I am hopefully going to do a trial vith some mico-organisms,that should possibly release large amounts of N.

JOHN.

John

What a delight to read your post!  This is what I have been advocating for several years... only with the aid of aerobic conditions in FYM and slurries, you DO have all these missing nutrients and elements available, because it is in anaerobic conditions that they are lost during volatisation and leaching.  It is all to do with looking after the beneficial aerobic micro-flora and fauna.

Tropical rainforest soils consist of up to 20% humus!  Imagine that!  UK agricultural soils that have 1-2% humus are considered to be in excellent condition.  Humus is where the beneficial aerobic microbes reside, and worm numbers will indicate how good your soils are.  You are aiming for a minimum of 25 worms per sq ft of soil. 

Anaerobic manures and slurries degrade soils, as do artificial inputs and steel, which are all unsustainable, and increase reliance on artificial, which at today's prices is scary.

We can help encourage the beneficial biology you talk about with easy management and little cost. 

We have a demo plot at Cereals and will be able to show you the difference between the various approaches to crop management.

Regards, CW - Swift Nature, stand 104 at Cereals

John

I guess you are hoping to trial Twin N or a similar microbe.

Please consider the following:  if your soil is not aerobic, these bacteria will not survive.  Actobacter live in the serum that worms leave behind in pores, so if you haven't many worms, the bacteria will die.  You need to resolve the source of the problem which is the environmental conditions of your soil, ie it is not consistently aerobic.  If it were, you would have masses of aerobic microbial activity, including actobacter already.  It would be like you living in a bubble where there was no oxygen supply - you would soon die.

Another consideration is where are these bacteria from.  Twin N is from Australia, EM is from Japan, BAT506 is from the USA.  No research, to my knowledge, has been undertaken to assess whether these microbes outperform our own native microbes and potentially upset the balance of our local soils.  We could be doing untold damage in using these products.

On the other hand, our products change the environment of the soil, manures and slurries so that native microbes thrive, multiply and start to undo the damage which has been done over the last 50+ years.

Regards, CW

THANKS FOR THE POST CW. I was feeling a bit on my own on this one.

Its a hard job to explain to someone that has relyied of fertilizer for 30+ years that there may be another way.

My HUMUS levels are 27 to 63 on the soil Audit.  TARGET 30 to 60.When we started in 2003 they were 10 to 34.

OM 5.9 to 16.8 in2003

Ergs100 to 520 in 2003. 200 to 740 in 2007.

Hi John

You are right - it is difficult to explain how things can work as well, or even better, without fertilisers etc when they have been sold to and educated to believe that it is the only way.

But, I think it is important to understand that Albrecht still advocates use of artificial inputs, which whilst they are only used where it is deemed critical to get the nutrient balance right etc, this is not necessarily the case.  Albrecht works, no question.  But, it is expensive and complex, and relies on a certain level of knowledge of the optimal balance in terms of chemistry... and chemistry kills biology.  What about getting the biological balance right, and well as the physics.  Some say this comes once you get the chemistry right.  But, to be honest, you can make a leaf from the chemical components, but you can't make it photosynthesise.  So, what's missing?  One critical element that Albrecht cannot supply is oxygen.  95% of a plant's oxygen requirement, is needed at the root.  Other companies advocating Albrecht will encourage you to use a slitter/slotter/whatever you want to call it, but this is a huge cost both environmentally and financially.

The products I am involved with, use quantum physics to supply the correct balance of nutrients, minerals and elements (including oxygen) so that the physical nature of the soil (manure and slurry) become optimal.  The biology changes as a result, crops have been shown to photosynthesise more, have more vitality, have better root systems, have stronger growth and better crop quality and consistency.  Worm numbers have been shown to increase by 60% after 3 months and 96% after 8 months.  This, alone, will double the amount of FREE plant available nitrogen being fixed in the soil from actobacter from the air.  This was also illustrated in research done by Kingshay Farming Trust here, last year, where soil analysis showed plant available nitrogen to be 200+ lbs/acre compared with 100-150 where ammonium nitrogen had been used.

Regards, CW

BRING IT ON, YOU ARE WARMING UP THE TOPPIC NOW.  I DO STILL USE FERTILIZER FOR POTATOES,AND N FOR WHEAT BUT WOULD LIKE TO CUT BACK MORE ,AS I AM SURE WE WILL AS WE GO ALONG.AND WE ALL KNOW WE NEED OXYGEN AND LOTS OF IT IN THE SOILS AND HOW IMPORTANT WORMS ARE ETC BUT SOMETIMES THE WEATHER GOS WRONG LIKE FOR KANNES WITH HIS 5" RAIN WHILE TRYING TO PLANT BEANS.THE SNOW WE HAD AT EASTER AND THE LIKE. THE MORE OM WE CAN GET IN THE TOP SOILS THE MORE WE WILL HANG ON TO THAT N + POTASH TO HELP CUT THEM FERT BILLS .  

anyone undecided on this subject take a look at lynher dairy's website and read the report by ben mead he's a nuffield scholar who studied this subject and makes the case very hard to argue with.

 Still no wiser though just how much NPK I need to have in my soil in order to crop 10 tons to the ha of winter wheat on sandy loam in cumbria without the use of artificial fert after a two year red clover ley.  The biggest problem with this subject is that we feel its right but conventional methods are much easier for budgeting for (however small the actual margin may end up, at least you feel prepared for it...)

 That's not to say I won't take the good advice offered but at the same time I've been told that its pointless testing soil N at the back end (when the crop goes in) which is the only time i can incorporate fym and if i get to spring and i need more N then i reach for the bagged stuff...

anyone know of any proven research on soil NPK after legumes?

 One last thing I understand albrechts (sp?) theories are abot much more than NPK but at my basic level of understanding this is the only area I want to question this year!

thanks for the encouragement too guys

John

The better the condition of your soil, the more consistent and healthy your crop quality will be - no question.  It is also more likely to withstand adverse weather conditions.  In Yorkshire last year, where Plocher products were used, Einstein 2nd wheat stayed standing in puddles of water, and disease levels were less than where conventional had been used.  The previous year when we had drought then torrential rain, 75% Plocher-treated fields of Widgeon wheat remained standing and made for one of the best crops of thatching straw in Oxon, whereas untreated was flattened and a write-off.  In 2006, on Soil Fertility Services plot at Cereals, where they used Plocher products, winter wheat was the only crop above snow levels in March because the soil was warmer due to improved microbial activity and stronger growth.

 M Gott

We recommend a reduction of 20-30% in year one of conventional inputs, increasing to 50% in year two.  Depending on your system, it may be possible to reduce that down to 0.  On the other hand, organic farmers who are now using Plocher, are finding huge benefits because there is no residue in the soil.  One organic customer, has re-ordered twice within a month.  In Canada, organic potato growers increase their yields by up to 3 times, maize growers by 10-20% typically, and here in the UK, we achieved a 9-12% increase in graded yield in conventional potatoes, and we will see how it impacts grazing, potatoes and w wheat in research being undertaken at present.

You are right, Albrecht is about alot more than NPK, but it doesn't take into account the lack of oxygen in soils, manures and slurries.  It doesn't take into account the amount and type of micro-biology in the soil, and it doesn't take into account the damaging effects of using chemistry (chemical sprays) on existing biology and vitality of a crop.

Follow your gut feeling... your instinct is usually right, but we have been conditioned to ignore it.

Regards, CW

Hi CW.  Many thanks for the reply.Professor Albrecht came up with his method of balance in the soil chemisty,many years ago and it is still spot on today,the age of chemical farming which has damaged the soil microbs had not i beleave started then.

Do you think it will be possible to grow economical yeilds of grain in the absence!! of fertilizer,N P or K and live stock manures.Also in the absence of a fallow or grass/clover year??

On the above could you comment on different soil type,.thanks.   JOHN.

Hi John

It is definitely possible to grow economical yields of any crop without the use of bagged fertilisers and pesticides, however you must feed the soil microbes with some sort of organic matter.  It doesn't have to be livestock manures, but these are the most powerful, if managed aerobically.  If they ae not managed aerobically, they can be as damaging and degrading to the soil as using fertilisers etc. 

Velcourt and others have seen the benefits of spreading compost (which is managed aerobically) onto grain fields.

Rotation is also critical to low input systems too.

Regarding soil type... well, all soils need feeding with aerobic OM, and because aerobic OM neutralises soil conditions and increases humus levels, actually soil type is not terribly important.  Increasing humus levels will open up heavy clay soils, and increase water retention in thin or sandy soils.  Regarding the locking up of nutrients, again aerobic microbes in soils make these more available as the pH becomes more balanced.

We have customers on all soil types - from mountain slopes in Switzerland to fields of tea in the Azores, vineyards in France and fields of maize in Canada, where they are showing pH neutralises, yields remain as good or improve without artificial inputs - no lime, no NPK, just aerobically decomposed OM and plenty of it, and a bit of Plocher to improve recovery of soils between crops, and increase photosynthesis and crop vitality. 

I believe that from a sustainability and profitability point of view, mixed farming is the way forward, or partnerships between livestock and arable farms.  I am now getting customers where the arable farmer pays for Plocher products to be used by a neighbouring livestock farmer, so they will need less bagged fertiliser.

At Bishop Burton College where research is being undertaken into the whole Plocher system, where they have spread Plocher-treated slurry, they have used just 20% of their normal fertiliser requirement, and the crops are strong and healthy.

I have several concerns with Albrecht: it bamboozles most people because as you have stated, it is highly complex;  it still relies on chemistry which is not sustainable;  it does not address the fundamental lack of oxygen in the rootzone.

Regards, CW  

A very full and informative reply thanks,but could you please explain the Plocher system,if you are allowed to. JOHN.

Hi M Gott. I think i would go with NO baged N and see how it gos,if crop is yellowing you can soon spray on some liquid N to give it a fast pick up.If you have a good level of clover i am sure the nill N approch we be the best.You can have the green ears tested for sulpher/ N ratio,and apply some liquid N if you are going for Bread wheat.

If you put say 50% baged N on and it gos flat you will be mad as h*ll .   JOHN.

There are products to add to livestock feed or water, which improve feed efficiency and reduce the amount of ammonia produced.  There are products which stop algae and blanketweed growth in lakes and ponds.  There is also a product which you can put on the sprayer and it will increase the surface tension of water increasing effectiveness of your sprays.  There are also products for household and human health, but that is another tome!

Regards, CW

Thanks for the reply.Since we have been on a simliar systerm we have seen no PH problems.And have used NO lime for a number of years.8 years i think.

What would your program be for a croping full on chemical/fertilizer grower,the like of Velcourt.From chopped wheat straw to a 2nd wheat crop to a Bean crop,and on to the next wheat crop.Regarding cultivations,different inputs applyed and or not applyed from a full on chemical farm. Many thanks for your time on this.  JOHN.<