I stumbled upon this research and thought it worth sharing, as it has implications for soil health as well as global warming.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines-/
An important new piece of research.
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Johnboy, you insult me by implying that I have no discernment. I don't believe everything, however this is not old research, this is new research 2009, and pretty rigorous by the looks of it, another link, I have done some research myself not in agriculture but in nursing.
http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/Russell_2009_paper.pdf
http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/Russell_2009_paper.pdf
Last edited by Nature's Babe on Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
Johnboy
While you may disagree, would you reconsider your use of the phrase "so called research"? If you follow the links in Nature's Babe's first posting, it leads you to two articles published in a reputable scientific journal; they are properly referenced and will have been peer reviewed, the methodology scrutinised etc prior to publication.
While you may disagree, would you reconsider your use of the phrase "so called research"? If you follow the links in Nature's Babe's first posting, it leads you to two articles published in a reputable scientific journal; they are properly referenced and will have been peer reviewed, the methodology scrutinised etc prior to publication.
-
Colin Miles
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Llannon, Llanelli
The first thing that rang alarm bells with me is the statement that the Morrow site is the longest plot in continuous cultivation. We know it is Rothamsted and if you go to the link and then scroll down past all the Organic comments you find an excellent response by Joe-T who points this out.
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Whichever is the longest site, it doesn't detract from the careful methodology in the research Colin. Common sense also tells us this, topsoil used to be about 3 or four feet deep, now soils are much shallower and if it continues the result can be desertification as has happened in some areas.
Soil is a living organism like our skin, it is earth's skin, I have an open mind,
but also experience teaches me, after 60 years gardening I am still open to learn and progress and the soil in my garden benefits from this, fertility and depth of soil is improving year by year.
Soil is a living organism like our skin, it is earth's skin, I have an open mind,
but also experience teaches me, after 60 years gardening I am still open to learn and progress and the soil in my garden benefits from this, fertility and depth of soil is improving year by year.
Last edited by Nature's Babe on Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
Colin
Read it again - it only claims to be “the world’s oldest experimental site under continuous corn” cultivation.
PS I am quite bored this morning as it has been raining for days and I really need to get out onto my allotment!
Read it again - it only claims to be “the world’s oldest experimental site under continuous corn” cultivation.
PS I am quite bored this morning as it has been raining for days and I really need to get out onto my allotment!
Hi Nature's Babe and Binky,
I mean absolutely no insult to either of you but can you honestly tell me that you understand everything you read on these websites.
I am a qualified person and much of what is said an unqualified person stands no chance of a full understanding. Also the concentrations being used and this is about agriculture and not horticulture. The growing of vegetables involves a mere fraction of the doses used in agriculture.
There is a word used in the middle of this startling revelation which is COULD. When I see that word in anything that is supposed to be a work of science my faith goes out of the window.
However you seem determined to have your thoughts and I think I will stick to mine.
JB.
I mean absolutely no insult to either of you but can you honestly tell me that you understand everything you read on these websites.
I am a qualified person and much of what is said an unqualified person stands no chance of a full understanding. Also the concentrations being used and this is about agriculture and not horticulture. The growing of vegetables involves a mere fraction of the doses used in agriculture.
There is a word used in the middle of this startling revelation which is COULD. When I see that word in anything that is supposed to be a work of science my faith goes out of the window.
However you seem determined to have your thoughts and I think I will stick to mine.
JB.
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Binky, your thoughtful comments are much appreciated. It's raining here too so I have been busy in the greenhouse this morning - the rain does get a bit tedious, I can't wait till the soil warms up and we can get busy, the stuff in the greenhouse is coming along nicely. Cape Gooseberries which I overwintered in the greenhouse from self sown seedlings are already in flower, they will be moved outside when it's warm enough. Peas and beans in large polystyrene boxes are about 3 inches high, they are early short varieties,I will just cut off the tops after cropping, and the next crop will benefit from the nitrogen fixed and a top mulch of some nice rich dark compost. Stump rooted carrots in boxes are beginning to fill out.
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Johnboy, at the time it did feel that way to me but I accept you did not intend to do that, thank you, of course you have your opinions as we all do, and I hope we can be friends and perhaps learn from one another.
What I do is read assimilate and then test things out small scale first till I see if it works for my garden, there is nothing like first hand experience, only when I experience benefits do I change, but as in all things nothing ventured, nothing gained. Like you I used to dig and fertilise and use chemicals. and it cost quite a bit, now I get better results without all the expense and backbreaking digging. I compare it to our skin, if we rake off too much as in extensive burns then as an organism we are in trouble. The soil is the earths skin a living system as our skin is our covering so soil is earths natural covering or skin, forests and woodland are never tilled and never fertilised yet plants and earth are quite capable of being self-sustaining, the roots remain in the soil and break down to nourish the next crop, the worms and fungi do their work, and the roots and mulch of leaves prevents the soil from being washed away or compacted by heavy rains, mulch of leaves and decaying plants nourishes and feeds the soil. Plants take only 2.5% of their nourishment from the soil, the rest they synthesize from sunlight, so unused portions of the crop returned to the soil as mulch return far more than they take out and fertiliser is unnecessary provided there is plant variety and not mono crops. By not digging bacteria and mycelium can work in harmony with roots making for stronger more disease resistant plants. Chemical farming leaves the soil dead, no worms,or other creatures and no mycelium. So like nature I mulch with spent crops, returning more to the soil than is taken out, roots are left in the soil unless roots are the crop, which returns more nourishment, worms are undisturbed and get on with converting decaying mulch to fertile soil and the whole begins to function as it was designed to with fertility actually increasing each year. The old farming methods result in run off of chemicals into our drinking water and run off into streams and rivers eventually reach the oceans disrupting ocean ecology, resulting in nitrate induced algae blooms; and gases released in the air adding far more to global warming than carbon. Dispensing with the normal soil state where it is held together by roots results in the horrendous mud slides we have seen in this country and others like Spain recently.. In nature there are 7 distinct vertical levels, with corresponding root activity at different depths, or 8 if you count fungi. They all have a purpose, as our skin is multi purpose,it's all working so well in my garden that i am seing how close I can get to the same principles in my greenhouse., and making raised mulched no-dig beds in my front garden too not just on my veg patch. The work of weeding is decreasing, fertility is up, what was scant topsoil on heavy clay is now rich crumbly soil, and costs have gone down dramatically.
What I do is read assimilate and then test things out small scale first till I see if it works for my garden, there is nothing like first hand experience, only when I experience benefits do I change, but as in all things nothing ventured, nothing gained. Like you I used to dig and fertilise and use chemicals. and it cost quite a bit, now I get better results without all the expense and backbreaking digging. I compare it to our skin, if we rake off too much as in extensive burns then as an organism we are in trouble. The soil is the earths skin a living system as our skin is our covering so soil is earths natural covering or skin, forests and woodland are never tilled and never fertilised yet plants and earth are quite capable of being self-sustaining, the roots remain in the soil and break down to nourish the next crop, the worms and fungi do their work, and the roots and mulch of leaves prevents the soil from being washed away or compacted by heavy rains, mulch of leaves and decaying plants nourishes and feeds the soil. Plants take only 2.5% of their nourishment from the soil, the rest they synthesize from sunlight, so unused portions of the crop returned to the soil as mulch return far more than they take out and fertiliser is unnecessary provided there is plant variety and not mono crops. By not digging bacteria and mycelium can work in harmony with roots making for stronger more disease resistant plants. Chemical farming leaves the soil dead, no worms,or other creatures and no mycelium. So like nature I mulch with spent crops, returning more to the soil than is taken out, roots are left in the soil unless roots are the crop, which returns more nourishment, worms are undisturbed and get on with converting decaying mulch to fertile soil and the whole begins to function as it was designed to with fertility actually increasing each year. The old farming methods result in run off of chemicals into our drinking water and run off into streams and rivers eventually reach the oceans disrupting ocean ecology, resulting in nitrate induced algae blooms; and gases released in the air adding far more to global warming than carbon. Dispensing with the normal soil state where it is held together by roots results in the horrendous mud slides we have seen in this country and others like Spain recently.. In nature there are 7 distinct vertical levels, with corresponding root activity at different depths, or 8 if you count fungi. They all have a purpose, as our skin is multi purpose,it's all working so well in my garden that i am seing how close I can get to the same principles in my greenhouse., and making raised mulched no-dig beds in my front garden too not just on my veg patch. The work of weeding is decreasing, fertility is up, what was scant topsoil on heavy clay is now rich crumbly soil, and costs have gone down dramatically.
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
-
Geoff
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5784
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:33 pm
- Location: Forest of Bowland
- Been thanked: 319 times
Interesting link and debate - lets go through it.
1. The author - Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture non-profit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. So the article supports his viewpoint, i.e. he is not impartial.
2. The website - Grist - can't comment as I can't work out what it is, couldn't find a home page with a mission statement or anything like that.
3. The article - it seems to me to be a simple example of extracting what you want to believe. The heading says "New research: synthetic nitrogen destroys soil carbon, undermines soil health". As we work through the article we find it is based on results from the Morrow Plots, the results are summarised as :
"Mulvaney and his collaborators analyzed annual soil-test data in test plots that were planted with three crop rotations: continuous corn, corn-soy, and corn-oats-hay. Some of the plots received moderate amounts of fertilizer application; some received high amounts; and some received no fertilizer at all. The crops in question, particularly corn, generate tremendous amounts of residue. Picture a Midwestern field in high summer, packed with towering corn plants. Only the cobs are harvested; the rest of the plant is left in the field. If synthetic nitrogen use really does promote carbon sequestration, you’d expect these fields to show clear gains in soil organic carbon over time.
Instead, the researchers found, all three systems showed a net decline occurred in soil [carbon] despite increasingly massive residue [carbon] incorporation."
Note : The results show that moderate, high and zero fertilizer all show a net decline in soil carbon.
So the next bold statement in the article is "In other words, synthetic nitrogen broke down organic matter faster than plant residue could create it."
Or as I would say "In other words bollocks!" - there is no way this conclusion comes from these results. It clearly shows some other mechanism is controlling soil carbon.
The links to other articles, the discussion of criticisms and the comments below all seem to support the idea that the research is less than rigorous and probably the only conclusion you can actually come to from all this is that the application of nitrogen fertiliser probably doesn't increase soil carbon.
4. Nature's Babe response to JB - "forests and woodland are never tilled and never fertilised yet plants and earth are quite capable of being self-sustaining" - but nothing is taken away and eaten. "Plants take only 2.5% of their nourishment from the soil, the rest they synthesize from sunlight, so unused portions of the crop returned to the soil as mulch return far more than they take out and fertiliser is unnecessary provided there is plant variety and not mono crops" - plants take NPK and a host of trace elements from the soil, photosynthesis adds CO2 and water to the mix to create organic compounds. These compounds can be returned to the soil but there is not an increase in NPK or trace elements (with the exception of some nitrogen fixation) and anything taken away for consumption reduces these key ingredients and they have to be replaced. Quite some time ago we had a similar discussion where one contributor suggested green manuring replaced trace element deficiencies.
Like Tom Philpott, I respond from a biased view. While I recognise there are many good things about current environmental and ecological stances they are not helped by a proliferation of bad science (like that quoted and the peat alternatives in another thread) and over evangelism. In a gardening environment I believe you have to look after your soil with generous application of organic material but also feed your crops to compensate for what you take away. I don't believe it makes the slightest difference to the plants or the soil how that NPK is sourced. I also think you should and can use little or no "cides" but sometimes you have to, what JB would champion as pragmatic gardening. On an agricultural scale things are a whole lot more complicated; the greatest complication is the massive population growth, tackle that and most other issues take care of themselves. Feeding the population will undoubtedly do damage, a way has to be found to minimise that damage and it is good science that will find it not the modern luddites of many environmental movements.
1. The author - Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture non-profit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. So the article supports his viewpoint, i.e. he is not impartial.
2. The website - Grist - can't comment as I can't work out what it is, couldn't find a home page with a mission statement or anything like that.
3. The article - it seems to me to be a simple example of extracting what you want to believe. The heading says "New research: synthetic nitrogen destroys soil carbon, undermines soil health". As we work through the article we find it is based on results from the Morrow Plots, the results are summarised as :
"Mulvaney and his collaborators analyzed annual soil-test data in test plots that were planted with three crop rotations: continuous corn, corn-soy, and corn-oats-hay. Some of the plots received moderate amounts of fertilizer application; some received high amounts; and some received no fertilizer at all. The crops in question, particularly corn, generate tremendous amounts of residue. Picture a Midwestern field in high summer, packed with towering corn plants. Only the cobs are harvested; the rest of the plant is left in the field. If synthetic nitrogen use really does promote carbon sequestration, you’d expect these fields to show clear gains in soil organic carbon over time.
Instead, the researchers found, all three systems showed a net decline occurred in soil [carbon] despite increasingly massive residue [carbon] incorporation."
Note : The results show that moderate, high and zero fertilizer all show a net decline in soil carbon.
So the next bold statement in the article is "In other words, synthetic nitrogen broke down organic matter faster than plant residue could create it."
Or as I would say "In other words bollocks!" - there is no way this conclusion comes from these results. It clearly shows some other mechanism is controlling soil carbon.
The links to other articles, the discussion of criticisms and the comments below all seem to support the idea that the research is less than rigorous and probably the only conclusion you can actually come to from all this is that the application of nitrogen fertiliser probably doesn't increase soil carbon.
4. Nature's Babe response to JB - "forests and woodland are never tilled and never fertilised yet plants and earth are quite capable of being self-sustaining" - but nothing is taken away and eaten. "Plants take only 2.5% of their nourishment from the soil, the rest they synthesize from sunlight, so unused portions of the crop returned to the soil as mulch return far more than they take out and fertiliser is unnecessary provided there is plant variety and not mono crops" - plants take NPK and a host of trace elements from the soil, photosynthesis adds CO2 and water to the mix to create organic compounds. These compounds can be returned to the soil but there is not an increase in NPK or trace elements (with the exception of some nitrogen fixation) and anything taken away for consumption reduces these key ingredients and they have to be replaced. Quite some time ago we had a similar discussion where one contributor suggested green manuring replaced trace element deficiencies.
Like Tom Philpott, I respond from a biased view. While I recognise there are many good things about current environmental and ecological stances they are not helped by a proliferation of bad science (like that quoted and the peat alternatives in another thread) and over evangelism. In a gardening environment I believe you have to look after your soil with generous application of organic material but also feed your crops to compensate for what you take away. I don't believe it makes the slightest difference to the plants or the soil how that NPK is sourced. I also think you should and can use little or no "cides" but sometimes you have to, what JB would champion as pragmatic gardening. On an agricultural scale things are a whole lot more complicated; the greatest complication is the massive population growth, tackle that and most other issues take care of themselves. Feeding the population will undoubtedly do damage, a way has to be found to minimise that damage and it is good science that will find it not the modern luddites of many environmental movements.
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
Geoff of course stuff is eaten in woodland, fungi are harvested and eaten by people and wild animals, hazel nuts, crab apples, wild plums hips and other berries,and blackberries to name just a few. Our local woodland sustains a population of wild boar, deer, badgers,rabbits, squirrels, stoats, shrews, woodmice slowworms, snakes, birds etc Whatever bias or arguements are given there is run off the land into our water supplies and rivers and it is affecting fisheries and ocean ecology. Also oil is in decline, and costs rising, more oilfields are closing, and in ten years we won't have the oil to use on the land as fertilisers or for ploughing, farrowing and all the other things farmers do with it, our agriculture and food industry is dripping in oil, as oil declines change will be necessary, and the sooner we get to grips with it the better, see this bbc video, A Farm for the Future in 5 parts -
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0X25hMLXiE&feature=related
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQhRIKo5rA&feature=related
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxsPfeSRIFo&feature=related
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Ez5ViYKYA&feature=related
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0X25hMLXiE&feature=related
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQhRIKo5rA&feature=related
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxsPfeSRIFo&feature=related
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Ez5ViYKYA&feature=related
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
-
PLUMPUDDING
- KG Regular
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:14 pm
- Location: Stocksbridge, S. Yorks
- Been thanked: 1 time
What I love about this forum is the mix of views from experienced gardeners, people with commercial experience linked with a love of nature, and others with scientific knowledge. We can get a much more balanced view of all these snippets of information and use it or adapt it to our own opinions and inclinations.
-
Nature's Babe
- KG Regular
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: East Sussex
True plum pudding and as you know the proof of the pudding is in the eating, smiles. I have an open mind and will try anything new, my ideas have changed a lot over the years by attempting new things and checking against experience. That is one thing I love about gardening always someething new to learn. The most recent being allowing funghi to flourish,
they actually move nutrients around to where they are needed and have a beneficial symbiotic relationship with roots, amazingly they are even aware of our presence in the garden !
they actually move nutrients around to where they are needed and have a beneficial symbiotic relationship with roots, amazingly they are even aware of our presence in the garden !
Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
By Thomas Huxley
http://www.wildrye.info/reserve/
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7254
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 7 times
Nature's Babe wrote: That is one thing I love about gardening always someething new to learn. The most recent being allowing funghi to flourish, they actually move nutrients around to where they are needed and have a beneficial symbiotic relationship with roots, amazingly they are even aware of our presence in the garden !
Hi NB
I'm usually pretty successful at googling, but this is one that I cannot find. A link would be much appreciated.