[Gasification] specifics of ag production

[LINVENT at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/1/07 7:13:14 AM, pels at ecn.nl writes:


> Dear list,
> 
> I agree with Kevin's statement:
> > There is no question that synthetic fertilizers and pesticides work.
> > People have been doing this for decades
> 
> You can grow tomatoes on rock wool with substrates, etc. Fertility
> exists only as long as nutrients are supplied from external sources.
> However, this is not the ONLY way nutrients can be supplied to growing
> plants. You can recycle them from the unused parts of the harvest, and
> adds only mineral fertilizers to compensate for the remaining losses.
> Both approaches are valid. And anything in between.
> 
> Carbon-rich humus can also store and release nutrients. Kevin is right
> in his objection against Leland's statement:
> > > Carbon conversion in the soil requires micronutrient
> > supplementation
> > > to support the microbes which depletes the slowly available
> > > micronutrients.
> > As I understand it, the microbes and fungi are conduits that
> > take the nutrients from the mineral soil, and make it
> > available to the plant.
> 
> It is clearly false. It leaves the impression that that microbes take
> away nutrients and absence of microbes leaves them available for crops.
> The opposite is true for water soluble nutients (in particular K). It is
> leached rapidly if no life forms exists in the soil to retain it.
> Unfortunately such errors cast doubts on the other statements. Another
> example that makes you wonder:
> 
> > >  A major
> > > issue is that the insoluble phosphate found in organic matter
> > > accumulates in the upper layers of the soil and prevents other
> > > elements from moving into the root zone, also hardens the
> > surface of
> > > the ground over time by cementing with other elements.
> > That is the case with excessive application of feedlot
> > manure, but I don't think it is the case when the manure is
> > applied at reasonable levels.
> 
> Leland claims that "insoluble phosphate found in organic matter [...]
> hardens the surface of the ground". Hardening of the ground is typically
> the result of heavy machinery not of overloads of phosphates. My country
> has excessive amounts of P in the ground enough to go decades without
> P-fertilizer. The result of decades of manure spreading, but the surface
> of the farm lands is definitely not hardened. What adds to hardening is
> absence of worms and other life forms that keep the soil airy.
> 
> The third example:
> > > Ash is a better fertilizer than plant matter and can be
> > seen after a
> > > fire on how fast plants regrow.
> > >  
> > And what about the following years? If there is insufficient
> > organic matter present in teh soil, there is a strong
> > likelihood that the excess nutrients will get leached away.
> 
> Ash is only better if you count the fast regrowth after a fire. Slash
> and burn is the equivalent agricultural technique. Typically after a few
> years, the soil is exhausted and new land needs to be burned. The
> mineral fertilizer (ash) causes fast growth, but only as long as it is
> supplied.
> 
> If Leland were a fertilizer producer/seller I would accuse him of
> spreading false information. I know he has a clear and specific vision
> on nutrient management and I know that it applies to a certain type of
> soils. His vision does not apply worldwide. Recycling plant matter can
> keep fields active indefinitely, but not producing at its maximum. This
> may or may not be true for different climates/soil types. And that is
> probably the key stone in this discussion.
> 
> What remains is the question how much of the residues can or should be
> used to restore the carbon balance in the ground. I am researching this
> subject in a framework of sustainable biomass production. What I know
> now is, that it differs from crop to crop and from acre to acre.
> Opinions vary widely - also outside this discussion list - from: "no
> carbon recycling is needed in the ground" to "all leftovers should be
> composted and returned". Even the Agricultural University of the
> Netherlands, one of the top institute in this field, couldn't give me an
> answer. They are working on it. I am going to visit the French National
> Agricultural Research Institute to see what answers come from their test
> fields.
> 
> Another of my preliminary conclusion is that it depends on what you want
> with your land. If you want to squeeze the maximum harvest, you pay for
> mineral fertilizer and no recycling, straining the soil's capacity. If
> you want to minimize adding fertilizer, you must maximize recycling, but
> you are not getting the maximum harvest unless you resupply the minerals
> los with that part of the harvest that was not recycled.
> 
> It's just the farmer's choice.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jan Pels
> 

Dear Mr. Pels,
     I have produced spectacular results on pH 8.3-8.5 soils with 80% sodium 
saturation along with the highest production of blueberries and raspberries in 
Guatamala, 5.3 bale cotton on severely alkaline Arizona soils which had been 
unproductive for years. 
     None of these could have been done without the intimate, in-depth 
knowledge of soils and plant needs. See www.agronicsinc.com, all of which has been 
baed upon the use of a naturally occurring organic mineral which has no 
phosphate in it and will not accumulate excess P from long term use. 
     If anyone wants to see the problems with phosphate accumulation, take a 
look at the East coast of the US where manure runoffs have severely damaged 
the soil and water, causing pfisteria, which is an algae bloom in the rivers and 
estuaries of the East Coast which kills the fish. It is also the reason that 
phosphate has been removed from detergents. Soil will be soft if there is an 
adequate amoujnt of lime in it to release CO2 and keep it open. If you want to 
know what causes soil hardening, ask the USDA Shafter Experimental Station in 
Shafter, California that conducted a 10 year study on soil compaction without 
the use of mechanical equipment on the soil for planting, harvesting or any 
other activity by building a $400,000 machine with a 40 ft. wheelspan that any 
implement could be hung from it without loading the soil. The results were no 
change in soil density or compaction. It is not caused by mechanical systems. 
Another USDA exerpimental station in El Centro, California applied 20 tons/acre 
manure to the soil for 15 years and saw no increase in organic matter in the 
soil. 
     Soil compaction is a chemical and microbiological effect. Organic matter 
increase can be changed more by the right microbial stimulation than crude 
organics. I have done it repeatedly over 35 years. Excess phosphate affects all 
of these by imbalancing the microbial populations and activities and 
chemistry. 
     Leaching of K is a major reason no-till is limited in it's 
effectiveness. You don't hear of P leaching because it doesn't and has to be returned to 
the lower regions of the soil through tillage. I have seen soils at 4" excess in 
P and   at 12 " totally deficient. 
     High organic matter soils can also be limited in production because of 
induced deficiencies, whether N, Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn. 
     Generalizations do not work in agriculture. Specifics do, the more 
specific, the better the results. Give me a soil and plant relationship and I will 
show how to improve it. Otherwise, it is mere wives' tales. 



Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
7100-E 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
Phone:505-463-8422



**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com