The Elaine Ingham Challenge

So, besides all the talking .. who is gonna "Proof the Concept" of Dr. Elaine Ingham (Please check: this is the correct writing of her name!) this year 2015 ?

Raoul H. Francé and Annie Francé-Harrar will be watching you !

The microscopes of the Humus Lab are waiting for the soil samples !

Your Mr. Eda Phon (English soon to come) (http://edaphon.org/)

Dr. Ingham certainly has some eye opening ideas, but I look at my permanent upland pasture, most of which has never been tilled (probably ever), is very high in organic matter, most of which never gets water logged, doesn't get herbicides, fungicides or mineral fertilizers, has had every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio and it over a sandy clay glacial till soil, is not compacted and ask; so why isn't it the most productive land in the country? My neighbour went into a forestry scheme in 2001 and the pitiful moribund twigs which cling to life 14 years later prove it isn't!

TALDLONKTUP said:

Dr. Ingham certainly has some eye opening ideas, but I look at my permanent upland pasture, most of which has never been tilled (probably ever), is very high in organic matter, most of which never gets water logged, doesn't get herbicides, fungicides or mineral fertilizers, has had every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio and it over a sandy clay glacial till soil, is not compacted and ask; so why isn't it the most productive land in the country? My neighbour went into a forestry scheme in 2001 and the pitiful moribund twigs which cling to life 14 years later prove it isn't!

Click to expand...

But in a natural scenario woodland succession doesn't work the same way as tree planting certain species. I think the pioneer tree species (ie birch) would tend to prosper first and then the mature species would come along later. But I don't know what trees your mate has planted. The much despised on this forum George Monbiot wrote a really good chapter on this sort of thing in his book "Feral".

SilliamWhale said:

But in a natural scenario woodland succession doesn't work the same way as tree planting certain species. I think the pioneer tree species (ie birch) would tend to prosper first and then the mature species would come along later. But I don't know what trees your mate has planted. The much despised on this forum George Monbiot wrote a really good chapter on this sort of thing in his book "Feral".

Click to expand...

Yes but we're not going talking about bare parent material here, but in to a well established "soil" with supposedly all the factors necessary ready in place, and also the land can't a grass crop either. I really want to believe Dr. Ingham, after all we could all be sat on a gold mine, but if she's right, what's the missing link?....As for Monbiot.....Well, let's just politely say anything he writes is ideologically driven rather than scientifically driven.

TALDLONKTUP said:

Yes but we're not going talking about bare parent material here, but in to a well established "soil" with supposedly all the factors necessary ready in place, and also the land can't a grass crop either. I really want to believe Dr. Ingham, after all we could all be sat on a gold mine, but if she's right, what's the missing link?....As for Monbiot.....Well, let's just politely say anything he writes is ideologically driven rather than scientifically driven.

Click to expand...

I know but if your in a upland area then I still don't think certain tree species would thrive without other types around them to provide shade etc.

Monbiot is definitely ideological but I wouldn't say anything he writes is not scientific.

SilliamWhale said:

Monbiot is definitely ideological but I wouldn't say anything he writes is not scientific.

Click to expand...

what !!! splutters into cup of tea ..not everyone agrees with you

Pedders said:

what !!! splutters into cup of tea ..not everyone agrees with you

View attachment 146704

Click to expand...

The rewilding is much more idealistic than scientific I agree (I still think it has potential in some places where agricultural returns don't stack up) but I think its wrong to say all he writes is all nonsense, he's a thoughtful bloke but I don't agree with all he says.

@ TALDLONKTUP

How do you know that there was "every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio"?

Had you ever had a chemical, biological & microbiological soil analysis?

Then you could make a claim about the quantitative ratio of bacteria to fungi and the proportion of soil organic matter and humus.

Pasture ist bacteria dominated.
Mostly trees can bring in more fungal ratio.

Yes, there was "every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio" - for pasture.

Pasture soil is not the best for cultivated plants/crops cultured by human.


As a non-native english speaker:

did I understand this sentence:
"My neighbour went into a forestry scheme in 2001 and the pitiful moribund twigs which cling to life 14 years later prove it isn't!"
correct?:
Your neighbour planted trees/forest and scrubs/shrubs began to grow again in the formerly "naked" (pasture)land.

EchoesFromThePast said:

@ TALDLONKTUP

How do you know that there was "every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio"?

Had you ever had a chemical, biological & microbiological soil analysis?

Then you could make a claim about the quantitative ratio of bacteria to fungi and the proportion of soil organic matter and humus.

Pasture ist bacteria dominated.
Mostly trees can bring in more fungal ratio.

Yes, there was "every opportunity to develop the best bacteria to fungi ratio" - for pasture.

Pasture soil is not the best for cultivated plants/crops cultured by human.


As a non-native english speaker:

did I understand this sentence:
"My neighbour went into a forestry scheme in 2001 and the pitiful moribund twigs which cling to life 14 years later prove it isn't!"
correct?:
Your neighbour planted trees/forest and scrubs/shrubs began to grow again in the formerly "naked" (pasture)land.

Click to expand...

Dr. Ingham (I believe) advocates keeping plant cover in order for roots to feed bacteria which in turn feed fungi which make nutrients vailable to the plant, no cultivation and that all applied fertilizers are unnecessary, which is the very conditions this land has always had, and therefore the soil should perfect. As it isn't, we must be missing something! What is it?,,,,,, No, not had any tests done on soil, which would a good starting point, admittedly........I've only just discovered Dr. Ingham and It's all amazing stuff, but actually sounds right, if we can get it to work.

The neighbour had 88 acre upland pasture (going from 800ft to 1000ft) and received a payment to plant native board leaf trees (ash, rowen, beech, birch etc.) after 14 years it still looks like bare pasture from 100 metres away as the trees just haven't "taken"

TALDLONKTUP said:

Dr. Ingham (I believe) advocates keeping plant cover in order for roots to feed bacteria which in turn feed fungi which make nutrients vailable to the plant, no cultivation and that all applied fertilizers are unnecessary, which is the very conditions this land has always had, and therefore the soil should perfect. As it isn't, we must be missing something! What is it?,,,,,, No, not had any tests done on soil, which would a good starting point, admittedly........I've only just discovered Dr. Ingham and It's all amazing stuff, but actually sounds right, if we can get it to work.

The neighbour had 88 acre upland pasture (going from 800ft to 1000ft) and received a payment to plant native board leaf trees (ash, rowen, beech, birch etc.) after 14 years it still looks like bare pasture from 100 metres away as the trees just haven't "taken"

Click to expand...

From what I understand bacteria and fungus use different 'food', bacteria do not feed fungus, and it is the predators (Protozoa/nematodes) that then eat the bacteria/fungus and release the nutrients for the plants. Fungus prefer complex 'woody' food whilst bacteria use simpler, green material. Hard to try to explain in a few lines, I'm still trying to get my head around it all - if you see that plants appear in succession (from weeds to trees), I understand that soil biology also follows a succession from bacterial to fungal. And soils can get 'stuck' along the line, or be knocked backwards by various factors. The trees that are not thriving - could they have been planted into a bacterial soil, and trees need fungus to support them. If I was planting trees now, into a grass/cropped bacterial soil, I would ideally like to apply a highly fungal compost to help move the biology along in the right direction and give the trees the best chance of establishing. Could it also be that as the environment is a bit harsher higher up, perhaps trees need a more 'ideal' soil condition to allow them to thrive than trees planted at lower levels, so although planting into those soil conditions at lower levels may work, it might not when they are stressed by the local 'climate'?

Clive said:

Indeed !

One day we might have some answers to all these questions

Exciting times in agriculture

Click to expand...

Do you have any more answers 5 years on in regards to compost and humic acid Clive?