[ Post a Response | Close Window | Print ]

A stupid question about fertilizers.
Posted by Jerry Hicks at 2015-05-18 05:46:09
I have what may constitute a stupid question. I have been farming organically ever since I bought my place and before that never really used chemical fertilizers more than was needed. Now, my question is what is really wrong with chemical fertilizers? Is it the higher rating of nitrogen that burns out the organic matter and the "good" critters in the soil or is it something else? I would think that a molecule of nitrogen, or phosphorus or potassium is the same at it's most basic atomic value, but I'm not a chemist. Where I'm really going with this, is that I found a recipe in an old farm book to make "artificial manure" by mixing a certain amount of N-P-K fertilizer with saw dust and allowing it to compost for a certain period of time before spreading. I have access to tons of free saw dust, and I have plenty of time to let it work, and I have plenty of poor soil that could benefit from the OM as well as the chemical amendments. But is there something more in the chemical makeup of the fertilizers that I'm missing?
Response by Vince Mautino at 2015-05-18 09:27:16
I won't attempt to answer that, but it is the same with all these organic growers or consumers that critisize chemical use and yet eat "Organic" grown food that is grown in the SE Asia regions that use human feces fro fertilizers
Response by Geoff at 2015-05-18 10:31:39
One of the primary concerns is in what molecular form is the N supplied? Ammonium, as in ammonium sulfate or nitrate, or anhydrous ammonia, releases hydrogen ions/atoms when it is broken down by bacteria and make the N available to be converted into nitrite/nitrate to be used by the plant. Additional H can cause the soil pH to drop (depends a lot on the ability of a given soil to 'buffer' ----- tie up those added H atoms). As you're probably aware, lower pH's can negatively impact availability of other nutrients in the soil.
Response by Neal in Iowa at 2015-05-18 10:48:10
Jerry,

Anhydrous ammonia (N) is hard on living organisms. Many farmers use liquid nitrogen to maintain the earthworms.

Some of the granular forms of fertilizers have a low salt content that may or may not be an issue.

The referenced sawdust compost uses the NPK to 1) speed the process (the N especially) and to balance the compost for P and K. Sawdust will eventually compost without the added fertilizer, but it will take a long time. Manure could be used to help compost it just as the prepared fertilizer. Compost works best when the carbon:nitrogen ratio is about 25:1 to 30:1. Lower ratios risk losing the N and higher ratios take a long time to work as the bacteria need the N to multiply.

The sawdust recipe is a reasonably way to add organic matter if you don't have enough manure or green manure crop.

So other than anhydrous ammonia, the only real downside to commercial fertilizer is the cost. If you are certified organic, make sure that whatever you do meets with the certification rules.

Have you limed the poorer soils to the proper pH for optimal vegetation growth? pH affects nutrient availability and organic matter potential increase.

Neal
Response by NoraWI at 2015-05-18 10:59:14
I used to work for a mining company that also made fertilizers. And I know they would tell you that the ingredients in fertilizer are basically all one needs to improve soils. BUT... I would say that what's wrong with pure chemical fertilizers is the lack of live organisms. It is dead fertilizer. Your old timey recipe sounds doable because it is composted. I assume that the mixture would benefit greatly with the addition of a certain amount of manure for the bacteria that would bring to it.
Response by Jasper at 2015-05-18 11:35:33
Jerry, It was a common practice in my neck of the woods to rake up big piles of leaves, pinestraw, and "surf".....which was a local term for the layer of decayed material in the woods...after is was piled up....it was mixed with something called "acid phospate"....and left to rot down.....They used it for baccer fertilizer.
As to what's wrong with chemical fertilzer.....biggest thing is the price....the same stuff that was $200 a ton is hitiing $700 now...Next thing is that most folks don't really understand how to use it........they put to much, wrong time, and don't realize if a little is good....that alot more might not be..........and the most important thing is that plants are like people in that for the most part they use natural food easier and better than synthesized food.....and a bag of 3-9-9 while it supplies nutrients it don't really "build" the soil a bit
Response by Dale Wagner at 2015-05-18 13:26:59
I'd sure try it. The N feeds the microflora so they can breack down the cellulose. After it composts, it should be the same as organic. Mix some manure in with to it get started.
We used shavings for bedding, and it broke down fast and didn't tie up N.
Response by S D Mannies at 2015-05-18 21:15:18
I have often wonder the same thing about the fertilizer . sawdust would have a lot of acid in it, maybe alright after it has completely decomposed, not sure.
Response by kevin fort causeway at 2015-05-18 22:43:18
Chemical fertilizers are as a generality petroleum, salt based. They provide quick plant growth, but don't enable long term soil fertility. I came across this "pros and cons of chemical fertilizer" on Todays Homeowner website, so will share,

Chemical Fertilizers

Chemical fertilizers (also called inorganic, synthetic, artificial, or manufactured) have been refined to extract nutrients and bind them in specific ratios with other chemical fillers. These products may be made from petroleum products, rocks, or even organic sources. Some of the chemicals may be naturally occurring, but the difference is that the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are refined to their pure state and stripped of substances that control their availability and breakdown, which rarely occurs in nature.

Advantages of Chemical Fertilizer:

Since nutrients are available to the plants immediately, improvement occurs in days.
They are highly analyzed to produce the exact ratio of nutrients desired.
Standardized labeling makes ratios and chemical sources easy to understand.
They’re inexpensive.

Disadvantages of Chemical Fertilizer:

Chemical fertilizers are primarily made from nonrenewable sources, including fossil fuels.
They grow plants but do nothing to sustain the soil. The fillers do not promote life or soil health, and even packages labeled “complete” do not include the decaying matter necessary to improve soil structure. In fact, chemical fertilizers don’t replace many trace elements that are gradually depleted by repeated crop plantings, resulting in long-term damage to the soil.
Because the nutrients are readily available, there is a danger of over fertilization. This not only can kill plants but upset the entire ecosystem.
Chemical fertilizers tend to leach, or filter away from the plants, requiring additional applications.
Repeated applications may result in a toxic buildup of chemicals such as arsenic, cadmium, and uranium in the soil. These toxic chemicals can eventually make their way into your fruits and vegetables.
Long-term use of chemical fertilizer can change the soil pH, upset beneficial microbial ecosystems, increase pests, and even contribute to the release of greenhouse gases.
Response by T Payne at 2015-05-19 05:32:37
My comment would have been most similar to Neal's.

If you have a way to mix the sawdust with other started or fully composted material before spreading it, it will compost faster.

Hardwood shavings and dust will be easier on the ph than pine or spruce, we've noticed. But if/when the % organic content in the soil reaches 5% or higher the difference becomes more marginal.

Consider the source and means of manufacture and delivery of chemical fertilizers to see if it fits with your ideas of the carbon footprint you want to leave. It's a fossil fuel intensive system.
Response by Jerry Hicks at 2015-05-19 05:52:12
I appreciate all the input! I wasn't thinking of putting the chemical compost on my organic ground. I have 50 acres that are certified organic and another 90 acres of grass that isn't, but I don't won't to get to out of bounds with it. It is bad need of organic matter. I figured the saw dust is my cheapest source but I don't have enough manure to compost it. I was thinking I could make this artificial manure and spread it on these grounds and the chemical fertilizers would break the sawdust down for me quick and give the soil the OM boost it needs. From what I've seen on the other soils, Lime,Phosphate, and OM are pretty much what the whole farm needs. I can grow alfalfa or clover really well, so I'm not too concerned about nitrogen, but getting the pH where it needs to be while building the OM up a bit is more what I'm after. The recipe I have is for mixing with straw but I figure I could sort out the math for the sawdust and still be ok. It calls for 45 parts (by weight) Ammonium Sulfate, 15 parts Superphosphate, 40 parts fine ground lime. This mix is used at the rate of 150 pounds per ton of dry straw. Or 100-125 pounds of 10-6-4 and 50 pound of lime, to a ton of straw. I got this from an old farm book that says it is a good way to build humus quickly in poor soils.
Response by NoraWI at 2015-05-19 08:39:06
Why not plant green manure for a season or two and till it in for the improvement you want? That won't compromise the organic certification you have or wish to have. May be cheaper, too.
Response by Jerry Hicks at 2015-05-19 09:51:58
Green manures or animal manure for that matter, would be better over the long term, but I can't afford to drop out the pasture to plow and turn under a crop. The land in question is not part of the organic operation. I have considered just filling the spreader with saw dust and given all these fields a light top dressing. It would, I think, bind up the nitrogen for the short term, but would boost the OM over the long term and release the captured nitrogen after composting. Mowing and feeding hay on these fields have done wonders but they need more and I just don't have it. The manure all goes to the tobacco and now the corn crop as well as the green manures in the rotation. I have access to a pretty much unlimited amount of free sawdust and am just trying to figure the best way to use it over a larger area. I already bed as much of my tie stalls and box stalls as I can with it. I figure the saw mills won't be around for ever and just a matter of time til the bedding companies tap into the supply for cash and shut me out, so sorta trying to make hay while the sun shines and get the biggest bang for my buck.
Response by Barb Lee at 2015-05-19 10:01:17
Jerry Hicks, I would suggest investing in some books by Gary Zimmer of Midwest Bio-Ag on "Biological Farming" or Neal Kinsey, "Hands On Agronomy". These books explain in plain language the answers to your questions. We've been applying "chemical" fertilizer in balanced measures for over a decade now and have the most robust hayfield in the area, complete with shovels full of earthworms every time you push in a spade. To much of anything, including manure, is toxic to the ground. You can even put salt on the soil with a healthy uptake by plants for the animals. Some chemical fertilizers are water soluble for direct uptake by plant roots, ignoring the soil biota. Other chemical fertilizers directly feed the microbes which then feed the plants. The above listed books lay it out pretty well.

Barb
Response by Barb Lee at 2015-05-19 10:11:40
Geoff, hydrogen is basically what's left after the calcium, magnesium and potassium are depleted from the clay. My understanding is that the negatively charged clay colloid in the soil has a certain number of "exchange sites", which attract and hold positively charged ions; calcium, magnesium, potassium, hydrogen.
When the nutritive ions calcium, magnesium, potassium are depleted in the soil, the weakly charged, non-nutritive hydrogen will simply occupy all the vacant exchange sites. Replenishing the soil with the much more strongly charged nutritive ions will "bump" the hydrogen off the clay particles. Hydrogen itself doesn't make the soil acid. The lack of the other ions does. Similarly, too much of any one of the ions may displace the other nutritive ions, causing symptoms of deficiency. Balance is key. When we take up a crop and remove it, those ions are being exchanged by healthy microbes with plant roots, for a bit of carbohydrate. The ions leave the soil in the crop, and must be replaced annually. Otherwise, the soil gradually fills back up with non-nutritive hydrogen, that sustains no organism, including soil microbes.
Response by Barb Lee at 2015-05-19 10:27:51
Jerry, NOTHING happens without adequate calcium. Including the return of soil biota and the building of organic matter. Calcium within the plant is basically the gate-keeper for uptake of all the other minerals. Start with a soil analysis from someone like Neal Kinsey or Gary Zimmer who understand how minerals affect all soil life and if you do nothing else, build your calcium and magnesium levels to optimum and in balance, not just SOME. It is not true that all chemical fertilizers harm the soil. It is just NOT TRUE. An excess of ANYTHING will harm the soil, including organic fertilizers. If you know what you are doing, you can apply chemical fertilizers that feed microbial life which then feed the plants. Sure, there are soluble fertilizers that go straight up the plant roots. But labeling all chemical fertilizers bad is just plain misinformed. Our hayfield rocks from annual applications of ONLY the fertilizers...read MINERALS...that are out of balance. It greens up earlier, gets thicker, needs to be topped three or four times before harvest, rebounds immediately, has fewer weeds without herbicides, yields heavily and MOST IMPORTANTLY, yields a nutritionally BALANCED,low carb hay for the horses. Someone actually had the nerve to tell me those results were random. Trying to fertilize soil without knowing what you're doing is a lot like trying to raise horses without knowing what you're doing. There are more TONS of soil life in the top six inches of soil than you could possibly ever stock with cattle. We need to stop treating it like dirt and grass. Soil fertility is an ART, it is not organic versus commercial. Get the books. Get informed. You will be glad you did.

Barb
Response by Vince Mautino at 2015-05-19 13:12:33
All very interesting but to claim all chemical fertilizers are bad is not accurate. The major portion of corn, wheat,soy bean, etc., that feed our nation is grown with chemical fertilizers. Probably more than 90%. Todays combines have the technology to collect data on the crop as it is being harvested and store it. This then,enables the farmer to precisely apply the correct amount, location, and type of fertilizer needed for each small patch of ground in a larger field using similar technology in the fertilizer applier.

The techniques previously mentioned may be adequate for a 50 acre plot , but in eastern Colorado at least, people are farming 10,000-15,000, acres with 3 family members. The one farm I know has been doing it for three generations and still grow bumper crops of wheat and corn.
Response by Charlie T at 2015-05-19 20:45:23
Don't forget the negative externalities when you consider the equation. Yes, the chemical fertilizers make your corn and wheat grow, but soil organic matter goes down when you repeatedly use chemical fertilizers. Soil with lower organic matter is more susceptible to erosion, dries out faster in a drought, and holds less moisture after a rain event. This leads to greater runoff, more flood events, and algae blooms in our waterways. Also, chemical fertilizers come from petroleum, which is not sustainable at the current rate of consumption. If you look at the whole equation and think of future generations and the other creatures on the earth, I think chemical fertilizers are a bad idea.
Response by Klaus Karbaumer at 2015-05-19 21:21:22
Vince addresses the size of the farms that are primarily run on chemical fertilizers. Apart from all the other consequences of applying chemical fertilizers one is that they make very large specialized farm operations possible, since of course if the money is available ( i.e. the farm has a banker who is willing to lend the required amount) , fertilizer can be bought in almost unlimited amounts whereas a truly organic farm which resembles more a closed system is dependent on manure from animals as well as green manure- both are usually tied to the size of the farm.
While astonishing harvests( and we discussed the negative consequences for prices previously) are possible with chemical fertilizers, it is also true that the application of chemical fertilizers necessitates the ever increasing multitude of pesticides with all the resulting problems.
By the way, it is a myth that we couldn't feed the world based on natural methods, but it is true that the present prevailing form of agriculture, highly mechanized with relatively few people running it couldn't do it without the mix of fertilizers and pesticides.
If I were you, Jerry, I wouldn't start a process that leads in that direction.
Response by Vince Mautino at 2015-05-20 09:00:27
People who use chemical fertilzers in these big family farms also turn their wheat stubble, soy bean stubble, beet tops and corn stubble back into the ground before planting. Usually no till methods of farming are used also Cattle are grazed on the corn stalks after harvest, which additionally puts even more organic products back in the ground. Dry land wheat ground is not planted every year an as it is let fallow every other year so moisture is collected in the stubble. So it is a in accurate to say these farms are not putting organic material back into the ground. Additionally it is inaccurate to say that producing chemical fertilizers from petro products is not sustainable. If you believe that, then the entire earth's population' transportation isn't sustainable and electric cars are not the answer because it takes petro products to generate the electricity to run them.

These people I mentioned have degrees in Agriculture and are probably more in tuned with what is required to keep the soil healthy than many. This isn't your grand parents farming methods where the soil is depleted like the southern plantations or the great dust storms of the thirties.

I think some of the comments here imply that these big farmers just till the land and spread fertilizers and pesticides all over with no thoughts of the consequences. Which is not the case. These folks have been farming this land since it was homesteaded. Just because someone wants to farm all organically, does not mean those who don't have little appreciation for the land.

Response by Barb Lee at 2015-05-20 09:02:15
Charlie T - Funny thing about organic matter. If you don't have the right balance of soil minerals, no matter where they come from, biological activity in the soil will be very low. You can pile on manure until you're blue in the face and your soil report will read tons of organic matter. You get the soil minerals right and BLAM! The "organic matter" will fall, because the bugs are turning it into HUMUS. In the early days of our re-mineralization program our soil ran a whopping 14% organic matter. TOO MUCH. It just sat in the soil and fermented. When the soil really began to cycle the HUMUS level stabilized around 4-6%. This is why soil fertility is an "art" more than a mechanical act of forcing plants to grow. Everybody's ground is different and chemical fertilizers have their place.

Barb
Response by Geoff at 2015-05-20 09:45:18
Organic matter is not a static measure as it is always being broken down into its component parts to be utilized by microbes or plants.

Jerry - have you measured the organic matter in those fields? With a pasture you might be surprised at the level.

For a good read on the history of fertilizers in agriculture, try a book called "The Alchemy of Air".
Response by Barb Lee at 2015-05-20 16:48:39
"it is also true that the application of chemical fertilizers necessitates the ever increasing multitude of pesticides with all the resulting problems."

I respectfully disagree Klaus. Your statement is only true if the application of chemical fertilizers is geared solely to production. Most chemical fertilizers, regardless of their source, are some form of ***mineral*** that both plants AND microbes require to sustain life. Calcium, Magnesium, Boron, Potassium, sulphur, phosphorus, copper, zinc, iron, manganese...all MINERALS and all chemical fertilizers are predominantly MINERALS. Potassium sulphate, Ammonium sulphate, mono-ammonium phosphate, ferrous sulphate, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide...chemical processing generally takes a mineral in locked-up form and converts it into an accessible form. If you use only NPK as a sole source of "balanced" fertilizer" yes, you will probably eventually kill the ground, in part because these products are applied excessively, and in part because all the other minerals are extracted from the soil and the microbes die because they have no food. You can apply your minerals as organic or commercial, but you can do damage with either one if you apply them willy-nilly. Chemical fertilizer is NOT a death-sentence. Quite the contrary - we apply "chemical fertilizer" annually according to the needs of the soil. We have ERADICATED the vast majority of weeds and encouraged thick, dense stands of grasses and forbs that were completely absent before our remineralization program began. Our grasses resist disease (like rust) better because they have ALL the minerals available to them, like copper, to enhance their immune systems. This is because we fertilize for balance in the soil as opposed to yield. Many times we apply organic materials without knowing how many "contaminants" they bring with them, meaning excesses of certain minerals - particularly potassium - and heavy metals, which come with nearly all phosphorus fertilizers, especially certain rock phosphates from particular sources. You can look at our field any time of year and see that it is more robust than any other on this leached mountain. But typically, even the guys that cut our hay and marvel at it, don't want to REALLY know what our "secret" is, even when they ask.

Barb
Response by Jerry Hicks at 2015-05-20 18:13:28
I have not measured the OM but would like to. I have just started seeing earth worms in my fields on the ridge tops, and that's after 11 years of rotational grazing and hauling manure. They had pretty much been burnt out with corn and atrazine before I bought the place. Clover and alfalfa both do well on my place and they really jump when I drop some OM on them. When I unroll round bales on these fields in the winter, you can track them in the summer by the clover strips. The place I plowed for corn hadn't been plowed before and the neighbors tell me that the previous owner always fed his cattle on that spot. The ground worked up black as could be and the plow practically sunk when I started plowing. I'd like to get more of my fields at least close to that but I don't have fifty years to feed cattle and wait. I am planning to start wintering my cattle in a feeding shed bedded on saw dust to get the extra manure there for spreading as well as to reduce pugging. I've been composting everything I can get my hands on, and plowing under green manure in the cultivated fields but now I'm wanting to build the pastures a little more.
Response by Klaus Karbaumer at 2015-05-20 22:30:50
It is alright to disagree with me, Barb. As much as I understood it, you used chemical fertilizers, in your case minerals to improve your pasture. That is totally different from using NPK to boost yields in a mono-cultural setting with little or no rotation of crops.
Vince, I have no doubt that a lot of even the biggest operations do their very best to minimize the negative effects of their way of farming , but these effects undoubtedly exist , aided and abetted by the application of chemicals as fertilizers and pesticides. I do not only deplore the degraded state of the natural environment which is the consequence of such farming ( loss of habitat, pollution of water of surface or ground all the way to the Gulf of Mexico/dead zone, deprivation of feeding grounds of pollinators etc.) , but also the detrimental effects on rural communities as such.
As to the sustainability , well it should be a warning sign that many these methods now have produced so-called super weeds, which are harder and harder to fight. The GMO are a direct consequence , and they are beginning to raise a lot of problems for farmers who have gone on this path.
Response by Vince Mautino at 2015-05-21 09:39:07
Klaus. These guys do rotate their crops. It isn't just corn or wheat every year. In the case of the families I know, their farm lands are leased from other families that can no longer farm because the owners got too old or?. If it wasn't for them ,the big conglomerates would buy that land up and it would become as you mentioned.

I think you are using too broad brush stroke or are not familiar with some of the more recent farming practices, or even the long time standing practices of the bigger farms that have been in the same family for a hundred years, or believe what all the ecco fanatics expound in the journals now days.

With the cost of fertilizers today, modern day farmers certainly are not over fertilizing.

As for loss of habitat, first in the irrigated circular pivot area, the corners of the square fields are not planted and left natural providing habitat for all sorts of wildlife. These corners are each 20-40 acres. Think about how much land that is when each pivot covers a quarter section of 160 acres and then figure that is 62 pivots in 10,000 acres if it is all irrigated. That would be anywhere from 1200 to 2500 acres of wildlife habitat. How many farms do you know that set aside that much land? The deer go into the corn circles and do not come out until it is harvested. Many farmers leave a few rows of corn or a few acres of wheat or milo standing for wildlife feed in the winter.

Pheasants, doves, geese, ducks feed in those fields during and after harvest. Also, many thousands of acres are in CRP which has been returned to natural grasslands. Additionally ,these farm lands are checker bordered with cattle ranches and no farming is done at all. The ranch where I use to hunt antelope is 47,000 acres. Presently, I hunt on about 100,000 acres. All of that is in about the same condition as it was when first homesteaded 100+ years ago. In the north where a lot of hay is raised on big ranches, elk herds of 400-500 feed on those hay fields in the winter or help themselves to the big hays stacks. These big ranches that raise thousands of tons of hay a year are the primary winter feeding grounds of the 280,000 head of elk that inhabit Colorado today.

Rural communities in eastern Colorado abound. Usually there is one about every twenty miles which was the traveling distances of west ward bound homesteaders. These communities hardly ever have a population of 500 people or so. Many times less.

Hope fully I have educated some that think all big farming is done by those evil conglomerates that move in, buy up the land and leave it barren in a few years.


Sorry to hijack the thread Jerry.
Response by Klaus Karbaumer at 2015-05-21 22:26:45
Jerry, a good book that I can recommend is " Eco-Farm" by Charles Walters. My objection to the purchase of chemical fertilizers is also based on the economics of a sustainable farm, which should minimize the purchase of inputs and optimize, not maximize the yields.
Vince, I have to admit what you describe sounds quite impressive. I have never been to Colorado and take my cues from the observations around here where big farms are still removing fence lines, cutting down timber around the edges and apply enough fertilizers and pesticides to create an environment which is unfriendly for example to bees( 42% of which as was recently reported disappeared between April 2014 and 2015).
What is being done in your area to assure that pollinators have enough food throughout the season? The existence of game for hunters is not enough proof for me that enough nature is left intact. As you know, large swaths of grain crops can be, if sprayed with pesticides, quite inhospitable for many animals, especially insects of all kinds.
Response by T Payne at 2015-05-22 06:41:23
The use of chemical fertilizers in conjunction with herbicide and pesticide on increasingly larger farm tracts where farming is done by increasingly fewer farmers to produce increasingly lower quality commodities while causing increasingly palpable damage to ecosystems, is a very disturbing trend, in my view.

Cargill & Monsanto have set and baited the trap for farmers and consumers alike, with a successful profit scheme that rewards them well, but leaves a lot of bodies behind.
Response by Vince Mautino at 2015-05-22 09:15:35
Klaus. I don't believe the people I know use any pesticides. The only way they could be applied successfully would be by air and I have never seen that done.
Typically bee keepers set out 10-20 hives close to fields and then remove them late fall. Research out here of bees if I recollect correctly has found a disease to be the culprit of bee decline, although I don't know enough about it to say.

It is a lot drier out here than the humid east and there isn't large concentrations of insects.
Response by Hard Paul at 2015-05-24 09:36:08
It has become common to disparage American agriculture while our mouths are full of economical food. If not started by the organic producers they sure jumped on the bandwagon in order to make their product look better. There will be more wildlife on a large place with fewer humans living there than a house and family every quarter mile. The problem is when people live in town there is a disconnect with ag allowing this demonizing of agriculture.
Response by kevin fort causeway at 2015-05-26 22:33:52
Paul, sure some townies go overboard, but a blantant statement they carry a demonization of agriculture is overboard in my opinion.

How about big ag proponents look at the facts, the problems they are proven to be propogating. Like,

The fact that Socialized agriculture is not true to American ideals. For instance, 660 million dollars of extra sugar sold by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 6 million dollars to subsidized ethanol companies last year. But my neighbours plant high input GMO beets again this year. I ask them why and one of the reasons is the chemicals they put on the field last year commit them to a given crop this calendar year. Wow. But they know they will get bailed out if sugar is low on the market.....
Another fact that big ag does not "feed the world" with its nutrient lacking corn gluten, enriched white sugar, beer barley, socialized ethanol products consistently grown in surplus of demand, again in contrast to American supply and demand real market ideals. My thought is big ag should Grow real food and seed and then you can say that you "feed the world" Until then it is a marketing LIE.
How about the Big Ag high input chemical fertilizer and pesticide systems which give the EPA excuse to make ridiculous water laws, because the big ag farmers refuse to diversify and rotate crops responsibly or take responsibility for what they send downstream. Muddy snowmelt enters my farm and leaves my farm crystal clear. The EPA has no reason to tread on me.
No this is not an organic producer induced problem. It is a lazy big farmer and multigeneration rancher problem. My opinion, they need to clean up their act and learn to love the land again, and grow products that consumers want to eat.

For me, organic makes great business sense, although I find it moderately ridiculous. But Our steers make 1100 pounds in 12 months with no inputs, forage only. Our certified organic lambs make 75 pound carcas weights in their birth year, on forage only. Although an immigrant, I feel it is paramount to do business with business; not the government, not the salebarn mafia, not the fertilizer or gmo corporations all who do not allow me consistent price points to work on. Because I have learned to farm properly, I do not need any of them and why would I waste money on their chemical fertilizers which are as volatile as the price points they carry.
Response by Don McvAvoy at 2015-05-27 08:16:51
Jerry; you are partly right. When you increase production the plants also use micro nutrients. Soil test and you can find out a lot. Check your PH also. Sulpher is a big deal here on soils that have blown 80 years ago. It looks like a lack of N. Corn also puts the most organic matter back as long as it's not harvested but only for grain. Cows grazing stalks speed up the decay.
Response by Bill Smith at 2015-05-28 07:30:15
Wow Kevin! Your 2015-05-26 22:33:52 post put a lot of my thoughts into words. Well done! I'm not a big "organic" guy since it's become a marketing term, but I don't buy the idea of big Ag/big Gov collusion being a great thing either. All things in moderation and follow the money!

FWIW- we've all seen or heard of the damage people can do with too much or the wrong chem fertilizers. But you can do the same or worse with "natural" fertilizers too. We have large dairys here that love their liquid manure. That stuff will grow corn on concrete, but put too much on, and some guys seem to lay it on like their frosting a cake, or at the wrong time and you wind up with a dead field and a mess.

All things in moderation. Old advice, good advice.
Response by Jerry Hicks at 2015-05-28 17:22:17
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I appreciate that everyone here is coming from different backgrounds and paradigms.I farm organically because I believe it is best for me. I want to know what is in the food I eat and I'm satisfied that what I raise is raised in a way that I am comfortable with it. That being said, if it weren't for the tobacco, it is likely I would not be certified organic. Not because I have any notions of doing anything against the program, but I fill in general I try to go above and beyond what is required. I have seen some pretty incredible changes in this farm since I have been here and in general I am pleased. It's mainly in this one 40 acre field that is in the back of the farm and has been over cropped for who knows how many years with corn and I don't believe anything has ever been put back. I scatter the manure from our rotational grazing, and do a fair job of keeping it clipped, and with that I have seen a pretty big response. When I first came to this farm that 40 acres allowed me to graze 35 animal units (an animal unit being a thousand pound of critter on the hoof, whether a single animal or a combination of cow/calf etc totaling 1000 lb)for about 5 days before rotating. 11 years later, I'm getting 18 days grazing and an average of 70 round bales. That has been a pretty good increase for having done nothing but rotate cattle, mow, scatter some manure piles, and unroll hay to feed. I suppose the soil test will be the next step and I kinda thought that would be a good idea at any rate.It does help to know where you are in order to know where you are going. I was trying to figure a way of quickly incorporating this saw dust and it seems like the best and safest way is going to be bed the feed shed with it and spread it the following year. I will read the suggested literature. I like reading and learning alternative methods, whether I use them or not. Vince, I believe you are fortunate to have the type farming neighbors you speak of. In my area I know far too many farmers who still think that if a little is good a lot must be better, and what folks don't know won't hurt them. And many of them won't eat what they grow.When I asked a local guy why he bought beef rather than butchered one, he told me because he knew what was in it, and that told me a lot. I helped a friend's Dad work his dairy for a few days while he was gone on vacation. When he got back someone asked me what I learned about dairying. I told them I saw enough to know I'd rather milk my own cow than drink milk from a store bought jug. So, maybe I know more about what kind of farming I don't want to do, than what I want to do. And I agree that maybe it's better to not go down the road of using the chemical fertilizers, even if only in small amounts. There is just so dang much to learn! But I guess if it was easy everybody would be doing it!? LOL
Response by Bill Smith at 2015-05-29 07:14:31
I have a new neighbor that is an "internet farmer". Anything he reads on the internet is gospel according to his way of thinking. Couldn't tell him that spring plowing clay doesn't work here, that you couldn't pull 3-16's with a 40hp tractor on our clay, that the coyotes would eat whatever he let run loose, etc., etc. He's currently saying something about laying down 2" of sawdust over the whole farm to re-establish some micro flora/fauna that you see in the woods...or something like that. You can't convince him that cold, wet soils just don't break down fiber like more active, lighter, warmer soils.

Why mention this? Because I once thought I could do the green manure thing here. Plowed under a nice lush green crop and figured next season I'd have better soil. Nope, what I had was a layer of dead vegetation 7" down, right where it had been since I plowed it under. Took a lot of manure to get that field back to where it was before I "fixed it". My point is that I'd be trying experimental patches and seeing what happens rather than throwing a lot of sawdust around and thinking it will work wonders. Even mixed with manure and urine I'd consider some additional N to give it some help, and maybe some good ag lime too.

Just thinking out loud.
Response by Bird at 2015-05-31 06:48:37
Just want to say thanks for this great conversation.

Post a Response:
1) Enter your name and response.
2) Click "Send" to post your response on the Front Porch bulletin board.
3) Your response will be reviewed for appropriateness before being posted for public view.

Name:
Response:
     
[ Close Window | Print ]

Subscribe Homepage Contact Us
rural heritage logo    PO Box 2067, Cedar Rapids IA 52406-2067
E-Mail: