the home garden, which can be managed organically very easily (imo). These money-watching farmers also try to take care of their soil...this was a lesson learned from the dust bowl era in the US, especially. What you do on your farm can effect your neighbors, not just immediate neighbors, but those dozens to hundreds of miles away. Plant residue management is as important to most mass agriculture systems these days as the nutrients they amend into the soil.

Part of what we're seeing now is great advances in seed hybridization, but what we can get per acre with modern fertilization, herbicide, and pesticide use can run laps around what we were producing per acre 50 years ago and totally stomp what we were producing 100 years ago. These advances trickle down to other areas of farming, such as the influence on the amount of cheap meat compared to even the 1970s.

There's no reason to wax romantic about what was going on in the 1900s-1940s in the US with destructive agriculture practices that we have learned from which nearly destroyed mass agriculture in the middle-US. Going back beyond that we have huge parts of Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and Australia that have been laid nearly barren thanks to horrible agriculture practices. All of this is before "chemical agriculture" came on the scene.

NC, I think you are glossing over the fact that without fossil fuel some huge percentage of the population would need to work at agriculture or horticulture to replace the labor of fossil fuel energy.

That, too. I'm keeping it somewhat simple without doing it too simple.

Soil management is something that's been being addressed so much better than in the past. My biggest "fear" about modern agriculture doesn't involve input uses beyond water, really. I'm a lot more concerned about the use of aquifer water in middle-US and the Colorado River (which feeds Cali + Arz + MX fields as much as Colorado) than chemical or GMO influences, myself. We produce such an enormous amount of food in the US...we produce so much milk that a surprising amount is dumped in order to keep farms profitable and from going out of business.

The water tables under middle-America are being tapped enormously and the Colorado River feeds fields where there's less than a foot of natural rainfall per year. The cities will survive, but the mass agriculture in those areas could face issues.

Take a look at Google Maps satellite view over the Yuma, AZ region up to Cali and into Mexico...almost all of that relies on the Colorado River and the snow/rainfall that feeds it 100s/1000s miles away from those fields. That entire region gets about 6-12" of rain a year. It's an amazing piece of human engineering over nature, but it's not very sustainable given current practices.

I suppose that we could wax romantic over yesteryear. They had buggies, polio, hard work. We have to live in today with both the good and the bad. Yes, the Amish are different and even they are often working off of the farms and are powering with propane.

As nc-crn said, We can polish our gardens with all kinds of extra touches, but most farmers cannot do that so lovingly. As I type this I can look out the window upon the home farm that now is farmed by my second cousins along with his grandsons...along with about 3300 other acres.

Does it have to be this way? Perhaps so in this present time.

Back to the original question, I thought (read) that the problem with synthetic N was that it was a salt and that it would kill the soft bodied Soil Food Web members the way table salt kills slugs. So I pictured the addition of synthetic fert as being a boon the first year, (and maybe second) but degrading the soil over time. I think it was the Teaming With Microbes guys who convinced me of that. Is this not true?

And actually, I was thinking of contacting the leprechauns this year because I've already tried everything else.

N is rather mobile in the soil so it's greatest danger as far as salt damage would come from over-application...which isn't good in any application. I'd consider that improper use of a fertilizer. Na+/Cl- salt damage is of much greater danger with your irrigation source (or native soils which need flushing). Na/Cl buildup in soils does destroy soil structure...it disperses clays and hogs more beneficial nutrient exchange sites.

On the flipside, too much organic N that's not broken down to a more plant accessible NO3 can lead to NH4+ buildup which can "burn" plant roots and sometimes leaves. It gets more complex for grains (such as corn) which enjoy both NH4 and NO3 depending on the time of life/growth in the plant. In a healthy organic amendment system the conversion from NH4 to NO3 happens so quickly via "natural" chemical reaction that it's effect isn't worth worrying about.

I don't know about chemical salts killing Soil Web Creatures. Salts come in all kinds of formulations. Some are acidic; some are neutral; and some are alkaline. I think that the greatest drawback of chemical fertilizers is that there usually is a shortage of organic matter when the plants are fed directly rather than the soil being built up better and then it feeding the plants. The second way is slower and more work. In our gardens I believe we should build up the soil. Then even some stimulant fertilizer is likely fairly harmless.

Conventional farming especially in areas with good rainfall [which leaches calcium to lower horizons] does tend to make the soil a bit more acidic. but then today's farmers add lime.

In the last 10-15 years Fibromyalgia and sleep apnea nas increased dramatically. I hadn't heard of either one before then. Diet and soil quality has got to do alot with it. Chemical fertilizer is an easy quick fix I am also guilty of. I am going to get some horse manure and try that instead. All most all health issues are caused by chemical exposure and poor diet. IMO.

Wayne, that's the problem I agree, when chemfert is being used almost always OM is not being optimized.

Zackey, IMO also except I would make the distinction between diseases caused by too much under-mineralized and over-processed food (sometimes called the diseases of affluence) and infectious diseases and plagues (sometimes called the diseases of poverty).

Simple soil tests would alleviate many of the problems associated with either organic, or synthetic fertilizers.
I have spoken to microbiologists about the fertilizer effect on soil life. They seem to generally agree that staying under applications of less than 60 lbs. N per acre would have minimal effect.

This post was edited by novascapes on Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 9:37

"The second way is slower and more work. In our gardens I believe we should build up the soil. Then even some stimulant fertilizer is likely fairly harmless."

Well said.

Perhaps there are some here that would be interested in this video about soil microbiology.

Here is a link that might be useful: About soil microbiology

Just another link to some research for new GMO's in Australia. It's all about profit just as it is here in the USA.

There is no new information about Soil Microbiology that is mentioned in this link. All of it to me was very basic.

It absolutely is not GMO. That's totally missing the mark on this research.

It's chemical imaging of microbes/bio-materials on a DNA/RNA level for mapping purposes.

It's a way to help pick which crops to plant, when to apply fertilizers, what depths, and in what amounts...especially in relation to soil pH (and if it needs adjusting).

By researching how different types of biological creatures react to different conditions...and the type you're working with in your fields...you can use more effect (and therefore less) inputs to get a better yielding crop.

There's a lot going on the field of genetic research in cropping systems and it's not all GMO research.

The great thing about this kind of mapping is you can find boundaries and expected areas (and soil conditions) where you're more likely to find certain organisms (especially if changing pH or applying excessive nutrients isn't economically reasonable) and being able to deliver a crop in the most effect manner using the least amount of external inputs.

Fwiw, here's an example (from the US) of this type of research.

https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-life_sciences-nitrogen_fixation

This is an experimental extract on the study of how cyanobacteria fixates nitrogen in soil (a process with is known, but not understood).

Oops...it's fixation in waterways (specifically the North Atlantic Ocean), not the soil...

Still...while, there is the use of genetic research, there is no modification of organisms going on in this research. It's merely a quest for understanding on a cell-by-cell (and inner-cellular) level of "why stuff happens."

Why specifically do organic gardeners avoid chemical fertilizers-

Hey, if you can make your own compost your good to go.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Dec 6, 12 at 1:14

This research will lead to GMO, your just being led into believing they will be doing what is right.

How in the world can they be so blind on how to control a fungus that destroys the crop in a sandy loom?

If you think they will be just telling the Farmer which crop to harvest and where, I promise you they will be GMO.

Do you think this kind of funding does not involve GMO?

For those that want to be led to the truth, try this link for starters: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/mediacentre/media-releases/food/Response-to-the-Governments-Grains-Research-and-Development-Corporation-GRDC/

That research can be used for GMO use in a limited manner, but a hammer can used to kill a person rather than build a house. You might as well be afraid of GMO humans just because we've mapped the human genome.

Understanding soil microbes, how they effect soils, and the mechanisms that make them work is an important and untapped area of science that not only warrants investigation, but is long overdue.

To dismiss this work because of an off-chance fear isn't fair to society or science.

In case you're wondering, most all of this work (I can't speak for every country's study) has nothing at all to do with GMO companies.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the importance of this work, a quest for understanding exactly how the microbes do their action rather than just accepting "it simply does."

There's so many strains of the same bacteria, nematode, microbe, etc. that matching them to areas of desirable pH, soil type, crop, etc ranges could lead to using less external inputs...therefore less nutrient losses/use.

If fear is more important than pollution control and straining of resources, so be it.

"Understanding soil microbes, how they effect soils, and the mechanisms that make them work is an important and untapped area of science that not only warrants investigation, but is long overdue."

The role of soil microorganisms has been understood for a very long time. That is why it was a red flag for me when I watched the video. Too many basics in Soil Microbiology were made to sound as if were some mystery, "the black box" for instance.

If you want to discuss Soil Microbioloby then we can do so but don"t make Soil Microbiology the scapegoat for GMO research.

There has been plenty of Scientific research that has proven the role of microorganism's in Soil Microbiology a long time ago. It really is no mystery, the roots are king in the underground world. The roots control the microorganism's by a signal that is sent out with a code, a very specific code indeed.

"The role of soil microorganisms has been understood for a very long time."

You couldn't be more incorrect in your assumptions. I linked to a single paper (out of many) that shows this. Knowing why an organism does something can be as important and open up new areas of discovery than blindly accepting "it does this so that's the end of it." The goal of science is understanding, not blind acceptance. We can live with blind acceptance, but we can grow with understanding.

I have degree in soil science and horticulture in case you're interested.

I also work for a GMO company as a researcher just for the sake of full disclosure. Also, your assumptions this is being used for GMO is so far off base it's not even based in fact.

We can discuss soil microbiology all you want, but it would help if you had a basis in understanding it's role and existing science.

The only red flags you're raising are caused by a lack of being able to separate genetic/micro-biological research from GMO research. You fail to grasp how wide of a research field this is.

This "root code" you speak of is only a half-truth. A biological organism (the point of these studies) doesn't care about a nutrient/symbiotic/osmotic relationship with a root system...they are opportunistic given the proper environment for them to thrive. If this wasn't the case we could take care of root knot nematodes a lot easier. Wouldn't it be a lot better to find out which parasitic (good) nematodes you can put into a soil system to combat the bad ones, why they work, and at what level they are most effective in a given environment?

You totally fail to see that this research can lead to better cropping choices, less suplimental inputs, and the proper inoculations of ORGANIC CONTROL in crop systems by finding out how/why they microorganisms do their job and the best conditions to make this work possible.

Once again, your comparison of this research to GMOs is unfounded and insisting it is so is ignorant.

If you'd like to know what's "hot" in GMO research currently we can make another post about that and it sure as heck won't involve any of this research. You're giving GMO research way too broad of a reach given what they're really out there doing.

nc-crn, Thank you for clearing that up, I was lost for a minute.

This is all about understanding why/how something works. Let me walk through a few things keeping it as basic as possible without dumbing it down too much...

To keep on the subject of the paper I linked, we know cynobacteria can fixate N (this is important in rice fields, btw), but we don't know how it does it.

Learning how this works could open up new areas of understanding the best conditions for this to take place. If it is found that a certain cluster of cells are mainly responsible for this mechanism, cynobacteria can be cultivated (out of the many types/strains out there) which can do this more efficiently.

Now, let's delve a bit into how an organism can be something that's the same organism, but different types/strains can do different things.

Pseudomonas putida...a soil gram bacteria...

One strain KT2442 "eats" beneze heavy Naphthalene (moth ball chemical) contaminates...which can remediate contaminated soils.

Another strain M10 can turn morphine into hydromophone via what it "eats" and the bonds that reform afterwards.

So, here we have 2 types of the same bacteria doing 2 very different things. There's many other types of this bacteria that do many other things, too. One strain can turn polystyrene plastics into a biodegradable form and is already inoculated into some polystyrene plastics marketed as "biodegradable."

"I also work for a GMO company as a researcher just for the sake of full disclosure. Also, your assumptions this is being used for GMO is so far off base it's not even based in fact."

Just what I thought.

"To keep on the subject of the paper I linked, we know cynobacteria can fixate N (this is important in rice fields, btw), but we don't know how it does it."

You mean, "lichen symbiosis involving cyanobacteria"

The cyanobacteria produce several different types of immobile spores. They are usually found within a filament or trichome, arising from a vegetative cell. They form a thick wall after being filled with food reserves. Many filamentous species can form sporelike cells called heterocysts, which are involved in Nitrogen fixation.

If it was true what you are saying nc-crn, about this not being about GMO's in the end, I would be jumping up and down with excitement. I don't buy it. This research was funded 2 billion dollars which the Australian Government is involved in. When you are talking that much money funded for research, there will always be GM and GMO's in the picture, period.

Why do you think they are looking at all the soil microoganism's and keeping track of each ones DNA?

GM and GMO's are your answers.

You seem to have "always right syndrome."

I know where this type of stuff goes.

You do realize that I've actually worked with what I'm talking about and you're going out on a limb to assume something is right and making it right in your mind?

also, your "lichen symbiosis involving cyanobacteria" rant still totally ignores the point of the video that you seem to want to ignore...knowing how all of this works, and why it works on an inner-cellular level, not a physical structure level. Your rant is more akin to talking about the shell of a car rather than the parts that make the car work, or more specifically why one metal is in a spark plug flint and another metal is used in a crank shaft.

This research goes deep into cellular biology. This isn't about filaments/tricomes or other physical structures...this is delving deep into the genetics on an inner-cellular level.

You don't "buy it" because you've already made up your mind what it is based on a world you've created around it even though you don't understand it.

-edit- Nevermind...this thread is already getting way off topic.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Dec 6, 12 at 3:04

I posted that link because after watching the video I thought, "Gee, someone is reinventing the wheel." If one were to go back and read what Sir Albert Howard, and others, wrote over 100 years ago you may well find they knew as much about soil biology as most recent college graduates today do.

nc-crn

You already said what you need to. I agree with 100% of what you say. I wonder why? O yea thats right, I cant disagree with science even if I wanted to.

There's many things we take for granted in horticulture that could be improved by a better understanding of what's going on "under the hood."

We don't fully understand the mechanism(s) that causes peppers to ripen. If that's discovered we could have an ethylene-like (maybe) ripening agent that could result in green shipping peppers becoming sugar-enhanced colored peppers by the time they reach the grocery (and hopefully not as taste-bare as ethylene ripened tomatoes). If that agent can be measured in certain varieties which naturally have a natural abundance of this mystery mechanism, those can be used as a more desirable breeding stock.

There's all kinds of applications for trying to understand why something is happening on an extremely small cellular level...the pathways of genetic/chemical exchange within the cells that pass the information we take as granted in an end result.

A lot of interesting info here, and obviously plenty of room for debate. I don't have near the knowledge many of you do but I can share my personnel experience as a hobbyist gardner. For several decades I have refused to use pesticides, just basically not liking the idea of using poisons. Knowing that a healthy plant is more successful in fighting disease and pests I would use chemical fertilizers to help keep my plants healthy. Well unfortunately, or maybe fortunately I was forced into early retirement and the last couple of years I have had a lot more time for hobby stuff. I started composting, having readily available lots of leaf and green matter in the yard. Then I started learning more about soil biology by poking around the web (that's how I found this place). So I decided to up the game and go 100% organic, relying only on my compost, and compost teas. My plants were easily just as if not more healthy than previous years, but the thing I noticed most was it seemed I had more beneficial insects in the garden. A couple of years I tried to introduce lady bugs for the occasional aphid problem. They would just fly away never to be seen again. This year no aphids but I kept seeing the random ladybug.

Additionally I have found it hugely satisfying and feel a more complete cycle between my garden and my table. I am increasing my knowledge and experience of composting, and feel my compost is becoming better with every batch by adding simple things such as alfalfa and seaweed (always take my pack when I visit the ocean). Having a microscope I have also been able to see for myself the change and increase of microbial life in my soil and assume that will lead to a more healthy relationship between plant and soil.

Now I have to find someone to give my leftover chemical ferts to..

Fresh, you are on the right track. Have you read about re-mineralizing? And have you checked the WSS to identify your soil type and read its description?