A Fresh look at weeds pests and diseases.

[Nature's Babe]

Maybe we should be looking at prevention and soil and plant health and giving our gardens the optimum conditions for health - before disease strikes, eg watching the predators at work in the garden, they need some prey to survive, but pests don't get the upper hand while they are around an interesting article here, it's hard work to read but worth the effort, particularly the part on what conditions in the soil favour disease. and what conditions suppress disease. No different than us following a healthy lifestyle to maintain health, it makes sense.

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/sfi_approach1.html#Benefits

[alan refail]

So like dear old Arthur Fallowfield

Anyone remember him?

[Nature's Babe]

Actually there's nothing old about this Alan, it's written by a university professor, is based on proper peer reviewed research, and it's an accumulation of science which they are continuing to explore. It fits very well with sustainable / organic principles and explains the science of the soil foodweb and optimum conditions for soil and plant health. I am surprised you feel qualified to comment, in view of the fact you admitted previously you had not read.this ... I refer to your previous comment referring to this research on a previous thread. I happen to think this is worth digesting, sadly neither you or johnboy took up my offer suggesting we each take a smaller part and translate into more common language. This surprised me as you usually post lots of this kind of link on your threads expecting us to plough through them.

I can assure you that I did try. But it so incredibly long and I have to admit that after a few scrolls down my brain rebelled and I had to stop. It looks all good stuff, but what is really needed is a synopsis in simpler language. Any chance?

[Johnboy]

Hi NB,

sadly neither you or johnboy took up my offer suggesting we each take a smaller part and translate into more common language.

Forgive me but I do not remember this at all.
JB.

[Nature's Babe]

Hi Johnboy, as yours was the next post to this I wrongly assumed you would have read the previous post, sorry. Knowing your interest in trees I thought that part might interest you and you might like to participate.

Post Re: The advantages of mulch on a vegetable garden.
I agree it is hard to get to grips with Alan, probably because she is a professor and we are not, but my intuition tells me it fits with synergy and I am re- reading and gleaning a little more each time, because I want to learn more. Maybe others would like to take a small chunk each Would you choose a small chunk to interpret, as you say it looks worth the effort. I will take the bit about bacteria and fungi being in balance and how to feed the soil to achieve that. I might enlist someone elses help if they are interested. It also fits with my belief that as humans allthough we are highly developed compared with some, we are still interdependent with the rest of life, we have explored what is on and above earth but are still quite ignorant of what goes on under our feet, the system that gave rise to us all, which we depend on.
I will go back and look at the rest of your last link,I didn't realise there was more, sorry, and thanks for the tip how to contain the cabbages, I don't want them that size ! I will have to figure out what to plant round them to contain them.
Perhaps Johnboy might be kind enough to take the bit that refers to trees? You might be interested in taking the bit that refers to conditions that favour weeds, think nipplewort!

[alan refail]

Actually there's nothing old about this Alan

Hi NB

The operative words in my post were "Arthur" and "Fallowfield". I was using "old" as a term of endearment. I'm sure someone will remember Arthur

[Parsons Jack]

Actually there's nothing old about this Alan

Hi NB

The operative words in my post were "Arthur" and "Fallowfield". I was using "old" as a term of endearment. I'm sure someone will remember Arthur

Aaarrr............I think the answer lies in the soil

[Nature's Babe]

PJ a hole in one . Giggles ... in a dorset accent.

Alan, i'm just not sure of his connection to this article, unless you were referring to his mantra which PJ remembers, however the subject of this thread is the soil food web not Arthur Fallowfield, with respect can we stick to the subject please.

[alan refail]

A little light humour to leaven the unreadable

[Nature's Babe]

I am the first to appreciate true humour Alan, especially when it adds to the initial post; but so far all your humour has achieved is to effectively and very subtley derail this post. As you stated, you didn't even read the article, so perhaps that calls into question your intentions here, as you admit you haven't read it, how can you have a proper opinion ? Please may we keep to topic, or if as it appears, you have no desire to read the article why post here? All research articles require a certain level of ability to make sense of them . I didn't find it unreadable, indeed it suddenly pulled together a lot of things that I have sensed intuitively, giving them a scientific explanation.

[alan refail]

Morning NB

I am suitably chastised for my attempts at humour. You didn't study under Joyce Grenfell did you? You so easily make me feel like a naughty five-year-old

So, to get serious. Let us suppose that we accept all that Dr. Elaine Ingham says as true. It seems to me that for it all to have practical application you would need to know in what ways your soil was good and in what ways, if any, it was lacking. Only then could you take carefully calculated steps to improve it. How does the non-scientist achieve this? Certainly not by just looking - most of the organisms are microscopic. You can't measure the pH of your soil unless you test. Similarly for the soil web.

Fortunately Soil Food Web will do this for you - for a hefty fee, of course. And you'll have to send your samples to USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or South Africa.

The central labs in Oregon will do it for you according to this price list

http://oregonfoodweb.com/assets/docs/Fo ... mMar31.pdf

The Australian labs offer a range of services ranging from A$250 to A$25,000

http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/images/sf ... -07-11.pdf

Hope this will stimulate some debate.

Alan

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
Having read the two websites I think I will use a Nature Babesism, GIGGLES!
Although I find the thread that NB posted exceedingly interesting I can scarcely understand it let alone attempt to even begin to put it into layman's terms. I suspect that you have to have at least a Masters Degree in Soil Sciences to fully begin to understand all the implications that it raises and Nursery Stock Production and Irrigation are my prime subjects so I have no qualification to even touch that.
Sorry NB but I simply do not know where I would start. I do think that by PM we could communicate and try and find out a bit more and in the fullness of time we might be able to work something out.
JB.

[Colin Miles]

I have managed to read through the soilweb link that NB so kindly gave us. To be honest it struck me as highly repetitive and didn't exactly inspire confidence. There are many phrases that were constantly repeated and recycled in various forms. The phrase 'blinding with science' came to mind. Then I got to step 12 and found that

[url]If earthworms and/or micro arthropods are present, then the full food web is present, and if everything is in a good biomass or numbers of individual organisms, then plant health is pretty much assured, because all the processes will be functioning.[/url]

And breathed a sigh of relief - my soil was good. Doubly so as I found the same paragraph repeated later.

So I decided to look a little more into Dr. Ingham and if you go this Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elaine_Ingham
you will find that all is not well. Thus

http://www.biotech-info.net/ingham_rebuttal.pdf Elaine was forced to apologize for inaccurate information and quoting non existent research.

and the recent

Dr Ingham has subsequently been subjected to professional review by Oregon State University.

But to be fair, some of the allegations are disputed and I haven't been able to find any more regarding the latter quote. Not surprising really. She really is good at publicity and is against GMO's - you get into troubled waters there obviously.

[Nature's Babe]

Some of the links are not coming up and the one I did find definitely has an axe to grind as they represent GM. Wiki can be useful but take it with a pinch of salt, I found a poetry article on Wiki by someone claiming to have invented fibonnacci poetry, I had been asked to write an article for fireweed magazine on fibonacci poetry well predating his claim, and many fibonacci poems had been written before that! Obviously they don't check sources too well.

Johnboy I am glad to see you are keeping an open mind, happy to PM which bit would you like us to start discussion on? Hopefully if I have my new camera by next year I will be able to show some pics.

[Colin Miles]

NB, as you rightly say, you do need to keep an open mind. Unfortunately when Thomas Huxley gave his quote life seemed much simpler. Facts were facts and they just didn't know how complicated science could be and noone would have thought of the web, where anyone can publish and promote themselves. Nowadays it is necessary to establish whether a fact is a fact before becoming childlike and accepting it, let alone banishing preconceived notions. There is too much bad science around nowadays, much of it created by the pressure of institutions on research staff to publish. Sifting the wheat from the chaff is a big problem even for magazines like Nature, New Scientist, etc.

When someone like Dr. Ingham talks at such length and in a language which could be construed as deliberately confusing - certainly not easy to understand as claimed - and starts to charge large sums, alarm bells start to ring.

It is very easy to create an enormous 'following' and presence on the web simply by endless postings. This doesn't guarantee veracity.