From: Elaine Ingham (Soilfoodweb@AOL.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 17:05:10 EST
Hi Joel -
I appreciate that you recognize that the factsheet was flawed in some of the
statements made. It increases my respect for you that you have the courage
to point out that certain parts of a publication should not have been
supported. Good on ya', mate!
But, I disagree about your attitude relative to humic and fulvic acids.
In the world of trying to get ecologically sound practices to work and make
money for growers, growers need sources of organic matter that help the
beneficial organisms to grow.
As PRACTICALLY defined, in the world of commercial enterprise, humic acids
are higher molecular weight materials, fulvics slightly lower molecular
weight materials (see Horizon Ag website, or Tera Vita website, for example).
These materials are extracted from leonardite, but are no longer extracted
using harsh acid-base reflux methods, at least not in most cases. To
suggest that the academic world no longer recognizes humic acids as being of
importance, because we no longer extract humics using that old technology,
might surprise the International Humic Substances Society.
In the world of agriculture as it is actually practiced by most growers,
humics and fulvics are of a great deal of interest, because they are
recalcitrant organic matter that these growers can BUY and ADD to their
soils. These materials are food resources for very beneficial organisms in
soil. Humic and fulvic materials hold nutrients firmly bound in their
structure, and these nutrients can become available to plants IF the right
biology is present to do the cycling work for the plant.
There are numerous studies where very noticiable improvements in plant
production have been documented (see the websites noted above as just a
couple of them many examples), following addition of these food resources IF
THE BIOLOGY IS PRESENT. If the proper biology is not present, addition of
humics and fulvics often show no benefit. Explanation for why things "don't
work" is often because some portion of the foodweb is not present, or is
un-balanced.
If academics don't wish to call these materials humic or fulvic acid, then
come up with a name that is accepted industry wide. I don't really care what
you want to call these very recalcitrant materials, but the fact is that we
need them to feed the biology we need in soil.
When you thank me for finally recognizing that there is a gradient of oxygen
concentrations in soil, you might go and read the Compost Tea Brewing Manual,
first published in 1999, where I discuss the fact that this gradient exists.
I discuss why it is important to have the diversity of organisms and food
resources that are produced when microsites are anaerobic, but the outside of
the aggregates are aerobic. I also discuss why this diversity is important
in making really good compost, or soil.
This concept was certainly not original with myself, and should probably be
ascribed to Edith Balfour. If people would care to go back into the compost
or soil literature, none of the concepts we discuss are original to anyone
alive today. The only "original" work any of us can claim is the fine-tuning
of the mechanisms for why those observed interactions work the way they do.
At Soil Foodweb Inc., we document the mechanisms for why organic matter,
different organisms, soil structure, litter decomposition, root depth, etc.
are important for plant growth.
Nothing all that new uder the sun, just figuring out WHY and HOW things work.
If you can figure out how things work in one soil, then we can transfer that
knowledge, and get things to work must faster, and more effectively, in
another place.
Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
www.soilfoodweb.com
SFI Oregon, USA
SFI Australia
SFI New York
SFI Europe
SFI New Zealand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 15:26:37 EDT