From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduFri Mar 24 11:11:15 1995 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:24:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: re: soils for class presentation (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:27:59 EST From: WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: re: soils for class presentation You may wish to check out Vol. 7, No. 1-2 of American Journal of Alternative Agriculture (1992), which devoted a double issue to the subject of soil quality. This is closely related to what you inquired about. The issue has 10 articles by a distinguished international panel of authors, and addresses most aspects of the topic, including soil organisms (both microorganisms and invertebrates), physical and chemical soil characteristics, management effects, and so forth. William Lockeretz P.S. In the interest of full disclosure in this ethics-conscious era, to avoid apperanace of conflict-of-interest I should mention that I am technical editor of the journal that published that exhaustive, definitive and exceptionally well-done treatment of the subject. From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAFri Mar 24 11:20:02 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:57:06 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural Responding to Dick R. on the issue of composting. Just curious about the comment that it is better if composting occurs in the soil. Just finished an M.Sc. student doing a study on composting and we didn't come across this idea in the lit. I'd be interested in learning what it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil - as against ahead of time. Evidence from the literature? Conventional organic wisdom hereabouts sees placement of raw manure directly into the soil as a net negative, because of a) rapid release of N which destabilizes cycling, b) VFA's which can be caustic, and c) potential for anaerobic decomposition when high moisture substrate (whether animal manure or direct cut red clover) is plowed into the soil. As an example, they recommend cutting and wilting red clover plowdown before plowing it in, to avoid this problem. Good points on "waste" management at landfills! Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Mar 24 11:36:06 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:02:26 -0500 (EST) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Sanet List Subject: Soil Quality Ref. Here is a publication on Soil Qualtity, sorry if it duplicates a pervious post. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment SSSA Special Publication Number 35 ISBN 0-89118,807-X $32 from SSSA,ASA Headquarters Office Attn: Book Order Department 677 South Segoe Rd. Madison Wisconsin 53711-1086 From steved@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Mar 24 11:37:06 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 16:51:19 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Diver To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: HUMUS (fwd) Forwarded message: >From bigblue.oit.unc.edu!news Wed Mar 22 22:14:15 1995 To: sustag-public@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:05:00 +0600 >From: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly) Message-Id: <36.1697.1470@granite.mn.org> Organization: Granite City Connection St. Cloud MN 612-654-8372 Sender: london@sunsite.unc.edu References: <48782.hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> Subject: HUMUS Thomas Hansmeyer writes: References: <48782.hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> HH> This is a very interesting debate. In thinking about and discussing HH> soil quality, organic matter is usually mentioned within the HH> research circles. (stuff deleted) HH> I guess I am asking if the HH> Luebkes needed to import Carbon from other sources? Which gets into HH> further debate as to whether enough carbon exists within the current HH> system to allow all of agriculture to increase the OM to healthy HH> levels, 5% or so. Thomas, I operate under the assumption that native soil levels were much higher than the current averages, so that some of the atmospheric CO2 which stimulates the global warming debate was once in the form of soil carbon. It seems rather ludicrous to debate whether or not we "should" decrease atmospheric CO2 in order to increase soil humus levels. Many of the forgotten pages of debate over atmospheric warming deal with "carbon banks" such as the biosphere and humusphere as "sinks" which are capable of reducing global CO2. The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments HH> with the local village to use the carbon, in the form of organic HH> waste, as a cost effective amendment to their soil. Would all HH> farmers need to compete for these contracts, or could the carbon be HH> produced on-farm. If you are looking at the long term mass balance of available carbon such as residuals from the public sector, I am afraid that the volume of organic material landfilled, about one wet ton per capita, is inadequate for the demand of our acreages of soil needing organic matter. It is doubtful that even half of the landfilled organic waste can be recovered into a usable form without carrying with it all manner of pollutants and undesirable particulates. The composting process itself converts up to 1/3 of its volume into heat and CO2, so even 50 million tons of organic matter to be recovered annually is a liberal estimate. My numbers may be off, but it is my understanding that we have upwards of 350 million acres of farmland, so this represents about 1/7th of a ton per acre. Sustainable compost demand would be more in the 5 to 10 tons per acre annual range. To bring soil humus up to ambient, which I claim is a sustainable level, would require upwards of 200 tons per acre. This represents a "topsoil debt" as high as 7 trillion tons of compost. Focusing on recovering the wasted organic fraction which is thoughtlessly landfilled seems a reasonable place to begin development of a carbon management infrastructure in modern agriculture. This material is capable of being subsidized in the form of transportation, landfill and disposal fees whereas on-farm organics must pay their own way. I look at diverting urban organic matter from landfills to farms as an important first, and more than symbolic step toward increased interdependence between agricultural producers and consumers. But you are correct, Thomas, in pointing out that ultimately farms must eventually be responsible for their own carbon debt and annual carbon requirement. This may occur within various bio-regions where certain farms might become biomass cultivators capable of supplying the carbon requirements for farms within their region. But unless our mentality concerning renewable carbon gets some infusions of entepreneurism, the fossil carbon commodity infrastructure will continue to supply the chemical dependency addiction with few compunctions. I am intrigued by the discussion related to types of microbes and other means of determining the organic fertility of a soil. I would add to the discussion some questions concerning phosphorus limits which are increasingly becoming an environmental driver (revenue source) related to non point water pollution. The synergistic interactions of a healthy soil ecosystem including microbes, fungi, earthworms, and the various other organisms which thrive in a healthy humusphere may have values related to soil tilth, water holding capacity, pH buffering, nutrient availability, and cost of tillage. Unknown or currently unquantified values such as growth hormones, pheromes, anti-biotics, disease suppression, and pest retardation may be unexpected but indicated assets resulting from humus rich environments. In summary, other values of humus such as water quality, energy, waste disposal, and atmospheric warming might increasingly become economic levers in which to wean agriculture from the dependency on fossil carbon and help make the transition to renewable carbon based farming. To me, the focus on renewable carbon should be at the heart of the sustainable agriculture debate. Mr Compost~~~ Jim~ McNelly jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org * RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil? ------------------============<>=============----------------- Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly) ------------------============<>=============----------------- From fmagdoff@moose.uvm.eduFri Mar 24 11:45:09 1995 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 06:58:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Frederick R. Magdoff" To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural Ann, The issue of composting vs. adding directly to the soil is an interesting one and there is at least one article that discusses some of the chemical differences (Chromec, FW, and FR Magdoff. 1984. Alternative methods for using organic materials: Composting vs. adding directly to soil. J. Environ. Sci. and Health 19:697-711). However, it is an area that could use some more work. FRED Fred Magdoff tel:802-656-0472 fax:802-656-4656 From hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.eduFri Mar 24 11:46:07 1995 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 10:02:18 CST From: Thomas Hansmeyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: HUMUS (fwd) I operate under the assumption that native soil levels were much higher than the current averages, so that some of the atmospheric CO2 which stimulates the global warming debate was once in the form of soil carbon. It seems rather ludicrous to debate whether or not we "should" decrease atmospheric CO2 in order to increase soil humus levels. Many of the forgotten pages of debate over atmospheric warming deal with "carbon banks" such as the biosphere and humusphere as "sinks" which are capable of reducing global CO2. My concerns were not directly related to the benefit or detriment of placing more atmospheric carbon into the "humusphere/soil". In fact, I think the majority would agree that to remove carbon from the atmosphere, banking it in the soil, would only benefit all cylces involved. My main concern is to assert that one could build soil organic carbon by 13% in 10 years without importing carbon from an off-farm source. I am totally in agreement that those off-farm sources of carbon should be cycled back through the soil. The merits of the Luebke soil management system was partially based on their ability to increase organic matter. I felt that more information was needed regarding the source of their carbon and scale of operation. To increase the soil organic matter of 200 acres by promoting soil life and crop rotation is much different than a heavily managed garden. The Thompsons from Iowa have made arrangments HH> with the local village to use the carbon, in the form of organic HH> waste, as a cost effective amendment to their soil. Would all HH> farmers need to compete for these contracts, or could the carbon be HH> produced on-farm. If you are looking at the long term mass balance of available carbon such as residuals from the public sector, I am afraid that the volume of organic material landfilled, about one wet ton per capita, is inadequate for the demand of our acreages of soil needing organic matter. It is doubtful that even half of the landfilled organic waste can be recovered into a usable form without carrying with it all manner of pollutants and undesirable particulates. The composting process itself converts up to 1/3 of its volume into heat and CO2, so even 50 million tons of organic matter to be recovered annually is a liberal estimate. My numbers may be off, but it is my understanding that we have upwards of 350 million acres of farmland, so this represents about 1/7th of a ton per acre. Sustainable compost demand would be more in the 5 to 10 tons per acre annual range. To bring soil humus up to ambient, which I claim is a sustainable level, would require upwards of 200 tons per acre. This represents a "topsoil debt" as high as 7 trillion tons of compost. Focusing on recovering the wasted organic fraction which is thoughtlessly landfilled seems a reasonable place to begin development of a carbon management infrastructure in modern agriculture. This material is capable of being subsidized in the form of transportation, landfill and disposal fees whereas on-farm organics must pay their own way. I look at diverting urban organic matter from landfills to farms as an important first, and more than symbolic step toward increased interdependence between agricultural producers and consumers. But you are correct, Thomas, in pointing out that ultimately farms must eventually be responsible for their own carbon debt and annual carbon requirement. This may occur within various bio-regions where certain farms might become biomass cultivators capable of supplying the carbon requirements for farms within their region. But unless our mentality concerning renewable carbon gets some infusions of entepreneurism, the fossil carbon commodity infrastructure will continue to supply the chemical dependency addiction with few compunctions. I am intrigued by the discussion related to types of microbes and other means of determining the organic fertility of a soil. I would add to the discussion some questions concerning phosphorus limits which are increasingly becoming an environmental driver (revenue source) related to non point water pollution. The synergistic interactions of a healthy soil ecosystem including microbes, fungi, earthworms, and the various other organisms which thrive in a healthy humusphere may have values related to soil tilth, water holding capacity, pH buffering, nutrient availability, and cost of tillage. Unknown or currently unquantified values such as growth hormones, pheromes, anti-biotics, disease suppression, and pest retardation may be unexpected but indicated assets resulting from humus rich environments. In summary, other values of humus such as water quality, energy, waste disposal, and atmospheric warming might increasingly become economic levers in which to wean agriculture from the dependency on fossil carbon and help make the transition to renewable carbon based farming. To me, the focus on renewable carbon should be at the heart of the sustainable agriculture debate. Mr Compost~~~ Jim~ McNelly jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org * RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil? ------------------============<>=============----------------- Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly) ------------------============<>=============----------------- ------ Forwarded message ends here ------ -- Thomas Hansmeyer St. Paul MN hansm001@maroon.tc.umn.edu From d.richardson@mail.utexas.eduFri Mar 24 20:59:23 1995 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 18:18:02 -0600 From: Dick Richardson To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural Ann, you pose the question: I'd be interested in learning what >it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil - > as against ahead of time. Evidence from the literature? The direction I'm speaking about in management of manure may be different in the "north country" where you're working. I'm referring to the role of dung beetles, earthworms, and such. The dung beetles can bury 6000 lbs fresh manure per acre per day, from the estimates of Walt Davis, a colleague in southern Oklahoma, when he begins managing his livestock to avoid poisoning the invertebrates in the soil -- grazing plans that break lifecycles of parasites without pesticides -- and the dung beetle populations build up as the soil temperature reaches 50 degrees F or thereabouts. There are no piles of manure after two days! The result is that the soil health and vegetation really jump, and toxicity is not found. We also tested raw sewage and the dung beetles went for it with great vigor, but the treated sewage (biosolids) was not palatable. This is no surprise, since the treatments required for "health reasons" are partly for reduction of smell and attraction of flies. For treatment of sewage, most of the proteins have been converted to ammonia, and the same loss holds for readily available carbon. Further, composting causes a net loss of organic matter that soil organisms can use, but the organisms have to be present in the soil in suitable numbers and have conditions favorable for matching their growth and utilization with the amounts of uncomposted materials applied. This requires good management, matching the supply with the demand, so to speak. If we look at the sewage as microbial and invertebrate food, and we are trying to increase these populations in the soil, then there surely will be some balances needed to avoid over-doing the application, which you pointed out. If we dump even good stuff on at the wrong time or in the wrong amounts, then we certainly can expect problems. The direct metering out by livestock as they are grazing helps stay "within the window". Bringing urban equivalents to the rural sites doesn't have such a built-in meter. In Austin we have had land applications of biosolids for several years, and other locations, such as near St. Paul, MN have injected biosolids before de-watering. It's been fine for corn and great for the land in general. However, it seems to me that the key is blending the return process of such resources into the needs of the soil organisms. In another recent post, Karen Grobe commented "... All farmland should not receive compost. Some farmland is used to produce cattle, and it would not be appropriate to use compost ... on grazing land." I would disagree to the point that sometimes compost (or biosolids) may be needed to "jump start" to get grazing land into a good state of health. The importance for the soil health may be less in terms of the production of "food" products than in the fact that it is watershed. If land managers are able to increase infiltration rates and water holding capacity sufficiently, we see springs return to perennial flows, and watertables high enough to maintain perennial vegetation (grasses and others) in healthy states even during drouth conditions. However, if properly managed, grazing land (pasture or rangeland) seems capable of improving and remaining healthy through the recycling of organic matter from the livestock alone. Certain minerals in certain soils, however, may be another matter. R. H. (Dick) Richardson Office: 512-471-4128 Zoology Dept. Home: 512-476-5131 Univ. of Texas FAX: 512-471-9651 Austin, TX 78712 From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CASat Mar 25 09:47:46 1995 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 03:30:57 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be Dick: thanks for your usual insightful response. I had heard about dung beetles etc. from Australia and the southern US, and I very clearly recall an undergrad field trip (this is from several centuries ago when I **was** an undergrad) at UC Davis to a tomato processing plant that was irrigating their wastewater onto a nearby hayfield which had been "seeded" with specific microbes to break down and clean up the water sufficiently for it to drain into municipal tiles. The notion that the soil can and should be managed to accept/process/cycle the "returns" from human ingestion is valid and appropriate. What I am not clear on is how doing this in situ, in the field, is more advantageous than doing it in a compost windrow on an organic dairy or beef farm. I am trying to recall a study reported by Herbert Koepf (biodynamic, German, most recently with the Michael Fields Institute) when he came up and spoke here several years ago. If recollection serves, the study involved the same quantity of manure, land applied in two ways - one as raw manure and the other after composting. Composting lost about half of the C and N, I think, prior to land application, which is typical. I don't recall for how many years this was done. But the take home message was the the soil was "healthier" - in various measured parameters - when the manure had been applied composted rather than raw. I think this included soil OM, but can't remember what all else, or when it was measured. Koepf's composted manure had, I think, been treated with a biodynamic preparation as well. I recall another most amazing study, Swedish I think, that tested the effect of the biodynamic preparation on composting and soil quality thereafter. It was an old paper, and unreplicated I think, but surprisingly to me, the biodynamic preparation did something distinctly different than other treatments. It was a soil study, and involved detailed measurements at multiple locations within unreplicated plots. The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil improving properties of livestock manure. As noted by one respondant in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research, because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the field. It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits outweigh the pre-application benefits. Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From benbrook@hillnet.comSat Mar 25 09:50:31 1995 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet Subject: Another Question re Soil Quality I must say I am impressed with the recent dialogue/exchanges re soil quality and am learning a lot. But to inspire you all to rise to the occassion of educating those of us trained in the less than relevant disciplines, I have a basic question. Is the amount of carbon in the world fixed? Do humans simple move it around by what they do with biomass and soils? How is carbon different from nitrogen? I would welcome some general discussion of carbon, supply-uses-balances-fluxes, and how these are impacted by agricultural management practices. I have been spending serious chunks of time in recent days writing re soil quality and its importance in protecting water quality and in assuring a sustainable, profitable, fulfilling future for American agriculture, and society as a whole. I need to understand carbon better to take my discussions to the next level. From d.richardson@mail.utexas.eduSat Mar 25 21:06:45 1995 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:13:25 -0600 From: Dick Richardson To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: yet more on composting - to be or not to be Ann, you've nailed the issue! > The upshot is that composting ahead of time - whether due to the >composting itself or the BD prep in some way - enhanced the soil >improving properties of livestock manure. As noted by one respondant >in this dialogue, this is an area that would seem to need research, >because as you originally noted, there are many logistical and >economic reasons to compost material **before** hauling it out to the >field. It would be worthwhile to determine if the in-situ benefits >outweigh the pre-application benefits. Ann I find that what I think is "healthy soil" is probably a long way from what "healthy" potentially can mean. Therefore, I claim at least 95% ignorance on what the advantages/disadvantages of composting are for general recommendations. the research is needed, for sure. Furthermore, in the meantime, just clear thinking, careful observations, and trial and error are the way's I'm TRYING to proceed. For my contexts, formal research is too resource demanding to try on these questions, so I'll join the cheering section for those who can do it. In my practice, I'm composting, and letting the cattle directly apply manure. I use the compost in the "bad spots" to the extent I have it. (VERY limited quantities are available to me at present, but I'm hoping to get the local towns to give me the chipped tree clippings rather than put them in the land fill. Chipping is too expensive if I have to pay for it.) I wonder if the feeding of antibiotics to livestock is related to the improvement seen in composting. This gives a chance for recovery of the microbial community if it has been modified by the antibiotics. R. H. (Dick) Richardson Office: 512-471-4128 Zoology Dept. Home: 512-476-5131 Univ. of Texas FAX: 512-471-9651 Austin, TX 78712 From jxl161@email.psu.eduMon Mar 27 21:34:37 1995 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:38:28 -0500 From: Jeannie Leggett To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Another Question re Soil Quality At 10:30 PM 3/24/95 -0800, Charles Benbrook wrote: >I have a basic question. Is the amount of carbon in the >world fixed? Do humans simple move it around by what they do with >biomass and soils? How is carbon different from nitrogen? > > I suggest that you read a basic book on soil microbiology, such as "Introduction to Soil Microbiology" by Martin Alexander. It has a chapter on the carbon cycle and a chapter on the nitrogen cycle, as well as an overview of the soil environment. It is basic enough to understand with little or no biology background. Good Luck. Jeannie Leggett 246 Agricultural Engineering Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 (814) 863-7710 FAX (814)863-1031 From iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk Wed Mar 29 23:15:02 EST 1995 Article: 5893 of alt.sustainable.agriculture Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-server.ncren.net!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!inet!iaotb From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch) Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural Date: 27 Mar 1995 18:31:10 GMT Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education. Lines: 36 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3l709e$t38@news.uni-c.dk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: inet.uni-c.dk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Dick Richardson (d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: : Composting is fine, and avoids lots of problems that have regulations tied : to them, but actually, it's even better if the composting occurs in the : soil. Lots of benefits are lost in having the composting first as a : "treatment" of the organic materials in order then to produce a soil : amendment. The microbes in the compost pile are also needed in the soil. The way of nature is composting on the topsoil (sheet composting). If you bring down compostable material in the soil, it may harm the soil, because the process could go anaerobic. The products from such a process (fermentation) are not good for a soil and are harmful to the crop. Remember that composting is strictly an aerobic process. I think that composting for agricultural purposes should be done in controlled piles, and the products spread on the topsoil. Sheet composting on the topsoil is allright, but inefficient. The microbes that are responsible for the composting process in a pile are not the same microbes, as those that inhabit the soil. I don't believe, that is a need or use for bringing special microbes to the soil. The soil breeds it's own microbes. Kind regards, Torsten Brinch -- ;'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; ; Torsten Brinch If you understand nothing but chemistry, ; ; iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk you do not really understand chemistry. ; ; 6640, Ferup, Denmark G.C. Lichtenberg (1742-1799) ; :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;