Soil Food Web Techniques that Don't WORK!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- The soil food web school teaches techniques that are not supported by science: compost tea, F:B ratio, weed control and using the microscope to analyze soil.
Get FREE eBook : Growing Great Tomatoes: www.gardenmyth...
Become a better gardener, Subscribe: www.youtube.com...
Share with a friend: [video link]
-----------------------
Free Stuff:
Free Garden eBook: 24 1/2 Garden Design Ideas:
www.gardenfunda...
-----------------------
My Books:
Garden Myths:
www.gardenmyths...
Building Natural Ponds:
www.buildingnat...
Soil Science for Gardeners
www.gardenfund...
------------------------
Free Resources:
Garden Fundamentals Blog - lots of gardening information:
www.gardenfunda...
Garden Fundamentals Facebook Group:
/ gardenfundamentals
My Garden Myths Blog:
www.gardenmyths...
Building Natural Ponds Facebook Group:
/ buildingnaturalponds
-----------------------
Recommended Playlists
Seed Germination - Everything you need to know:
• Improved paper towel a...
Garden Myths:
• Epsom Salt Myths - lea...
-----------------------
Soil Food Web Techniques that Don't WORK!
List of Credits:
Images:
All slides and videos belong to GardenFundamentals.com or are public domain images, except for the following:
Some images and videos provided by Depositphotos, depositphotos....
pond water under a microscope www.flickr.com...
A weed is any plant that you don't want in your garden.
All of my garden beds are now getting full of all the beneficial weeds, i only pull out the weeds i don't want or like. I have also been planting weeds such as clovers and alfalfa/ Lucerne, peas, beans and lentils from the supermarket are a cheap way to get seeds. I also plant sunflower corn and other mixed seeds found in bird seeds. Mostly to keep my soil alive, adding nitrogen and green living mulch and since i have been doing this now for a few years the soil in my gardens are really starting to work beautifully. Happy gardening everyone all around the world. Green love from Australia 💚🌲🌏🙏
Robert Pavlis, I just finished reading your "Plant Science for Gardeners," and that's what brought me here. Of the four books on propagation that I downloaded from my library, yours was by far the best, and certainly the best book I've read on propagation. Like your videos, everything is explained simply and completely. I look forward to watching all of your videos. Thank you for all the info you provide!
Thank you very much.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 do you have a microscope ? Can you please tell me why there are no microbes in my soil like you claim ….except for the soil I have inoculated with compost tea , which is full of all kinds of life ? How are your claims validated?
You sholld look around and you will find much better books an documentation for the claims and methods made....
It's clear from other comments and my own thoughts based on my learnings that this time you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew. Some of thee points are not debunks, they are attempts to seek clarification and maybe that was the right thing to do before recording this vid. I would love to see a vid where you discuss/debate with Dr Ingham in order for the greater good.
She would rip him a new one
Take the course, and be amazed!! The learning is exploding.!! Don’t believe the limitations set dampen your search for truth and success. 🎉🎉🎉❤
First off- regeneration is based on ecological succession! You can jumpstart and regenerate in one growing season. It has been done and documented.
Under a microscope SFW uses morphological and taxonomic to identify- it's an intensive course. It's easy to work on these things- you have to study they give the resources
The only reason to brew a tea is to grow organisms once you get the right organisms and the right conditions so the Microbes Compete consume and inhibit other lesser beneficial Microbes
The F:B ratio is fundamental it's called ecological succession and because of the USDA guidelines and what's being taught in academia.
Also Dr. Elaine says consistently that plants have microbe workers and the plants activate certain Microbes however sometimes the plant doesn't have the proper nutrient uptake when no Microbes home.
There is a ton of documentation and trials that prove increasing fungal components decrease weed productivity.
If anyone is interested in the publications I can share
I'm sorry- but this man has an undertone in his voice- that leads me to believe he couldn't pass the program. Regardless SFW techniques when implemented properly work in any environment. Haven't tested in Antarctica 😅.
"There is a ton of documentation and trials that prove increasing fungal components decrease weed productivity." - and yet you were not able to provide one reference?
@@Gardenfundamentals1Funny, that's the exact amount of proof or documentation you gave for your claims!
Very knowledgeable makes a lot of sense really enjoy these videos.
Excellent talk. I saw one of her videos on my feed recently. She is an engaging lecturer, but I couldn't believe she was claiming she could train people to make meaningful decisions using a microscope. I feel like it creates barriers to normal people growing their own food when they start to think they need a microscope to do it right! Thanks for your thorough analysis.
A few years ago a lady called into a Saturday morning talk show hosted by a county extension agent here in Indiana. She was describing a plant growing in her flower bed and was asking the host if he thought it was a weed or a flower. His response was “Do you like it?” 😅
It stands to reason that soil ecology is likely to be as complex as ecology can be. Figuring it out is as monumental a task as identifying the human genome. It’s a moving target too. I’m glad to see that competent people are speaking about it. It’s not as science-friendly in some places as it used to be. There is no doubt that some ways of gardening or farming can be less benign than others, but it can take a lot of listening and learning with an open mind to really know the details. I’m mostly open minded in that stuff falls out😂
Mr. Garden Fundamentals, I do actually produce an excellent fungal compost from a very high N content input. I do use spent malt from a brewery, and let it ferment ONLY in winter. Due to the cold temperatures I dont get any bad hodor (out of winter I would mix it with a ton of carbonaceous stuff) but it gets completely colonized by micelium, blue, gree, and white. By spring my "fungi based" compost is ready to use... and it gets weeds like any other compost... all plants are very happy growing with it.
I am a bit confused about your concern over the Soil Food Web School and like-minded approaches to rehabilitating soil ecologies and ecosystems. If I understand correctly, you agree with the existence of interdependent, energy-intensive relationships among groups of organisms. This is the fundamental thesis and insight of Ingham’s work.
I see why market-based, input-oriented mainstream science might have a problem with a more complex, synergistic perspective on how terrestrial ecosystems organize and operate. That said, mainstream industrial science appears to be evolving, if fatally slow, as per the undeniably of broadscale degradation of food systems in localities across the planet and the collapse of its business model. One fundamental problem I find with your argument is a reliance on reductionist science to assess what is fundamentally a competing holistic perspective.
If I understand correctly, the basis of your discord is with the SFWS’ proposals for manipulating a soil's ecology, particularly via extracts based on aerobic, fungal-dominant composts. In particular, you raise concerns over the potential “speed” or restorative capacity of ecological soil management. Yes, in one season, a human will not fully rehabilitate a soil ecology to its pre-agricultural state. Nevertheless, one can begin to bioactivate that soil and redirect its trajectory from a degenerative to a regenerative state, for example, with concern for the renewal of carbon cycles and accumulation of soil organic carbon.
In fact, Ingham and like-minded colleagues in the regenerative ag-food movements emphasize that microbes do not exist in isolation. Plants evolved from microbes, most likely from proto-fungi, leading to a phenomenal terrestrial ability to capture sunlight, ultimately leading to the possibility of an oxygen-dominant atmosphere.
Since its inception in the late 16th Century, microscopy has provided the basis of our understanding of microbiology, ecologies, and ecosystems. While there are limits with microscopy, when used with other techniques, such as standard chemical/physical tests, sap analysis (in my opinion, the best way to document photosynthetic performance), DNA analysis, spectrometry, etc., microscopy becomes a relatively cheap, fast, and powerful tool to observe what’s going on with functional microbial groups vis-a-vis different manipulations. A trained eye can identify functional groups of microbes.
As Ingham explains, the soil food web is the product of millennia of co-evolution between microbes and plants and successional phases of ecosystems. Stable, healthy, late successional ecologies useful for human food production arguably depend on high O2 soils and diversity of live roots pumping and distributing phosynthates that encourage particular microbial development. As Ingham explains, one quick and dirty indicator of soil health can be F:B ratio. Yes, scientists agree that F:B ratio tends to evolve as per the successional stage -- from a desert (bacterial dominant) to a climax forest (fungal dominant). This, combined with the observation of other populations, such as indicators of anaerobic conditions, pathogenic nematodes, etc. can provide a quick insight into the present state of a compost, its extract, or a farm plot.
Note that Ingham distinguishes between a soil drench and a compost tea (applied foliar). A compost extract will have billions of individuals capable of multiplying. Bacteria, for example, multiply every 20 minutes, and nematodes and protozoa about every 20 hours. Particular populations will proliferate, as per environmental conditions. Over the last 25 years, colleagues and I farming in the South American Andes have found Ingham’s principles and general approach useful for learning how to more strategically rehabilitate degraded soils in and through ecological soil management in agriculture - this, despite the support of mainstream science.
In farmig, as in other knowledge communities, the cutting edge of practice often precedes scientific insight. One should recall that a couple of farmers and tinkerers invented flight, for example, 35 years before it was mathematically possible. Come visit the field experience of regenerative agriculture if you’d like to learn more.
Back to the New Age.
I am fairly familiar but am not a follower of Dr Ingham's practices and I believe I have a healthy skepticism of at least a few of her claims. I also think she tends to overstate her case. However, I agree with the other comments that this video is not a very good representation of her actual claims.
Yo dude, SFW student here to let you know you're incorrect on a number of points.
1. 0:45--You say "organisms eat the plants." However, the lowest trophic level of the soil food web is not really organisms eating plant material as much as it is organisms, mostly bacteria and fungi, eating the root exudates of the plants they associate with. These are the carbohydrates plants produce via photosynthesis and then exude through their roots for the purpose of maintaining a community of associated microbes that help with nutrient cycling and exchange. Maybe you were just simplifying, but it's an important distinction for the purposes of understanding how root association works, which in turn informs a lot of the reasoning behind the approaches that the SFW school advocates.
2. 6:36--You don't understand the claim here. The premise of the SFW School approach is that the soil food web organisms are actually what mobilize nutrients and make them available for plants (along with many other functions; aggregation of soils through the production of gels and hyphal nets, creation of pore spaces, shredding of organic material). What is meant by the claim of regeneration in 1 season is that the soil food web organism populations can be restored in that time, restoring the ecological function and all of it's benefits. Given the rapid reproduction rate of the organisms in question, I don't think this claim is as ridiculous as you seem to think. I'm not sure what you imagine is meant by 'regeneration'--it is admittedly a very vague term--but if you accept the premise that a restored soil food web population restores the soil, then I think the claim is valid.
3. 7:45--You are correct that identifying to species level is not taught by the SFW--because it is not necessary. The idea is to identify to FUNCTIONAL GROUP; so is the bacteria morphologically consistent with aerobic bacteria (cocci, coccobacillus, bacillus)? That tells you a that your soil has enough oxygen for beneficial microbes. Or are they pathogens (Spirillum, Spirochete, Vibrio, etc)? This kind of identification is very simple at 400x. Ditto protozoa (flagellates and amoebae vs cilliates) and fungi.
4. 8:56--estimating fungus weight is achieved by measurement under the microscope. You can estimate length and diameter easily enough to get a decent estimate of the biomass using average masses. You can tell whether it's beneficial, again, morphologically. Is it greater than 3 micrometers in diameter? Is that diameter consistant along the strand? Does it have septa? Clamp connections? Does it have a color? These are all ways to differentiate and provide a diagnostic level understanding of what's happening in the soil. The point isn't extreme precision, but rather to give a decent idea of the condition of the soil microbiology.
Incidentally, your 'test' does not work if you do not know the magnification of field size of the image you find--without which accurate measurement is impossible.
5. The point of the compost tea is to inocculate beneficial species on plant surfaces, more than in the root zone (extracts are typically used for root zone inocculation). Does it work? The SFW school has case studies claiming it does, but I'm just a student and can't yet say for sure. But I intend to find out.
6. 12:32 Yes, OF COURSE using the compost itself is more effective than using the tea. But tea is much easier to apply over a large area, and--contrary to your assertion at the beginning that SFW is aimed at gardners--SFW is really aimed at being able to regenerate soil on both small and large scale. If you have an half-acre market garden then your best option is certainly to apply compost directly. If you're managing hundreds of acres, though, it is much easier to brew an innoculum in the form of a tea and spray it. The context dictates the approach.
7. 15:45 re: F:B ratio--the contention is that it's BOTH not one or the other. OF COURSE plants cultivate specific ratios to suit their preferences (see point 1 and exudates), but the process is slow. If you use compost of a known ratio to affect this balance, you tip the ecological environment in favor of what you want to grow, and help select against what you don't want to grow. As the plant gets established, it reinforces it's preferred environment. In terms of regenerating land quickly, this beats 'planting trees in a field and waiting 100 years' as you suggest.
8. 17:45 It's bizarre to contend that the fungal organisms in the soil would be unaffected by a forest fire. Come on, man.
9. 18:45 You're correct that many annual plants fall in a similar range of F:B ratios, but you are also overstating the case. The most pernicious weeds have the lowest F:B ratio, so growing tomatoes at a 1:1 ratio will still disfavour a large number of weeds. I don't think anyone claims that they will be eliminated completely in that context. But if you think about trying to grow blueberries in a field that was plowed and sown to corn and soy for 5 decades at a (generously, because tillage destroys fungus) 0.5:1 ratio, maybe you can start to see the point of the approach. Your proposed context is very limited and geared specifically to small scale vegetable gardening in a way the the SFW does not claim to be. You're correct that there isn't a lot of scientific support for this approach......yet. Again, I'm just a student pretty early in the process, so I can't yet speak to it's efficacy...but again, I intend to find out. The SFW school at least purports to have the data to support the efficacy of this approach. The fact that it's not yet conclusively supported by scientific literature does not indicate that the ideas or approach is invalid; it indicates that more research must be done (something you point out earlier in the video, incidentally).
Again, I'm no expert, but based on this video, you don't actually seem to have a very nuanced grasp on what the SFW approach actually is and the reasoning behind it. This is dissapointing, because there are a lot of Dr. Ingham's old lectures available for free on youtube that go into a lot of this stuff in more detail (including the basic methodology of using a microscope to identify microbes to functional group level). Looking a bit further than the SFW website would have helped you to approach this criticism with more accuracy and nuance.
Have you never seen a cow???? A cow is an organisms.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I'm glad you brought that up. The SFW school actually teaches that the soil food web explicitly includes fauna. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they don't. Here is one of the images used in their material (coming originally from the USDA): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Soil_food_webUSDA.jpg/400px-Soil_food_webUSDA.jpg
You can see that it includes arthropods, birds, and animals (though without the arrows indicating their benefit to plants, so not perfect).
Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you applied as much thought and rigor in response to my comment as you appear to have done for your video. Have a nice day.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Actually I'm glad you brought that up. The SFW school explicitly teaches that the soil food web includes fauna. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they don't.
Here's one of the images used in their materials (originally from the USDA): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Soil_food_webUSDA.jpg/400px-Soil_food_webUSDA.jpg
You can see that it includes Arthropods, Birds, and Animals in the fourth and fifth trophic levels.
Anyhow, I'm glad you approached your response to my comment with as much thought and rigor as you did with your video. Have a nice day.
I’ve never taken a course. Many organic gardeners intimidate people that are new to gardening. People think it’s rocket science or they don’t have a green thumb. I used to believe in rock dust, the bubbles thing in compost tea years back. I go with chicken poop manure fertilizer. I don’t over think this and I get great tomatoes every year. This year has been a struggle with so much rain here in Minnesota. Tomatoes are growing slower as well as other vegetables. I add gypsum in the spring but not to much. That’s it.
@@mattiasdarrow8667 get out while you still can.
Thanks for the framework.
I believe accuracy is important when attempting to debunk ideas and you've made some inaccurate claims. You stated that the soil course expected farmers to identify "all' the microbes via microscopy, they do not. Rather they provide guidance on the characteristics of beneficial , according to their research, microbes and give a framework on assessing quantities before and after treatment of the soil. Most of what Dr. Ingham focuses on is degraded soil and remediation through a holistic approach, not just spray compost tea and its fixed. While I agree some of the claims are grandiose and possibly overstated her methods have been shown to be effective. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there are less microbes in ACT than in the original compost as it is visible through microscopy than an increase in populations occur when brewed correctly. You stated in a "speck" of dirt there are a billion microbes, it is estimated a teaspoon of soil contains 10 billion microbes therefore it would take 1\10 of a teaspoon, which weighs nearly 1\2 of a gram, to contain a billion microbes. You followed this by saying ACT contained " a couple hundred", whatever you meant this is also inaccurate. These seem like exaggerations to make a point. I understand you use science to back up your some of your claims but these previous statements are inaccurate. You have stated in the past that soil contains the amount of microbes that the soil is able to support so adding microbes won't help. In degraded soils where microbe populations are artificially depressed then adding microbes and ceasing the detrimental behaviors will increase microbe populations and create a healthier soil food web. In your soil food web diagram you omitted protozoa, protozoa are integral to nutrient cycling. I'm not sure but you seem to suggest that Dr. Ingham believes ACT is superior to compost, this is inaccurate. The quantity of compost necessary for large spaces makes it impractical hence the ACT methodology. Your assertion that plants are the main driver in the evolution of F:B ratios rather than the soil determining which plants will thrive seems to miss the obvious. Plants and soil, when disturbance is absent, work synergistically to evolve towards a more complex ecosystem in which the soil becomes fungal dominant, much like your modified soil energy model emphasizing above and below. I do appreciate your work but you did state that the science is incomplete in this particular field of study so referencing that science to debunk a respected scientist in this field seems problematic.
"that there are less microbes in ACT than in the original compost" - if you are referring to the data presented - it is from scientific studies - it is not my conclusion.
" ACT contained " a couple hundred", whatever you meant this is also inaccurate" - The amount of tea that would soak that speck of soil will have very few microbes in it.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I’m sure you’re aware that ACT contains a food source and oxygenation that causes a bacterial bloom, with the population potentially doubling every 20 minutes. I don’t see how that wouldn’t qualify as an increase in microbes from the original source. Soaking compost is an extract and couldn’t contain more microbes that the original source. Thanks for responding, I do appreciate your work.
Can you make a video on Jadam techniques? For exmaple, jadam microbial solution.
Yes, and Korean natural farming please
Regarding weeds in the garden.
I have very few, not because I've healthy soil but because it's enclosed from below ground level to at least 4' up (fewer seeds blown in), I've been using 'no till (fewer dormant weed seeds exposed) & what weeds do appear are removed before they set seed.
I took her course in 2014 and learned a lot. I make compost, but I've never made compost tea. Based on my experience though, compost isn't enough, you also need manure, especially if you are mulching.
you dont need to pay for a course to make comport.
You probably have not done things correctely - the SFW approach works all over the world when done correctely - but you do need to take the lab tech course so you know what you have befor you do anything.
Maybe you missed the compost tea section. Here is her manual:
forum.lepeuplier.ca/uploads/default/original/1X/f0bada96cecaa70408f5f4b11abeb64b163be032.pdf
@@Gardenfundamentals1 thanks for the reference! I didn't miss the compost tea section, it just seemed too complicated for my backyard vegetable garden.
Wow you should actually take the class before you speak. Maybe 10% of what you have said is what is taught in the classes. Not saying that the class has all of the answers just that i have watched. Tea is only used for foliar applications. Extracts are way different than tea. The B:F range can differ foot by foot in a forest or park. Yes, it is the plants that determine the ratio based on the sugars they produce to attract the microbes. The point is to try and provide the ratio the plants prefer and will thrive in.
my man, it is all about selling courses. Go and learn from any real farmer making a living out of their farm. They do it for free because they are not here to sell courses. They are plenty of them in yt.
@@jf3457so because someone can learn for free on youtube its wrong to charge for classes?
We appreciate your comprehensive coverage of gardening fundamentals. I have root knot nematodes in my raised garden beds and I bought your book so that I might find a remedy to this scourge. To my disappointment there is little info on how to rescue my 5 beds. Please offer a solution as your book simply says they exist and will decimate my garden and no remedy. PLEASE HELP! Thank you...
It is wonderful to have a critical thinking realist. A “scientist” we could say. Thank you sir.
Your videos are always well spent time watching! Always. I only wish they were 10-20 seconds longer, where you left a bit more of the natural speech pauses in the video. It would make for a more relaxing listen, and valuable time for the viewers to digest your message while listening...
The first 13 minutes is just a straw man argument. You've taken what you think the SFW school teaches and "debunked" it, but unfortunately what you think they teach isn't quite accurate. There are some contradictions in there too
The only time you were accurate in your understanding was about the F:B ratios. I think you were making some valid criticisms, but I think your definition of a weed and how the school defines a weed is a bit different.
My understanding of what they teach is based on what Elaine says in her videos.
1. Your modified food web is no different from Elaine's she includes what is going on above the soil as well. The point of the soil food web and this video is to show the practical effect of these things on soil, so we can all take for granted that there are carnivores as generalized by Elaine's food web ANIMAL. Any food web is always showing a flow of energy as well, so there is no difference there either.
2. The ideas for the "SOIL FOOD WEB" were developed by Elaine Ingham, not in the 1920's.
3. Elaine has regenerated soil in 1 season. If she hasn't you really need to explain why you think this can't happen at the same level of detail as her course is taught, which you're not doing here. If you are right, the following places she has helped are lies. There is the guy from Microsoft who's hillside she recovered in 1 season, the zz1 tomato farm of south Africa, the government electric line easement that was eroding that she stopped in 1 season. These are documented cases. If they are not correct, that would be a place to start saying that this isn't possible or hasn't happened.
4. Nematodes are identifiable by class between root feeders, bacterial feeders, fungal feeders, and predatory. I have done this... with my microscope, it isn't difficult at all at 400 or 600 total magnification.
5. No, Elaine's course, that I have taken, does not ask you to identify species of nematodes or any other microbe, instead the teach you to identify only functional groups and their morphology. So maybe edit your video.
6. Yes you can determine mass, you are wrong again. The way this is done for fungi is 0.00000150 micrograms per cubic micrometer. This is determined via using 1, in focus, cocci as a distance of width of the hyphae, usually between 1 and 5 and then estimating the length of the hyphae in the field of view. The field of can be divided up in micrometers and the dilution of the sample is measured before the drop goes on the slide. Thus you have all the amounts you need to determine the approximate mass of fungi. This method is used in counting individuals at a higher dilution for bacteria instead of a measurement of size first. This also produces an approximation. This math is put into an App called SmAPP that I prefer not to use, but is very good in getting the math done to determine biomass of your sample for fungi and bacteria. Those are the only 2 microbes that Elaine Ingham teaches her students to collect biomass for. I have an example of a real test I have done. The minimum goal is 0.3 to 1 fungal to bacterial ratio.
7. You are right in saying microscopy wont give you those answers, but you are also wrong. For example, basidiomycetes are terrible for some grasses, but also considered a beneficial fungi in Elaine's soil food web. They can be easily identified because they create a loop into the next fungal chamber and they are the only ones that do this. Applying a compost tea with this in it to your grass is a bad idea, but you can easily make compost that does not have this fungi in it through making other batches of compost and being more selective of the fungal inoculation used in the pile. Getting fungi into a pile is more often than not necessary to do after the thermophilic composting because there is so little of it around. This makes it necessary to be choosey about the source of fungi anyway, so usually fungi can be grown if you can travel to a nearby forest or place where you can find leaves decomposing between the o horizon and A horizon.
8. The microbial density in soil is sparse compared to compost, you are wrong to say that soil already has microbes in it in abundance, nothing could be further from the truth. I know for certain that this is true. I have recently made a compost and there is a lot more bacteria in it than in a core sample taken with a soil corer or apple corer. I put the sample in dilution and look at it under a microscope. The temperature and cleanliness of the water is important as well. I have very clean well water. So yea there are just tons more microbes in compost than soil. Whatever science has shown you this is very wrong. Again Elaine's course IS NOT ABOUT SPECIES AT ALL.
9. The specific microbes you are talking about that fight the diseases are species specific, but generally the reason for applying a spray in the soil food web is to that aerobes make a sticky glue that acts as a bandage for the plant and prevents further fungal disease and bacterial disease spread by certain kinds of bugs. What you are hoping for when doing this is that the specific species of beneficial microbe will be in your compost tea and will infect the pest bugs or whatever other individual microbial benefits can be found in research. The point is that these specific beneficial microbes are usually aerobes. So again, no need to be species specific, only functional group. It seems the premise of or the context of the graph material you are showing needs to be clearer because nowhere in your video notes do I see references to that material.
10. At 13:06 you mention that Dr Ingham is a proponent of getting the F:B ratio correct. This is wrong. The F:B ratio is built up so that the plant can be given the opportunity to produce enough exudates to keep the microbes it needs. Deciduous trees are in different stages of succession than grasses and shrubs and weeds. In fact you can grow all the weeds you want i.e broccoli, using the SFW method in one part of your garden, while using the F:B ratio of at least 0.3 to 1 on all the others because all of the later stages of succession plants will react well to this.
11. The only reason Agricultural soil has anything in it at all is from commercial fertilizer. That is literally it's ONLY access to the nutrient supply it gets because pesticides kill both pests and microbes. Tilling kills most fungi and creates a compaction layer. Penn state university recently did a study showing no roots of any plant can grow through soil compacted above 300 psi. This does not bode well for having good soil in Ag fields.
12. Any scientist can pretty much guarantee that if you remove trees from soil the F:B ratio drops IMMEDIATELY, not over time. This is because of the compaction and ground disturbance required to remove a single tree, let alone a whole forest of them.
13. At 17:20 you talk about fires. Have you heard of controlled burns used for ecology? This is a method of getting rid of invasive species as distinct from wildflowers. Wildflowers aren't weeds. The rhizosphere wont necessarily contain a high F:B ratio in a burned down woodland area. It is a matter of what biology is prominent after the fire or intense heat in that region. At different horizons there can be different F:B ratios. If you inoculate the soil with an extract it will ensure that that particular soil horizon is drenched with that F:B ratio. If you are doing this, it will help to at least slow down weeds, in fact that is all Elaine claims it will do, she doesn't say you will entirely eliminate weeds like a weed killer, she only means that the tables are turned where it is much harder for weeds to grow as opposed to saying they wont grow. So you're wrong about her message yet again.
14. At 19:48 you say it will grow plants because it has nutrients in it. Why not just use fertilizer if that is your stance?
15. Microscopy has proven to be vital in assessing soil microbes. Shadowing microscopy can allow you to identify functional groups of microbes and this is not scientifically disputed. This is a major component of taxonomy, but is not specific to identifying species. Soil scientists are generally not interested in assessing microbes, that is the only way your statement that scientists don't use microscopy to measure is correct. Most soil science has nothing to do with microbes and everything to do with getting farmers to buy fertilizer by the ton. The mainstream model of soil is about the root system pulling ionized nutrients from mineral clay, but this is totally wrong and she has proven it over and over again.
It doesn't seem like you have actually taken her course or looked over that material enough. It would be good if you did.
Really like your what makes sense approach as in does this make sense or does that make sense? A little logic goes a long way. Logical thinking seems to be lacking in the world today with many people handing the act of thinking off to the so-called experts. Cheers
Thank you for this. Would love to see your comments on "nutrient dense" foods. Also very trendy in this world. As measured with a brix meter. Which measures dissolved solids. Which is usually equated to total sugars. Which they then correlate to nutrient density. Which seems like a big leap. Love your work.
www.gardenmyths.com/nutrient-density-food-brix-refractometer/
www.gardenmyths.com/myth-nutrient-density-food/
As someone who fell for this entire thing, I appreciate not only this video but all the no non-sense suggestions you have given to us previously. So much pseudo-science. It sounds like a fairytale with all those microorganism living together and gardeners is the god providing that important balance but in fact all that microbiome is there even if we don't want them to be.
@@exshenanigan2333 keep in mind some of the main proponents of the importance of the micro biome and enhancing the soil food web with compost are Dr. Elaine Ingham and Dr. David C Johnson, both have PHD degrees in microbiology and have dedicated significant time to this endeavor and both demonstrated real world results that seem to validate their theories . They are hardly pseudo scientists and have contributed extensive research in their fields.
It's not that bad. Anything that isn't trying to replicate nature you just avoid
@@exshenanigan2333 some things are true whether you believe them or not :)
@@brucejensen3081 In general KNF/JADAM techniques make sense for big scale farmers especially if they also have animals. As a small scale gardener/indoor grower I just appreciate the convenience of not have to deal with fungus gnats, manure, chicken and fish sh*t smell, trying to keep a worm bin going etc. Peat, perlite, fertilizer. Works on pretty much everything. But if people want to garden by purchasing nematodes online, more power to them!
I came to roughly the same conclusions. It would take a full lab of experts to begin cataloguing and characterizing the soil life within a single compost bin. And that’s ignoring the variation from site to site, from season to season, etc.
They discover new species all the time. In fact, some people say there could be as many as a TRILLION undiscovered microbial species on this planet alone. Let that sink in for a second. You ain’t gonna sort that complexity out on the weekends with a microscope. That’s simply hubris to expect to do it.
Very in depth cataloging of the soil life in compost is already being performed with genetic cataloging. See the work of Dr Johnson of Johnson Su compost fame. Matt Powers is also doing it on many compost samples and anyone who would want to catalog the life showing up in their samples could run the tests or have them done without needing to use a microscope.
Thanks for your soil food web analysis. I agree with all the points you made. One thing you left out however regarding types of microbes that the soil food web school proposes is that they be aerobic microbes (good bugs) rather than anaerobic microbes (bad bugs). I think that is how they feel they are able to overlook the more detailed characteristics of using microscope to identify good vs bad microbes. Nonetheless, if one makes certain that they have made an aerobic-based compost, then microscopes are really not necessary.
this one is kind of entertaining with how it has pitted SFW people who are (or once were) against using lactic acid bacteria/so-called-EM for that reason, versus people who believe lactic acid bacteria is absolutely essential and will repair your soil and cleanse the planet of toxic waste. like i know that "both sides" have people who can think their way through a complex scientific topic better than that, but the group narratives are powerful.
Even this is overly simplistic. As above, the world below (in the soil) is highly competitive, and one might say "tribal." For anaerobic "pathogens" to thrive requires the right condition for those bacteria/fungi to result in them establishing a viable tribe, as in lacking competition from what you describe as "good" bacteria. Adding any obligate anaerobe to an aerobic environment just means they become food for the dominant tribe(s) of aerobic bacteria. Suggest you look into practices that use Fermented Plant Juice (like Natural Farming). Those practices add largely anaerobes to soil, acidic-to-neutral in pH, loaded with gram positive bacilli, and very little fungi, and yet, it still can add a zip to the garden in very short time by 1) feeding the native tribes, 2) improving soil pH, and/or 3) adding an abundance of plant-available micro-nutrients like amino acids, organic acids, and complexed minerals all at the same time. Point is: Anaerobes are rarely "bad" or "pathogens." There are zillions of good anaerobes (and sometimes, their only good purpose is to feed aerobes when they stumble into the wrong tribe':)
"aerobic microbes (good bugs) rather than anaerobic microbes (bad bugs)" - that is a common belief, but its not correct.
For example E. Coli is a common bacteria found just about everywhere. It is facultative anaerobe - so can grow in either condition. It can be both beneficial and pathogenic. You have them in your healthy gut but the wrong strain can kill you. You can't tell one from another with just a microscope.
@@Gardenfundamentals1how would you tell the difference between the two? Thanks for sharing 🤙
@@NorthFLWormWorksthat doesn't have a simple answer because it's not just _look at it under a microscope._ For certain ones it means isolating and culturing on specific media and they can be identified by the color of their colony. Others require molecular testing and so on.
Personally, I have nothing against giving $ to support people who do good research, organize and disseminate valuable educational content, and in general elevate the common conversation. In fact, I am a Patreon to many content creators on You Tube. I'm glad I watched this video and read through the list of comments. It's convinced me your channel doesn't focus on any the the values I listed above - so i can happily move on to other channels that offer more well-researched and beneficial content. And I don't have to spend $ subscribing or donating!
As a tiny urban gardener, i knew id never need or be sold on compost tea. I had high hopes on an agricultural revolution because what we are doing clearly isnt working
Feeding microbes makes more sense than adding microbes to a place that has no food for the microbes.
is SFW another cult? like the Korean magic tea.
You obviously haven't spent the mental power of physical energy necessary to critically examine the results.
The majority of these claims are full of compost
Yeah...criticizing something that you obviously have not studied, have not proven. Making claims about what the school teaches that are not accurate. That second slide is not even from their literature. Someone who cant spell has typed that up. As for none of it working, come visit our farm and tell us it doesnt work! Your biggest error is in not even knowing what the school does or does not teach! For example, at no point does Dr Elaine teach how to identify individual organisms. You yourself said that you can differentiate bacteria from fungi from protozoa from nematodes. That is what the school teaches people to do. Beyond that there are certain characteristics that make it more likely to be a beneficial or pathogenic. But no way does the school claim to identify all the microbes. For one thing that can only be done for sure with dna. But also it isnt necessary to know. Truly man get your facts straight before you mouth off publicly!
It's trauma I think 🤔 not intentionally. My opinion.
Those who can be fooled need to be. It's how we learn.
I don't believe in invasive species.
" Making claims about what the school teaches that are not accurate" - all the claims are from Elaine's videos on TH-cam.
"second slide is not even from their literature" - you are right - I never said it was from their literature. It is from one of their consultants using their "patented" formula.
Tell it like it is Doc! :)
I don't think it's wise to dismiss something because it hasn't been established in published research, especially in horticulture where it's often impossible to carry out properly controlled studies, and even moreso in agriculture where the funding-to-publication pipeline is subject to influence by entities with a large vested interests in established paradigms. That said, I don't disagree that there's a lot of hand-wavey content under the regenerative umbrella. The best hub for rigorous information on the topic overall, especially on microscopy, is Matt Powers. For a depth of information on plant physiology and soil interactions that's just shy of reading a graduate-level textbook, look to John Kempf (Advancing Eco Agriculture).
_I don't think it's wise to dismiss..._
It is though. The reason is because we have to decide how we will determine what we believe. If we attempt to be too flexible in what we believe then we start to get overwhelmed with choices and ultimately narrow the scope of things based on arbitrary 'feelings.' That creates a pipeline to these often grifteresque agricultural belief systems. Many use cult-like tactics including overwhelming people with information so all they can focus on is the system. It becomes and 'us versus them.' They sow doubt about science. Then they capture people by getting them to invest money in the form of books, implements, courses, certifications, time and so on. It works to mentally trap people since people don't like to be wrong. The deeper into something people go the harder it is to willingly accept challenges to that belief system due to sunk cost. Instead they get angry, defensive, and dismissive because that's easier than facing the fact they may have invested huge amounts of time and possibly money into psuedoscientific nonsense.
The great thing about actual science is that it's meant to be wrong and challenged.
@@shawnsg I can't speak to the Elaine Ingham scene specifically, but I mostly see people getting "angry, defensive, and dismissive" on the "you shouldn't be talking about this because there's no evidence for it because my standard of evidence is peer-reviewed research in a reputable journal" side.
It is also not wise to accept an idea that has no scientific basis.
I don't think it's about dismissing claims. Anyone is free to try it out. But does the average gardener have any experience using a microscope? Did they even take a college level microbio class? (I did.) I remember labs with agar discs and sterilizing those loops and looking at slides with the oil magnification lens. I know enough to know that it's not something a layperson can easily do and get the effect/results they desired. I mean, do they even know proper procedure for lab work?
Before we spend our hard earned dollar, we should double and triple check the science and the claims. I mean, it's okay if you want to make compost tea because it's not expensive to compost and then, add water I guess. But why are we wasting money on bacteria or beneficial fungi to improve our garden soil? Does that make sense? Does the average gardener even understand enough of the ecosystem to effectively tweak the settings? Something tells me.. no.
Also.. the two people you cited? One is with Soil food and I haven't found his academic background so I can't assess his skill. The other one is a business and it seems marketed to a farming audience. I also find it odd to claim that "large vested interested' would want to stay with the "established paradigms". Those large corporations are businesses and they do research so they can sell products. Why would they not be interested in monetizing any thing of value from this regenerative soil practice? I mean, both the names you listed are selling something?
@@jenniferhunter4074 You seem awfully quick to dismiss Matt Powers and John Kempf. They both have plenty of free, highly detailed stuff on TH-cam you can take a look at to decide how credible they are for yourself. If you double and triple check their science I guarantee you’ll learn a lot in the process.
You must be a Superior world-leading professor of soil biology, perhaps you could show us your superior results? this is just one example of Elaine's work in the field
"Our farm was in serious trouble, but after implementing the SFW approach we increased our yield by 150% in a single season, and we were very successful in repeating this approach on different soils at different farms achieving excellent results. We also cut many input costs such as fertilizers by at least 60%. We continue to monitor and move our soils to a much better place, and production continues to increase while many other benefits become apparent such as reduced disease, improved crop resistance to cold and or heat, improved drainage, reduced soil salts, as well as improved water holding capacity and at the same time achieving improved taste as well as better shelf life."
Shane Plath, Passionate Horticulturalist. Shane and his family run the largest organic banana farm in South Africa, employing over 2,000 people."
Your next target should be Dr. David Johnson and why his compost methods don't work, especially his compost tea, although his system does work (I use it), Charles Dowding and his no-dig gardening.
I just wonder if different plants produce different root exudates that attract the type of soil organisms that produce the type of nutrient they prefer. I mean, why would a plant root exude something that a fungi likes when it gets less symbiotic return than from a bacteria. If you want to grow rabbits, you feed them carrots, not meat - the reverse for dogs, and so on. Plants aren't stupid, or they die. Evolution.
Basically, just copy what happens naturally.
One would naturally think that trees change the soil micro biome to their own advantage in order to reduce competition!
Many do...by poisoning it. Many species producing large amounts of nuts contain allelopathic chemicals that prevent other seeds from germinating. Look under a grove of black walnuts sometime.
Robert, curious to see what you think of this. I believe Elaine said that when you turn compost the nematodes leave, and you can coax them back in, but if you turn the pile a second time they leave for good. I probably have stated that incorrectly, but in general, would you address the idea of not turning a compost pile vs. turning it? Thank you!
Elaine never said that I belief. Because we turn the pile 3 times in the SFW and still have the nematodes there.
"when you turn compost the nematodes leave" - never heard her say that, but it is ridiculous.
Most of the nematodes we are talking about are so small and move such short distances that they could not get out of the pile before the compost is done. Turning it might raise the temperature and kill some of them.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 if we check the thermophilic compost pile we get to see the bacterial, fungi, omnivores and predatory nematodes. They can move fast enough. The root feeders are the slowest ones. We see this as well when we make nematode extracts.
Please stick to what you know, instead of guessing and spreading false information.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 they don't need to leave the pile, they need to move from the hot center, and that gradually heats up, giving enough of time for some of them to get to the safe zone again. Once the (optimally only 3 heat cycles) are done we still end up with a good nematode density that only increases while the pile matures.
Remind you, when we make compost, we check it with the microscope all the time. No blablablabla ... facts, real measurements. We're optimizing the recipes for a good quantity and diversity of all microbial groups, so we measure it every step to see what worked.
Call me cynical but much of what's being claimed as necessary appears to be directed at encouraging payment for courses run by this organisation.
They each sell their wisdom, hers by courses his by books. You're entitled to earn a few bucks, I don't see a problem.
@@BalticHomesteaders I do when the product appears to be snake oil.
So, support your statements. In fact make a clear and concise statement.
Have you used these peoples methods? If yes, what did you find? If no, was it a different? Similar? Results? From the way you complain, I can’t believe any of you have ever gardened. And you don’t show any love for gardening.
@@cherylj7460 I made a comment, not a statement or a complaint.
I've been gardening for nigh on 60 years.
How does this somehow show an absence of love for gardening?
why cynical? it is clearly a course selling schema lol . These ppl dont make money from working their own land, it is just jambo mambo to get quick buckies.
Nice update! Are you interested in reviewing our 6-in-1 Digital Soil Tester? It can measures pH, EC, Air Humidity, Soil Moisture, Light, and Temperature ! We're sure that you'll love it.
Maybe - but would definitely be interested in the 6 in 1 for water.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Do you mean the drinking water tester? We've sent you an email and maybe we could discuss it via email?
that must be the must usless tool ever - what does this tell you? PH is easy measured just using strip paper! Idiots....
Compost is just finding a way to recycle waste. Same with biochar. It's how to get this stuff into the soil with least amount of harm possible. I guess mix it in when digging up potatoes. Pouring it on as a tea won't do any harm, but it's not really going to do much, maybe you can grow big roots to provide food for microbes to consume
get real - do you know so litle - need to woork on your knowledgebase and test things on your own....
Is bone meal good for higher rain area ? Is there side effects
Animals store heavy metals in bone, so I guess if you live on an old gold mine, you might be wise not to use too much
@@brucejensen3081 thanks for response, i live in Arunachal pradesh its in himalayan mountains range. Lots of rainfall and some youtuber said calcium drain out deep inside soil so i thought bone meal
I realized that it's a bit of a scamwhen I heard every show ending in the ads where you need to pay thousands to learn stuff that the Dr was getting gov. grands to study. As you said, most of the general soil health is entertaining and useful info but all the details are so off the tracks that it often makes no logical sense at all. I thought It was just me, but thanks for letting me know others also know there's something wrong with that "regenerative" school of $$$.
they dont live out of working their lands, so they have to live as consultants selling juicy courses with New Age mambo jambo.
Idiot- you are way off and talking about something you do not know.
Is there a way I can contact you about my "Soils in Sync" project? I have created an infographic resource which radically simplifies soil health understanding. You clearly understand it, and I could really use your feedback and collaboration before publishing it. I think it will be a great resource for you and your viewers.
I've noticed this about your videos.
You're a skeptic. You cast doubts without supporting facts or anything.
Yay for you having a channel.
Boo for not being reasonable.
Most of your commentary I have trouble with because my personal experience, based on FREE FSW content, has shown most of your statements to be bollocks.
You're doing harm
"You cast doubts without supporting facts" - I guess you did not look at my channel which is loaded with references supporting the facts.
Boo for you not taking the time to do this before commenting.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 it looks like this one really got your goat. If you can’t take criticism then why do you post controversial videos or attacks on other peoples works? You come across as the final expert on the “Science” about a subject we might know 10% about at the best. There is a lot more to work out before we have the understanding that can debunk another persons concept. I noticed in the video that you used the term regenerative in a mocking way. Go back and listen to yourself say the term. You detest it. John Kempf and many others are starting to see that it might be a better path forward than conventional agriculture which seems to be deteriorating our agricultural soils pretty badly. I bought one of your books and learn from it and your videos. However, I agree with the above post that you are doing harm with this video and the one you did saying that inorganic salts don’t affect the bacteria in the soil ecosystems they are used on. Are you kidding me. Conventional ag has turned a lot of our prime agricultural soils into lifeless Dirt.
I disagree about the harm. A healthy discussion is necessary. People can still take all the classes they want. What is "science" or "Science" is always up for discussion and I appreciate the "slightly" different perspective. I will judge.
@@grasacramento6718 disagree all you want. That doesn’t change the fact that Dr Parvis is being a know it all judgemental skeptic about an area that we have very few answers about. Instead of actually trying to work with others to increase our knowledge, he has to attack their work based on him saying he represents “science”. I understand he acts this way and chooses his controversial videos because he wants people to hit on them to boost his utube rating. Of course good discussion is beneficial in helping us move forward but posting just to get hits is harmful to the discussion. Are you saying that conventional agriculture which he represents is not doing harm to our once prime agricultural soils. Maybe it’s time to look at other approaches rather than to attack them and continue with very destructive practices.
This is pretty hilarious
Claming science is for many spectators a strong sales point, but it will only take you as far as the scientific establishment. … and how far is this within this field?
For people who believe today’s farming practices are unsustainable, going beyond strong scientific evidence to find new practices might feel like the right thing to do.
I believe, it is the naive peonies that are often the once that “pre scouts” the ground for science people.
I believe we need a lot more of them, and in general also a lot more none industry founded science people to speed up the process.
… unsustainable practices are just bad.
Sustainable practices are at best just neutral…
… we need better to really prosper for generations to come 😊
Our needs are the food we crave. Needs fuel energy.
Knowing your needs helps. Or you might be a monkey placing a fish in a tree so it doesn't drown 😉
Shenanigans. Those who can be fooled need to be.
Some learn the hard way.
Knows goes.
I chose to believe that my soil knows and for 20 years I have only added water as needed. Both lawn and garden.
My neighbors completely removed the grass from their yard and created a tea and reseeded the lawn and grew the most beautiful lawn on the block in about 6 months.
@@sherececocco my neighbor reseeded his yard as well. Every night he got out there and danced around naked singing a song about spirits. His was the most beautiful lawn in the whole state after that.
Granted it was probably the fertilizer he put on the lawn and not the dancing and singing but who can really be sure.
@@shawnsg thanks for your energy and the visual
“You cant regenerate soil in one year, what a ridiculous claim” not backed by research or even a real life example. If you say it then it must be true 😂😂 6:49
governor island.....
If it were true, we could just spray all our agricultural land with tea and it would be regenerated. If that were true, why would anyone worry about our degraded land?
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I’d love to see any research / facts / data you have to defend your your claim. That’s typically my expectation when others debate facts online. Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge!
@@oliver3909I’m just trying to learn. That ok with you? 😂😂
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I get you have bias as you are paid by the other side. Best of luck with the channel
I have watched many videos of elaine ingham. She never tells tea is for soil. She tells its for foliar application. why are you telling again and again that it’s for soil? In India a person has developed methodology like jadam and now government itself wants to get more farmers into it as a 3 year study showed it is economically viable and better for the soil than conventional methods. Same arguments like yours were made that it is unscientific, no published data etc. Ingham might be marketing her material for selling her courses but I don’t think calling the method unscientific is correct. Even the indian technique they tell you can see regeneration of soil in one season but it will take more seasons for the ecosystem to really establish balance.
throughout history, there're always a bunch of people trying to create new religion and new church
yep, looks like another new age cult.
👍
It's very much like you have different styles of gardening.
Some people are impatient and perfectionists, those people will turn to these methods of trying to control every aspect.
I think you are right saying they are pushing a belief that science hasn't accepted.
But science is very much corrupted.. It's basically a cult.
The conventional way of farming these days seems to be way worse then what the soil school teaches.
Also, they might have done their own research and base their findings on that rather than to wait for corrupted science to give a thumbs up
Until they publish - it is not valid science.
I've got to give her credit for setting herself up as the figurehead of an ag based religious system in modern times.
You missed off "revenue generating"....
@@GARDENER42very true. _Your $3,000 class is dismissed. Don't forget to buy a microscope on the way out. Until you get yours in, make sure to send your samples into our affordable lab. We also offer a certification course next week so that you can work as a consultant. Of course if you prefer once you've gotten your certification we offer a certificate certification course so that you can actually teach other people the system and make money off of the classes you teach. You only have to submit a small fee for each class. To reach the certificated certified certification standing you will need to be certified in the microscope course as well. Don't forget to like and share this. Here's a list of rebuttals to those haters._
you can also give your credit card, there are some juicy courses to sell online!
Have you ever done a urine video on the best ratio of urine to water for peak growth without adding too much sodium? I know all urine isn’t exactly the same and all plants are a little different in their fertilizer needs but an average would be good enough. I use all my urine to water my trees and shrubs on my farm. Even during our short winters in Texas because I can’t store it. Old vs fresh urine would also be a topic.
www.gardenmyths.com/urine-safe-garden/
Climate Change 😂
yeah, they/she are into pseudo-science and voodoo and make money from expensive seminars where you learn pseudo-farming.