HOME PAGE     Sovereignty Library    Go To Chapter Eight

    "Is it practical to run a garden exclusively with the use of compost, without the aid of so-called chemical or artificial fertilizers? The answer is not only yes, but in such case you will have the finest vegetables obtainable, vegetables fit to grace the table of the most exacting gourmet."

    Since the 1950s a government-funded laboratory at Cornell University has cranked out seriously flawed studies "proving" that food raised with chemicals is just as or even more nutritious than organically grown food. The government's investment in "scientific research" was made to counter unsettling (to various economic interest groups) nutritional and health claims that the organic farming movement had been making. For example, in The Living Soil, Lady Eve Balfour observed:

    "I have lived a healthy country existence practically all my life, and for the last 25 years of it I have been actively engaged in farming. I am physically robust, and have never suffered a major illness, but until 1938 I was seldom free in winter from some form of rheumatism, and from November to April I invariably suffered from a continual succession of head colds. I started making compost by Howard's method using it first on the vegetables for home consumption.... That winter I had no colds at all and almost for the first time in my life was free from rheumatic pains even in prolonged spells of wet weather."

    Fifty years later there still exists an intensely polarized dispute about the right way to garden and farm. People who are comfortable disagreeing with Authority and that believe there is a strong connection between soil fertility and the consequent health of plants, animals, and humans living on that soil tend to side with the organic camp. People who consider themselves "practical" or scientific tend to side with the mainstream agronomists and consider chemical agriculture as the only method that can produce enough to permit industrial civilization to exist. For many years I was confused by all this. Have you been too? Or have you taken a position on this controversy and feel that you don't need more information? I once thought the organic camp had all the right answers but years of explaining soil management in gardening books made me reconsider and reconsider again questions like "why is organic matter so important in soil?" and "how much and what kind do we need?" I found these subjects still needed to have clearer answers. This book attempts to provide those answers and puts aside ideology.


A Brief History of the Organic Movement

    How did all of this irresolvable controversy begin over something that should be scientifically obvious? About 1900, "experts" increasingly encouraged farmers to use chemical fertilizers and to neglect manuring and composting as unprofitable and unnecessary. At the time this advice seemed practical because chemicals did greatly increase yields and profits while chemistry plus motorized farm machinery minus livestock greatly eased the farmer's workload, allowed the farmer to abandon the production of low-value fodder crops, and concentrate on higher value cash crops.

    Perplexing new farming problems--diseases, insects and loss of seed vigor--began appearing after World War 1. These difficulties did not seem obviously connected to industrial agriculture, to abandonment of livestock, manuring, composting, and to dependence on chemistry. The troubled farmers saw themselves as innocent victims of happenstance, needing to hire the chemical plant doctor much as sick people are encouraged by medical doctors to view themselves as victims, who are totally irresponsible for creating their condition and incapable of curing it without costly and dangerous medical intervention.

    Farming had been done holistically since before Roman times. Farms inevitably included livestock, and animal manure or compost made with manure or green manures were the main sustainers of soil fertility. In 1900 productive farm soils still contained large reserves of humus from millennia of manuring. As long as humus is present in quantity, small, affordable amounts of chemicals actually do stimulate growth, increase yields, and up profits. And plant health doesn't suffer nor do diseases and insects become plagues. However, humus is not a permanent material and is gradually decomposed. Elimination of manuring steadily reduced humus levels and consequently decreased the life in the soil. And (as will be explained a little later) nitrogen-rich fertilizers accelerate humus loss.

    With the decline of organic matter, new problems with plant and animal health gradually developed while insect predation worsened and profits dropped because soils declining in humus need ever larger amounts of fertilizer to maintain yields. These changes developed gradually and erratically, and there was a long lag between the first dependence on chemicals, the resulting soil addiction, and steady increases in farm problems. A new alliance of scientific experts, universities, and agribusiness interests had self-interested reasons to identify other causes than loss of soil humus for the new problems. The increasingly troubled farmer's attention was thus fixated on fighting against plant and animal diseases and insects with newer and better chemicals.

    Just as with farm animals, human health also responds to soil fertility. Industrial agriculture steadily lowered the average nutritional quality of food and gradually increased human degeneration, but these effects were masked by a statistical increase in human life span due to improved public sanitation, vaccinations, and, starting in the 1930s, the first antibiotics. As statistics, we were living longer but as individuals, we were feeling poorer. Actually, most of the statistical increase in lifespan is from children that are now surviving childhood diseases. I contend that people who made it to seven years old a century ago had a chance more-or-less equal to ours, of surviving past seventy with a greater probability of feeling good in middle-and old age. People have short memories and tend to think that things always were as they are in the present. Slow but continuous increases in nutritionally related diseases like tooth decay, periodontal disease, diabetes, heart disease, birth defects, mental retardation, drug addiction or cancer are not generally seen as a "new" problem, while subtle reductions in the feeling of well-being go unnoticed.

    During the 1930s a number of far-seeing individuals began to worry about the social liabilities from chemically dependent farming. Drs. Robert McCarrison and Weston Price addressed their concerns to other health professionals. Rudolf Steiner, observing that declines in human health were preventing his disciples from achieving spiritual betterment started the gentle biodynamic farming movement. Steiner's principal English speaking followers, Pfeiffer and Koepf, wrote about biological farming and gardening extensively and well.

    Professor William Albrecht, Chairman of the Soil Department of the University of Missouri, tried to help farmers raise healthier livestock and made unemotional but very explicit connections between soil fertility, animal, and human health. Any serious gardener or person interested in health and preventive medicine will find the books of all these unique individuals well worth reading.

    I doubt that the writings and lectures of any of the above individuals would have sparked a bitter controversy like the intensely ideological struggle that developed between the organic gardening and farming movement and the agribusiness establishment. This was the doing of two energetic and highly puritanical men: Sir Albert Howard and his American disciple, J.I. Rodale.

    Howard's criticism was correctly based on observations of improved animal and human health as a result of using compost to build soil fertility. Probably concluding that the average farmer's weak ethical condition would be unable to resist the apparently profitable allures of chemicals unless their moral sense was outraged, Howard undertook an almost religious crusade against the evils of chemical fertilizers. Notice the powerful emotional loading carried in this brief excerpt from Howard's Soil and Health:

    "Artificial fertilizers lead to artificial nutrition, artificial animals and finally to artificial men and women."

    Do you want to be "artificial?" Rodale's contentious Organic Front makes readers feel morally deficient if they do not agree about the vital importance of recycling organic matter.

    "The Chinese do not use chemical fertilizers. They return to the land every bit of organic matter they can find. In China if you burned over a field or a pile of vegetable rubbish you would be severely punished. There are many fantastic stories as to the lengths the Chinese will go to get human excremental matter. A traveler told me that while he was on the toilet in a Shanghai hotel two men were waiting outside to rush in and make way with the stuff."

    Perhaps you too should be severely punished for wasting your personal organic matter.

    Rodale began proselytizing for the organic movement about 1942. With an intensity unique to ideologues, he attacked chemical companies, attacked chemical fertilizers, attacked chemical pesticides, and attacked the scientific agricultural establishment. With a limited technical education behind him, the well-meaning Rodale occasionally made overstatements, wrote oversimplification as science, and uttered scientific absurdities as fact. And he attacked, attacked, attacked all along a broad organic front. So the objects of his attacks defended, defended, defended.

    A great deal of confusion was generated from the contradictions between Rodale's self-righteous and sometimes scientifically vague positions and the amused defenses of the smug scientific community. Donald Hopkins' Chemicals, Humus and the Soil is the best, most humane, and emotionally generous defense against the extremism of Rodale. Hopkins makes hash of many organic principles while still upholding the vital role of humus. Anyone who thinks of themselves as a supporter of organic farming and gardening should first dig up this old, out-of-print book, and come to terms with Hopkins' arguments.

    Organic versus establishment hostilities continued unabated for many years. After his father's death, Rodale's son and heir to the publishing empire, Robert, began to realize that there was a sensible middle ground. However, I suppose Robert Rodale perceived communicating a less ideological message as a problem: most of the readers of Organic Gardening and Farming magazine and the buyers of organic gardening books published by Rodale Press weren't open to ambiguity.

    I view organic gardeners largely as examples of American Puritanism who want to possess an clear, simple system of capital "T" truth, that brooks no exceptions and has no complications or gray areas. "Organic" as a movement had come to be defined by Rodale publications as growing food by using an approved list of substances that were considered good and virtuous while shunning another list that seemed to be considered 'of the devil,' similar to kosher and non-kosher food in the orthodox Jewish religion. And like other puritans, the organic faithful could consider themselves superior humans.

    But other agricultural reformers have understood that there are gray areas--that chemicals are not all bad or all good and that other sane and holistic standards can be applied to decide what is the best way to go about raising crops. These people began to discuss new agricultural methods like Integrated Pest Management [IPM] or Low Input Sustainable Agriculture [LISA], systems that allowed a minimal use of chemistry without abandoning the focus on soil organic matter's vital importance.

    My guess is that some years back, Bob Rodale came to see the truth of this, giving him a problem--he did not want to threaten a major source of political and financial support. So he split off the "farming" from Organic Gardening and Farming magazine and started two new publications, one called The New Farm where safely away from less educated unsophisticated eyes he could discuss minor alterations in the organic faith without upsetting the readers of Organic Gardening.


Today's Confusions

    I have offered this brief interpretation of the organic gardening and farming movement primarily for the those gardeners who, like me, learned their basics from Rodale Press. Those who do not now cast this heretical book down in disgust but finish it will come away with a broader, more scientific understanding of the vital role of organic matter, some certainty about how much compost you really need to make and use, and the role that both compost and fertilizers can have in creating and maintaining the level of soil fertility needed to grow a great vegetable garden.








CHAPTER SEVEN

Humus and Soil Productivity



    Books about hydroponics sound plausible. That is, until you actually see the results. Plants grown in chemical nutrient solutions may be huge but look a little "off." Sickly and weak somehow. Without a living soil, plants can not be totally healthy or grow quite as well as they might.

    By focusing on increasing and maximizing soil life instead of adding chemical fertility, organic farmers are able to grow excellent cereals and fodder. On richer soils they can even do this for generations, perhaps even for millennia without bringing in plant nutrients from elsewhere. If little or no product is sent away from the farm, this subsistence approach may be a permanent agricultural system. But even with a healthy ecology few soils are fertile enough by themselves to permit continuous export of their mineral resources by selling crops at market.

    Take one step further. Cereals are mostly derived from hardy grasses while other field crops have similar abilities to thrive while being offered relatively low levels of nutrients. With good management, fertile soils are able to present these lower nutritional levels to growing plants without amendment or fortification with potent, concentrated nutrient sources. But most vegetables demand far higher levels of support. Few soils, even fertile soils that have never been farmed, will grow vegetables without improvement. Farmers and gardeners must increase fertility significantly if they want to grow great vegetables. The choices they make while doing this can have a strong effect, not only on their immediate success or failure, but on the actual nutritional quality of the food that they produce.


How Humus Benefits Soil

    The roots of plants, soil animals, and most soil microorganisms need to breathe oxygen. Like other oxygen burners, they expel carbon dioxide. For all of them to grow well and be healthy, the earth must remain open, allowing air to enter and leave freely. Otherwise, carbon dioxide builds up to toxic levels. Imagine yourself being suffocated by a plastic bag tied around your neck. It would be about the same thing to a root trying to live in compacted soil.

    A soil consisting only of rock particles tends to be airless. A scientist would say it had a high bulk density or lacked pore space. Only coarse sandy soil remains light and open without organic matter. Few soils are formed only of coarse sand, most are mixtures of sand, silt and clay. Sands are sharp-sided, relatively large rock particles similar to table salt or refined white sugar. Irregular edges keep sand particles separated, and allow the free movement of air and moisture.

    Silt is formed from sand that has weathered to much smaller sizes, similar to powdered sugar or talcum powder. Through a magnifying lens, the edges of silt particles appear rounded because weak soil acids have actually dissolved them away. A significant amount of the nutrient content of these decomposed rock particles has become plant food or clay. Silt particles can compact tightly, leaving little space for air.

    As soil acids break down silts, the less-soluble portions recombine into clay crystals. Clay particles are much smaller than silt grains. It takes an electron microscope to see the flat, layered structures of clay molecules. Shales and slates are rocks formed by heating and compressing clay. Their layered fracture planes mimic the molecules from which they were made. Pure clay is heavy, airless and a very poor medium for plant growth.

    Humusless soils that are mixtures of sand, silt, and clay can become extremely compacted and airless because the smaller silt and clay particles sift between the larger sand bits and densely fill all the pore spaces. These soils can also form very hard crusts that resist the infiltration of air, rain, or irrigation water and prevent the emergence of seedlings. Surface crusts form exactly the same way that concrete is finished.

    Have you ever seen a finisher screed a concrete slab? First, smooth boards and then, large trowels are run back and forth over liquid concrete. The motion separates the tiny bits of fine sand and cement from denser bits of gravel. The "fines" rise to the surface where they are trowelled into a thin smooth skin. The same thing happens when humusless soil is rained on or irrigated with sprinklers emitting a coarse, heavy spray. The droplets beat on the soil, mechanically separating the lighter "fines" (in this case silt and clay) from larger, denser particles. The sand particles sink, the fines rise and dry into a hard, impenetrable crust.

    Organic matter decomposing in soil opens and loosens soil and makes the earth far more welcoming to plant growth. Its benefits are both direct and indirect. Decomposing organic matter mechanically acts like springy sponges that reduce compaction. However, rotting is rapid and soon this material and its effect is virtually gone. You can easily create this type of temporary result by tilling a thick dusting of peat moss into some poor soil.

    A more significant and longer-lasting soil improvement is created by microorganisms and earthworms, whose activities makes particles of sand, silt, and clay cling strongly together and form large, irregularly-shaped grains called "aggregates" or "crumbs" that resist breaking apart. A well-developed crumb structure gives soil a set of qualities farmers and gardeners delightfully refer to as "good tilth." The difference between good and poor tilth is like night and day to someone working the land. For example, if you rotary till unaggregated soil into a fluffy seedbed, the first time it is irrigated, rained on, or stepped on it slumps back down into an airless mass and probably develops a hard crust as well. However, a soil with good tilth will permit multiple irrigations and a fair amount of foot traffic without compacting or crusting.

    Crumbs develop as a result of two similar, interrelated processes. Earthworms and other soil animals make stable humus crumbs as soil, clay and decomposing organic matter pass through their digestive systems. The casts or scats that emerge are crumbs. Free-living soil microorganisms also form crumbs. As they eat organic matter they secrete slimes and gums that firmly cement fine soil particles together into long lasting aggregates.

    I sadly observe what happens when farmers allow soil organic matter to run down every time I drive in the country. Soil color that should be dark changes to light because mineral particles themselves are usually light colored or reddish; the rich black or chestnut tone soil can get is organic matter. Puddles form when it rains hard on perfectly flat humusless fields and may stand for hours or days, driving out all soil air, drowning earthworms, and suffocating crop roots. On sloping fields the water runs off rather than percolating in. Evidence of this can be seen in muddy streams and in more severe cases, by little rills or mini-gullies across the field caused by fast moving water sweeping up soil particles from the crusted surface as it leaves the field.

    Later, the farmers will complain of drought or infertility and seek to support their crops with irrigation and chemicals. Actually, if all the water that had fallen on the field had percolated into the earth, the crops probably would not have suffered at all even from extended spells without rain. These same humusless fields lose a lot more soil in the form of blowing dust clouds when tilled in a dryish state.

    The greatest part of farm soil erosion is caused by failing to maintain necessary levels of humus. As a nation, America is losing its best cropland at a nonsustainable rate. No civilization in history has yet survived the loss of its prime farmland. Before industrial technology placed thousands of times more force into the hands of the farmer, humans still managed to make an impoverished semi-desert out of every civilized region within 1,000-1,500 years. This sad story is told in Carter and Dale's fascinating, but disturbing, book called Topsoil and Civilization that I believe should be read by every thoughtful person. Unless we significantly alter our "improved" farming methods we will probably do the same to America in another century or two.


The Earthworm's Role in Soil Fertility

    Soil fertility has been gauged by different measures. Howard repeatedly insisted that the only good yardstick was humus content. Others are so impressed by the earthworm's essential functions that they count worms per acre and say that this number measures soil fertility. The two standards of evaluation are closely related.

    When active, some species of earthworms daily eat a quantity of soil equal to their own body weight. After passing through the worm's gut, this soil has been chemically altered. Minerals, especially phosphorus which tends to be locked up as insoluble calcium phosphate and consequently unavailable to plants, become soluble in the worm's gut, and thus available to nourish growing plants. And nitrogen, unavailably held in organic matter, is altered to soluble nitrate nitrogen. In fact, compared to the surrounding soil, worm casts are five times as rich in nitrate nitrogen; twice as rich in soluble calcium; contain two and one-half times as much available magnesium; are seven times as rich in available phosphorus, and offer plants eleven times as much potassium. Earthworms are equally capable of making trace minerals available.

    Highly fertile earthworm casts can amount to a large proportion of the entire soil mass. When soil is damp and cool enough to encourage earthworm activity, an average of 700 pounds of worm casts per acre are produced each day. Over a year's time in the humid eastern United States, 100,000 pounds of highly fertile casts per acre may be generated. Imagine! That's like 50 tons of low-grade fertilizer per acre per year containing more readily available NPK, Ca, Mg and so forth, than farmers apply to grow cereal crops like wheat, corn, or soybeans. A level of fertility that will grow wheat is not enough nutrition to grow vegetables, but earthworms can make a major contribution to the garden.
    At age 28, Charles Darwin presented "On the Formation of Mould" to the Geological Society of London. This lecture illustrated the amazing churning effect of the earthworm on soil. Darwin observed some chunks of lime that had been left on the surface of a meadow. A few years later they were found several inches below the surface. Darwin said this was the work of earthworms, depositing castings that "sooner or later spread out and cover any object left on the surface." In a later book, Darwin said,

    "The plow is one of the most ancient and most valuable of man's inventions; but long before he existed the land was in fact regularly plowed and still continues to be thus plowed by earthworms. It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures."

    Earthworms also prevent runoff. They increase percolation of water into fine-textured soils by making a complex system of interconnected channels or tunnels throughout the topsoil. In one study, soil lacking worms had an absorption rate of 0.2 inches of rainfall per minute. Earthworms were added and allowed to work over that soil sample for one month. Then, infiltration rates increased to 0.9 inches of rainfall per minute. Much of what we know about earthworms is due to Dr. Henry Hopp who worked for the United States Department of Agriculture during the 1940s. Dr. Hopp's interesting booklet, What Every Gardener Should Know About Earthworms. is still in print. In one Hopp research project, some very run-down clay soil was placed in six large flowerpots. Nothing was done to a pair of control pots, fertilizer was blended in and grass sod grown on two others, while mulch was spread over two more. Then worms were added to one of each pair of pots. In short order all of the worms added to the unimproved pot were dead. There was nothing in that soil to feed them. The sod alone increased percolation but where the sod or mulch fed a worm population, infiltration of water was far better.

    Most people who honestly consider these facts conclude that the earthworm's activities are a major factor in soil productivity. Study after scientific study has shown that the quality and yield of pastures is directly related to their earthworm count. So it seems only reasonable to evaluate soil management practices by their effect on earthworm counts.

    Earthworm populations will vary enormously according to climate and native soil fertility. Earthworms need moisture; few if any will be found in deserts. Highly mineralized soils that produce a lot of biomass will naturally have more worms than infertile soils lacking humus. Dr. Hopp surveyed worm populations in various farm soils. The table below shows what a gardener might expect to find in their own garden by contrasting samples from rich and poor soils. The data also suggest a guideline for how high worm populations might be usefully increased by adding organic matter. The worms were counted at their seasonal population peak by carefully examining a section of soil exactly one foot square by seven inches deep. If you plan to take a census in your own garden, keep in mind that earthworm counts will be highest in spring.

    Earthworms are inhibited by acid soils and/or soils deficient in calcium. Far larger populations of worms live in soils that weathered out of underlying limestone rocks. In one experiment, earthworm counts in a pasture went up from 51,000 per acre in acid soil to 441,000 per acre two years after lime and a non-acidifying chemical fertilizer was spread. Rodale and Howard loudly and repeatedly contended that chemical fertilizers decimate earthworm populations. Swept up in what I view as a self-righteous crusade against chemical agriculture, they included all fertilizers in this category for tactical reasons.

    Howard especially denigrated sulfate of ammonia and single superphosphate as earthworm poisons. Both of these chemical fertilizers are made with sulfuric acid and have a powerful acidifying reaction when they dissolve in soil. Rodale correctly pointed out that golf course groundskeepers use repeated applications of ammonium sulfate to eliminate earthworms from putting greens. (Small mounds of worm casts made by nightcrawlers ruin the greens' perfectly smooth surface so these worms are the bane of greenskeepers.) However, ammonium sulfate does not eliminate or reduce worms when the soil contains large amounts of chalk or other forms of calcium that counteract acidity.

    The truth of the matter is that worms eat decaying organic matter and any soil amendment that increases plant growth without acidifying soil will increase earthworm food supply and thus worm population. Using lime as an antidote to acid-based fertilizers prevents making the soil inhospitable to earthworms. And many chemical fertilizers do not provoke acid reactions. The organic movement loses this round-but not the battle. And certainly not the war.

    Food supply primarily determines earthworm population. To increase their numbers it is merely necessary to bring in additional organic matter or add plant nutrients that cause more vegetation to be grown there. In one study, simply returning the manure resulting from hay taken off a pasture increased earthworms by one-third. Adding lime and superphosphate to that manure made an additional improvement of another 33 percent. Every time compost is added to a garden, the soil's ability to support earthworms increases.

    Some overly enthusiastic worm fanciers believe it is useful to import large numbers of earthworms. I do not agree. These same self-interested individuals tend to breed and sell worms. If the variety being offered is Eisenia foetida, the brandling, red wiggler, or manure worm used in vermicomposting, adding them to soil is a complete waste of money. This species does not survive well in ordinary soil and can breed in large numbers only in decomposing manure or other proteinaceous organic waste with a low C/N. All worm species breed prolifically. If there are any desirable worms present in soil, their population will soon match the available food supply and soil conditions. The way to increase worm populations is to increase organic matter, up mineral fertility, and eliminate acidity.

    Earthworms and their beneficial activities are easily overlooked and left out of our contemplations on proper gardening technique. But understanding their breeding cycle allows gardeners to easily assist the worms efforts to multiply. In temperate climates, young earthworms hatch out in the fall when soil is cooling and moisture levels are high. As long as the soil is not too cold they feed actively and grow. By early spring these young worms are busily laying eggs. With summer's heat the soil warms and dries out. Even if the gardener irrigates, earthworms naturally become less active. They still lay a few eggs but many mature worms die. During high summer the few earthworms found will be small and young. Unhatched eggs are plentiful but not readily noticed by casual inspection so gardeners may mistakenly think they have few worms and may worry about how to increase their populations. With autumn the population cycle begins anew.

    Soil management can greatly alter worm populations. But, how the field is handled during summer has only a slight effect. Spring and summer tillage does kill a few worms but does not damage eggs. By mulching, the soil can be kept cooler and more favorable to worm activities during summer while surface layers are kept moister. Irrigation helps similarly. Doing these things will allow a gardener the dubious satisfaction of seeing a few more worms during the main gardening season. However, soil is supposed to become inhospitably hot and dry during summer (worm's eye view) and there's not much point in struggling to maintain large earthworm populations during that part of the year. Unfortunately, summer is when gardeners pay the closest attention to the soil.

    Worms maintain their year-round population by overwintering and then laying eggs that hatch late in the growing season. The most harm to worm multiplication happens by exposing bare soil during winter. Worm activity should be at a peak during cool weather. Though worms inadvertently pass a lot of soil through their bodies as they tunnel, soil is not their food. Garden worms and nightcrawlers intentionally rise to the surface to feed. They consume decaying vegetation lying on the surface. Without this food supply they die off. And in northern winters worms must be protected from suddenly experiencing freezing temperatures while they "harden off" and adapt themselves to surviving in almost frozen soil. Under sod or where protected by insulating mulch or a layer of organic debris, soil temperature drops gradually as winter comes on. But the first day or two of cold winter weather may freeze bare soil solid and kill off an entire field full of worms before they've had a chance to adapt.

    Almost any kind of ground cover will enhance winter survival. A layer of compost, manure, straw, or a well-grown cover crop of ryegrass, even a thin mulch of grass clippings or weeds can serve as the food source worms need. Dr. Hopp says that soil tilth can be improved a great deal merely by assisting worms over a single winter.

    Gardeners can effectively support the common earthworm without making great alterations in the way we handle our soil. From a worm's viewpoint, perhaps the best way to recycle autumn leaves is to till them in very shallowly over the garden so they serve as insulation yet are mixed with enough soil so that decomposition is accelerated. Perhaps a thorough garden clean-up is best postponed until spring, leaving a significant amount of decaying vegetation on top of the soil. (Of course, you'll want to remove and compost any diseased plant material or species that may harbor overwintering pests.) The best time to apply compost to tilled soil may also be during the autumn and the very best way is as a dressing atop a leaf mulch because the compost will also accelerate leaf decomposition. This is called "sheet composting" and will be discussed in detail shortly.

    Certain pesticides approved for general use can severely damage earthworms. Carbaryl (Sevin), one of the most commonly used home garden chemical pesticides, is deadly to earthworms even at low levels. Malathion is moderately toxic to worms. Diazinon has not been shown to be at all harmful to earthworms when used at normal rates.

    Just because a pesticide is derived from a natural source and is approved for use on crops labeled "organically grown" is no guarantee that it is not poisonous to mammals or highly toxic to earthworms. For example, rotenone, an insecticide derived from a tropical root called derris, is as poisonous to humans as organophosphate chemical pesticides. Even in very dilute amounts, rotenone is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Great care must be taken to prevent it from getting into waterways. In the tropics, people traditionally harvest great quantities of fish by tossing a handful of powdered derris (a root containing rotenone) into the water, waiting a few minutes, and then scooping up stunned, dead, and dying fish by the ton. Rotenone is also deadly to earthworms. However, rotenone rarely kills worms because it is so rapidly biodegradable. Sprayed on plants to control beetles and other plant predators, its powerful effect lasts only a day or so before sun and moisture break it down to harmless substances. But once I dusted an entire raised bed of beetle-threatened bush bean seedlings with powdered rotenone late in the afternoon. The spotted beetles making hash of their leaves were immediately killed. Unexpectedly, it rained rather hard that evening and still-active rotenone was washed off the leaves and deeply into the soil. The next morning the surface of the bed was thickly littered with dead earthworms. I've learned to treat rotenone with great caution.


Microbes and Soil Fertility

    There are still other holistic standards to measure soil productivity. With more than adequate justification the great Russian soil microbiologist N.S. Krasilnikov judged fertility by counting the numbers of microbes present. He said,

    ". . soil fertility is determined by biological factors, mainly by microorganisms. The development of life in soil endows it with the property of fertility. The notion of soil is inseparable from the notion of the development of living organisms in it. Soil is created by microorganisms. Were this life dead or stopped, the former soil would become an object of geology [not biology]."

    Louise Howard, Sir Albert's second wife, made a very similar judgment in her book, Sir Albert Howard in India.

    "A fertile soil, that is, a soil teeming with healthy life in the shape of abundant microflora and microfauna, will bear healthy plants, and these, when consumed by animals and man, will confer health on animals and man. But an infertile soil, that is, one lacking in sufficient microbial, fungous, and other life, will pass on some form of deficiency to the plants, and such plant, in turn, who pass on some form of deficiency to animal and man."

    Although the two quotes substantively agree, Krasilnikov had a broader understanding. The early writers of the organic movement focused intently on mycorrhizal associations between soil fungi and plant roots as the hidden secret of plant health. Krasilnikov, whose later writings benefited from massive Soviet research did not deny the significance of mycorrhizal associations but stressed plant-bacterial associations. Both views contain much truth.

    Krasilnikov may well have been the greatest soil microbiologist of his era, and Russians in general seem far ahead of us in this field. It is worth taking a moment to ask why that is so. American agricultural science is motivated by agribusiness, either by direct subsidy or indirectly through government because our government is often strongly influenced by major economic interests. American agricultural research also exists in a relatively free market where at this moment in history, large quantities of manufactured materials are reliably and cheaply available. Western agricultural science thus tends to seek solutions involving manufactured inputs. After all, what good is a problem if you can't solve it by profitably selling something .

     But any Soviet agricultural researcher who solved problems by using factory products would be dooming their farmers to failure because the U.S.S.R.'s economic system was incapable of regularly supplying such items. So logically, Soviet agronomy focused on more holistic, low-tech approaches such as manipulating the soil microecology. For example, Americans scientifically increase soil nitrogen by spreading industrial chemicals; the Russians found low-tech ways to brew bacterial soups that inoculated a field with slightly more efficient nitrogen-fixing microorgamsms.

    Soil microbiology is also a relatively inexpensive line of research that rewards mental cleverness over massive investment. Multimillion dollar laboratories with high-tech equipment did not yield big answers when the study was new. Perhaps in this biotech era, recombinant genetics will find high-tech ways to tailor make improved microorganisms and we'll surpass the Russians.

    Soil microorganism populations are incredibly high. In productive soils there may be billions to the gram. (One gram of fluffy soil might fill 1/2 teaspoon.) Krasilnikov found great variations in bacterial counts. Light-colored nonproductive earths of the North growing skimpy conifer trees or poor crops don't contain very many microorganisms. The rich, black, grain-producing soils of the Ukraine (like our midwestern corn belt) carry very large microbial populations.

    One must be clever to study soil microbes and fungi. Their life processes and ecological interactions can't be easily observed directly in the soil with a microscope. Usually, scientists study microorganisms by finding an artificial medium on which they grow well and observe the activities of a large colony or pure culture--a very restricted view. There probably are more species of microorganisms than all other living things combined, yet we often can't identify one species from another similar one by their appearance. We can generally classify bacteria by shape: round ones, rod-shaped ones, spiral ones, etc. We differentiate them by which antibiotic kills them and by which variety of artificial material they prefer to grow on. Pathogens are recognized by their prey. Still, most microbial activities remain a great mystery.

    Krasilnikov's great contribution to science was discovering how soil microorganisms assist the growth of higher plants. Bacteria are very fussy about the substrate they'll grow on. In the laboratory, one species grows on protein gel, another on seaweed. One thrives on beet pulp while another only grows on a certain cereal extract. Plants "understand" this and manipulate their soil environment to enhance the reproduction of certain bacteria they find desirable while suppressing others. This is accomplished by root exudates.

    For every 100 grams of above-ground biomass, a plant will excrete about 25 grams of root exudates, creating a chemically different zone (rhizosphere) close to the root that functions much like the culture medium in a laboratory. Certain bacteria find this region highly favorable and multiply prolifically, others are suppressed. Bacterial counts adjacent to roots will be in hundreds of millions to billions per gram of soil. A fraction of an inch away beyond the influence of the exudates, the count drops greatly.

    Why do plants expend energy culturing bacteria? Because there is an exchange, a quid pro quo. These same bacteria assist the plant in numerous ways. Certain types of microbes are predators. Instead of consuming dead organic matter they attack living plants. However, other species, especially actinomycetes, give off antibiotics that suppress pathogens. The multiplication of actinomycetes can be enhanced by root exudates.

    Perhaps the most important benefit plants receive from soil bacteria are what Krasilnikov dubbed "phytamins," a word play on vitamins plus phyta or "plant" in Greek. Helpful bacteria exude complex water-soluble organic molecules that plants uptake through their roots and use much like humans need certain vitamins. When plants are deprived of phytamins they are less than optimally healthy, have lowered disease resistance, and may not grow as large because some phytamins act as growth hormones.

    Keep in mind that beneficial microorganisms clustering around plant roots do not primarily eat root exudates; exudates merely optimize environmental conditions to encourage certain species. The main food of these soil organisms is decaying organic matter and humus. Deficiencies in organic matter or soil pH outside a comfortable range of 5.75-7.5 greatly inhibit beneficial microorganisms.

    For a long time it has been standard "chemical" ag science to deride the notion that plant roots can absorb anything larger than simple, inorganic molecules in water solution. This insupportable view is no longer politically correct even among adherents of chemical usage. However, if you should ever encounter an "expert" still trying to intimidate others with these old arguments merely ask them, since plant roots cannot assimilate large organic molecules, why do people succeed using systemic chemical pesticides? Systemics are large, complex poisonous organic molecules that plants uptake through their roots and that then make the above-ground plant material toxic to predators. Ornamentals, like roses, are frequently protected by systemic chemical pesticides mixed into chemical fertilizer and fed through the soil.

    Root exudates have numerous functions beyond affecting microorganisms. One is to suppress or encourage the growth of surrounding plants Gardeners experience this as plant companions and antagonists. Walnut tree root exudates are very antagonistic to many other species. And members of the onion family prevent beans from growing well if their root systems are intermixed.

    Many crop rotational schemes exist because the effects of root exudates seem to persist for one or even two years after the original plant grew That's why onions grow very well when they are planted where potatoes grew the year before. And why farmers grow a three year rotation of hay, potatoes and onions. That is also why onions don't grow nearly as well following cabbage or squash. Farmers have a much easier time managing successions. They can grow 40 acres of one crop followed by 40 acres of another. But squash from 100 square feet may overwhelm the kitchen while carrots from the same 100 square feet the next year may not be enough. Unless you keep detailed records, it is hard to remember exactly where everything grew as long as two years ago in a vegetable garden and to correlate that data with this year's results. But when I see half a planting on a raised bed grow well and the adjacent half grow poorly, I assume the difficulty was caused by exudate remains from whatever grew there one, or even, two years ago.

    In 1990, half of crop "F" grew well, half poorly. this was due to the presence of crop "D" in 1989. The gardener might remember that "D" was there last year. But in 1991, half of crop "G" grew well, half poorly. This was also due to the presence of crop "D" two years ago. Few can make this association.

    These effects were one reason that Sir Albert Howard thought it was very foolish to grow a vegetable garden in one spot for too many years. He recommended growing "healing grass" for about five years following several years of vegetable gardening to erase all the exudate effects and restore the soil ecology to normal.

    Mycorrhizal association is another beneficial relationship that should exist between soil organisms and many higher plants. This symbiotic relationship involves fungi and plant roots. Fungi can be pathogenic, consuming living plants. But most of them are harmless and eat only dead, decaying organic matter. Most fungi are soil dwellers though some eat downed or even standing trees.

    Most people do not realize that plant roots adsorb water and water-soluble nutrients only through the tiny hairs and actively growing tips near the very end of the root. The ability for any new root to absorb nutrition only lasts a short time, then the hairs slough off and the root develops a sort of hard bark. If root system growth slows or stops, the plant's ability to obtain nourishment is greatly reduced. Roots cannot make oxygen out of carbon dioxide as do the leaves. That's why it is so important to maintain a good supply of soil air and for the soil to remain loose enough to allow rapid root expansion.

    When roots are cramped, top growth slows or ceases, health and disease resistance drops, and plants may become stressed despite applications of nutrients or watering. Other plants that do not seem to be competing for light above ground may have ramified (filled with roots) far wider expanses soil than a person might think. Once soil is saturated with the roots and the exudates from one plant, the same space may be closed off to the roots of another. Gardeners who use close plantings and intensive raised beds often unknowingly bump up against this limiting factor and are disappointed at the small size of their vegetables despite heavy fertilization, despite loosening the earth two feet deep with double digging, and despite regular watering. Thought about in this way, it should be obvious why double digging improves growth on crowded beds by increasing the depth to which plants can root.

    The roots of plants have no way to aggressively breakdown rock particles or organic matter, nor to sort out one nutrient from another. They uptake everything that is in solution, no more, no less while replacing water evaporated from their leaves. However, soil fungi are able to aggressively attack organic matter and even mineral rock particles and extract the nutrition they want. Fungi live in soil as long, complexly interconnected hair-like threads usually only one cell thick. The threads are called "hyphae." Food circulates throughout the hyphae much like blood in a human body. Sometimes, individual fungi can grow to enormous sizes; there are mushroom circles hundreds of feet in diameter that essentially are one single very old organism. The mushrooms we think of when we think "fungus" are actually not the organism, but the transitory fruit of a large, below ground network.

    Certain types of fungi are able to form a symbiosis with specific plant species. They insert a hyphae into the gap between individual plant cells in a root hair or just behind the growing root tip. Then the hyphae "drinks" from the vascular system of the plant, robbing it of a bit of its life's blood. However, this is not harmful predation because as the root grows, a bark develops around the hyphae. The bark pinches off the hyphae and it rapidly decays inside the plant, making a contribution of nutrients that the plant couldn't otherwise obtain. Hyphae breakdown products may be in the form of complex organic molecules that function as phytamins for the plant.

    Not all plants are capable of forming mycorrhizal associations. Members of the cabbage family, for example, do not. However, if the species can benefit from such an association and does not have one, then despite fertilization the plant will not be as healthy as it could be, nor grow as well. This phenomenon is commonly seen in conifer tree nurseries where seedling beds are first completely sterilized with harsh chemicals and then tree seeds sown. Although thoroughly fertilized, the tiny trees grow slowly for a year or so. Then, as spores of mycorrhizal fungi begin falling on the bed and their hyphae become established, scattered trees begin to develop the necessary symbiosis and their growth takes off. On a bed of two-year-old seedlings, many individual trees are head and shoulders above the others. This is not due to superior genetics or erratic soil fertility. These are the individuals with a mycorrhizal association.

    Like other beneficial microorganisms, micorrhizal fungi do not primarily eat plant vascular fluid, their food is decaying organic matter. Here's yet another reason to contend that soil productivity can be measured by humus content.


    
HOME PAGE     Sovereignty Library    Go To Chapter Eight