Frank Olagaray is our tenant. We are so proud and blessed to have him farming our 3rd generation farmland. Thank you, Glen for getting the word out to save our soil, save ourselves. So grateful for your dedication and sharing it with us.
I say, use what works. That land slide might be your precedent. No till cover 365 is the camp I'd like to be in but I will do what works. Putting sugar into my ground and his product has made me smile thus far.
Glen has some strong points and I find him very interesting but I also object to something’s. #1 never work raw carbon into the soil, nature never does this other than extreme cases such as landslides. Carbon is meant to be on top of soil surface with a green plant growing on top of it year round to take in the CO2 as the carbon is breaking down. This carbon soil surface residue needs to have a C:N ratio of about 30:1. Glen is correct in that the soil needs to be aerobic and alive and does not need much N applied. I only apply N if my C:N ratio on surface residue if off, never to feed to plant directly. This surface residue is all important to keep soil covered just like our skin on our body’s.
Jesus, he kind of lost me when he said there is actually P2O5 in the plant. P2O5 is the oxidized form of P, which simply doesn't occur in any given circumstance. It's just a chemical way of balancing things out. Please, do tell me that he knows this, because if he thinks P will actually form that inside the plant he is highly wrong.... The rest of the things were making sense, though.
"THIS IS NOT YOUR TRADITIONAL COVER CROP, NO-TILL, SOIL HEALTH PRESENTATION." for sure but i object to saying that cover crop is a loss of carbon. i don't think Rabenberg has done the math. so much of the carbon is what is deposited in the soil by the cover crop. which doesn't mean i don't use the products of soilworks..blessings to all
A good point. the vast major the the carbon created by the cover crop is in the form the the root exudates secreted into the soil, not in the actual biomass of the cover crop itself.
No carbon on to goes up carbon in the soil goes down. You have a lot to learn. Most no till guys use lot of spray for things like weed control pest control and fertilizer which harms all the microbes that you are trying to save
@@jeremylange8498 i know many, indeed most, no-tills are forced to use weed/pest control of the worst kind because they don't know how it should work. doesn't mean my point is mistaken...blessings
Though his intent is presumably good, most of what this man is saying is false. He's incorrectly parroting the true information that he's obviously heard from others who actually do know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, he does not, and his incorrect parroting is thus grossly and inexcusably misleading to any producers in the audience who are not properly knowledgeable agronomists and/or soil scientists. Respectfully.
@@robertodonoghue4100 , Yes, many more than that. Almost without exception, whenever he is making an incontrovertible scientific statement, his phrasing is most often within 80% being being technically correct while being technically incorrect because of the incompetence of his scientific knowledge as he is (apparently) trying to best parrot that knowledge as best as his competence will allow. As a farmer, I have no doubt he is actually a farmer. As a scientist and agronomist, he is incompetent, though he is trying his best, and because of the incompetence of his knowledge and ability to articulate it, he is actually being incredibly more unhelpful, than helpful. He needs to do himself and us all a favor, and stop speaking, given his total scientific incompetence. It's harmful, not helpful. It's misleading, not leading. I know he's trying his best. He needs to limit himself to shoveling shit with a pitchfork, as well meaning as he is. It is all he is capable of. Let me know where I lost you.
@@sean3223a Respectfully you have not cited anything factual but instead an arbitrary appeal which has failed. Your reference to Einstein, though an attempt at a slight, demonstrates a lack of emotional control in response to a respectful challenge.
Frank Olagaray is our tenant. We are so proud and blessed to have him farming our 3rd generation farmland. Thank you, Glen for getting the word out to save our soil, save ourselves. So grateful for your dedication and sharing it with us.
Very exciting to hear!
As a plant grower I tested this and it is indeed true, Glen gave great info, it works! Thanks a lot.
I say, use what works. That land slide might be your precedent. No till cover 365 is the camp I'd like to be in but I will do what works. Putting sugar into my ground and his product has made me smile thus far.
Glen has some strong points and I find him very interesting but I also object to something’s. #1 never work raw carbon into the soil, nature never does this other than extreme cases such as landslides. Carbon is meant to be on top of soil surface with a green plant growing on top of it year round to take in the CO2 as the carbon is breaking down. This carbon soil surface residue needs to have a C:N ratio of about 30:1. Glen is correct in that the soil needs to be aerobic and alive and does not need much N applied. I only apply N if my C:N ratio on surface residue if off, never to feed to plant directly. This surface residue is all important to keep soil covered just like our skin on our body’s.
You have a lot to learn
Cover your soil somehow
@@bobmarley0303biomass
@@jeremylange8498so do you !
Thank you and congratulation!
Marvelous lecture nd full of information...🙏
Up in N.Y. you could never put the probe in the soil very far, we have lots of rocks
Love ❤️ this lecture
Thx For Sharing This Video!
I love Glen.
"Profits over People"
Jesus, he kind of lost me when he said there is actually P2O5 in the plant. P2O5 is the oxidized form of P, which simply doesn't occur in any given circumstance. It's just a chemical way of balancing things out. Please, do tell me that he knows this, because if he thinks P will actually form that inside the plant he is highly wrong.... The rest of the things were making sense, though.
"THIS IS NOT YOUR TRADITIONAL COVER CROP, NO-TILL, SOIL HEALTH PRESENTATION." for sure but i object to saying that cover crop is a loss of carbon. i don't think Rabenberg has done the math. so much of the carbon is what is deposited in the soil by the cover crop. which doesn't mean i don't use the products of soilworks..blessings to all
A good point. the vast major the the carbon created by the cover crop is in the form the the root exudates secreted into the soil, not in the actual biomass of the cover crop itself.
No carbon on to goes up carbon in the soil goes down. You have a lot to learn. Most no till guys use lot of spray for things like weed control pest control and fertilizer which harms all the microbes that you are trying to save
@@jeremylange8498 i know many, indeed most, no-tills are forced to use weed/pest control of the worst kind because they don't know how it should work. doesn't mean my point is mistaken...blessings
Though his intent is presumably good, most of what this man is saying is false. He's incorrectly parroting the true information that he's obviously heard from others who actually do know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, he does not, and his incorrect parroting is thus grossly and inexcusably misleading to any producers in the audience who are not properly knowledgeable agronomists and/or soil scientists. Respectfully.
What is incorrect? Can you give an example of two?
@@robertodonoghue4100 , Yes, many more than that. Almost without exception, whenever he is making an incontrovertible scientific statement, his phrasing is most often within 80% being being technically correct while being technically incorrect because of the incompetence of his scientific knowledge as he is (apparently) trying to best parrot that knowledge as best as his competence will allow.
As a farmer, I have no doubt he is actually a farmer.
As a scientist and agronomist, he is incompetent, though he is trying his best, and because of the incompetence of his knowledge and ability to articulate it, he is actually being incredibly more unhelpful, than helpful.
He needs to do himself and us all a favor, and stop speaking, given his total scientific incompetence. It's harmful, not helpful. It's misleading, not leading.
I know he's trying his best. He needs to limit himself to shoveling shit with a pitchfork, as well meaning as he is.
It is all he is capable of.
Let me know where I lost you.
I asked you for an example of his incompetence? Can you give a specific example? Thank you
@@robertodonoghue4100 , I answered your question, Einstein.
@@sean3223a Respectfully you have not cited anything factual but instead an arbitrary appeal which has failed. Your reference to Einstein, though an attempt at a slight, demonstrates a lack of emotional control in response to a respectful challenge.