From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 08:36:55 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov18.162437.23719@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

 > >It must be added that in a naturally occuring ecosystem "exotic" toxins
 > >or foreign trace elements as probably occur only metres away as thousands
 > >of miles. For that matter, many trees will actually drip toxins onto the
 > >understory to kill it in competing for the local soil nutrients.
 >  
 > Good point...that's something to be considered.

Thank you, Dave.

 > >It is not a problem how plant nutrients are packaged;
 >  
 > Yes it is.  If they're supplied in the natural form, they support the entire
 > local ecosystem, e.g., soil microbes, not just the plants themselves.  If you
 > just supply highly available nutrients, you're feeding the plants only.  This
 > leads to reduced levels of microbes in the soil, which reduces the soil's
 > ability to convert indigenous minerals into nutrients.

Of course, but surely the empirical test is how well the plants grow,
and continue to grow season after season with a balanced input to the
system of both nutrients and energy. The first sign the farmer usually
has of any problems with soil "microbes", or any other problem for that
matter including scalding from water logging or whatever, is in the
indicators of plant stress.

I am talking broad-acre farming here, however, not gardening.

 > This is the micromanaging approach to growing plants.  You conduct various
 > studies to determine the levels of light, nutrients, micronutrients, etc., then
 > engineer a system to supply them in the required proportions.  Organic methods
 > are equivalent to macromanagement: ensure that the soil has enough of the raw
 > materials, and let *it* feed plants--the natural way.

With the proviso that "organic macromanagement" is not always feasible
given the nature of the "macroenvironment" such as we find here over
most parts of Australia.

 > >For that matter, it pays to retain access to expert advice
 > >and opinion before doing anything at all, instead of running around
 > >blindly insisting that people should do this or that on ideological
 > >grounds.
 >  
 > Agreed.

Thank you once more, Dave.

 > >You might well ask, "How does your garden grow?", before listening to
 > >what anyone has to say in any event . . .
 >  
 > There are at least two schools of thought on this.  One, apparently yours,
 > believes that the intimate details need to be understood before something can
 > be mastered.  The other, mine, agrees that it might be possible to do that, but
 > that it is not necessary.  It is often the case that processes can be managed
 > by taking care of the big picture and letting natural processes take care of
 > the details.

Sorry, I have no position one way or another on this matter, for you
or against you, or anybody else. Your attribution simply does not
hold any water. The point I myself was attempting to make merely
followed on from the suggestion that there may be some wisdom in
considering an individual's record of successes and failures in
practice before heeding too much of their advice.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *