Log in

View Full Version : The Future of Fertilizer


Richard
06-28-2009, 09:55 AM
Something to consider...

Fertilizers are derived from 3 sources: animal, vegetable, and mineral. Mineral sources have the highest concentration, on average 20% of the desired nutrient. They are the most cost effective and currently the dominant source of fertilizer in the world. Vegetable sources have low concentrations, around 1% to 5%. Natural animal sources such as manures are very low, less than 1% with a few minor exceptions. Municipal sewer systems have moderate concentrations, anywhere from 1% to 10% depending on the municipality and proportion of water in the system. Although petroleum is used to manufacture some pesticides and herbicides, it is rarely used in fertilizer.

Commercial agriculture is by far the largest consumer of fertilizer products: for every bag of 10 lb fertilizer sold to a homeowner, 10 tons are sold to the food production sector of agriculture.

Agricultural use of fertilizer will completely exhaust all known natural sources of fertilizer when the world population reaches 8 billion -- in approximately 50 years at current rates. To sustain agriculture, the source of fertilizer will necessarily come from municipal sewer systems. It will not be sludge, but rather highly refined extracts of specific minerals. This would coincide with drinking water being recycled from sewer systems as well.

Bob
06-28-2009, 10:05 AM
Yuck!! Made me think of the soylent green movie from years ago. No milorganite on my vegetables please.

lorax
06-28-2009, 10:43 AM
OK, Richard, how is that going to function in countries that largely don't use chemical-derived fertilizers? I'm going from the example here in Ecuador, which is food-sovereign (we eat almost exclusively what we grow here, with a few minor exceptions). Farmers here are of the mind that what the cows or chickens poop out is what is needed in the fields, and once a year they all go to Volcan Tungurahua and take a truckload of ash home to turn into the fields.

What happens in an economy like Ecuador's under your scenario? We don't sell ash or manure, we just use what the country produces, and since the soils are quite rich and good soil husbandry (fallowing etc) has been practiced here since pre-Incan times, it's likely to stay that way.

Richard
06-28-2009, 06:40 PM
Yuck!! Made me think of the soylent green movie from years ago. No milorganite on my vegetables please.

I am not referring to milorganite -- or anything similar. Currently, the largest percentage of materials recycled from municipal sewage falls in the "soap" category. It is currently expensive to extract elemental plant nutrients from sewage. Unless the demand and supplies for agricultural plant nutrients both change dramatically in the coming decades, we are likely to see ammonical nitrogen being manufactured from reclaimed nitrogen in sewage, along with other elemental nutrients.

OK, Richard, how is that going to function in countries that largely don't use chemical-derived fertilizers?

I gather you mean "in countries that utilize their own natural resources" ? It is just a matter of what alternatives will be used when the natural resources run out. I believe that Ecuador's population is growing faster than say, the U.S. population.

Notice that when the earth's population is to the point that all available plant nutrients in all their various forms are being used for food production, then the most effective intervention point for recycling is from sewage systems.

lorax
06-28-2009, 06:50 PM
I just can't see all of our volcanoes going dormant any time soon, is all.

Richard
06-28-2009, 08:43 PM
I just can't see all of our volcanoes going dormant any time soon, is all.

What forms of nitrogen are output or catalyzed into minerals by the volcanoes?

adrift
06-28-2009, 10:08 PM
I just can't see all of our volcanoes going dormant any time soon, is all.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but ... no guarantees. Each volcanic chain, indeed, each volcanic event, can emit a different composition of materials. What a volcano blew out for the prior 100 years that was beneficial could be toxic (excessive sulfur or fluorine) the next time.

The materials ejected from a volcano do often make a good soil conditioner by adding trace minerals, and providing a light and porous substrate. Typically you will find silicates, calcium and aluminum oxides, and a few others in the rock (lava). On the other hand, ash is often quite acidic, contains a lot of sulfur and sometimes fluorine. Good when you need it, bad when you have it. But, volcanic soils typically are low in phosphorus, even to the point of absorbing it from fertilizer. But every volcano is different...

None of this provides nitrogen, which you currently say comes from dung. (And the atmosphere via a several step chemical process driven by soil microbes.)

You, with uncharacteristic insistence, ask what this means to Ecuador. If the population remains steady, then Richard's comments mean nothing to you. You provide nitrogen with dung, and add trace minerals from volcanic deposits. In short, you recycle all the elements "the old fashioned way", not "the NASA way." :)

But populations don't remain steady in most cases. Human societies seem to expand or die out. Perhaps that should say expand then die out. Examples otherwise are rare. Anywho, expansion of Ecuador's population will at some time mean that chemical fertilizers are needed to increase yield per area of land to meet the need for food.

Richard makes the point (and I don't know enough whether to agree or disagree) that resources for chemical fertilizers (I assume that he means phosphate and potash) are finite and non-renewable. This would be a problem for "western" society which demands (and achieves) tremendous yields per acre. If western cultures run into this wall they will either find a way to overcome it (perhaps using the recycling Richard mentions, perhaps some other way) or famine will return to the west. With even a small amount of luck, Ecuador will have time to adapt since they are not stretching the "system" the way the US is.


Although petroleum is used to manufacture some pesticides and herbicides, it is rarely used in fertilizer.

It is only sort-of correct that fossil fuel does not make up a part of fertilizer (fossil fuels being various forms and purities of hydrocarbons, meaning made of chains of carbon atoms with attached hydrogen atoms, but containing very little nitrogen). However, we do use a tremendous amount of energy (today coming from many sources, but heavily hydrocarbons) to produce nitrogen compounds for fertilizer (ex. ammonia, NH3) from atmospheric nitrogen in what is known as the Haber process. Also, we currently use methane (derived from natural gas) as the source of hydrogen for the Haber process. Hydrogen could be obtained at higher cost from hydrolysis of water.

(Google "Haber process", but here is a start: Haber process: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/haber-process) )

So if we do run out of fossil fuels without a replacement energy source to power the Haber process for fixing nitrogen, we become dependent on natural supplies for not just two, but all three parts of the fertilizer trinity. (Nitrogen and potassium from salt petre (KNO3), phosphorus from rock phosphate, potassium from potash and its compounds, but potassium should be available from sea water (at greater cost) for quite some time.)

shopgirl2
06-29-2009, 12:51 PM
speaking of fertilizers, the price of 10-10-10 which I used to buy last year for $8 for a 10 pound bag has gone up to $17.00 and $10 for 5 pound bag at Lowe's.

lorax
06-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Adrift, as I mentioned before, Ecuador is basically food-sovereign, and I'll mention now that our population growth is stable without being excessive, immigration included (we take on a lot of Colombian and Peruvian refugees).

I do agree that we're not stretching the limit of our productivity, the way the US is currently, nor is that anything that's in our immediate future.

damaclese
06-29-2009, 05:46 PM
i don't know if this is pertinent to mention but the high productivity levels of the US farm system have come about do to high world demand for food in general we are producing a fair amount of food to keep non self supporting country's form starving to death i think a noble cause but ultimately the ideal population for this planet is 1.9 billion a sum we have passed many times over if a system consumes all available resources to function then we are finely going to have to face are over population or die out its sad to think that many of the worlds mineral resources are now either in to the last stages of productivity or have had to switch to recycled sources in order to keep the relentless passe that over population demands in other words why do we keep having to pump out baby after baby and what kind of a life will are children have do we really want to condemn them to this kind of existents when this world could be a garden again if we would just stop!

OrganicBananac
07-09-2009, 03:01 PM
I think we should all think more on terms of sustainability. I do not fear any shortage of nutrient supplementation anytime soon (bc thank heavens, nature has already provided what we need). What I do fear though, is the misuse of agricultural chemicals(ferts),pesticides and herbicides to the point where soil has no life, ie sterilized. Nature is SLOW and patient, humans by fault, are not. I must not have to remind anyone, that way before humans came along to start messing with natures delicate balance, plants were doing quite well on their own. Its the bigger, stronger, faster attitude that is so detrimental to the balance of nature, and we humans are the ones who get the finger of guilt. Which is why I support anyone who gardens within the systems of nature, allowing it to take its course, with supportive help along the way.
:0517: rock on organically!

Richard
07-09-2009, 09:20 PM
... What I do fear though, is the misuse of agricultural chemicals(ferts), ...

Most chemical fertilizers are minerals mined out of the ground and entirely organic. If the nitrogen level is boosted with Urea Nitrate, then it no longer qualifies.

If U.S. agriculture were to stop using mineral-based fertilizers and switch to those from plant sources, then 3/4 of the U.S. and about 1/4 of the world would starve. These mineral resources are finite and no longer abundant. Just as with oil, we will have critical shortages some decade in the not so distant future.

capthof
07-10-2009, 06:33 AM
This is all very interesting I was just bidding on taking the sludge from our local sewer plant to the new pelletization plant being built in West Palm Beach, Florida. I wanted to buy the fertilizer coming out of the plant but it was already purchased by New England Fertilizer. The EPA has stopped all spreading of sludge cake in the Okeechobee water shed and has requested that we take phosphate out of the fertilizer because it cause algae blooms in local waters. Our local sewer plant sells more reclaimed water than it takes in. Even in Florida, the swamp state, water is in short supply and talk of "recycling" water for human consumption has been mentioned in close circles. Before, deep well injection was the method of disposing of sewage. But Deep well injection resurfaces some where. Here it was in the Florida Keys. We will need some good insight and technology or as care takers of the planet we are in deep manure. :parachutenanner:
In my business we call the same crap day after day, "Déjà Poo."

OrganicBananac
07-10-2009, 04:47 PM
Most chemical fertilizers are minerals mined out of the ground and entirely organic.

This road has been traveled down many of times, and I must have to say, with respect, I disagree with this statement Richard.
Chemical fertilizers may be based off of natural occuring mineral deposits, but it is the treating of these mineral deposits with harsh acids for extraction, that takes them out of the category of "organic". Natural gardening relies on bacteria, fungus and the whole soil food web as means of supplement. Plants do not take in guano, bonemeal,kelp, etc. etc.. It is the roots that produce exudates (and dead root cells, shedding) which attract the microbial & fungal action that the nematodes and protozoas feed off of, unlocking the nutrients, in their waste. The waste by nematodes and protozoas are actually what the plant can uptake. This is a cycle in the rhizosphere that is constant, allowing nutrient cycling. I think that is a better distinction on organic vs. inorganic. The harsh extracted minerals are not friendly to our microbial warriors. Which is why we feed the soil, not the plant.
So cheers, and lets learn from one another! :nanadrink:

Richard
07-10-2009, 05:46 PM
The harsh extracted minerals are not friendly to our microbial warriors. Which is why we feed the soil, not the plant.

I agree completely if we are talking about triple-15. But the majority of agriculture is using water-soluble majors, minors, and micros which are a different scenario.

I also agree with you that we need sustainability. That was possible with low-percentage nutrients when the planet population was 2 billion. We are quite a bit past that now.

The purpose of this thread was to alert people that the current nutrient stream which generates the vast majority of food on the planet is going to reach critical levels in most of our lifetimes. The current solution on the table is to recycle the nutrients that go into our foods by reclaiming them from sewage. Other ideas are certainly welcome and needed.

OrganicBananac
07-10-2009, 06:50 PM
The purpose of this thread was to alert people that the current nutrient stream which generates the vast majority of food on the planet is going to reach critical levels in most of our lifetimes. The current solution on the table is to recycle the nutrients that go into our foods by reclaiming them from sewage. Other ideas are certainly welcome and needed.

Reality, ahhh not fun to have to deal with.
I feel much responsibility needs to be taken with each and every person.
Too many rely on the actions of few (farmers). If everyone would just use the waste EVERYONE produces, to sustain each and every persons consumption, we would be in a good place. But lets get back to reality because we all acknowledge laziness is a large majority of the BIG problem. People do not want to be responsible for their actions, or even remotely educate themselves on common sense with sustainability, much respect to the ones THAT DO! I agree with the recycling of nutrients, why be wasteful?? Nature (and the One that created it) has provided us all we need. It is time now to educate and learn from all mistakes we have made. I find much solution in aspects of compost and vermicompost teas. Its an ability to take a small proportion of a waste product and stretch it by 100's of times, all the same time unlocking many of the wonders of nature locked up in the soil. Its amazing how waste can turn into something so valuable with just a small amount of work and commitment. My one concern with the use of sewage is the amount of pharmaceuticals and other nasty nasty things our bodies excrete as waste. But beyond that, we are all humans, no need to be scared of some poo. .:ha:
BTW, its FRIDAY!:bananas_b:birthdaynana::bananas_b

Richard
07-10-2009, 07:38 PM
I find much solution in aspects of compost and vermicompost teas. Its an ability to take a small proportion of a waste product and stretch it by 100's of times, all the same time unlocking many of the wonders of nature locked up in the soil.

Yes, I agree. Vermicompost and humic compost are critical to the soil mixes I make.

In the current methods of mass agriculture, it takes about 1 acre total to support one U.S. adult. If we were to keep all the mechanization we have and revert to low-percentage nutrients such as plant sources, composts, etc. the number of acres required per person would increase by 4 or 5 times. Consumer prices for food would rise in direct proportion, using today's prices as a baseline.

For more details on what it takes to support a person or a family, a good reference is a 1940's or 1950's edition of the Kerr Bluebook (a book for canning!). There you will find a complete guide to crops to grow, how much to grow per person of a certain crop, etc. Further, notice that the farming methods assumed in the book are low-nutrient with mostly hand-labor and perhaps a modest tractor.

Another baseline worth looking at is the vast Mennonite community in the Homestead area of Alberta, Canada. For the most part they are masters of utilitarian farming, averaging about 10 acres per person -- which is remarkable considering their winter weather. For a birds-eye view, enter "Grand Prairie Alberta" into Google Earth.

lorax
07-10-2009, 07:53 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that the Homestead Colony is an amazingly efficient farm, Richard; I did some work-study with them back when I still lived up there in the the frozen northland. They're very very very good at maximizing yields and crop rotations, so that the plots are rarely in full (unuseful) fallow. I'm actually using a number of their methods down here, particularly as regards grain crops (barley, wheat, maize.)

CValentine
07-10-2009, 08:40 PM
Not to be a thread-wrecker...

Note: (Opinion Alert)

While it is good of us to do what WE can as individuals...90% of what has happened to the 'poisoning' of our food & soil, (I will only opinionate on America), is due in part to the greed of Corporations. The drive for the almighty dollar, the patenting & ownership of seeds & their derivatives...being only offered genetically altered seed($$$) that will only produce yields as advertised for the farmer if using a special fertilizer($$$) that will get diseased if not treated with a particular treatment($$$). And then Mills that only take certain grains, because the processed food industry will only buy the particular ones, because that is their sister company that sells the seed($$$$$$$$$). Thereby perpetuating their own golden parachute with Supply & Demand.

Ok - my point made...

We can all stand to be more responsible in our use on what we produce, use & dispose of everyday. The One, G-D, has given us magnificent brains, by which we have heavily advanced in MANY things in the past 150 years. Inclusive of this is transportation, medicine, education, engineering and manufacturing, amongst many, many other things. I enjoy the fruits of human technological advancement, i.e. bizjets, computers, e-mail, multi-link suspension systems & Harley Davidsons, as well as what occurs in nature, i.e. Bananas, horses, walking in the rain...

I do my part where I can: recycling, carpooling, buying of meat/products from humanely raised animals/certified organic/local farmers, etc. However, everyone makes their own choices, accountability and responsibility is up to the individual.

I think you and Richard have both made point in fact. I applaud you both in maintaining the civility in the thread.

What all of this has shown me is that there are many paths in which we are advancing in Plant Soil, Additives, and Fertilizer & many choices we can make to use or not to use what is presented to us in the name of advancement.

I will continue reading this thread as others are & make the best decisions for myself.
Thank you for presenting me with options and food for thought!! :) ~Cheryl

Richard
07-10-2009, 09:37 PM
Well thanks Cheryl, I would agree that a lot of corporate greed is present in the pasture to product chain: food is even more addictive than tobacco!

In the fertilizer part of the equation, the Canadian company Agrium is doing a good job of establishing a monopoly on some nutrient lines and will soon have the Scotts-MiracleGro Marketing company on its knees. My colleagues would sarcastically say that it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. However, the rest of the suppliers would soon follow in the same position. Note that Agrium owns both the raw material supply lines and the wholesale distribution outlets (e.g., Crop Production Services).

And Lorax, I'm glad you reminded me of your experience with the Mennonite communities. It would be hard to find a lazy bone among them.

What concerns me in this thread though is our ability as people on the planet to sustain a food supply for the population. Note that even if we were as efficient as the Mennonites, have a longer growing season, and included our mechanization: we don't have the land, water, or economy to use low-percentage nutrients; i.e., "natural" methods. Nutrient recycling from sewage or some other means will be necessary. Also, you notice that serious population control measures will also be necessary. Well, of course there is always the alternatives of famine, disease, and war. I'd rather not go that route, especially to the tune of 3/4 of the world population.

turtile
07-10-2009, 09:46 PM
Chemical fertilizers may be based off of natural occuring mineral deposits, but it is the treating of these mineral deposits with harsh acids for extraction, that takes them out of the category of "organic". Natural gardening relies on bacteria, fungus and the whole soil food web as means of supplement. Plants do not take in guano, bonemeal,kelp, etc. etc.. It is the exudes produced by the microbial action that provides the actual food for the plants. I think that is a better distinction on organic vs. inorganic. The harsh extracted minerals are not friendly to our microbial warriors. Which is why we feed the soil, not the plant.

Many of the fertilizers we use are applied directly from minerals. For example, sylvite is the mineral from of Potassium Chloride. Plant available phosphorus is phosphoric acid (occurs naturally in all soils). Phosphoric acid can be simply made from mined phosphate rock and the phosphoric acid can be reacted with phosphate rock to form superphosphate. There is nothing bad about these materials.

Chemical nitrogen fertilizer relies on soil organisms. Urea is an organic compound that is broken down by soil organisms to form ammonium and later nitrate.

Any high concentration of fertilizers regardless of source will change the soil. In the end, plants take the nutrients in the same form.

permaculturekidd
07-13-2009, 01:23 PM
I think with enough ingenuity we'll be able to get by subsistence gardening and local farms though I think the biggest thing we will have to do to make it work is a regionalization the average diet.

That means someone in Iowa not eating Salmon and Bananas ; but eating a diet rich in free-range bison, dairy, short season crops and grains (hopefully fermented and whole). Someone in Hawaii should really more on tree crops and the sea with meat (other then say goat) and dairy (also from goat) not being a major segment of your food intake.

When we become more realistic with our diets. Take influences from other societies, like using three sisters, permaculture, do-nothing farming; since row cropping is wasteful and only fuels the petroleum consuming machine.
Better localized varieties and less water intensive culitvars where they are suited.

Biochar and mulching are our best bets to a more fruitful system. Terra preta ofcourse never gets exhausted and has lusher plants; mulching the way Mansanobu Fukouka teaches in one-straw revolution and in natural farming can be used in grain production.

We just cannot keep the same methods of farming and slap on some compost as if it will do some great change. We have to do better, or else we go through famines or worse food wars.*



(*Or atleast thats what the survivalist in me thinks)

Richard
07-13-2009, 03:33 PM
Biochar and mulching are our best bets to a more fruitful system.

To sustain current yields on current acreage, the biochar and mulch would have to be piled 1 meter high -- because the percentage of nutrients is so low. This is not tractable.

OrganicBananac
07-13-2009, 06:12 PM
Richard,
Trust this one when i say i realize the proportion of land needed vs. land available to sustain a family, trust me. It is a sad, sad fact in America, of what we have done to this land (which WAS stolen from the NATIVE Americans). Who were respectful stewards, not materialism oriented, before the "settlers" came along. You also have proven my point of the solution to the problems we continue to create. We need overgrowth of PLANTS, the plants are the only things cleaning the air that we continue to pollute excessively, along with water and soil. The solution is easy, its here, but we are too arrogant and stubborn to allow nature to take its course and fix the problems. Because nature is...slow, and would take patience. (But nature WILL kill us if we dont stop, so...)

Anything GREEN, growing, sequestering carbon from the air, giving crisp, pure oxygen back IS THE SOLUTION, along with education.

More development, more concrete, more malls,more gas guzzlers, the throw away society, EMPTY neighborhoods of cookie cutters,etc,etc,etc.... is NOT THE SOLUTION.

But back to the sad state of the nation, I can not afford anything over my pathetic 1/4acre because I am near a concrete jungle. The price of land, once again, is just because we have the greedy individuals. More for them (useless money at that, HA!), at the cost of an arm and leg for me and you... I see much solution to this in the form of vertical gardening... ill go up as far as i want i guess. Or until code enforcement comes.. ;)

"Note that even if we were as efficient as the Mennonites, have a longer growing season, and included our mechanization: we don't have the land, water, or economy to use low-percentage nutrients; i.e., "natural" methods."

Now, i do understand your point here, but the problem does not originate with lack of land,water,or economy... it is the fact that so many are cowards not up to facing the fact that unless they are part of the solution, you ARE the problem. If you run around in your SUV,demanding you have a right to feed your 7 person family fruit from Costa Rica while you irrigate your acre of st augustine and azaleas... then im sorry to bust the bubble you must live in, but thats an example of THE PROBLEMS. Do these attitudes display any means of solution?
"Ohhhh yeah we recycle."
Well what about those two trash cans of brush you had the trashman come pick up? tsk tsk... its time we EDUCATE.
If every person would learn how to "almost" sustain their family on what they have, using the waste generated naturally by the cycle of life, there would be no need for "high percentage nutrients". The cycle of life,nature.. leaves us with the waste, which is up to us to use, or it goes to being non-productive for us humans.
Richard, its very obvious that you and I, are worlds apart. I see your points on many of these subject matters, and all I can say to you is that I understand your logic and where you come from. But where we are, and have been is not where we need to "go". Do you feel me?
Because I 110% agree with your concern of sustaining a food supply for the population. (being a diabetic since 6yrs old, i am concerned when there is not a jug of juice in the fridge in case my blood sugar were to become low) Now making sure the population understands we do not even have enough for all who are here, downright scary!

On to the nitty gritty...
High percentage nutrients are very very very detrimental to a "true living organic" system.
A good example in point is phosphorus uptake and fungi. Mycorrhizal is the shizzle... fo rizzle. But if you go and throw a load of phosphorus (natural or not) at a true living organic system w/ the mycor's, you will mess with these guys like no tomorrow. Your P uptake will basically drop off the radar, until the plant starts uptaking the raw P the soil is now laden with. The soil food web is now disturbed and until you balance it back out, one must rely on the use of these processed nutrients (which is NOT a true living organic system). I only speak of this, because it has been studied and I have seen experience firsthand. I am not messing with inorganic vs. organic either, i have made this mistake a long time ago with OMRI bottled nutrients (vegetable based even, at that!). It just goes to prove how delicate of a balance nature hangs on by. (that goes for the phosphoric acid and all the superphosphate too, Turtile.) One of the main things to completely free your mind of in True organic growing is concern of NPK values. These things honestly distract the mind from other more important aspects of your "system". Like i was saying, it is worlds apart... but at least it is still growing of any kind. So cheers.

PermaCKidd- big ups on the biochar and mulching.. most everone has a fireplace and i know i get all the mulch i ever need giving my trees a light yearly haircut. What waste!??

This is also why I insist on no arguing when we talk about these subjects and wish everyone would take the approach of "learning from one another". One small thing I have come to understand may be the answer to a problem you have, and vice versa. So education on all realms is vital.
Hope everyone had a great weekend... it was HOT here.

Richard
07-14-2009, 12:30 AM
Matt,

I agree that high-phosphate fertilizers are irresponsible in most situations. The fact is that they are primarily sold to consumers by a few large companies as a way of disposing of something they would otherwise have to pay to get rid of.

Commercial agriculture for food production largely does not use high concentration phosphate formulas.

In this thread I am not arguing for or against any particular concentration of fertilizer. Instead I have pointed out that the quantity of fertilizer we use on an annual basis for food production will exhaust known supplies about 1/2 way through this century. One way to continue the annual rate of use is to recycle minerals from sewage. Another way would be to use organic plant material, but to sustain the current food production rate this would also mean using at least 4 times the area of land and 4 times the current agricultural water because the organic plant material is lower in concentration of nutrients.

permaculturekidd
07-14-2009, 01:56 AM
A method from Fukouka on a orchard and vegetable garden he had was fertilized mainly by 6y/o trees of the black wattle that are chopped down and buried in ditchs.

They are legumious; fast growing (but peaks at 6 years), drought resistant, frost tolerant, and easily grown. Through a controlled culling a "invasive" species can become the common man's fertilizers.

He also is about growing on 1/4 acres; I'm not advertising but he is the answer that has been applied from Somalia to Japan to Italy. Sadly it hasn't caught on as much as permaculture or it gets swallowed up as a subset.

He had grown this way through trial and error for over 50 years to perfect; but why has no one mentioned green manures, peanuts with banana circles being a classic?

permaculturekidd
07-14-2009, 02:14 AM
Also localizing the sources of fertilizers; maintaining kelp fields for seaweed, using dung beetles for pastures (Who spread manure to the root sources underground saving millions in fertilizers), acacia in the deserts, etc....

I'd think that self-sufficiency would be key when searching for alternatives also local employment or a community run business would be great too.

Richard
07-14-2009, 02:18 AM
The yields obtained in commercial food crop production are proportional to the quantity of nutrients feed to the crops. If the high-concentration mineral fertilizers are replaced by low concentration "green" fertilizers then (1) either the "green" fertilizers are refined to increase the concentration, or (2) the amount of land and water used is increased by at least 4-fold, and (3) the planet is quickly deforested by harvesting all non-food plants as a nutrient source.

Note that using peanuts as a nutrient source does not come for free: the peanuts themselves also need nutrients to grow.

permaculturekidd
07-14-2009, 03:33 AM
That is not the case though for the do-nothing; a fully functioning orchard/vegetable garden/forest surviving if not thriving with clover and acacia.

His yields increased every year to a commerical level; on less then 10 acres he was able to sale crates of organic oranges dirt cheap. He was able to get over 22 bushels of rice per 1/4 acre submerging the rice for only a certain season; intermixed with clovers and native plants, weeds and flowers creating a dense network of life and nitrogen. Swapped out with winter rye to add even more nitrogen; a slow process but a successful one. Ducks were le

The belief that there is but one way is false; its a poor mouse who only has one hole to go to.

Richard
07-14-2009, 06:20 AM
That is not the case though for the do-nothing; a fully functioning orchard/vegetable garden/forest surviving if not thriving with clover and acacia.

His yields increased every year to a commerical level; on less then 10 acres he was able to sale crates of organic oranges dirt cheap. He was able to get over 22 bushels of rice per 1/4 acre submerging the rice for only a certain season; intermixed with clovers and native plants, weeds and flowers creating a dense network of life and nitrogen. Swapped out with winter rye to add even more nitrogen; a slow process but a successful one. Ducks were le

The belief that there is but one way is false; its a poor mouse who only has one hole to go to.

Lee, there are plenty of farms which function as you describe on a commercial level. However, their output per acre is 1/4th to 1/10th that of those which utilize mineral-based fertilizers. Further, their total output is insignificant compared to the millions of acres using mineral fertilizers.

Again, the subject of this thread is how to cope when the stream of mineral fertilizers run out. If you propose to use the methods described above, please indicate where the additional 4- to 10-fold acreage and water will come from.

Calling me a mouse might be more appropriate than you think! The pecking order in my house is (1) my wife's dog (2) my wife (3) my daughters (4) the cat, and finally (5) me.

turtile
07-14-2009, 06:00 PM
Using plants that have symbiotic relationships with nitrogen fixing bacteria is very common. The price of the seed is right with the price of buying nitrogen fertilizer.

With our population, we can not put the earth back into a period where nutrients remain mostly stable. Once agriculture began, it allowed us to exceed the carrying capacity of the land. We are so far passed that limit that there is no going back.

adrift
07-14-2009, 06:49 PM
He was able to get over 22 bushels of rice per 1/4 acre submerging the rice for only a certain season.

Doing the math, that is 88 bushels per acre. A commercial plot using those spawn of Satan chemical fertilizers should produce twice that. Sometimes over 200 bushels an acre. Are we going to mow down some more rain forest to double or triple our cropland? I wonder if I should invest in chainsaws or kerosene and matches?

supermario
07-14-2009, 09:30 PM
Doing the math, that is 88 bushels per acre. A commercial plot using those spawn of Satan chemical fertilizers should produce twice that. Sometimes over 200 bushels an acre. Are we going to mow down some more rain forest to double or triple our cropland? I wonder if I should invest in chainsaws or kerosene and matches?

LOL ..or maybe we should gather up the people who drive SUV's and force them to sell their land and cars in order to produce more crops!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. This thread has gone off topic wayyyy too many times, but to comment on the SUV issue...The people who drive the SUV's should never hold the blame because they DO have the right to drive whatever they like. The blame should fall on the automaking industry for not producing more efficient vehicles. The secret that oil will not last forever has been out the bag for quite a while.

Hopefully all cars will run on an alternative fuel source within my lifetime. Once we do convert to a society that does not depend on oil to commute, one could drive around a cement truck if they like. Agreed?

:bananas_b

As for the "terra negra" argument.. keep in mind that they had to sustain a population much smaller than our current one. There are more people living in New York city alone.

Richard
07-14-2009, 10:58 PM
... or maybe we should gather up the people who drive SUV's and force them ...

Mario, you and I came to the same conclusion: unbridled laughter!

supermario
07-15-2009, 09:01 AM
Mario, you and I came to the same conclusion: unbridled laughter!

:0519:

I think it's really simple. Stick to your personal beliefs without imposing them on others. If you feel organic gardening is the way to go...practice it in your home. If you feel driving an SUV hurts the planet, don't drive one.

Now...back to the subject:

If everyone in the U.S. would take the time to get their hands dirty(organic or not), we wouldn't need to rely so much on commercially produced goods. Granted, we will always need to go to the grocer, but our personal consumption of commercial produce will be reduced. If there is less demand, there will eventually be less supply produced, thereby reducing the need for more farm land and reducing the amount of fertilizer needed. Unfortunately, this would also mean a loss of jobs. :(

Either way, this is not very realistic.. what about the people who don't own property?.. what about those that live in condos? When discussing positive/negative effects on large populations, nothing is ever black and white.

No matter what the future holds, I think it's obvious that we cannot sustain current population levels doing everything the green way. Organic gardening produces less fruit and veggies per sq. ft. The fruit and veggies also seem to be a smaller size when compared to some of the mammoths produced by other means. Im all for processing sewage for fertilizer if that is what we need to do... but, aren't some companies doing that already?

Richard
07-15-2009, 11:28 AM
Im all for processing sewage for fertilizer if that is what we need to do... but, aren't some companies doing that already?

Yes. Presently the cost of mineral sources for most nutrients is far cheaper than sewage sources.

By the way, the vast majority of soap products on the market have base compounds that are recycled from sewage. Capthof can verify about Jean Na'poo ...

OrganicBananac
07-29-2009, 09:55 PM
Chemical nitrogen fertilizer relies on soil organisms.

Turtile did you catch my incorrectness? Because i would love you to explain your statement and i will clarify my tongue-in-cheek as well. Thanks.

So why I am busy this week, lets all give the soil food web some study and Dr. Elaine Ingham some overdue credit.

The answers I have given the hint to, are the solution to "the future of fertilizer". Better would be "the future of the soil microbiology and soil food web".

Fertilizer is now just the F-word. We need to do away with a conventional mindset, because a closed mind has no room to expand and learn.:waving:

And these questions about yeild and quality or quantity are sadly being destroyed by studies on compost tea.
It is the things we do not have the privilege of being able to see that have some of the largest impact on our lives. Gotta love them microbes.

Got a nice book this past weekend, now need some reading time. One Straw Revolution, thanks Permakid!

Richard
07-29-2009, 10:52 PM
And these questions about yeild and quality or quantity are sadly being destroyed by studies on compost tea.

Nope. Compost tea enables uptake if the minerals are present in the soil. After 7 years (or less) non-native plants will exhaust the mineral supply.

Further, the yield per acre is proportional to the quantity of mineral input. Compost tea hardly registers on that scale.

I find your remarks about a closed mind highly insulting. They are without merit.

supermario
07-30-2009, 08:29 AM
Fertilizer is now just the F-word. We need to do away with a conventional mindset, because a closed mind has no room to expand and learn.:waving:

I agree with Richard. OrganicBananac, it seems as though the only closed minded person in this discussion...is you.

We don't agree with you 100%, so therefore, we must be closed minded. Mind you, we've both stated that growing things as green as possible in ones own home is great, it's just not commercially feasible. The latter part of that last sentence is a FACT, not an opinion. We cannot feed the world by growing things without chemicals for insect control, nutrition, and disease maintenance.

I don't mind disagreements, but people who feel the need to impose their correctness on others get under my skin. (i.e. Religious fanatics, and many other groups that I won't mention). There is no correct or incorrect when we are discussing ones opinion. Period.

momoese
07-30-2009, 10:00 AM
we've both stated that growing things as green as possible in ones own home is great, it's just not commercially feasible. The latter part of that last sentence is a FACT, not an opinion. We cannot feed the world by growing things without chemicals for insect control, nutrition, and disease maintenance.


Not a fact at all. Comercially feasable and being able to feed the worlds population are two different things. I can go to Vons, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and just about any other place bananas are sold and find Organic Bananas.

supermario
07-30-2009, 02:11 PM
Not a fact at all. Comercially feasable and being able to feed the worlds population are two different things. I can go to Vons, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and just about any other place bananas are sold and find Organic Bananas.


My use of the term "commercially feasible" was indeed incorrect in that sense. There are plenty of independent growers of "organic" fruits and vegetables. What I meant was.. IF we were to try and begin producing ALL(the U.S.) of our food by "organic" means.. it would not work because we would need more land than we have available. That was stated earlier in this thread.

The reason I put "organic" in quotes is because I have read that the term can be applied to lots of products that are not 100% organic. From my understanding, a company has to meet a small set of requirements to be labeled as "organic". To achieve "certified organic" staus is a more costly procedure.

Nicolas Naranja
07-30-2009, 02:30 PM
This was a hot topic of conversation in one of my master's classes on food policies. And while producing things locally is a great idea, it actually can be very inefficient. Iowa is a great place to grow corn, South Florida is a great place to grow sugarcane, and Costa Rica is a great place to grow bananas. Also, small farms typically mean more farmers and thinking more about what you are going to eat and frankly the CPA from Miami is best as a CPA, not a farmer. Furthermore, manure/compost/legumes is not the be all end all of soil fertility. In its native state, the soil that I grow on is incredibly rich in nitrogen and calcium but deficient in micronutrients, phosphorus, and potasium. Since the ultimate goal of fertilization is to meet plant needs with the fertilizer applied you would be overapplying nitrogen if you dared to put it on my soil, with the addition of copper, boron, manganese, phosphorus and potash the soil magically becomes some of the most fertile soil in the entire world.

I think with enough ingenuity we'll be able to get by subsistence gardening and local farms though I think the biggest thing we will have to do to make it work is a regionalization the average diet.

That means someone in Iowa not eating Salmon and Bananas ; but eating a diet rich in free-range bison, dairy, short season crops and grains (hopefully fermented and whole). Someone in Hawaii should really more on tree crops and the sea with meat (other then say goat) and dairy (also from goat) not being a major segment of your food intake.

When we become more realistic with our diets. Take influences from other societies, like using three sisters, permaculture, do-nothing farming; since row cropping is wasteful and only fuels the petroleum consuming machine.
Better localized varieties and less water intensive culitvars where they are suited.

Biochar and mulching are our best bets to a more fruitful system. Terra preta ofcourse never gets exhausted and has lusher plants; mulching the way Mansanobu Fukouka teaches in one-straw revolution and in natural farming can be used in grain production.

We just cannot keep the same methods of farming and slap on some compost as if it will do some great change. We have to do better, or else we go through famines or worse food wars.*



(*Or atleast thats what the survivalist in me thinks)

permaculturekidd
08-01-2009, 04:00 AM
Could this be used as an alternative ?
Permaculture discussion forum • View topic - Mollison's third world endless nitrogen fertilizer supply (http://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11246)

Seems pretty interesting but my extremely limited knowledge of chemistry still has me having trouble putting 2 and 2 together seeing as I thought an over abundance of macronutrients followed by the negligence or absence of micronutrients create low-quality food. Still it seems like its in the right direction.

Richard
08-01-2009, 11:21 AM
Could this be used as an alternative ?
Permaculture discussion forum • View topic - Mollison's third world endless nitrogen fertilizer supply (http://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11246)

To summarize the issue at hand:

The world food supply is dependent upon high concentration mineral fertilizers, with one of the main ingredients being potassium nitrate. The current yields obtained per acre in commercial agriculture depend upon applying significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and depending upon the location, other mineral nutrients including calcium, magnesium, zinc, copper, etc.
At the present rate of consumption, the current sources of these minerals will run out in 4 to 6 decades.
Switching to plant and biological sources for these minerals is very costly because (a) the concentrations are low and (b) the costs of refinement are very high
Using plant sources alone is not viable because we would strip the planet of vegetation in short order
Recapturing the nutrients from sewage is viable because (a) the refinement costs are acceptable and (b) it is a steady supply.

capthof
08-01-2009, 01:49 PM
I vote for the sewer supply because I'm already in that business.
I have seen first hand how fast plants can grow in sewer sludge alone, although the health departments frown anytime a little residual waste hits the ground, the truth is, it is great fertilizer. A friend of mine saved tens of thousands of dollars every year using "cake" from the local sewer plants on his cattle ranch until they stopped him from spreading. But the truth be known; Follow the Dollar, every one wants a hand in it. Hahaha! The DEP wants to regulate it, the fertilizer companies see it as a renewable resource, I see it as a job opportunity.

supermario
08-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Look at what's in the news today!

http://home.aol.com/gardening/lawns/lead-found-in-white-house-veggie-garden?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl3|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fhome.aol.com%2Fgardening%2Flawns%2Fl ead-found-in-white-house-veggie-garden

Richard
08-01-2009, 02:58 PM
What the article (Lead in White House Veggie Garden (http://home.aol.com/gardening/lawns/l%20ead-found-in-white-house-veggie-garden)) states is very true. It is also true that chemically refined sewage can have negligible heavy metal content -- excepting what's playing on the engineer's iPod. It all depends on the manufacturer.

sbl
08-01-2009, 03:25 PM
I'm a little late joining this discussion, but if I remember correctly, when you do a worldwide balance of known sources of fixed N, fixation by plants (i.e. legumes) accounts for a very significant percentage--40% seems to be the ballpark I am remembering. I think that is about the same as the percentage that is man-made. There is also a significant amount of fixed N created in thunderstorms by heat and electricity-- similar to the process used to make man-made fertilizer.

sbl
08-01-2009, 03:38 PM
I did some searching on the web and found this slide show of the Global N budget and all the problems associated with it--It is pretty good.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/environment/seniorsem03/N-senior_sem_presntn.pdf

OrganicBananac
08-10-2009, 02:54 PM
Was having lunch at a Ghengis Grill the other day and had a talk about blood letting. Seems in times of little or no food, for energy the warriors of Ghengis Khan would cut into a vein on their animal for some blood to provide nourishment. Sounds painful, but this does not negatively affect the animal, much like blood banks do not harm humans in collecting blood. The subject was, on a large farm with a quite large population of animals (we will use cattle as our example), by rotating the blood letting thru the whole population, a rather large amount of blood could be collected. This blood could then be dried and used a blood meal, a VERY strong nitrogen source. The beauty is, the supply of nitrogen will not be depleted. You are collecting small amounts(well, relatively small), but doing this TONS of times. By the time the first animal is ready for the second "letting", enough time will have passed that the blood is completely replaced and the animal is ready again.
Basically by using the population on the farm, you are creating a nitrogen source that is free and replenishable.
Has anyone ever heard of this type of technique being used? Seems feasible.

Richard
08-10-2009, 03:05 PM
Since this thread is about commercial agricultural fertilizer supply, it is worth looking at commercial supply sources for blood meal. At present, it is collected from slaughter houses. It does meet all the requirements for certified organic farming, however some organic farming organizations reject it because of the synthetic animal hormone and antibiotic content in the farm animals' blood.

Blood meal is usually 10% available nitrogen. Since mineral sources are typically double that concentration, if blood meal were used as a sole replacement for mineral sources we would need double the present annual tonnage of minerals. I do not know the present annual tonnage of blood meal production, but it is certainly interesting to pursue.

OrganicBananac
08-10-2009, 03:13 PM
This idea is strictly for "living soil" operating farms with large populations of animals. Hence, what is on the farm, would never leave the farm and contribute to one less item that requires outside sources. The majority of farms operating in this sense already are opposed to rBGH and antibiotics, LUCKILY!

Just a reminder, in a living soil system, the value of NPK is of very little value. Nutrient cycling is the endless rollercoaster of availability which provides what the plants need, when the plants need it. This is the work that we as humans can not do and must do our best to not "kill" the soil which holds all our wonderful workers, the soil food web.

Richard
08-10-2009, 05:11 PM
This idea is strictly for "living soil" operating farms with large populations of animals. Hence, what is on the farm, would never leave the farm and contribute to one less item that requires outside sources. The majority of farms operating in this sense already are opposed to rBGH and antibiotics, LUCKILY!

Just a reminder, this thread is about the future of fertilizer for sustaining the current worldwide commercial agricultural output. As noted in posts below, the scenario you mention cannot be scaled to that level of output.

turtile
08-10-2009, 06:22 PM
Basically by using the population on the farm, you are creating a nitrogen source that is free and replenishable.
Has anyone ever heard of this type of technique being used? Seems feasible.

The nitrogen came from what the animal ate. It is not free.


This idea is strictly for "living soil" operating farms with large populations of animals. Hence, what is on the farm, would never leave the farm and contribute to one less item that requires outside sources. The majority of farms operating in this sense already are opposed to rBGH and antibiotics, LUCKILY!

Just a reminder, in a living soil system, the value of NPK is of very little value. Nutrient cycling is the endless rollercoaster of availability which provides what the plants need, when the plants need it. This is the work that we as humans can not do and must do our best to not "kill" the soil which holds all our wonderful workers, the soil food web.

Are you saying that the animals will never leave the farm? If you remove an animal, you remove the nutrients. They will not be replenished.

sbl
08-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Some people seem to have the idea that "chemical" fertilizers kill soil bacteria--nothing could be farther from the truth--bacteria need N, P and K as well as trace mineral just like plants though in different ratios.

During the cleanup of the Valdeze oil spill, scientist harnessed the power of bacteria to eat crude oil simply by spraying fertilizer on the oily rocks. Bacteria normally do not eat oil because it has no nutrients (N,P &K)--bacteria get their energy from doing the exact opposite of plants--converting organic carbon back to carbon dioxide, but they have to have Nutrients to grow and divide--by adding fertilizer to the oily rocks bacteria had everything they needed--organic carbon for energy and Nutrients for growth--a few weeks later the rocks were white where the fertilizer was sprayed--black and oily where it was not sprayed.

Soil works the same way--bacteria in soil will consume left over organic matter for energy, but in many cases cannot do that because there is no nutrient for growth. The downside of adding fertilizer is that it does help bacteria grow and consume the organic matter--then they die because there is no more food for energy--that is what leads to soil compaction.

You can see this wherever you have a soil profile like a new cut bank on the side of the road--ever notice the layers in a bank where soil has been deposited by erosion--there should be tons of organic matter--leaves and tree roots burried over time--, but unless the bank was a wetland where oxygen was excluded, bacteria over time will consume all of the organic matter as small amounts of nutrients are carried down by water--nutrients needed to consume low nutrient organic matter and convert it back to CO2.

Adding organic matter to the soil help improve the condition of the soil, the aeration, drainage ect, unfortunately adding fertilizer will help bacteria remove that organic matter, but it will still help plant growth.

OrganicBananac
08-10-2009, 09:45 PM
As noted (now),
Even at current rate of production, well over a billion people in the world are hungry, and America is obese. ;) Moving on...
Richard,
One small farm working in balance with nature can not solve the worlds hunger problem, but all farms working harmoniously with nature all over the world can .
Turtile,
I am saying when a cow's life ends, a new one should have already began.

Sbl,
Where do i begin...
Only a few bacteria, known as chemosynthesizers, derive their energy from sulfur,nitrogen,and iron. All other bacteria have to consume something containing carbon in order to get their energy for survival. Period.
Yes, as proven by science, chemical fertilizers(salts) DO kill bacteria, along with fungi,protozoa and nematodes. It sucks the water out of them, like salt on a slug.
The compaction in soil is caused by the destruction of the soil food web, it no longer has the network of life, the network "collapsed", if you will.

Richard
08-10-2009, 09:53 PM
Richard,
One small farm working in balance with nature can not solve the worlds hunger problem, but all farms working harmoniously with nature all over the world can .

Sorry, that's not true for the method you are advocating. As noted below, it would require 4 to 5 times the current square miles in production, and that multiple of additional water, too.

Other than that, I have nothing against the approach. If you wish to discuss it for the scenario of self-sufficient farming, please start a new thread.

OrganicBananac
08-10-2009, 10:14 PM
Mycorrhizal fungi can have a positive effect on yield and is just a piece of the puzzle in the soil food web. Evidence @ Mycorrhizal Applications - Nature's Good Fungi Increase Crop Yields (http://www.mycorrhizae.com/index.php?cid=303)

turtile
08-10-2009, 10:37 PM
I am saying when a cow's life ends, a new one should have already began.


Which makes nutrients appear in what way?

Mycorrhizal fungi can have a positive effect on yield and is just a piece of the puzzle in the soil food web. Evidence @ Mycorrhizal Applications - Nature's Good Fungi Increase Crop Yields (http://www.mycorrhizae.com/index.php?cid=303)

Of course mycorrhizae can help plants. Don't believe that it can increase yields like it says in that article. They are trying to sell mycorrhizae. Look elsewhere for facts.

Richard
08-11-2009, 01:04 AM
Mycorrhizal fungi can have a positive effect on yield and is just a piece of the puzzle in the soil food web.

True. It has been used in commercial agriculture (especially row crops) for decades. In California, I doubt that any commercial farm is without it.

sbl
08-11-2009, 07:05 AM
Sbl,
Where do i begin...
Only a few bacteria, known as chemosynthesizers, derive their energy from sulfur,nitrogen,and iron. All other bacteria have to consume something containing carbon in order to get their energy for survival. Period.
Yes, as proven by science, chemical fertilizers(salts) DO kill bacteria, along with fungi,protozoa and nematodes. It sucks the water out of them, like salt on a slug.
The compaction in soil is caused by the destruction of the soil food web, it no longer has the network of life, the network "collapsed", if you will.

Wow! you have found the solution! Add organic matter and then add chemical fertilizer to kill all the bacteria and the organic matter will last forever and prevent soil compaction! (not really!)

If you add both chemical fertilizer and organic matter (like I do) then why does the organic matter disappear if all the bacteria is killed. I add wheelbarrow loads of organic matter to my garden every year, if the chemical fertilizer killed all the bacteria, my garden should be over a foot deep in pure compost, but for some reason it is not.

I gather all of the organic matter from my home as well as that of my neighbor (pine straw, oak leaves, grass clippings) and apply it to a very small portion of my yard (the garden and a few bananas and shrubs). My small garden grows great in soil that would otherwise be almost pure sand (if you compare it to surrounding natural areas and my other neighbor that does nothing to his yard.

supermario
08-11-2009, 08:48 AM
The blood meal fertilizer idea would not work. It wouldn't work because you would need more water, more cows, more land, and more workers to go and prick the cows throughout their lives..You would need to purchase medical supplies and sanitation equipment..Apply for new permits..You would need to run a schedule and catalog each cow and when the blood was taken.. and much much more. Oh, and good luck with the PETA nuts when you explain you want to extract blood from cows throughout their lives and THEN send them to the slaughterhouse.

In summary, I don't think the future of fertilizer is blood meal, bone meal, and worm poop because it is not possible on a countrywide, much less worldwide scale. Orgainic farming is not cost friendly and this is reflected in the price you pay for organic goods. Organic produce is only an option for those who can afford it. There are starving people out there and BELIEVE ME, they won't be choosy about where the food comes from.

Richard
08-11-2009, 09:49 AM
Yes, as proven by science, chemical fertilizers(salts) DO kill bacteria, along with fungi,protozoa and nematodes. It sucks the water out of them, like salt on a slug.

Matt, you have over-generalized. What you say is true about a select group of mineral fertilizers, but not the majority of water-solubles. The casual reader should also note that the composition of table salt is very different from buffered, acidic salts with chelated micronutrients and active biology used in several brands of agricultural water solubles.
:lurk:

permaculturekidd
08-11-2009, 10:09 AM
I don't understand the dicotomy here; its like some are completely against "organic" of any kind and some are anti-fertilizer without any real middle ground (which for me makes me want to shift my position to fill that space)

I do believe that a compost/mulch/manure/covercrop system of doing things is healthiest for the soil; if the crop starts to seem to lag and I needed to feed large amounts of people I would devulge and feed the plants instead of feeding soil for a bigger harvest.


I am not about 50/50, 75/25, or even 90/10 when it comes to using "organic" fertilizers to "artificial" fertilizers; I'm just about giving one or two time boost doing the season if for whatever reason a crop could be in jepardy of failing. (Again this is a scenerio of feeding dozens or hundreds of people in a non-tree crop situation)

Richard
08-11-2009, 10:19 AM
I don't understand the dicotomy here; its like some are completely against "organic" of any kind ...

The rejection is with the term, not the approach. "Organic" is so ambiguous it is vacuous.

... I'm just about giving one or two time boost doing the season if for whatever reason a crop could be in jeopardy of failing.

Commercially, row crops are fertilized through the irrigation system with a quantity equivalent to a one time application, or simply a one-time application via foliar spray:

http://www.growmore.com/photos/plane.gif

sbl
08-11-2009, 11:05 AM
I don't understand the dicotomy here; its like some are completely against "organic" of any kind and some are anti-fertilizer without any real middle ground (which for me makes me want to shift my position to fill that space)

I do believe that a compost/mulch/manure/covercrop system of doing things is healthiest for the soil; if the crop starts to seem to lag and I needed to feed large amounts of people I would devulge and feed the plants instead of feeding soil for a bigger harvest.


I am not about 50/50, 75/25, or even 90/10 when it comes to using "organic" fertilizers to "artificial" fertilizers; I'm just about giving one or two time boost doing the season if for whatever reason a crop could be in jepardy of failing. (Again this is a scenerio of feeding dozens or hundreds of people in a non-tree crop situation)

I think there are several here that have advocated both (use of organic materials and commercial fertilizers)--that is the best system--there are a few here that seem to think that anything other than "organic" is unhealthy or bad for the environment--that is just not so.

The use of commercial fertilizers alone in a crop field with no attention to soil building (winter or cover crops plowed in for tonnage) will result in a diminished capicity of the land to support crops because it will deplete the organic matter by enhancing microbial degredation of the crop residue and organic matter in the soil.

There are many types of bacteria and fungi in soil, some will dominate when nutrients are low, others will dominate and grow faster when nutrients are higher--the same goes for many other factors--pH, ionic strength, and presence or lack of various minerals.

OrganicBananac
08-11-2009, 01:04 PM
You chemical advocates seem to forget that your soils have little holding capacity, because your nutrients, or minerals or whatever you wish to label them as, are soluble in water... THEY WASH AWAY. Which is also why they (chems) are horrible for the ecosystem, that water ALWAYS goes somewhere. The reason organic matter "seems" to be disappearing is because after a lot of rain, the majority of the "nutes" are washed down yonder... a long with a LOT of organic matter. Now when all the soluble fertilizer is washed away, it is now a steril environment with the abscense of salts, so it CAN allow microbial action to live and establish itself again. This consumes organic matter..... till another dose of those nutes(salts,concentrated minerals,ferts,miracle grow, etc. etc..) are thrown down, because, the prior nutrients were leached away. (See how this is a wasteful cycle...)

You may be asking yourself how steril ground was able to become populated again with microbial growth? This is easy, its due to the direct activity of nature, the simplest thing such as a bird landing in rich old growth forest soil who flies to your field will have just brought a whole load of bacteria and fungi on its feet. Activities like this contribute, but a major player in this "web" is actually produced by the plants themselves.
Key Point------>
The roots of plants actually produce a substance known as exudates, these exudates act as an attractant to bacteria and fungi, which come to feed on the exudates and dead roots that are sloughed off as the roots grow. (like skin cells shedding) Plants can specifically attract the type of microbial growth that is the most beneficial to that plant. Did you realize that many types of plants prefer soil that is more fungal, or more bacterial? It is determined by the plant and the plant has the ability to cater to its own desire. Amazing huh?

Sbl,
Do some research into what "nutrient cycling" is, you are on target with your last paragraph. This type of rollercoaster of change is what allows what is needed, to be provided to the plant, when the plant needs it.

Richard,
Based on scientific research, I am correct. Did you know that chloramine in tap water can have a GIANT negative effect on the microbial population? BTW, a salt is a salt (we are not talking chemical compounds making "salt"). It is the osmotic action of salt that pulls water out, like the slug example, that is detrimental to the microbial population.

Richard
08-11-2009, 02:08 PM
You chemical advocates seem to forget that your soils have little holding capacity, because your nutrients, or minerals or whatever you wish to label them as, are soluble in water...

Matt, please introduce yourself to the group by creating a thread here: Member Introductions, Social Announcements & Good Wishes - Bananas.org (http://www.bananas.org/f11/)

OrganicBananac
08-11-2009, 03:04 PM
Thanks, but no thanks. I am just fine as is... carry on.

supermario
08-11-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't understand the dicotomy here; its like some are completely against "organic" of any kind and some are anti-fertilizer without any real middle ground (which for me makes me want to shift my position to fill that space)
I do believe that a compost/mulch/manure/covercrop system of doing things is healthiest for the soil; if the crop starts to seem to lag and I needed to feed large amounts of people I would devulge and feed the plants instead of feeding soil for a bigger harvest.
I am not about 50/50, 75/25, or even 90/10 when it comes to using "organic" fertilizers to "artificial" fertilizers; I'm just about giving one or two time boost doing the season if for whatever reason a crop could be in jepardy of failing. (Again this is a scenerio of feeding dozens or hundreds of people in a non-tree crop situation)

I've stated before that I do a combination of both, so I can't help but feel as though part of this comment is directed at me.

If you say you are right in the middle, then I am there with you. I like the fertilizer I buy because it is cheap and it does not have an "artificial" smell to it. As I stated earlier, the fertilizer company I purchase my fertilizer from claims it's product is 50/50, I simply trust they are telling the truth. It could be made from motor oil and corn syrup for all I know, but my plants have produced and grown VERY well, so I won't fix what isn't broken.
If my 20+ fruit trees were showing signs of decline, I'd look to other sources. As with everything I purchase, I look for the most I can get for the money. Example: I'd rather have a fully loaded chevy camaro than a bottom of the line mercedes benz. Of course, that is my personal opinon.

Now, I do grow veggies using nothing but home-made compost and water. Again, this is only because it is cost friendly for me since I am only producing on a tiny scale(enough for 2). The excess fruits are given away to family members or dried/canned for future use.

So, if I were to "label" myself in terms of how I garden..I'd say 50/50 simply because I purchase fertilizer (w/ chems?) for my trees, and homemade stuff for my veggies.

OrganicBananac
08-11-2009, 05:30 PM
:)

sbl
08-11-2009, 07:21 PM
If salt kills soil microbes, then we don't have any--mother nature supplies enough sea salt here to kill foilage on trees and corrode metal. But wait, maybe it is not the presence of salt but the concentration and the fact that salt get washed away by the more than 5 ft of rain we get each yr. Nothing last long in the soil in this environment.

In addition to bananas, and veggy gardens, I have citrus trees--use of mulch on my citrus trees killed several before I found out that the mulch was promoting fungus that killed the trees. Now I have a bumper crop on my citrus tree--since they have been fed only commercial fertilizer--once a month from Feb to Sept.

There are soil microbes that fix nitrogen (inside nodules of plants), but there are also microbes in soil that remove nitrogen (convert it back to N2)--these denitrifying bacteria use nitrate as a source of oxygen (electron acceptors) when soil oxygen is low--typically in organic muck soils.

There are also nitrogen fixing algae--the use of these algae were one of the techniques used centuries ago by European farmers as a source of fertilizer. However, the Haber-Bosch method generates fixed N much more easily and in a more portable form. Plants do not care whether the N came from soil microbes, algae or the Haber-Bosch process--they just need it in the form that they can use (like ammonia or nitrate).

BananaBoo
08-11-2009, 08:28 PM
Did you know that chloramine in tap water can have a GIANT negative effect on the microbial population?

Isn't that the reason we add it to the water in the first place? Ain't cause the stuff smells or tastes good.

BananaBoo
08-11-2009, 08:47 PM
... But wait, maybe it is not the presence of salt but the concentration ...

Perzactly.

Osmotic pressure (inverse of Water potential) AKA slug killing power, is determined by the molarity of the solution. In plain English -- how *many* ions/atoms of stuff is dissolved in the water. Doesn't matter one iota *what* stuff is dissolved in the water. (Ak-ing that ionic compounds provide 2 or more ions per molecule as compared to a covalent compound.)

Don't they do those semi-permeable membranes in middle school science anymore? Lotta people around here act like they slept through science class.

OK. Enough of middle school chem. Get enough religious wars on TV, don't need to watch any more here. I'm gone.

OrganicBananac
08-11-2009, 09:24 PM
Isn't that the reason we add it to the water in the first place? Ain't cause the stuff smells or tastes good.

You sir are correct. This is also the same reason it is not a good idea when dealing with microbes. Thank you.

sbl
08-11-2009, 09:42 PM
OK. Enough of middle school chem. Get enough religious wars on TV, don't need to watch any more here. I'm gone.

You're right--some people will never get it--I'm with you--gone.

Richard
08-11-2009, 11:43 PM
You chemical advocates seem to forget that your soils have little holding capacity, because your nutrients, or minerals or whatever you wish to label them as, are soluble in water... THEY WASH AWAY.

??? They are already dissolved in water. The plants absorb them directly. After 3 weeks there is no residual in the soil. Typical dosage is 100 parts per million.

Richard
08-12-2009, 12:09 AM
Lest it has been lost on newer readers ... this thread is about how the present food supply for the planet can be sustained if and when the present mineral sources are exhausted. Part of the problem is that the planet as a whole has become dependent upon high crop yields per acre made possible by the use of mineral-source fertilizers with chelated micronutrients and soil biotics. Since the amount of available farm land and irrigation water is also reaching its maximum, the needs cannot be met by using less nutrients and more land/water resources. The proposed solution by the fertilizer industry is to make municipal sewage systems their major source of minerals (currently it is a minor source). This is appealing because it captures the nutrients that were used to grow the plants in the first place.

Here is an example why "organic farming" is not viable for the scenario of the world food supply:
One of my colleagues (and client) is operates a small farming concern in the central valley of California. Among other things, he has a 2,000 acre plot of produce grown in a very healthy soil and supplemented with water-soluble fertilizers, plus an adjacent 5,000 acres of the same produce crop but grown according to California Certified Organic standards. On an annual basis, the 5,000 certified organic acreage produces almost half of what the mineral-fed 2,000 acres achieves. His certified organic results are considered exemplary -- especially since his "standard" acreage is some of the most efficient in the industry.
So as you can see, switching from mineral sources to methods and materials used in certified organic farming is not a solution for the current food demand, because 5 times the land and water is not available.

I would be interested to hear of alternatives to the proposed sewage retrieval method. However, please do some homework so that we can all see that it is a viable alternative.

supermario
08-12-2009, 05:46 AM
I've seen a post on another forum that states NPK values for kitchen scraps(coffee grinds, egg shells, citrus peels, banana peels, etc) According to that literature, There are huge amounts of potassium in the citrus and banana peels, calcium in egg shells, nitrogen in coffe grinds, etc etc.

This may be a silly question since I was one of the ones who slept through chemistry....but would it be possible to extract the necessary nutrients and process them into granular form? If so, I suppose the restaurant industry combined with responsible homeowners could provide the necessary amount of organic waste in a type of recycling program.

Sbl- Lucky you! Citrus are a headache to grow down here because of all the humidity. I had 7 citrus trees at one point, but am now down to 2 thanks to 'Citrus Greening'. FL is currently in danger of losing it's citrus industry! :(

Richard
08-12-2009, 08:27 AM
I've seen a post on another forum that states NPK values for kitchen scraps(coffee grinds, egg shells, citrus peels, banana peels, etc) According to that literature, There are huge amounts of potassium in the citrus and banana peels, calcium in egg shells, nitrogen in coffe grinds, etc etc.

For plant material, the highest percentage of nitrogen found is in Castor Bean Meal and Neem Seed Meal (5%), and the highest percentage of potassium is in Corn Cob and Banana Stalk (50%) -- provided these plants have been fed with significant amounts of these nutrients; i.e., minerals.

This may be a silly question since I was one of the ones who slept through chemistry....but would it be possible to extract the necessary nutrients and process them into granular form?

You need to dry them -- a compost pile works great. However, the density (weight per volume) is very low so large quantities are needed per plant to supply a significant amount of nutrients. Note that the coffee grounds you mention are very acidic: the number two plant problem brought into retail nurseries are potted plants killed with coffee grounds.

Also, I would not grow these plants for the purpose of generating nutrients for other plants, because you need to would need to feed them mineral-based fertilizers to obtain the desired percentages! It is far more cost effective and environmentally friendly to feed the target plants with responsible mineral-based fertilizers in the first place.

sbl
08-12-2009, 09:16 AM
Well, to get back to your point Richard, N is not a problem because we make N based fertilizer from air using the Haber-Bosch process. P may be somewhat of a problem in the long run, since it is mined but it is often way over applied--it does not disappear like N--it usually binds to soil and stays there. K is available in seawater--it is between 2 and 4 % of sea salt. K is also a major component of most rocks. Mg is also between 2 and 4% of sea salt. Other trace minerals Iron, copper, boron are not that liminted.

Richard
08-12-2009, 12:05 PM
Well, to get back to your point Richard, N is not a problem because we make N based fertilizer from air using the Haber-Bosch process. P may be somewhat of a problem in the long run, since it is mined but it is often way over applied--it does not disappear like N--it usually binds to soil and stays there. K is available in seawater--it is between 2 and 4 % of sea salt. K is also a major component of most rocks. Mg is also between 2 and 4% of sea salt. Other trace minerals Iron, copper, boron are not that limited.

About 1/3 of the N in water-solubles manufactured in the western U.S. is from air, the remaining 2/3 is currently from salt lakes in the west or South America. Nitrates "distilled" from sewage are a minor component here. However, the "big three" fertilizer companies are in negotiations with major municipalities because in terms of integrated toilet-to-tap water recycling programs the extraction of plant nutrients from sewage is the next best alternative. The least expensive form of potash here also comes from dry lakes and as a by-product of metals mined from cinder cones in the Great Basin (U.S.). As these sources diminish the "sewage source" is the next least expensive choice in terms of manufacturing.

The ornamental annual flower industry and consumers are the greatest abusers of phosphates. This may be coming to a rapid end (thank goodness) because this mineral is already in short supply. The wholesale price has tripled in the last year.

sbl
08-12-2009, 02:35 PM
The ornamental annual flower industry and consumers are the greatest abusers of phosphates. This may be coming to a rapid end (thank goodness) because this mineral is already in short supply. The wholesale price has tripled in the last year.

Interesting, maybe that is why Wmart started selling P free fertilizers--I thought it might have been a local environmental regulation to protect our local estuaries that are fed by N rich groundwater (about 10 mg/L). In any case removal of nutrients from sewage will be good for the environment.

supermario
08-12-2009, 02:56 PM
In any case removal of nutrients from sewage will be good for the environment.

I guess that depends on what company is manufacturing it.. Check out the article linked below..

What the article (Lead in White House Veggie Garden (http://home.aol.com/gardening/lawns/l%20ead-found-in-white-house-veggie-garden)) states is very true. It is also true that chemically refined sewage can have negligible heavy metal content -- excepting what's playing on the engineer's iPod. It all depends on the manufacturer.

sbl
08-12-2009, 03:14 PM
I was talking about removal of the nutrients from the sludge being good for the environment, not using the sludge--that contains many undesirable contaminants, including heavy metals, hormones, pharmaceuticals just to name a few.

OrganicBananac
08-12-2009, 11:17 PM
:goteam:Everyone having fun still?

adrift
08-13-2009, 06:04 PM
Interesting, maybe that is why Wmart started selling P free fertilizers--I thought it might have been a local environmental regulation to protect our local estuaries that are fed by N rich groundwater (about 10 mg/L). In any case removal of nutrients from sewage will be good for the environment.

I see you are in Florida. Indeed, Florida did pass some legislation greatly limiting the amount of phosphate in lawn fertilizer. (I believe it does not affect commercial Ag.) A handful of midwest states plus Maine have similar laws.

It may have passed in 2007 but went into effect this year. Or maybe it just passed this year after near-misses since 2007. Anyhow, it has been in the works for several years and did finally pass, but I can't find a link to the exact bill. Sorry.

Edit...this may help: http://indian.ifas.ufl.edu/PDF/2009/MG/New_Fert_Rules.pdf

adrift
08-13-2009, 06:53 PM
The ornamental annual flower industry and consumers are the greatest abusers of phosphates. This may be coming to a rapid end (thank goodness) because this mineral is already in short supply. The wholesale price has tripled in the last year.

Yup.

I live in the county that sits right in the middle of the Bone Valley Deposit, the deposit used to produce about 75% of the US supply and 25% of the world supply of phosphate. My county is the most heavily mined, but there are mines in the counties all around mine.

(We are also former #1 citrus producer in FL, home of Cypress Gardens, Bok Tower, and lots of garage meth labs. If you are in to water gardens, you may have heard the word "Slocum." The old Slocum store (and home?) was here too. It closed before I moved to town, and the building was torn down while I lived here. Remnants of the plants, ponds, and landscaping are still visible.)

Here is the executive summary:

Environmental issues (regulations, toxic spills) have caused some slowdowns in domestic phosphate production and pushed it to 3rd world countries and increased cost.

As the mines in this county get used up the mining moves south, but they are pushing up against the south county line (Hardee) and are getting resistance from communities down there to opening more mines. If they can get the permits, some supply will be opened up and prices may ease some. If they can't get permits, price will remain high or rise.

They expect the deposit to run out in 25 to 50 years.

When you need something to put you to sleep, read about my home:
Polk County, Florida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polk_County,_Florida)

A 5 part story:
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 1 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part1.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 2 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part2.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 3 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part3.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 4 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part4.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 5 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part5.htm)

sbl
08-13-2009, 09:21 PM
Yup.

I live in the county that sits right in the middle of the Bone Valley Deposit, the deposit used to produce about 75% of the US supply and 25% of the world supply of phosphate. My county is the most heavily mined, but there are mines in the counties all around mine.

(We are also former #1 citrus producer in FL, home of Cypress Gardens, Bok Tower, and lots of garage meth labs. If you are in to water gardens, you may have heard the word "Slocum." The old Slocum store (and home?) was here too. It closed before I moved to town, and the building was torn down while I lived here. Remnants of the plants, ponds, and landscaping are still visible.)

Here is the executive summary:

Environmental issues (regulations, toxic spills) have caused some slowdowns in domestic phosphate production and pushed it to 3rd world countries and increased cost.

As the mines in this county get used up the mining moves south, but they are pushing up against the south county line (Hardee) and are getting resistance from communities down there to opening more mines. If they can get the permits, some supply will be opened up and prices may ease some. If they can't get permits, price will remain high or rise.

They expect the deposit to run out in 25 to 50 years.

When you need something to put you to sleep, read about my home:
Polk County, Florida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polk_County,_Florida)

A 5 part story:
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 1 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part1.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 2 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part2.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 3 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part3.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 4 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part4.htm)
Sun - Florida: The State of Phosphate part 5 (http://www.sun-herald.com/phosphate/part5.htm)

I was a marine scientist before I retired and studied eutrophication in estuaries---it was a long held philosophy that P was the nutrient that caused eutrophication in freshwaters, but that N was the limiting nutrient in marine and esturaine waters. However, we eventually did test here and found that there was already so much N coming in thru groundwater that P was actually the limiting nutrient. I think P has been implicated in some of the eutrophication in South FL estuaries as well--comming from mine runoffs and leaching from deposits as well as runoff from sugar plantations.

Adrift, Thanks for the link--I'm glad to hear that FL has limited P input on lawns--it is basically not needed here.