[TheUrbanFarmer]

Originally Posted by PureHarvest

I can flip that and say organics is about thinking that you know what the vastly complex soil food web is comprised of with great understanding, and that you know what and how much to add in the organic form to supply what is needed and be able to predict when if/when it will become used/available.

If you are saying that the organic forms are stable and therefore cannot harm the soil, and the soil biota in combination with the roots will dictate the proper use of said material, then I will say that proper timing, rate, and method of application of soluble fertilizer will do the same when soil organic matter is sufficient.

I will also mention that organic nutrients can be over-applied and harm the soil and surrounding systems.

Yes. I am saying a farmer who tests his soil regularly (when first developing my soil mix I tested weekly) will know exactly what is being decomposed in his soil and will know how long it is taking various elements to be converted into the proper ionic forms by soil bacteria.

I am saying a soil high in CEC and humic substances is going to retain more nutrition and have less leaching because science says so. Organic soils have higher a higher CEC, fact. Therefore, over application is not as much a concern because retention is higher. If the substance is in a raw organic form, and not fully composted, it is not going anywhere. If the plant is not telling the soil biota to make use of a material, even when present in the ecosystem, it merely sits unused until called for. If the elements it can provide are not being converted to an ionic form, then the substance isn't leaching anything, which again, does eliminate some concerns of over application.

This is not a blanket statement - it is an overview of how an organic system functions and works. There are exceptions to everything.

When looking at the N-P-K values of a chemical fertilizer you are looking at the total nutritional content it will provide. When looking at the N-P-K of a raw organic material, you are only being shown the % of that element that is soluble. This means, upon adding it to the soil, this % is instantly available for plant uptake. These number do not reflect the long term impact that material will have once decomposed by soil bacteria. This consideration is irrelevant when discussing chemical fertilizers because we all ready know if we put it in the soil the plant has no choice but to absorb it...this is why nutrient burn burns happens and why it is 1000x more likely to fry your plants with chemical fertilizer than it is with a raw organic input.

So, yes, part of maintaining a great organic soil, is being aware of the TOTAL elemental composition in con★★★★★★★★ with instant solubility. This is why you amend your soil months before planting with some items and only a couple of weeks before planting with others.

I disagree that mandatory knowledge of such should be considered as a disadvantage of an organic system. At least I don't have to worry about carrying around all my meters and measuring devices to make sure I'm adding just the right amount of mL of this that or the other, which in and of itself is just as massive a learning curve. I suppose it just depends on where you have devoted your focus.

Originally Posted by PureHarvest

Look at the release rate on bat guano:

Not saying its not good, but consider the time to release.

These rates are very general and entirely subjective to the health and bio-activity of the ecosystem they are applied to. The soil biota, based on root exudates (chemical binary, if you will, instruction sets of data) will function to serve and meet the demands of the plant.

And yes. The plant itself is 100% responsible for the behavior of the bacteria in the system as it is the root exudates that direct and control their populations. It is a self regulating system that needs nothing from me other than to ensure the various needs of said system are in place and provided. If what the plant needs is present in the soil, it will be utilized as needed, when needed, without any further interaction on my part. Plants have a symbiotic relationship with the soil.

By allowing the plant to be in complete control of it's livelihood, I effectively remove one more aspect from the equation that will alter the phenotypical expression of the plant. I am more apt to select superior specimens because they have not been artificially altered/enhanced by my subjective demands of how I think the plant should perform.

Traditional agriculture says: Oh, this plant isn't performing as I think it should, I think I'll give it more ______. Rather than saying, this plant isn't performing up to my standards, I think I'll simply remove it from rotation and not perpetuate it's genetics.

Originally Posted by PureHarvest

We are all basing our nutrient applications on some basic assumptions based on what we can observe and measure.

If we go with the assumption that tomatoes need 100 lbs of Nitrogen per acre, then we can calculate how much Ammonium Nitrate or Fish meal.

Other than that, I'm not sure how deciding what the plant needs versus measuring the nutrient load of a material differs.

The difference is simply in who/what is making the decisions. A human or the plant.

Originally Posted by PureHarvest

If your beef is with the source, then I don't see how using alfalfa meal (most alfalfa is conventionally grown, soon to be 100% GMO contaminated) or blood meal (most is from conventional pork) is better than a refined elemental form of nitrogen, such as Ammoniacal N.
Either product uses up resources to process, package, ship, and apply.

The federal government and state legislature decides what I can and cannot use in organic crop production. As I stated in my last post, I do not garden organically based on ideological principals, but merely based on the guidelines. Ethical sourcing issues are something that I don't really concern myself with.

People are going to kill chickens and pigs and cows regardless of whether I buy blood meal or bone meal or not. The simple fact these industries do not exist for the purpose of creating fertilizer, but food, some what nullifies any logic behind such statements. I think it is good we have found additional uses for the waste byproducts of said industries. It's good, common sense economics.