The journey that COVID-19 will take us on

[Naki Rat]

2.5 ha, i have farmed and developed land for decades i have developed pakahi and forrest terrace and even silt river flats.
SO i would be impressed if you provide me with the calculations on how adding iNtrogen would not increase your production many fold. because simple science says it will.
Also and just now many 100 of billions of chickens we will need to ferilise the 13,9 million ha of farms in NZ using a no N method and its lower yields.
Even just the extra man power and fuel that would eed to be used to cart and store this cheicken compost
Where and how are we going to grow the chicken feed to feed the grow the 100's billion chickens.
Yes as i said N is a growth multiplier and relies on correcting PH and basic soil deficiencies ofPK and S and the other nutrients. so why insinuate i said anything other.
You can grow crops and pasture without it just no where near as efficiently so to maintain the same yields we need to clear more land or accept lower yields and higher prices.
I stated this directly
RPR is imported we only have a smal local source of serpentine at Dunedin as far as i know. it ld relies on soil acididly to become plant available.
NZ does not have the chickens or the land available tosupport them required to produce the manure to fertilize NZ.
Dr Ants Roberts is a no bullshit scientist respected by the entire farming community who hacs dedicated himself throughout his entire career.
How is it you and your duck know more.

For The Love of Soil addresses and answers most of the issues you raise in support of synthetic fertiliser based farming. There's no point in resorting to extensive cut/pasting from it to support this.

Regarding the use of poultry manure based products to stimulate soil biological activity this can just as effectively be done using fish waste based products and a wide variety of other nitrogen rich products. Even the 180 chicken farm in NZ aren't going to come close to providing the fertiliser requirements of our farming sector particularly if you are using the elemental N export/input model.

Your reference to RPR is correct in that it requires soil acidity to activate it into a soil soluble form. Of course this is done chemically by using sulphuric acid to produce super phosphate, which in term has an acidifying effect on soils which then needs to be addressed by way of heavy liming. In a biologically active soil this acidification occurs from the action of humic acids. Also the limited supply of RPR globally is seen as a future limiting factor for our farming sector as this is an element sadly lacking in our own soils. One upside to reduced RPR importation will be a linked reduction of the cadmium content in our soils, pastures and meat and dairy products which has already become an alarming potential barrier to exports of our produce to many countries. Along with the USDA's increased sensitivity to the use of CCA treated fencing, the European's moves to limit food miles and the coming restrictions and cost transferral related to climate change activities, it is yet another case of our 'chickens coming home to roost' in regard to our long established farming practices that are now recognised as having significant downstream effects.

In regard to your pasted text I have had sufficient exposure to academics and other so called experts in my time in university, orcharding and Organics certification bodies to be very wary of the financial interests that often shape their opinions. As in all political and business information streams it is a matter of 'following the money'.

The ongoing theme that Nicola follows in her book is that less can usually be more. The farmer's primary driver is their bottom line but their is more than just increased production levels that are key to maximising profits. Many of those that are now practicing regenerative agricultural successfully enjoy major savings in fertiliser inputs as well as animal health cost reductions. I've also seen many examples of well run Organic farming enterprises reduce their vet bills to a fraction of those they paid under conventional farming practices. Those sort of savings offset the reduced stocking levels to a significant degree so therefore the threat of reduced income and more expensive produce isn't what many from conventional farming mindsets portray.

In particular New Zealand is probably the farthest from its major markets of any trading nation and therefore we have the best reason to be adding value to our exported products. The more is better model just isn't going to work for us as this isolation increasingly adds to the costs we must incur in getting our produce to market. Selling whole sheep carcasses went down the tubes largely for this reason but we are still exporting milk with the water removed as a large proportion of our dairy exports. And I don't need to explain the folly of exporting whole logs. We must add value to our exported produce in order to maintain its viability. We need to fill the same amount of shipping containers with more valuable contents rather than filling more containers with the same low value dross. Sustainably produced primary produce is a step in the direction we must take to maintain relevance in international markets and the inward reflection that will happen as we move forward from this dark period will make our customers increasingly sensitive to their wants and needs, particularly in terms of the health of them and their environment. This is a huge potential marketing opportunity for New Zealand if we will only recognise its real implications.

[husaberg]

For The Love of Soil addresses and answers most of the issues you raise in support of synthetic fertiliser based farming. There's no point in resorting to extensive cut/pasting from it to support this.

Regarding the use of poultry manure based products to stimulate soil biological activity this can just as effectively be done using fish waste based products and a wide variety of other nitrogen rich products. Even the 180 chicken farm in NZ aren't going to come close to providing the fertiliser requirements of our farming sector particularly if you are using the elemental N export/input model.

Your reference to RPR is correct in that it requires soil acidity to activate it into a soil soluble form. Of course this is done chemically by using sulphuric acid to produce super phosphate, which in term has an acidifying effect on soils which then needs to be addressed by way of heavy liming. In a biologically active soil this acidification occurs from the action of humic acids. Also the limited supply of RPR globally is seen as a future limiting factor for our farming sector as this is an element sadly lacking in our own soils. One upside to reduced RPR importation will be a linked reduction of the cadmium content in our soils, pastures and meat and dairy products which has already become an alarming potential barrier to exports of our produce to many countries. Along with the USDA's increased sensitivity to the use of CCA treated fencing, the European's moves to limit food miles and the coming restrictions and cost transferral related to climate change activities, it is yet another case of our 'chickens coming home to roost' in regard to our long established farming practices that are now recognised as having significant downstream effects.

In regard to your pasted text I have had sufficient exposure to academics and other so called experts in my time in university, orcharding and Organics certification bodies to be very wary of the financial interests that often shape their opinions. As in all political and business information streams it is a matter of 'following the money'.

The ongoing theme that Nicola follows in her book is that less can usually be more. The farmer's primary driver is their bottom line but their is more than just increased production levels that are key to maximising profits. Many of those that are now practicing regenerative agricultural successfully enjoy major savings in fertiliser inputs as well as animal health cost reductions. I've also seen many examples of well run Organic farming enterprises reduce their vet bills to a fraction of those they paid under conventional farming practices. Those sort of savings offset the reduced stocking levels to a significant degree so therefore the threat of reduced income and more expensive produce isn't what many from conventional farming mindsets portray.

In particular New Zealand is probably the farthest from its major markets of any trading nation and therefore we have the best reason to be adding value to our exported products. The more is better model just isn't going to work for us as this isolation increasingly adds to the costs we must incur in getting our produce to market. Selling whole sheep carcasses went down the tubes largely for this reason but we are still exporting milk with the water removed as a large proportion of our dairy exports. And I don't need to explain the folly of exporting whole logs. We must add value to our exported produce in order to maintain its viability. We need to fill the same amount of shipping containers with more valuable contents rather than filling more containers with the same low value dross. Sustainably produced primary produce is a step in the direction we must take to maintain relevance in international markets and the inward reflection that will happen as we move forward from this dark period will make our customers increasingly sensitive to their wants and needs, particularly in terms of the health of them and their environment. This is a huge potential marketing opportunity for New Zealand if we will only recognise its real implications.

If you cant answer the questions say so.
The world can't be fed on good intentions........
Whilst i am sure you mean well you suggestions are not viable in any scale much past a backyard level
You really need to think stuff through in regards to scale.
You talk of transport and efficiencies for export yet expect someone to transport a low active ingredient compost on a vast scale compared to highly concentrated fertilizers..
Not to mention how you are going to generate the required level of compost.
Tell what the 100's of billions of chickens and fish are going to eat to make the fertiliser.
Instead of refering people to read your bible give us the answers that are scientifically robust

To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of 109 million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48 states, or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation.

[Naki Rat]

If you cant answer the questions say so.
The world can't be fed on good intentions........
Whilst i am sure you mean well you suggestions are not viable in any scale past a backyard level
You really need to think stuff through in regards to scale.
you talk of transport and efficiencies for export yet expect someone to transport a low active ingredient compost on a vast scale compared to highly concentrated fertilizers..
Not to mention how you are going to generate the required level of compost.
Tell what the 100's of billions of chickens and fish are going to eat to make the fertiliser.

"Low active ingredient compost" indicates that you just don't get the biological component of the issue.

As I said, read the book so I'm not going to paste screeds of information here to address your lack of understanding of the mechanics of regenerative farming. Some of the case studies quoted in that book relate to very large acreage holdings in AU and USA so can hardly be regarded as "backyard level" enterprises.

To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of 109 million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48 states, or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation.

I'm guessing that this is based on mineral replacement ideology. In reality most of the minerals required to support plant growth are already present in the soil profile; it's just a matter of stimulating the soil biology to access that reservoir.

If you're averse to gaining knowledge from a book then maybe this video presentation by the book's author will open your mind to its perspective:

[husaberg]

"Low active ingredient compost" indicates that you just don't get the biological component of the issue.

As I said, read the book so I'm not going to paste screeds of information here to address your lack of understanding of the mechanics of regenerative farming. Some of the case studies quoted in that book relate to very large acreage holdings in AU and USA so can hardly be regarded as "backyard level" enterprises.



I'm guessing that this is based on mineral replacement ideology. In reality most of the minerals required to support plant growth are already present in the soil profile; it's just a matter of stimulating the soil biology to access that reservoir.

If you're averse to gaining knowledge from a book then maybe this video presentation by the book's author will open your mind to its perspective:

Chicken manure is average values of
NPKS
Chicken Manure 1.1 0.8%0.5 0.3 25% of this manure is water even after a year.

You will need 20X the amount to supply less nutrients than DAP based fertiliser or 10 times for a Superphoshate based fetiliser.
the average chook produces 25 tons of manure per thousand hens. great stuff but you will need about 7500KG of manure per ha so for each HA you need to fertilse you need 7500 chooks.
for a farm producing 10000ms /HA for each hectare.
this is just one nutrient and doesnt not include the capital fertilisers which is about 11 KG of phosphorus needed to raise the olsen p to the biological optimium of 30 for Taranaiki soils which is a mind boogling 81 tons/ha if its an olsen 5 of 15.
The average farm in NZ is 140ha so you will need 1 million chocks for just one average farm. just for maintence
hint we have about 12000 dairy farms alone in NZ that 12 billion chooks. just for the dairy farms alone. assuming you could even capture 100% of the chicken manure.
and at 1.6 million HA its only about 7.5% of NZ 12 million ha in farming and horticulture.

My Maths is based on maths, My science is based on simple science, my farming experience is based on being a farmer for over 20 years. not the ramblings of some organic zealot idiot.
simply put no matter your good intentions You can't answer the questions as you dont understand the scale. Thats why you keep avoiding answering the questions.
Where are going to run the 100 of billions of Chickens needed to produce the manure needed? what are you going to feed them, hint we will need to feed the chocks and they eat feed we like to eat like grains these are simple questions what are we going to feed these 12 billion chooks alone thats just for the dairy farms. Just the need to store the 1000's ton of manure needed fo reach dairy farm for a year prior to application should be an hint

[sidecar bob]

What about the urea you're going to have to put on the corn to feed that many chickens?

[husaberg]

What about the urea you're going to have to put on the corn to feed that many chickens?

13kg of nitrogen or nearly 30KG of urea per ton of grain
at 12t Grain yeild/HA you will need a lot of Chickens. and a lot of HA to feed them corn.

Thats 1200kg of Chicken manure / ton of grain or 14.4tt/HA of chicken shit.
Thats the problem with such ill conceived ideas.
wait to those ones come home to roost...........
if we go organic we need to cut done all the rainforests to grow enough food to survive.

[Naki Rat]

Chicken manure is average values of
NPKS
Chicken Manure 1.1 0.8%0.5 0.3 25% of this manure is water even after a year.

You will need 20X the amount to supply less nutrients than DAP based fertiliser or 10 times for a Superphoshate based fetiliser.
the average chook produces 25 tons of manure per thousand hens. great stuff but you will need about 7500KG of manure per ha so for each HA you need to fertilse you need 7500 chooks.
for a farm producing 10000ms /HA for each hectare.
this is just one nutrient and doesnt not include the capital fertilisers which is about 11 KG of phosphorus needed to raise the olsen p to the biological optimium of 30 for Taranaiki soils which is a mind boogling 81 tons/ha if its an olsen 5 of 15.
The average farm in NZ is 140ha so you will need 1 million chocks for just one average farm. just for maintence
hint we have about 12000 dairy farms alone in NZ that 12 billion chooks. just for the dairy farms alone. assuming you could even capture 100% of the chicken manure.
and at 1.6 million HA its only about 7.5% of NZ 12 million ha in farming and horticulture.

My Maths is based on maths, My science is based on simple science, my farming experience is based on being a farmer for over 20 years. not the ramblings of some organic zealot idiot.
simply put no matter your good intentions You can't answer the questions as you dont understand the scale. Thats why you keep avoiding answering the questions.
Where are going to run the 100 of billions of Chickens needed to produce the manure needed? what are you going to feed them, hint we will need to feed the chocks and they eat feed we like to eat like grains these are simple questions what are we going to feed these 12 billion chooks alone thats just for the dairy farms. Just the need to store the 1000's ton of manure needed fo reach dairy farm for a year prior to application should be an hint

I'm not answering the questions you're posing because in a biologically driven production system the mineral replacement model you're using is largely irrelevant. My scenario perceives soil biological levels as the yardstick of production potential and that isn't just measured in NPKS.

In the case of nitrogen in particular it is hugely abundant in the air we breath and the bacteria and plants that fix that nitrogen are well able to supply it in the soil environment in sufficient levels to support plant growth. That is why the plants that we grow exude carbohydrates from their roots in order to feed those bacteria and associated soil biota. Nitrogen doesn't need to come from a sack of salts if your soil is functioning as it was designed. Nitrogen fixation is simple biology and it is also why farmers not so long ago included clover in their sward, back before oil derived nitrogen products became the crutch to support today's production levels.

Your reasoning is as relevant to regenerative farming methods as equating how much fossil fuel is needed to charge an electric car. The two ideologies aren't interchangeable in those respects. Regenerative farming works with naturally available resources and is designed and fine tuned by observation of the farm environment. When did your fertiliser rep last dig a hole and observe the root and earthworm activity in your soil?

[Naki Rat]

This discussion from a trio of top-line journalists addresses the coming scenario for our world along with the the changing landscape for their profession in a world where two top leaders are both doing their best to rewrite history in real time. An intriguing discussion.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1lPKqVkjwANGb

[husaberg]

I'm not answering the questions you're posing because in a biologically driven production system the mineral replacement model you're using is largely irrelevant. My scenario perceives soil biological levels as the yardstick of production potential and that isn't just measured in NPKS.

In the case of nitrogen in particular it is hugely abundant in the air we breath and the bacteria and plants that fix that nitrogen are well able to supply it in the soil environment in sufficient levels to support plant growth. That is why the plants that we grow exude carbohydrates from their roots in order to feed those bacteria and associated soil biota. Nitrogen doesn't need to come from a sack of salts if your soil is functioning as it was designed. Nitrogen fixation is simple biology and it is also why farmers not so long ago included clover in their sward, back before oil derived nitrogen products became the crutch to support today's production levels.

Your reasoning is as relevant to regenerative farming methods as equating how much fossil fuel is needed to charge an electric car. The two ideologies aren't interchangeable in those respects. Regenerative farming works with naturally available resources and is designed and fine tuned by observation of the farm environment. When did your fertiliser rep last dig a hole and observe the root and earthworm activity in your soil?

How about all the nutrients
Yes, legume can and do contribute to N supply.They form the backbone of pastoral farming in Nz that's why 25% of the pasture seeds we plant are clover, but they dont supply enough to feed the world or produce at the biological optimum as they top out at about 200KG/N per ha. Not using N would be cool but only if you stump up with the 20% extra land or the 20% increase in price for out products.
We would need to clear another 1/5 of NZ to supply the same amount of yields we currently have with using Urea and ammonium sulphate.
Legumes also only grow when the soil temp is over 10 degrees C ie about 60-70% of the year but livestock need feeding year around and nitrogen doesn't accumulate in the soil for periods either.
You also conveniently again dodge where all the P,K and s are going to come from as they have to be replaced as they leave with the product as does the Nitrogen.
its simple maths you remove NPK and S and they have to be replaced. if they come from chicken shit or fertilier the nutrients have to be replaced.
uless you intend to ship back the feaces of the people that eat the NZ cheese and the meat they need to be replaced.
Your points are illogical and are not based on science they simply dont add up.
100's of billions of chickens eating grain and us trucking around their poop while dancing arround with hairy arm pitted vegetarians are the answer to sustainable agriculture..... nice one.

[Berries]

What about the urea you're going to have to put on the corn to feed that many chickens?

Come on, don't take the piss.

[Naki Rat]

How about all the nutrients
Yes, legume can and do contribute to N supply.They form the backbone of pastoral farming in Nz that's why 25% of the pasture seeds we plant are clover, but they dont supply enough to feed the world or produce at the biological optimum as they top out at about 200KG/N per ha. Not using N would be cool but only if you stump up with the 20% extra land or the 20% increase in price for out products.
We would need to clear another 1/5 of NZ to supply the same amount of yields we currently have with using Urea and ammonium sulphate.
Legumes also only grow when the soil temp is over 10 degrees C ie about 60-70% of the year but livestock need feeding year around and nitrogen doesn't accumulate in the soil for periods either.
You also conveniently again dodge where all the P,K and s are going to come from as they have to be replaced as they leave with the product as does the Nitrogen.
its simple maths you remove NPK and S and they have to be replaced. if they come from chicken shit or fertilier the nutrients have to be replaced.
uless you intend to ship back the feaces of the people that eat the NZ cheese and the meat they need to be replaced.
Your points are illogical and are not based on science they simply dont add up.
100's of billions of chickens eating grain and us trucking around their poop while dancing arround with hairy arm pitted vegetarians are the answer to sustainable agriculture..... nice one.

Okay, this conversation will remain at an impass as long as you keep regurgitating the mineral replacement ideology, which is understandable as it is the basis of soil science theory at university level.

Look at it this way. I'll assume you are familiar with the basics of composting but just in case here we go.
The composting process is reliant on a C:N ratio of around 25:1 for efficient breakdown of the carbon rich material that makes up the bulk of the compost's mass. The nitrogen is required as fuel for the organisms (mainly bacteria) that initiate this breakdown and it is the biological activity of those bacteria that causes the heating phase of the composting process which serves to accelerate that breakdown while also killing most of the pathogenic (and potentially phytotoxic) components of the compost ingredients. This nitrogen input can come from a wide variety of sources including chicken manure as we've discussed but any animal manure will suffice, as will slaughterhouse or fish processing wastes and a variety of food wastes or byproducts. Virtually every food production system has a potentially valuable byproduct stream that can be used to fuel a composting process to be used by themselves or by an upstream supplier. This makes a lot of sense, especially as many food producing enterprises currently regard such 'waste' streams as an expensive problem (e.g. dairy effluent).

In that scenario the nitrogenous input serves as a catalyst in the process not as a mineral component in a fertiliser sense. Also those same bacteria that break down the carboniferous content are also present in your soil and are activated to perform that same process when nitrogen is added in the form of soluble fertilisers. You referred to the process that occurs when nitrogen was added to sawdust but in the soil environment the most readily available carbon source is the humus. This is why the repeated application of soluble nitrogen fertilisers is so harmful to your soil; it fuels a process whereby it consumes itself. Goodbye topsoil!

Back to the compost. Once it has completed its breakdown process it has become a very valuable soil conditioning input to your garden or farm. Not in the sense of an NPK analysis fertiliser but as a catalyst in its own right to stimulate the organisms in your soil environment to release the nutrients that naturally exist there. Of particular importance in a farming system is nitrogen which as you're correctly stated is temperature (seasonally) regulated. However the nitrogen in your farming environment is stored in the plants and soil organisms. The live cycles of all of the organisms on your farm produce nitrogenous wastes whether it be the above ground livestock or the much smaller but collectively huge mass of soil organisms. This below ground population starts with bacteria and moves up through protozoa, nematodes, arthropods and on to earthworms. Each consumes those below them and excretes (shits) out excess nitrogen. In addition leguminous plants work in conjunction with nitrogen fixing bacteria to convert atmospheric nitrogen which ends up in the foliage of the plant to be consumed by either farm livestock (who then excrete nitrogen rich manure and urine) or soil organisms if foliage returns directly to the soil. Additionally the soil contains free living nitrogen fixing bacteria that do so without the photosynthetic advantage involved in living symbiotically with legumes.

The other major component of the compost and soil environments is fungi. These organisms play a huge role in physically and nutritionally supporting soil health. Their 'root' or hyphae extend for kilometres and function as virtual (vascular) extensions to plant roots enabling nutrient and water transfer that plants aren't able to directly perform themselves. They also exude strong acids that are capable of extracting minerals from the rock (e.g. sand) component of soils. Fungal strands also bind together soil particles into crumbs and larger aggregates that aid water holding capacity, combats erosion and maintains the texture of soils that enable them to act as organism friendly structures for the myriad of life that exists under your feet. Fungi's wide network also allow plants to communicate in times of stress or pest predation thereby aiding the quorum sensing process. Repeated cultivation is also devastating to the fungal community in soils and is to a large part responsible for the accelerated erosion, by wind or water, that often occurs in soils that are treated in this manner.

The dominance of either fungi or bacteria in any soil environment is another crucial factor in how well suited it will be in supporting the particular crop required. Fungally dominant soils are best suited for tree and vine crops and other woody species. The form of nitrogen produced by such soils is best suited to these plants and the fungi are best suited to breaking down fallen leaves, woody material and other such carbon rich debris. Conversely bacterially dominant soils are where pastures, vegetables and other such 'soft' plants do best. Their wastes readily rot in this bacterial environment and in turn are converted to a nitrogen form more readily taken up by those plants.

Nicola also refers late in her video presentation to methane consuming soil organisms. These organisms directly consume methane within the soil (or water) environment and similar organisms are capable of breaking down other hydrocarbon products (e.g. Gulf of Mexico oil spill). This is an example of how well suited nature is in correcting, or in other words using, all manor of inputs when allowed to do so. This is why the continual dousing of soils with elements in salt form, which is what modern fertilisers usually are, is so damaging. The salt solutions that result when water is added are lethal to many of the organisms that soil functions rely on and so the soil nutrient cycle gradually declines with the soil becoming ever more dependent on synthetic inputs as its biology declines and topsoil content shrinks. Add to this the adverse effects to soil of many herbicides as is demonstrated by the lack of soil texture and prevalence of problem weed species (soil remedial varieties) in the 'herbicide strip' commonly found in horticultural settings.

Soil function is not so much based on maths as you put it so much as biology. Though if you want to apply maths to the input output equation you should be using the correct base inputs and outputs in order to do it accurately but be aware that to do so is hellishly complex and well beyond NPK in/NPK out. The multiplier effect of enlisting soil microbes in the nutrient cycling of their environment is far beyond the understanding of a conventional (chemistry based) soil science ideology. The power of microbes is absolutely immense, as the ongoing battle with a certain virus is currently showing us.

[Jaeger]

And what about the Sun,s protons?

[Naki Rat]

And what about the Sun,s protons?

Covered those under photosynthesis.

[husaberg]

blather

So you have no answers just faith in the magic beans then ...............
odd that science is so wrong and a hippy is so right without being able to answer simple questions..................
best not waste in more time i need to count my chickens. i will be needing at least 1000 to produce the Nitrogen i just spread in the last few weeks. and i still have PKS and lime to go in yet the planet just doesn't violate itself you know.
then i have to plow up the neighbours to grow the corn to feed them of course. zThen plant the others neighbours in Rapeseed to have enough diesel to kart the extra hundreds of tons of fertilser i need to cart, cover store for a year and carry to spread , then i have to cut down all the remaining bush to make up for the shortfall of having no Nitrogen to grow the extra 20% grass. then of course i will need to start plowing rather then direct no tillage drilling as we dont get to use herbicide, then we need to spend all our time hand weeding the maize. accept the losses for pest and yeild of at least 40%
but as it has yto be great fo the environment cause the Youtube lady said so. the same yutube lady that peddling fher services fo a fee of course with not a single case study on her website from a single commercial farmer.
https://www.integritysoils.co.nz/case-studies/

[Naki Rat]

..... the same yutube lady that peddling fher services fo a fee of course with not a singlecase study on her website form a single commercial farmer.
https://www.integritysoils.co.nz/case-studies/

I'm seeing three glowing case studies from your link to Integrity soils'website. Perhaps your internet connection is as incapable of receiving information as you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see