HOME PAGE     Sovereignty Library    Go To Chapter Nine

    "Within regions of similar moisture conditions, the organic matter content of soil . . . decreases from north to south. For each fall of 10° C (18° F) in annual temperature the average organic matter content of soil increases two or three times, provided that [soil moisture] is kept constant."

    Moist soil during the growing season encourages plant growth and thus organic matter production. Where the soil becomes dry during the growing season, plant growth slows or stops. So, all things being equal, wet soils contain more organic matter than dry ones. All organic matter eventually rots, even in soil too dry to grow plants. The higher the soil temperature the faster the decomposition. But chilly (not frozen) soils can still grow a lot of biomass. So, all things being equal, hot soils have less humus in them than cold ones. Cool, wet soils will have the highest levels; hot, dry soils will be lowest in humus.

    This model checks out in practice. If we were to measure organic matter in soils along the Mississippi River where soil moisture conditions remain pretty similar from south to north, we might find 2 percent in sultry Arkansas, 3 percent in Missouri and over 4 percent in Wisconsin, where soil temperatures are much lower. In Arizona, unirrigated desert soils have virtually no organic matter. In central and southern California where skimpy and undependable winter rains peter out by March, it is hard to find an unirrigated soil containing as much as 1 percent organic matter while in the cool Maritime northwest, reliable winter rains keep the soil damp into June and the more fertile farm pastures or natural prairies may develop as much as 5 percent organic matter.

    Other factors, like the basic mineral content of the soil or its texture, also influence the amount of organic matter a spot will create and will somewhat increase or decrease the humus content compared to neighboring locations experiencing the same climate. But the most powerfully controlling influences are moisture and temperature.

    On all virgin soils the organic matter content naturally sustains itself at the highest possible level. And, average annual additions exactly match the average annual amount of decomposition. Think about that for a moment. Imagine that we start out with a plot of finely-ground rock particles containing no life and no organic matter. As the rock dust is colonized by life forms that gradually build in numbers it becomes soil. The organic matter created there increases nutrient availability and accelerates the breakdown of rock particles, further increasing the creation of organic matter. Soil humus steadily increases. Eventually a climax is sustained where there is as much humus in the soil as there can be.

    The peak plant and soil ecology that naturally lives on any site is usually very healthy and is inevitably just as abundant as there is moisture and soil minerals to support it. To me this suggests how much organic matter it takes to grow a great vegetable garden. My theory is that in terms of soil organic matter, vegetables grow quite well at the humus level that would peak naturally on a virgin site. In semi-arid areas I'd modify the theory to include an increase as a result of necessary irrigation. Expressed as a rough rule of thumb, a mere 2 percent organic matter in hot climates increasing to 5 percent in cool ones will supply sufficient biological soil activities to grow healthy vegetables if the mineral nutrient levels are high enough too.

    Recall my assertion that what is most important about organic matter is not how much is present, but how much is lost each year through decomposition. For only by decomposing does organic matter release the nutrients it contains so plants can uptake them; only by being consumed does humus support the microecology that so markedly contributes phytamins to plant nutrition, aggressively breaks down rock particles and releases the plant nutrients they contain; only by being eaten does soil organic matter support bacteria and earthworms that improve productivity and create better tilth.

    Here's something I find very interesting. Temperate climates having seasons and winter, vary greatly in average temperature. Comparing annual decomposition loss from a hot soil carrying 2 percent humus with annual decomposition loss from a cooler soil carrying 5 percent, roughly the same amount of organic matter will decay out of each soil during the growing season. This means that in temperate regions we have to replace about the same amount of organic matter no matter what the location.

    Like other substantial colleges of agriculture, the University of Missouri ran some very valuable long-term studies in soil management. In 1888, a never-farmed field of native prairie grasses was converted into test plots. For fifty succeeding years each plot was managed in a different but consistent manner. The series of experiments that I find the most helpful recorded what happens to soil organic matter as a consequence of farming practices. The virgin prairie had sustained an organic matter content of about 3.5 percent. The lines on the graph show what happened to that organic matter over time.

    Timothy grass is probably a slightly more efficient converter of solar energy into organic matter than was the original prairie. After fifty years of feeding the hay cut from the field and returning all of the livestock's manure, the organic matter in the soil increased about 1/2 percent. Obviously, green manuring has very limited ability to increase soil humus above climax levels. Growing oats and returning enough manure to represent the straw and grain fed to livestock, the field held its organic matter relatively constant.

    Growing small grain and removing everything but the stubble for fifty years greatly reduced the organic matter. Keep in mind that half the biomass production in a field happens below ground as roots. And keep in mind that the charts don't reveal the sad appearance the crops probably had once the organic matter declined significantly. Nor do they show that the seed produced on those degenerated fields probably would no longer sprout well enough to be used as seedgrain, so new seed would have been imported into the system each season, bringing with it new supplies of plant nutrients. Without importing that bushel or so of wheat seed on each acre each year, the curves would have been steeper and gone even lower.

    Corn is the hardest of the cereals on soil humus. The reason is, wheat is closely broadcast in fall and makes a thick grassy overwintering stand that forms biomass out of most of the solar energy striking the field from spring until early summer when the seed forms. Leafy oats create a little more biomass than wheat. Corn, on the other hand, is frost tender and can't be planted early. It is also not closely planted but is sown in widely-spaced rows. Corn takes quite a while before it forms a leaf canopy that uses all available solar energy. In farming lingo, corn is a "row crop."

    Vegetables are also row crops. Many types don't form dense canopies that soak up all solar energy for the entire growing season like a virgin prairie. As with corn, the ground is tilled bare, so for much of the best part of the growing season little or no organic matter is produced. Of all the crops that a person can grow, vegetables are the hardest on soil organic matter. There is no way that vegetables can maintain soil humus, even if all their residues are religiously composted and returned. Soil organic matter would decline markedly even in an experiment in which we raised some small animals exclusively on the vegetables and returned all of their manure and urine too.

    When growing vegetables we have to restore organic matter beyond the amount the garden itself produces. The curves showing humus decline at the University of Missouri give us a good hint as to how much organic matter we are going to lose from vegetable gardening. Let's make the most pessimistic possible estimate and suppose that vegetable gardening is twice as hard on soil as was growing corn and removing everything but the stubble and root systems.

    With corn, about 40 percent of the entire organic matter reserve is depleted in the first ten years. Let's suppose that vegetables might remove almost all soil humus in ten years, or 10 percent each year for the first few years. This number is a crude. and for most places in America, a wildly pessimistic guess.

    However, 10 percent loss per year may understate losses in some places. I have seen old row crop soils in California's central valley that look like white-colored blowing dust. Nor does a 10 percent per year estimate quite allow for the surprising durability I observe in the still black and rich-looking old vegetable seed fields of western Washington State's Skaget Valley. These cool-climate fields have suffered chemical farming for decades without having been completely destroyed--yet.

    How much loss is 10 percent per year? Let's take my own garden for example. It started out as an old hay pasture that hadn't seen a plow for twenty-five or more years and where, for the five years I've owned the property, the annual grass production is not cut, baled, and sold but is cut and allowed to lie in place. Each year's accumulation of minerals and humus contributes to the better growth of the next year's grass. Initially, my grass had grown a little higher and a little thicker each year. But the steady increase in biomass production seems to have tapered off in the last couple of years. I suppose by now the soil's organic matter content probably has been restored and is about 5 percent.

    I allocate about one acre of that old pasture to garden land. In any given year my shifting gardens occupy one-third of that acre. The other two-thirds are being regenerated in healing grass. I measure my garden in fractions of acres. Most city folks have little concept of an acre; its about 40,000 square feet, or a plot 200' x 200'.

    Give or take some, the plow pan of an acre weighs about two million pounds. The plow pan is that seven inches of topsoil that is flipped over by a moldboard plow, the seven inches where most biological activity occurs, where virtually all of the soil's organic matter resides. Two million pounds equals one thousand tons of topsoil in the first seven inches of an acre. Five percent of that one thousand tons can be organic matter, up to fifty priceless tons of life that changes 950 tons of dead dust into a fertile, productive acre. If 10 percent of that fifty tons is lost as a consequence of one year's vegetable gardening, that amounts to five tons per acre per year lost or about 25 pounds lost per 100 square feet.

    Patience, reader. There is a very blunt and soon to be a very obvious point to all of this arithmetic. Visualize this! Lime is spread at rates up to four tons per acre. Have you ever spread 1 T/A or 50 pounds of lime over a garden 33 x 33 feet? Mighty hard to accomplish! Even 200 pounds of lime would barely whiten the ground of a 1,000 square-foot garden. It is even harder to spread a mere 5 tons of compost over an acre or only 25 pounds on a 100-square-foot bed. It seems as though nothing has been accomplished, most of the soil still shows, there is no layer of compost, only a thin scattering.

    But for the purpose of maintaining humus content of vegetable ground at a healthy level, a thin scattering once a year is a gracious plenty. Even if I were starting with a totally depleted, dusty, absolutely humusless, ruined old farm field that had no organic matter whatsoever and I wanted to convert it to a healthy vegetable garden, I would only have to make a one-time amendment of 50 tons of ripe compost per acre or 2,500 pounds per 1,000 square feet. Now 2,500 pounds of humus is a groaning, spring-sagging, long-bed pickup load of compost heaped up above the cab and dripping off the sides. Spread on a small garden, that's enough to feel a sense of accomplishment about. Before I knew better I used to incorporate that much composted horse manure once or twice a year and when I did add a half-inch thick layer that's about what I was applying.


Fertilizing Vegetables with Compost

    Will a five ton per acre addition of compost provide enough nutrition to grow great vegetables? Unfortunately, the answer usually is no. In most gardens, in most climates, with most of what passes for "compost," it probably won't. That much compost might well grow decent wheat.

    The factors involved in making this statement are numerous and too complex to fully analyze in a little book like this one. They include the intrinsic mineralization of the soil itself, the temperature of the soil during the growing season, and the high nutritional needs of the vegetables themselves. In my experience, a few alluvial soils that get regular, small additions of organic matter can grow good vegetable crops without additional help. However, these sites are regularly flooded and replenished with highly mineralized rock particles. Additionally, they must become very warm during the growing season. But not all rock particles contain high levels of plant nutrients and not all soils get hot enough to rapidly break down soil particles.

    Soil temperature has a great deal to do with how effectively compost can act as fertilizer. Sandy soils warm up much faster in spring and sand allows for a much freer movement of air, so humus decomposes much more rapidly in sand. Perhaps a sunny, sandy garden on a south-facing slope might grow pretty well with small amounts of strong compost. As a practical matter, if most people spread even the most potent compost over their gardens at only twenty-five pounds per 100 square feet, they would almost certainly be disappointed.

    Well then, if five tons of quality compost to the acre isn't adequate for most vegetables, what about using ten or twenty tons of the best. Will that grow a good garden? Again, the answer must allow for a lot of factors but is generally more positive. If the compost has a low C/N and that compost, or the soil itself, isn't grossly deficient in some essential nutrient, and if the soil has a coarse, airy texture that promotes decomposition, then somewhat heavier applications will grow a good-looking garden that yields a lot of food.

    However, one question that is rarely asked and even more rarely answered satisfactorily in the holistic farming and gardening lore is: Precisely how much organic matter or humus is needed to maximize plant health and the nutritional qualities of the food we're growing? An almost equally important corollary of this is: Can there be too much organic matter?

    This second question is not of practical consequence for biological grain/livestock farmers because it is almost financially impossible to raise organic matter levels on farm soils to extraordinary amounts. Large-scale holistic farmers must grow their own humus on their own farm. Their focus cannot be on buying and bringing in large quantities of organic matter; it must be on conserving and maximizing the value of the organic matter they produce themselves.

    Where you do hear of an organic farmer (not vegetable grower but cereal/livestock farmer) building extraordinary fertility by spreading large quantities of compost, remember that this farmer must be located near an inexpensive source of quality material. If all the farmers wanted to do the same there would not be enough to go around at an economic price unless, perhaps, the entire country became a "closed system" like China. We would have to compost every bit of human excrement and organic matter and there still wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. Even if we became as efficient as China, keep in mind the degraded state of China's upland soils and the rapid desertification going on in their semi-arid west. China is robbing Peter to pay Paul and may not have a truly sustainable agriculture either.

    I've frequently encountered a view among devotees of the organic gardening movement that if a little organic matter is a good thing, then more must be better and even more better still. In Organic Gardening magazine and Rodale garden books we read eulogies to soils that are so high in humus and so laced with earthworms that one can easily shove their arm into the soft earth elbow deep but must yank it out fast before all the hairs have been chewed off by worms, where one must jump away after planting corn seeds lest the stalk poke you in the eye, where the pumpkins average over 100 pounds each, where a single trellised tomato vine covers the entire south side of a house and yields bushels. All due to compost.

    I call believers of the organic faith capital "O" organic gardeners. These folks almost inevitably have a pickup truck used to gather in their neighborhood's leaves and grass clippings on trash day and to haul home loads from local stables and chicken ranches. Their large yards are ringed with compost bins and their annual spreadings of compost are measured in multiples of inches. I was one once, myself.

    There are two vital and slightly disrespectful questions that should be asked about this extreme of gardening practice. Is this much humus the only way to grow big, high-yielding organic vegetable gardens and two, are vegetables raised on soils super-high in humus maximally nutritious. If the answer to the first question is no, then a person might avoid a lot of work by raising the nutrient level of their soil in some other manner acceptable to the organic gardener. If the answer to the second question is less nutritious, then serious gardeners and homesteaders who are making home-grown produce into a significant portion of their annual caloric intake had better reconsider their health assumptions. A lot of organic gardeners cherish ideas similar to the character Woody Allen played in his movie, Sleeper.

    Do you recall that movie? It is about a contemporary American who, coming unexpectedly close to death, is frozen and then reanimated and healed 200 years in the future. However, our hero did not expect to die or be frozen when he became ill and upon awakening believes the explanation given to him is a put on and that his friends are conspiring to make him into a fool. The irritated doctor in charge tells Woody to snap out of it and be prepared to start a new life. This is no joke, says the doctor, all of Woody's friends are long since dead. Woody's response is a classic line that earns me a few chuckles from the audience every time I lecture: 'all my friends can't be dead! I owned a health food store and we all ate brown rice.'


Humus and the Nutritional Quality of Food

    I believe that the purpose of food is not merely to fill the belly or to provide energy, but to create and maintain health. Ultimately, soil fertility should be evaluated not by humus content, nor microbial populations, nor earthworm numbers, but by the long-term health consequences of eating the food. If physical health degenerates, is maintained, or is improved we have measured the soil's true worth. The technical name for this idea is a "biological assay." Evaluating soil fertility by biological assay is a very radical step, for connecting long-term changes in health with the nutritional content of food and then with soil management practices invalidates a central tenet of industrial farming: that bulk yield is the ultimate measure of success or failure. As Newman Turner, an English dairy farmer and disciple of Sir Albert Howard, put it:

    "The orthodox scientist normally measures the fertility of a soil by its bulk yield, with no relation to effect on the ultimate consumer.

    I have seen cattle slowly lose condition and fall in milk yield when fed entirely on the abundant produce of an apparently fertile soil. Though the soil was capable of yielding heavy crops, those crops were not adequate in themselves to maintain body weight and milk production in the cow, without supplements. That soil, though capable of above-average yields, and by the orthodox quantitative measure regarded as fertile, could not, by the more complete measure of ultimate effect on the consumer, be regarded but anything but deficient in fertility.

    Fertility therefore, is the ability to produce at the highest recognized level of yield, crops of quality which, when consumed over long periods by animals or man, enable them to sustain health, bodily condition and high level of production without evidence of disease or deficiency of any kind.

    Fertility cannot be measured quantitatively. Any measure of soil fertility must be related to the quality of its produce. . . . the most simple measure of soil fertility is its ability to transmit, through its produce, fertility to the ultimate consumer."

    Howard also tells of creating a super-healthy herd of work oxen on his research farm at Indore, India. After a few years of meticulous composting and restoration of soil life, Howard's oxen glowed with well-being. As a demonstration he intentionally allowed his animals to rub noses across the fence with neighboring oxen known to be infected with hoof and mouth and other cattle plagues. His animals remained healthy. I have read so many similar accounts in the literature of the organic farming movement that in my mind there is no denying the relationship between the nutritional quality of plants and the presence of organic matter in soil. Many other organic gardeners reach the same conclusion. But most gardeners do not understand one critical difference between farming and gardening: most agricultural radicals start farming on run-down land grossly deficient in organic matter. The plant and animal health improvements they describe come from restoration of soil balance, from approaching a climax humus level much like I've done in my pasture by no longer removing the grass.

    But home gardeners and market gardeners near cities are able to get their hands on virtually unlimited quantities of organic matter. Encouraged by a mistaken belief that the more organic matter the healthier, they enrich their soil far beyond any natural capacity. Often this is called "building up the soil." But increasing organic matter in gardens well above a climax ecology level does not further increase the nutritional value of vegetables and in many circumstances will decrease their value markedly.

    For many years I have lectured on organic gardening to the Extension Service's master gardener classes. Part of the master gardener training includes interpreting soil test results. In the early 1980s when Oregon State government had more money, all master gardener trainees were given a free soil test of their own garden. Inevitably, an older gentlemen would come up after my lecture and ask my interpretation of his puzzling soil test.

    Ladies, please excuse me. Lecturing in this era of women's lib I've broken my politically incorrect habit of saying "the gardener, he . . ." but in this case it was always a man, an organic gardener who had been building up his soil for years.

    The average soils in our region test moderately- to strongly acid; are low in nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium; quite adequate in potassium; and have 3-4 percent organic matter. Mr. Organic's soil test showed an organic matter content of 15 to 20 percent with more than adequate nitrogen and a pH of 7.2. However there was virtually no phosphorus, calcium or magnesium and four times the amount of potassium that any farm agent would ever recommend. On the bottom of the test, always written in red ink, underlined, with three exclamation points, "No more wood ashes for five years!!!" Because so many people in the Maritime northwest heat with firewood, the soil tester had mistakenly assumed that the soil became alkaline and developed such a potassium imbalance from heavy applications of wood ashes.

    This puzzled gardener couldn't grasp two things about his soil test report. One, he did not use wood ashes and had no wood stove and two, although he had been "building up his soil for six or seven years," the garden did not grow as well as he had imagined it would. Perhaps you see why this questioner was always a man. Mr. Organic owned a pickup and loved to haul organic matter and to make and spread compost. His soil was full of worms and had a remarkably high humus level but still did not grow great crops.

    It was actually worse than he understood. Plants uptake as much potassium as there is available in the soil, and concentrate that potassium in their top growth. So when vegetation is hauled in and composted or when animal manure is imported, large quantities of potassium come along with them. As will be explained shortly, vegetation from forested regions like western Oregon is even more potassium-rich and contains less of other vital nutrients than vegetation from other areas. By covering his soil several inches thick with manure and compost every year he had totally saturated the earth with potassium. Its cation exchange capacity or in non-technical language, the soil's ability to hold other nutrients had been overwhelmed with potassium and all phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and other nutrients had largely been washed away by rain. It was even worse than that! The nutritional quality of the vegetables grown on that superhumusy soil was very, very low and would have been far higher had he used tiny amounts of compost and, horror of all horrors, chemical fertilizer.


Climate and the Nutritional Quality of Food

    Over geologic time spans, water passing through soil leaches or removes plant nutrients. In climates where there is barely enough rain to grow cereal crops, soils retain their minerals and the food produced there tends to be highly nutritious. In verdant, rainy climates the soil is leached of plant nutrients and the food grown there is much less nutritious. That's why the great healthy herds of animals were found on scrubby, semi-arid grasslands like the American prairies; in comparison, lush forests carry far lower quantities of animal biomass.

    Some plant nutrients are much more easily leached out than others. The first valuable mineral to go is calcium. Semi-arid soils usually still retain large quantities of calcium. The nutrient most resistant to leaching is potassium. Leached out forest soils usually still retain relatively large amounts of potassium. William Albrecht observed this data and connected with it a number of fairly obvious and vital changes in plant nutritional qualities that are caused by these differences in soil fertility. However obvious they may be, Albrecht's work was not considered politically correct by his peers or the interest groups that supported agricultural research during the mid-twentieth century and his contributions have been largely ignored. Worse, his ideas did not quite fit with the ideological preconceptions of J.l. Rodale, so organic gardeners and farmers are also ignorant of Albrecht's wisdom.

    Albrecht would probably have approved of the following chart that expresses the essential qualities of dryland and humid soils.

    Dryland soils contain far higher levels of all minerals than leached soils. But Albrecht speculated that the key difference between these soils is the ratio of calcium to potassium. In dryland soils there is much more calcium in the soil than there is potassium while in wetter soils there is as much or more potassium than calcium. To test his theory he grew some soybeans in pots. One pot had soil with a high amount of calcium relative to the amount of potassium, imitating dryland prairie soil. The other pot had just as much calcium but had more potassium, giving it a ratio similar to a high quality farm soil in the eastern United States. Both soils grew good-looking samples of soybean plants, but when they were analyzed for nutritional content they proved to be quite different.

    The potassium-fortified soil gave a 25 percent higher bulk yield but the soybeans contained 25 percent less protein. The consumer of those plants would have to burn off approximately 30 percent more carbohydrates to obtain the same amount of vital amino acids essential to all bodily functions. Wet-soil plants also contain only one-third as much calcium, an essential nutrient, whose lack over several generations causes gradual reduction of skeletal size and dental deterioration. They also contain only half as much phosphorus, another essential nutrient. Their oversupply of potassium is not needed; humans eating balanced diets usually excrete large quantities of unnecessary potassium in their urine.

    Albrecht then analyzed dozens of samples of vegetation that came from both dryland soils and humid soils and noticed differences in them similar to the soybeans grown under controlled conditions. The next chart, showing the average composition of plant vegetation from the two different regions, is taken directly from Albrecht's research. The figures are averages of large numbers of plant samples, including many different food crops from each climate.

    Analyzed as a whole, these data tell us a great deal about how we should manage our soil to produce the most nutritious food and about the judicious use of compost in the garden as well. I ask you to refer back to these three small charts as I point out a number of conclusions that can be drawn from them.

    The basic nutritional problem that all animals have is not about finding energy food, but how to intake enough vitamins, minerals and usable proteins. What limits our ability to intake nutrients is the amount of bulk we can process--or the number of calories in the food. With cows, for example, bulk is the limiter. The cow will completely fill her digestive tract at all times and will process all the vegetation she can digest every day of her life. Her health depends on the amount of nutrition in that bulk. With humans, our modern lifestyle limits most of us to consuming 1,500 to 1,800 calories a day. Our health depends on the amount of nutrients coming along with those calories.

    So I write the fundamental equation for human health as follows:

    HEALTH = NUTRITION IN FOOD DIVIDED BY CALORIES IN THAT FOOD

    If the food that we eat contains all of the nutrients that food could possibly contain, and in the right ratios, then we will get sufficient nutrition while consuming the calories we need to supply energy. However, to the degree that our diet contains denatured food supplying too much energy, we will be lacking nutrition and our bodies will suffer gradual degeneration. This is why foods such as sugar and fat are less healthful because they are concentrated sources of energy that contain little or no nutrition. Nutritionless food also contributes to "hidden hungers" since the organism craves something that is missing. The body overeats, and becomes fat and unhealthy.

    Albrecht's charts show us that food from dry climates tends to be high in proteins and essential minerals while simultaneously lower in calories. Food from wet climates tends to be higher in calories while much lower in protein and essential mineral nutrients. Albrecht's writings, as well as those of Weston Price, and Sir Robert McCarrison listed in the bibliography, are full of examples showing how human health and longevity are directly associated with these same variations in climate, soil, and food nutrition.

    Albrecht pointed out a clear example of soil fertility causing health or sickness. In 1940, when America was preparing for World War II, all eligible men were called in for a physical examination to determine fitness for military service. At that time, Americans did not eat the same way we do now. Food was produced and distributed locally. Bread was milled from local flour. Meat and milk came from local farmers. Vegetables and potatoes did not all come from California. Regional differences in soil fertility could be seen reflected in the health of people.

    Albrecht's state, Missouri, is divided into a number of distinct rainfall regions. The northwestern part is grassy prairie and receives much less moisture than the humid, forested southeastern section. If soil tests were compared across a diagonal line drawn from the northwest to the southeast, they would exactly mimic the climate-caused mineral profile differences Albrecht had identified. Not unexpectedly, 200 young men per 1,000 draftees were medically unfit for military service from the northwest part of Missouri while 400 per 1,000 were unfit from the southeastern part. And 300 per 1,000 were unfit from the center of the state.

    Another interesting, and rather frightening, conclusion can be drawn from the second chart. Please notice that by increasing the amount of potassium in the potting soil, Albrecht increased the overall yield by 25 percent while simultaneously lowering all of the other significant nutritional aspects. Most of this increase of yield was in the form of carbohydrates, that in a food crops equates to calories. Agronomists also know that adding potassium fertilizer greatly and inexpensively increases yield. So American farm soils are routinely dosed with potassium fertilizer, increasing bulk yield and profits without consideration for nutrition, or for the ultimate costs in public health. Organic farmers often do not understand this aspect of plant nutrition either and may use "organic" forms of potassium to increase their yields and profits. Buying organically grown food is no guarantee that it contains the ultimate in nutrition.

    So, if health comes from paying attention to the ratio of nutrition to calories in our food, then as gardeners who are in charge of creating a significant amount of our own fodder, we can take that equation a step further:

    When we decide how to manage our gardens we can take steps to imitate dryland soils by keeping potassium levels lower while maintaining higher levels of calcium.

    Now take another close look at the third chart. Average vegetation from dryland soils contains slightly more potassium than calcium (1.2:1) while average vegetation from wetland soils contains many more times more potassium than calcium (4.5:1). When we import manure or vegetation into our garden or farm soils we are adding large quantities of potassium. Those of us living in rainy climates that were naturally forested have it much worse in this respect than those of us gardening on the prairies or growing irrigated gardens in desert climates because the very vegetation and manure we use to "build up" our gardens contains much more potassium while most of our soils already contain all we need and then some.

    It should be clear to you now why some organic gardeners receive the soil tests like the man at my lecture. Even the soil tester, although scientifically trained and university educated, did not appreciate the actual source of the potassium overdose. The tester concluded it must have been wood ashes when actually the potassium came from organic matter itself.

    I conclude that organic matter is somewhat dangerous stuff whose use should be limited to the amount needed to maintain basic soil tilth and a healthy, complex soil ecology.


Fertilizing Gardens Organically

    Scientists analyzing the connections between soil fertility and the nutritional value of crops have repeatedly remarked that the best crops are grown with compost and fertilizer. Not fertilizer alone and not compost alone. The best place for gardeners to see these data is Werner Schupan's book (listed in the bibliography).

    But say the word "fertilizer" to an organic gardener and you'll usually raise their hackles. Actually there is no direct linkage of the words "fertilizer" and "chemical." A fertilizer is any concentrated plant nutrient source that rapidly becomes available in the soil. In my opinion, chemicals are the poorest fertilizers; organic fertilizers are far superior.

    The very first fertilizer sold widely in the industrial world was guano. It is the naturally sun-dried droppings of nesting sea birds that accumulates in thick layers on rocky islands off the coast of South America. Guano is a potent nutrient source similar to dried chicken manure, containing large quantities of nitrogen, fair amounts of phosphorus, and smaller quantities of potassium. Guano is more potent than any other manure because sea birds eat ocean fish, a very high protein and highly mineralized food. Other potent organic fertilizers include seed meals; pure, dried chicken manure; slaughterhouse wastes; dried kelp and other seaweeds; and fish meal.

    Growing most types of vegetables requires building a level of soil fertility that is much higher than required by field crops like cereals, soybeans, cotton and sunflowers. Field crops can be acceptably productive on ordinary soils without fertilization. However, because we have managed our farm soils as depreciating industrial assets rather than as relatively immortal living bodies, their ability to deliver plant nutrients has declined and the average farmer usually must add additional nutrients in the form of concentrated, rapidly-releasing fertilizers if they are going to grow a profitable crop.

    Vegetables are much more demanding than field crops. They have long been adapted to growing on potent composts or strong manures like fresh horse manure or chicken manure. Planted and nourished like wheat, most would refuse to grow or if they did survive in a wheat field, vegetables would not produce the succulent, tender parts we consider valuable.

    Building higher than normal levels of plant nutrients can be done with large additions of potent compost and manure. In semi-arid parts of the country where vegetation holds a beneficial ratio of calcium to potassium food grown that way will be quite nutritious. In areas of heavier rainfall, increasing soil fertility to vegetable levels is accomplished better with fertilizers. The data in the previous section gives strong reasons for many gardeners to limit the addition of organic matter in soil to a level that maintains a healthy soil ecology and acceptable tilth. Instead of supplementing compost with low quality chemical fertilizers, I recommend making and using a complete organic fertilizer mix to increase mineral fertility.

HOME PAGE     Sovereignty Library    Go To Chapter Nine