Dr Elaine Ingham - Soil Workshops

[Baling Hay]

I started a thread on this on another forum. Something like natural selection in reverse. I was the academic one of my siblings so was encouraged to go and get a real job like an accountant and not get stuck on the farm as that was for the slower kids. I got a lot of flack for it. Not being academic does not mean you are stupid and some of the best minds we have ever had have been hopeless scholars. But there is a general correlation and I see it in pretty much every farm I grew up near. The 'smart' kids went, the least academic stayed behind. Maybe that child was the best potential farmer but when it comes to sitting through a lecture on soil structure, they are not prepared for that. It multiplies through the generations too.

The irony in my family is that the sibling who was chosen to run the farm didn't want it. I was the country lad. I was the one who went to work as a beater and picker up on the local estate. I was the one out fetching firewood. I was the one who walked the dog in our fields while he was plugged into a ZX spectrum. I was the one who was told from day one that farming was not for me as I had a better life ahead of me. So I've wasted a good number of years half seeking this better life and he wasted a lot of years farming badly, like dad did.

The truth is somewhere in between. The best businesses have a range of skills and they work together. The problem with farming today is that it is assumed that there is only enough income for one person on the farm but in many cases, if dad could stand aside, other than giving advice, he may find that his kids can work together and create something amazing. But no, he just swears by what grandad said and refuses to sway from that and the farm fails. Bah. Apologies.

Very true words spoken here. My dad refuses to change and has no interest in any other methods etc. But yet he was the smart one and trained as a vet at University. Had a veterinary business which helped pay off the farm we bought. However, he refuses to implement change on the farm and would rather farm like it was the 70s.

 

[Pasty]

Tricky one. I now own the whole thing but am finding it difficult to go against dad and his frankly out-dated views and beliefs. Has anyone had dealings with a cantankerous old barsteward and ended with a good result where everyone is happy? I get the feeling that if I just put it to dad and spelled it out, he might see it. But.......

Do I just give him too much respect?

 

[Feldspar]

Tricky one. I now own the whole thing but am finding it difficult to go against dad and his frankly out-dated views and beliefs. Has anyone had dealings with a cantankerous old barsteward and ended with a good result where everyone is happy? I get the feeling that if I just put it to dad and spelled it out, he might see it. But.......

Do I just give him too much respect?

I always find the best thing to do is prove them wrong. If you think one way of doing this is better then do a trial / side-by-side comparison. Did that last year with my no-till fields which yielded as well as our normal system. Even then though, if people are persuaded of one way of doing things, sometimes showing them to be at least not totally right isn't enough.

 

[NielsC]

The rotation thing is interesting. What about a single cash crop punctuated by multi-species cover crops? How about winter and spring wheat alternating?

This is what Gabe Brown is doing, DD, in North Dakota. Some impressive stats. Yield, SOM, inputs. All better with grazing.

 

[NielsC]

Is there anyway we could persuade her to get on this thread?

Prob not. But she does contribute to the Compost Tea group on Yahoo quite a lot. Cross posting would be poss. Also, lot's of tea brewers and scope dudes on there too.

 

[NielsC]

She didn't mention Ca:Mg ratios did she?!

pretty sure she did, briefly. Actually there's a section on it in the presentation, which I can extract (the whole PDF is a bit big). Good data on Ca leaching comparative trial. Fungi holds it all, when introduced into a sterile medium.
but what did you want to know about specifically? can check in my notes

 

[NielsC]

I know bacterial numbers fluctuate on short timescales but with the little I know about fungal networks it seems rather fast! I thought the lifecycle of things like mycorrhizae is 120 days or something. How do they build up in three?

Depends on the situation. It may be a nutrient cycling issue that's being referred to in the 3 days example. In which case it might be protozoa that the soil is being innoculated with. In this case reproduction rates are fast, not as fast as bacteria but in line with them. One abstract I just read quotes "sampled with short time intervals (2 to 6 days) ....... Following the addition of fresh organic material, bacterial numbers increased more than 1,400-fold."
Growth rates for mycorrhizae that are already established should be of a similar order.
Again, like you keep saying, we need examples. So here's the section with them detailed, roughly in most cases, apart from the lawn one, which is a compelling and pertinent example, since we are dealing with grasses, however it's not an arable or UK example.
The lawn example does outline the method. Samples are taken from the root zone of the target plant species, with an apple corer. Then assessed, visually with a microscope, to quantify the biomass of the soil organisms. These are then compared against a table of F:B ratios and biomasses for that crop/plant. Then compost is made with the desired F:B and nematode levels to populate the soil and is applied direct or brewed as a tea, in which case additional ammendments can be added to make the compost tea more fungally or protozoa dominated. Each time a compost or tea is made it is assessed for microorgamism (MO) biomass and compared against the tables and the soil baseline.
In the example in the PDF they had 3 times to get it right. Mainly because the initial compost batch wasn't high enough in fungi and the higher organisms (they were able to adjust for this to a certain exent with the tea brewing process though not completely). And also because they used the same batch of compost the following year but didn't store it well, so the fungi level dropped. However at the third go they got it right and the lawn looks good, rich and green unlike any of the neighbours. It wasn't watered or "fertilised" and their trees were similarly healthy with no scale or other other insect problems.

 

[NielsC]

there was only so much detail in 7hrs !

I think im going to do her online learning courses, buy a microscope, build a tea brewery and try this on a small field - at least I will know once and for all if its balls or not, if nothing else it will educate me a little more, life is all about learning !!

I have to say circumstantially I have seen both humic acid and molasses make a big difference to conventionally farmed crops and this puts some science on maybe why that was ? maybe you those things alone used in the right circumstance to promote the correct ratios could be a key to higher yields without having to take the leap of faith into the organic world ? as I said in earlier posts I get this totally from a nutritional POV but really struggle with how the hell you control weeds in such a system ?

See the onion field example in the Examples PDF. There's a nice pic where they forgot to spray the tea. It's all about inhibitting germination. Though this actually plays out I've not a clue

I posted a week ago if anyone thought zero-till organic was possible ? well just maybe it is ??

 

[NielsC]

the other concern is how practical it is to make these "proper" composts and teas

I guess manure from livestock that have had any antibiotics or wormers is not going to work

then there is application issues ? how do you pump living organisms without killing them when doing so ?

Reckon diaphrgm pumps are the best option, unless a pressure vessel is possible. Pressure controlled air pump and cone tank? Will need to screen the tea/extract beforehand.

 

[NielsC]

I'm not advocating this, just reporting what was discussed / claimed and willing to be open minded enough to research more / try a small area !!

Its the weed thing I can't understand and don't think this works if you start using any inorganic compounds in the system, wonder how effective crimping plants is and killing them ?

Ingham is saying even the organic guys are wrong with their ploughs and tillage for weed control destroying biological networks and use of inorganic product they can legally use within certification schemes (copper sulphate, lime etc and unbalanced composts)

The crimper is effective at killing senescent cover crops like particulalry cereal. The hollow stem is especially succeptible to crimping. A disengaged flail mower can be used as a roller/crimper. Others are not so succesful. Ron Morse details here:

The rolled cover crop is effective at suppressing weed germination for a period. Long enough for a the crop to establish and shade out weeds, as long as the cover crop was good stand and the following crop is properly drilled. Which can mean modified equipment, to cope with deep residues.

 

[NielsC]

I don't see how weed control would be possible. It would be imaginable if a small amounts of inorganic compounds were OK. But saying that nothing is acceptable seems way too extreme. Surely though if the recovery time is 3 days, then you can apply a boat load of chemicals in on go and then have the soil in good health for the remaining 362 days of the year.

A lot of germination is due to residual nitrates in the soil. Both from inorganic applications and manures. So, from memory, in this case it's a question of increasing the bacteria biomass to mop this up and then adjusting to suit the actual crop. This example is based on the understanding that in early succession environments most nitrogen is in a nitrate form and is relatively abundant, this is also the succesional stage at which weeds dominate. Arable crops are at the mid-sucession stage and want F:B 1:1.
A quick side-note, all inorganic ferts are salts what ever the form of nitrogen for example, and, if you've ever poured salt on a slug, that's what you're doing to your MOs, beneficial and non-. And it's the non-beneficials that come back fastest after a drenching.

 

[Simon C]

Depends on the situation. It may be a nutrient cycling issue that's being referred to in the 3 days example. In which case it might be protozoa that the soil is being innoculated with. In this case reproduction rates are fast, not as fast as bacteria but in line with them. One abstract I just read quotes "sampled with short time intervals (2 to 6 days) ....... Following the addition of fresh organic material, bacterial numbers increased more than 1,400-fold."
Growth rates for mycorrhizae that are already established should be of a similar order.
Again, like you keep saying, we need examples. So here's the section with them detailed, roughly in most cases, apart from the lawn one, which is a compelling and pertinent example, since we are dealing with grasses, however it's not an arable or UK example.
The lawn example does outline the method. Samples are taken from the root zone of the target plant species, with an apple corer. Then assessed, visually with a microscope, to quantify the biomass of the soil organisms. These are then compared against a table of F:B ratios and biomasses for that crop/plant. Then compost is made with the desired F:B and nematode levels to populate the soil and is applied direct or brewed as a tea, in which case additional ammendments can be added to make the compost tea more fungally or protozoa dominated. Each time a compost or tea is made it is assessed for microorgamism (MO) biomass and compared against the tables and the soil baseline.
In the example in the PDF they had 3 times to get it right. Mainly because the initial compost batch wasn't high enough in fungi and the higher organisms (they were able to adjust for this to a certain exent with the tea brewing process though not completely). And also because they used the same batch of compost the following year but didn't store it well, so the fungi level dropped. However at the third go they got it right and the lawn looks good, rich and green unlike any of the neighbours. It wasn't watered or "fertilised" and their trees were similarly healthy with no scale or other other insect problems.

Thanks for this Niels

Interesting the bit about the onions where there are no weeds because of the compost application. I spread some what I thought was well made compost on a linseed stubble and drilled wheat. It has always been a bad blackgrass field, but there are no weeds of any sort in there now, it is totally clean. It did have the full quota of pre-em BG sprays but would never have expected them to have done such a good job.

Some have said on here before that they have had less slug problems after compost too.

 

[NielsC]

Thanks for this Niels

Interesting the bit about the onions where there are no weeds because of the compost application. I spread some what I thought was well made compost on a linseed stubble and drilled wheat. It has always been a bad blackgrass field, but there are no weeds of any sort in there now, it is totally clean. It did have the full quota of pre-em BG sprays but would never have expected them to have done such a good job.

Some have said on here before that they have had less slug problems after compost too.

Great. Looking forward to seeing it (even if it don't look like much at the mo). BG is a pretty big deal. You could probably sell the method on this one effect alone, as long as it can be repeated ;-)

 

[NielsC]

Here's a link for some info, not read it closely but plenty of detail
http://www.theearthproject.org/id64.html

 

[hillman]

The grass and improved clover roots structure in those pics looks impressive !

Round up affects the bacteria , so to kill off an old grass swarth how can you do it ?

 

[NielsC]

The grass and improved clover roots structure in those pics looks impressive !

Round up affects the bacteria , so to kill off an old grass swarth how can you do it ?

Generally speaking, don't. Don't rotate keep it as PP and have dedicated fields for cropping. That's the implication anyway.

 

[hillman]

Generally speaking, don't. Don't rotate keep it as PP and have dedicated fields for cropping. That's the implication anyway.

Therein lies a prob as all pp and only take a field out for catch crop and then back to grass

Any idea what the carrying capacity off a farm would be if say they where intensive would the capacity drop to medium or would this system still allow the higher stocking rate ?

 

[NielsC]

Why would be a problem? Just means same field permanent out of grass.

Did you see the grass section of the examples presentation I posted? There's some pages on PP there.

 

[dontknowanything]

Here are some of my thoughts on her talk

https://ooofarmer.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/day-57-dr-elaine-ingham/

 

[hillman]

Saw the post neilsc ,

Will the volume off compost needed cause probs ?
Where will the big tillage units only get there supply ?


It reads and sounds logical , but will anyone give it a trial