A good farmer’s always learning

It’s a free online book by Steve Solomon, who has an online library that’s immensely helpful - see my Resources page for a link. Comes highly recommended.

Organic Gardener’s Composting

Found an abstract which might explain how excess N messes with soil carbon sequestration:

“The added NO3- suppressed mineralization of C from SOM and stimulated mineralization of C from stover. Adjustment of rates of stover decomposition to temperature regimes normally encountered in Iowa fields after harvest showed that stover decomposition would not be complete within 1 yr and that increases in NO3- availability decreased the amount of stover C remaining in the soil. This effect of NO3- could explain how additions of unneeded N could decrease concentrations of SOM in long-term studies in which residues and NO3- are added in annual cycles. These observations suggest that practices that reduce unnecessary fertilization could help conserve SOM and reduce net amounts of CO2 released to the atmosphere.”

Next: My pathetic attempt to translate this into understandable terms after reading the whole study, if I can get my hands on it.

Update: No luck finding the full study after searching two state university library systems. Here’s the citation for this article in case anyone’s interested:

Source: SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL 59 (2): 453-459 MAR-APR 1995

Now that I’ve read the compost study, Albrecht’s article on soil restoration, and the nitrogen myth article, I’m still left wondering how nitrogen directly impacts the formation of organic matter. Albrecht insists that there must be adequate nitrogen present in the soil or else carbon is lost (presumably as carbon dioxide). The compost study results back this up - more nitrogen resulted in more soil carbon. But then the nitrogen myth article implies that excess nitrogen (and I mean extreme, as in 60-190% net addition of N) also results in the loss of carbon from the soil. How does this work?

C + Excess N = CO₂

C + Too little N = CO₂

C + Just the right amount of N = Soil carbon

I think I need to get my hands on a soil science/microbiology textbook. Maybe I’ll peruse eBay and find a cheap copy that some college student spilled their beer on.

When you take it upon yourself to study something without any externally imposed pressure, it can be challenging to stay on track. Sometimes I find it difficult to keep up with farm readings because I’m such a hands-on person, and I don’t have any land to apply my new knowledge to. But it’s important to just keep packing that knowledge into your head for the day when you do get put up to the test, if you should be so lucky. Here’s why:

If we let ourselves, we shall always be waiting for some distraction or other to end before we can really get down to our work. The only people who achieve much are those who want knowledge so badly that they seek it while the conditions are still unfavourable. Favourable conditions never come… We must do the best we can. -C.S. Lewis

My Albrecht studies continue with an article titled Loss of Soil Organic Matter and Its Restoration. Like The Drought Myth, it was packed with insights and information. The metaphors were especially striking. He referred to the soil as a breathing, working entity, like a factory where organic matter is fuel, bacteria is fire, and nitrogen is the building material of choice. It uses the equivalent of 1 horsepower per acre to burn organic matter, “exhaling” more than 25 times as much carbon dioxide per day as an adult man at work.

The organic matter (its supply of fuel) has been building up gradually for 25,000 years in North America, since a glacier receded and left minerals in its wake. Then came the pioneers who tilled the soil, and a steep decline in soil organic matter (SOM) began. With the loss of SOM came a proportionate decline in agricultural productivity, and the trend continues to this day (compensated for by chemical inputs, of course). In this article, Albrecht outlines ways in which this trend can be halted or even reversed. Read the rest of this entry »

Sometimes you can gain more insight into what you’re doing by examining its opposite and observing the differences. There are several ways to describe what I want to do: sustainable, responsible, and regenerative are some adjectives that come to mind. At the opposite end of the spectrum are words like conventional, commercial, and industrial. Here’s another way to describe the “dark side”: Totalitarian agriculture. (Begin booing now.)

After I read the nitrogen myth article, I’ll be reading Loss of Soil Organic Matter and Its Restoration by Albrecht and then tying it all together (along with the compost study I just read).

Done, see notes here.

I think Buckminster Fuller’s story played an important role in my decision to become a self-made farmer. Observe this excerpt from Wikipedia:

Throughout his life, Fuller was concerned with the question “Does humanity have a chance to survive lastingly and successfully on planet Earth, and if so, how?” Considering himself an average individual without special monetary means or academic degree, he chose to devote his life to this question, trying to find out what an individual like him could do to improve humanity’s condition that large organizations, governments, or private enterprises inherently could not do.

One of my favorite sayings is his:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change things, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

Just added Donella Meadows to my study outline under systems thinking, which lines up quite well with how my mind likes to operate as well as how sustainable agriculture works. I’ve been intrigued by systems theory for several years now.

Albrecht seems to be a systems thinker, applying a holistic and systematic approach to agriculture. I’ll probably be all over his writings for the next several months. By the way, you know you’re getting hard core about studying something when you become a fan of someone who doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry.

Notes on: Improved compost mix great on the pad, but slow to deliver in the field - From NewFarm.org

This study was mostly inconclusive. There was so much variability between test plots that is was difficult to conclude much after just one year of research. Agronomic research must be a pain.

The only thing they could say, statistically speaking, is that poultry manure is awesome. Well, they didn’t quite say it that way. They said that poultry manure compost improved soil-carbon levels so much that they’re allowed to statistically say so, despite the crazy variability that prevents them from saying much else. Soil carbon generally translates into soil organic matter, and organic matter is awesome, thus poultry manure is awesome. They didn’t quite explain why it worked out that way, but I’ve heard through the grapevine that Albrecht knew why: Because you can’t retain carbon in your soil unless there’s enough nitrogen around to entertain it, and poultry manure is high in nitrogen. Read the rest of this entry »