5 ms·

I’d second this as being interesting, and add some anecdata: There’s a lot of similar discussion in the marijuana community. When I used to grow (legal, medici

I’d second this as being interesting, and add some anecdata: There’s a lot of similar discussion in the marijuana community. When I used to grow (legal, medicinal) marijuana, we had a reading group about soil ecology where we discussed how fungi and roots interacted, the fungi-bacteria-animal systems, etc. A lot of crop management can be done via cultivating “healthy” soil ecosystems. We were able to cut down on nutrient supplements, eliminate things like growth treatments, and get rid of some infestations by adopting a perspective we were raising soil full of healthy fungi, bacteria, and animals. We also started moving spiders into the plants if we found them elsewhere in the garden. I think “symbiotic ecology” is a topic we’re just scratching the surface of.

kiba 6y ago
Don't we still need to move phosphorous and other elements back into these soil? We don't have a closed loop for recycling of these elements, and instead losing them to the ocean or some place very difficult to recover.
- markdown 6y ago
  Yes, these methods are wonderful for the home gardener, but you can't feed the world this way. You absolutely need to regularly amend the soil if you're growing crops intensively for sale. Farming is mining in slow motion. Eventually you have to put those elements back into the system, and you can't get all of them in sufficient quantity from compost.
  - dsrees 6y ago
    I disagree. The farmer mentioned above is Gabe Brown and he operates over 5000 acres and operates a closed loop. He grazes the fields which he plants crops in which he feeds to grain based animals such as pigs and chickens. Hardly a home gardner.
    - kiba 6y ago
      Closed loop means complete recycling. Crops that go to feed humans are then lost as the phosphorous and other elements are dispersed elsewhere instead of being returned to the soil.
    - markdown 6y ago
      And how many people does he feed with his 5000 acres? Can he provide enough for 100% of the daily caloric needs of 5000 people? 10,000? 100,000? Crops and livestock require potassium. He harvests the crops and removes them (and the potassium in them) from his farm. Where does he get potassium after it's all been mined out of his soil?
      - teyc 6y ago
        I thought some of the fungi break down minerals from rocks?
        markdown 6y ago
        There are no rocks in fields that have been cultivated for generations. Well, deep in the soil there are, but you won't find fungi down there.
      - dsrees 6y ago
        Chicken manure is high in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. By moving his birds behind his cattle, he is adding nutrients back into the soil that are being used by the crops that are grown afterwards. On top of that, the birds are scratching and spreading the cow manure which are full of other nutrients that are being removed by crops.
        kiba 6y ago
        Again. The chicken and cows and the crops get eaten by humans. Phosphorous and potassium goes somewhere else, certainly not back into the farm where it originated. It doesn't matter if the cows and the chicken do all these things, because humans aren't returning their fair share to the soil.
  - messo 6y ago
    I saw the lecture by Gabe Brown (linked above) and at the end he claims to produce significantly more calories pr hectare compared to conventional farming practices, not only because he practices Holistic Management methods that builds soil, but because he utilizes his land for many different purposes simultaneously – mutually beneficial parallel processes. I know a guy who utilize similar methods here in Norway, admittedly on a smaller farm, but he mentions the same benefits. The farm is profitable without receiving government subsidies linked to the usual crops (grains), which seems like solid proof of their claims. My gut feeling (based on having had half an eye on this topic for more than a decade) is that the potential for bountiful, diverse and healthy crops are much greater than most people realize. The main challenge is to disrupt the inertia that the industrialized methods have and gaining recognition in a rapidly aging population of farmers (and government officials / regulators). Maybe real change will come only with a new generation of farmers?
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Yeah, it’s not magic. That’s why it’s cut down nutrient supplements and totally remove processed hormones — not totally remove both. The soil ecology is good at: - turning raw ingredients into slightly more complex ones - accessing things in the soil - having the fungi exchange hormones for sugars So you need to deal with adding back trace elements as part of their plant food, especially if you use the same growth medium repeatedly (eg, indoor growing). But you can usually get away with less of those supplements because the soil ecology boosts uptake.

kiba 6y ago

Don't we still need to move phosphorous and other elements back into these soil? We don't have a closed loop for recycling of these elements, and instead losing them to the ocean or some place very difficult to recover.

markdown 6y ago
Yes, these methods are wonderful for the home gardener, but you can't feed the world this way. You absolutely need to regularly amend the soil if you're growing crops intensively for sale. Farming is mining in slow motion. Eventually you have to put those elements back into the system, and you can't get all of them in sufficient quantity from compost.
- dsrees 6y ago
  I disagree. The farmer mentioned above is Gabe Brown and he operates over 5000 acres and operates a closed loop. He grazes the fields which he plants crops in which he feeds to grain based animals such as pigs and chickens. Hardly a home gardner.
  - kiba 6y ago
    Closed loop means complete recycling. Crops that go to feed humans are then lost as the phosphorous and other elements are dispersed elsewhere instead of being returned to the soil.
  - markdown 6y ago
    And how many people does he feed with his 5000 acres? Can he provide enough for 100% of the daily caloric needs of 5000 people? 10,000? 100,000? Crops and livestock require potassium. He harvests the crops and removes them (and the potassium in them) from his farm. Where does he get potassium after it's all been mined out of his soil?
    - teyc 6y ago
      I thought some of the fungi break down minerals from rocks?
      - markdown 6y ago
        There are no rocks in fields that have been cultivated for generations. Well, deep in the soil there are, but you won't find fungi down there.
    - dsrees 6y ago
      Chicken manure is high in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. By moving his birds behind his cattle, he is adding nutrients back into the soil that are being used by the crops that are grown afterwards. On top of that, the birds are scratching and spreading the cow manure which are full of other nutrients that are being removed by crops.
      - kiba 6y ago
        Again. The chicken and cows and the crops get eaten by humans. Phosphorous and potassium goes somewhere else, certainly not back into the farm where it originated. It doesn't matter if the cows and the chicken do all these things, because humans aren't returning their fair share to the soil.
- messo 6y ago
  I saw the lecture by Gabe Brown (linked above) and at the end he claims to produce significantly more calories pr hectare compared to conventional farming practices, not only because he practices Holistic Management methods that builds soil, but because he utilizes his land for many different purposes simultaneously – mutually beneficial parallel processes. I know a guy who utilize similar methods here in Norway, admittedly on a smaller farm, but he mentions the same benefits. The farm is profitable without receiving government subsidies linked to the usual crops (grains), which seems like solid proof of their claims. My gut feeling (based on having had half an eye on this topic for more than a decade) is that the potential for bountiful, diverse and healthy crops are much greater than most people realize. The main challenge is to disrupt the inertia that the industrialized methods have and gaining recognition in a rapidly aging population of farmers (and government officials / regulators). Maybe real change will come only with a new generation of farmers?
bopbeepboop 6y ago
Yeah, it’s not magic. That’s why it’s cut down nutrient supplements and totally remove processed hormones — not totally remove both. The soil ecology is good at: - turning raw ingredients into slightly more complex ones - accessing things in the soil - having the fungi exchange hormones for sugars So you need to deal with adding back trace elements as part of their plant food, especially if you use the same growth medium repeatedly (eg, indoor growing). But you can usually get away with less of those supplements because the soil ecology boosts uptake.