Good information however it fails to recognize the symbiotic relationships between plants and soil microbes (bacteria, fungi, archea, protazoa, nematodes, microarthropods). If you use synthetic fertilizer, yes it will feed the plants and the microbes. However, they will not form tight symbiotic relationships to get what they need from eachother. As soon as you stop using synthetic fertilizer, the plants and microbes will suffer. Whereas with organic fertilizers, they will be stronger together and can survive pests, deseases and lack of nutrients for much longer. Ask yourself, do I want a bunch of freeloading plants and microbes that will die without constant fertilizing? Or do I want to build a strong, healthy ecosystem that will live on with or without me?
Fair comment mate, but it is time consuming & not always easy to build up a well structured soil for crops, gardens, tree planting, landscaping, etc, without using some form of fertilisers, organic or not to help supplement the effort while building that structure.
More of a situation where chemical fertilizer destroys microbial habitats by dissolving soil carbon/ organic matter that the microbes live in. Also rhizophagy disproves your claim that plants can’t use larger molecules for nutrition, I definitely recommend looking in Dr. James White work on the topic. The plants can eat whole microbes, and can also uptake larger complex organic compounds in their roots.
"dissolving soil carbon/ organic matter" - no such thing. Fertilizer can't dissolve organic matter. Fertilizer does feed microbes, which grow and become more active, which then in turn digest organic matter.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 which then in turn spirals into all your soil organic matter being dissolved and washed away-IE the Gmo corn fields with low soil organic matter from synthetic nitrogen applications.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Ok, they don't dissolve Soil Carbon, it is consumed by the BACTERIA, and they need a carbon source, which is depleted if not replaced. This why the majority of Ag soils are fucked. Fertiliser doesn't feed the other microbes, such as, Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi. Understand the role of the 4 functional groups, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Yep, fertiliser doesn't disolve O.M/S.C. BACTERIA burn up/consume those to digest the fertilisers, and this is why Ag soils are fucked. Fertilisers do not feed Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi. Those OTHER microbes Learn soil function and the role of Soil Microbes, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias
Thanks. Good info here mate & there is obviously a lot more to this subject regarding microbial activity in the soil. I always try to use any synthetic fertilisers very sparingly with the idea you can always add more if needed, but try to rely mostly on organic and composting methods.
Love your videos. l grew tomatoes for 30 years hydroponically, pure hydroponics....NO SUBSTRATE, NFT method...nutrient film technique, only with synthetic greenhouse fertilizers, eg mineral salts. Microbes in the nutrient solution? Don't know, never got it tested.
Good to hear i do wonder wbout the amount of salt being added to soils from synthetic fertelizer. I see this in my grow bags at season end when salt forms on the bottoms of my grow bage
Chemical fertilizers CAN kill soil microbes. Since it is hard to control the true application rate of chemical fertilizers, excess nitrogen converts into ammonia which kills microbes. Organic fertilizers are considered a long term slow release method. You need 30 parts of organic carbon to one part of nitrogen. Microbes need both in the proper amounts. Chemical fertilizers - 2L of sugary soda every day Organic fertilizers - steak dinners every day.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Most farmers use precise equipment to apply fertilizers. Typical homeowner usually does not. Farmers also apply fertilizer to acres of land whereas typical homeowners have small plots or containers. I did say hard. I didn't say impossible lol If you buy a bag of granular fertilizer, it is not truly mixed homogenously. Even the factory cannot make it uniform, but close. I tried following precise directions on applying granular fertilizer to start a straw bale garden. Exactly as directed. After a few days I had a severe ammonia smell. Took weeks for it to air out. If I had used a liquid fertilizer, I probably would have had a more homogenous mix and better results. Much better control with liquid fertilizers.
Wrong - Ammonia is already a form of nitrogen - it is ammonical nitrogen. other types are nitrate, nitrite and ureic (urea) Nitrogen doesn't convert into ammonia, ammonia converts into nitrate, which is the form plants can take up. Ammonia first converts to nitrite and then to nitrate by the work of soil bacteria as does urea and in the case of organic nitrogen fertilizer there is an extra step and that is the conversion by soil bacterial into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrient. All solid fertilizers have to become soluble before they are of any use. Organic matter in the soil is ideal at around 8 to 10%. Too much makes soil sour. It isn't about whether organic is better than inorganic, it is about best practice where the combination of the two are correctly applied.
Agree but i generaly think that mineral fertilizer are used to grow bigger fruits and faster growing but which tends to lose taste. I reather grow smaller but with richer taste. I planted Last year some yellow cherry tomato in different part of garden giving him nothing(just planted) and it was healtier and lasted longer with great taste.
Healthier than what? You gave one llant nothinf and anither mineral fertilizer… you proved nothing about synthetic fertilizers 😂 You have no argument to defend
I’m glad I just found your channel and just subscribed. Please explain why it is not recommended to put lawn fertilizer in a potted environment. This and your previous videos suggests ( but doesn’t explicitly state)that it could be used.
I almost never comment on videos, but this was so clear that a simple thumbs-up is not sufficient. Congratulations - I'll recommend this video to people in future for an excellent overview. GMOs are one of those topics where the more you understand about them the harder it becomes to oppose them.
This is great news. I combine the usage of synthetic fertilizer with organic fertilizer depending on my goal. For example, I scalp my Bermuda lawn each spring and will apply a synthetic because I’m wanting rapid release of nutrients into the soil. The remainder of the season I’ll use organic when I want slower and longer lasting release of nutrients. If I get hit with a fungus and treat that problem I will normally follow up with a synthetic fertilizer to help the lawn recover more quickly.
@@davidspahr4020 the best compared to what? Look at studies from Dr. Jonson State University of California. 140% growth compare to traditional or traditional ecological.
Did you analyze the synthetic fertilizer to make sure there was no other compounds? Sometime when stuff is produced, there are side reactions that produce unwanted stuff. Not because I'm scared of science. As an example, did you see how they (used) to remove caffeine from coffee?
The definition of "organic" is muddied in this presentation. There is the implication by the presenter that "organic" means "not synthetic". However, the studies cited show "Inorganic", meaning from minerals and not containing carbon vs "organic" which means it is carbon-based. I believe the study cited has nothing to do with the "non-synthetic" definition of organic, but rather the "carbon-based" definition of organic. This nullifies his hypothesis.
The food for microbes is the decaying organic matter, where do they get their food from,if there is a long term use of only synthetic fertilizers. We always talk about NPK and minerals, but ignore CARBON.
My thinking: Too much is the key and it's a lot less when adding synthetic to living soil compared to pure synthetic or mineral fertilizers grows... A booster for flower is interesting if growing organicly in small pots. Cannabis can eat up a lot and it's just not there...
In my studies I learned the adding soil organic to a soil it like putting nutrients in a vault. That has a half life of perhaps 40 years. A lot of people think in short order they can go from 2 to 5% with just including a cover crop. They do not know that 6" of soil weighs 2 million lbs and that 3% is 40,000 lbs of carbon and 4,000 lbs of N on an acre. Other element are also locked up in this SOM until mineralized. Fertilizers help bring nutrient to be used.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I am describing soil organic matter not organic plant residue. If it were 5 years just think how fast a soil's organic matter would be depleted. The half life is very dependent on temperatures and tillage. Most OM has a carbon to nitrogen ratio of 10:1 Just think about one acre of soil 6" deep weighs 2 million lbs. 60% of OM is carbon. That results in 6,000 lbs of N in 5% OM. A 1000 square ft garden would be 1/40 of these values. Half of that is 3000 lbs in 5 years or about 600 lbs in the first year. Most Midwest soils producing 180 bu corn each year has about 80 lbs of N being Mineralized each year. Sorry I think that way...I got my degree in Soil science. I hope I have not left you!
It a good question. The answer is it depends. If for instance your soil has a high pH over 7 the ammonium sulfate in fertilizers will be converted into ammonia and yes that will kill your plants and bacteria. But if your keep your soil pH around 6.0 or 6.5 ammonia will remain in the Ammonium form and will not cause any damage..
That is an example of one fertilizer that can become toxic under specific conditions. There are other nitrogen fertilizers that can be used in high pH soils, though. You can also lower the pH of the soil (though that can be difficult depending on why the pH is high).
Our agronomist *recommends* ammonium sulfate for our high pH soils. The nitrifying bacteria in the soil consume the ammonia, converting it to nitrite and nitrate, and the sulfate combines with water to create sulfuric acid. Over long periods of time, I'll be able to modify my alkaline soil down to something more neutral.
"If for instance your soil has a high pH over 7 the ammonium sulfate in fertilizers will be converted into ammonia and yes that will kill your plants and bacteria." - the part about killing plants and bacteria is not true. Lots of farms, including my garden have a pH above 7, and they use urea, and they grow crops. In fact both bacteria and plants can use ammonium as a nitrogen source.
I wonder if the nutrients in some types of fertilizer are stereoisomers that end up more effective than other forms with the same chemical formula in practice. Maybe it isn’t enough to matter, but in human biology I’ve seen cases where one stereoisomer could be doubly effective as another simply due to the particular arrangement of atoms in the molecule. But even in such a hypothetical case, there’s no reason that the more effective arrangement couldn’t be in the synthetic fertilizer anyway. It would just be random chance which one is better in each biochemical scenario.
Thing about this is, idc what anyone says, the complexity of natural fertilizers such as compost is just going to be better than synthetic fertilizers, no matter how many studies, I believe that even if someone is a biology major, they would agree that the complexity and diversity of organic fertilizers is too much for the human mind to comprehend, as you said, a gram of soil can contain up to a couple billion microbes. And yes, I know it is about the food you give to the microbes, however, just one basic element just isn't enough, take sugar per-instance, yes it feeds microbes, but it doesn't do it for long, nor does it promote complexity and bio-diversity, a correct fertilizer is one that is local and deeply complex with a mixture of slow and fast burning biological materials, and/or browns and greens. Also, to add to that, think of each microbe as having a certain job, the job market won't flourish if there is only one job, so it is VERY self-explanatory. A good example of this is fungi: Since fungi require brown materials, and/or lignan rich materials like wood or dried leaves, something as basic as sugar just wouldn't do, thus the plant would then be deprived of essential mycorrhizal connections. However, I do agree that if a plant is deficient in a certain chemical or element, synthetic fertilizers could be a good temporary fix. Also, at 4:42 , this graph confirms my beliefs, as the population and/or complexity of fungi in the organic field treatments is higher than that of the inorganic field treatments. (However the inorganic field treatments does have SOME fungi.)
It is possible for synthetic fertilizers to harm or even kill soil microbes under certain conditions. Synthetic fertilizers can contain high concentrations of salts or chemicals that can be detrimental to microbial life if applied excessively or improperly. Additionally, repeated use of synthetic fertilizers without proper management practices can lead to imbalances in soil pH and nutrient levels, further impacting microbial populations. However, the extent of harm depends on various factors such as the type and amount of fertilizer used, soil characteristics, and environmental conditions.
Thank you for this video. I need confirmation. But what about the build up of salts. I’ve heard people say the if you use synthetic fertilizer too long “salts” will build up in the soil. Is that true?
Except man made fertiliser usually comes coated in a form of plastic coating thus adding to micro Plasticsto plants soil and us if we are eating the leaves or fruit.
I'm happy to hear you say organic is preferred. The charts do show an incease in some biology, but the organic even moreso. You also don't address the issue of the direct and hidden costs of synthetic fertilizer. Those direct costs are bankrupting many farmers. They're expensive! Synthetic fertilizers were the driver of the Green Revolution... which has/is responsible for the loss of topsoil everywhere. Synthetics also build up harmful salts in the soil. The folks who really like synthetilcs are Bill Gates favourite people, and he has no clue about farming and growing nutritionally dense food... which synthetics can't do. They're only NPK, and are normally devoid of necessary trace minerals.
Hi there, please tell me if you ever used Molassies in making your compost please and if so what is your thoughts regarding it to benefit it's use or not to aid compost making. Thanking you for your hard work in making UA-cam video's. Maureen
If someone's paranoid about synthetics messing their soil biome but they got poor soil that need fertilizing, maybe they can set aside a bed or plot, lined at the bottom with charcoal. Only use the synthetic there and compost the weeds that grow on that plot.
dear, Robert Pavlis, could you please respond to me who you are referring to at 3:57. i tried looking up the study because id like to educated myself further, but couldnt find what i thought you said was conducted by " Journal Plants". if you would please direct me to this, id be most appreciative of a response. I've just fallen into your work and ordering your books. You have opened my view towards alot on these microbe and fertilizer talks. Thank you
As someone who studied soil science and plant nutrition at college and put it into practice for several decades it is interesting to read and hear in the gardening world that soil biology pseudo-science is still well alive and kicking. This info here is correct. plants cannot tell the difference. Organic vs inorganic in a one size fits all frame is an over simplification. Enthusiasts of organic very often don't even understand what organic means, assuming anything not manufactured is organic. If its from rock its also inorganic. Do inorganic fertilizers kill microbes? Depends on what inorganic fertilizer it is. Sure ammonia nitrogen will have the earth worms either moving out or dying, while calcium nitrate will have them moving back in in large numbers and both inorganic. If anyone cares about cattle welfare around the world they wont be using bone meal or hoof and horn. If anyone cares about depletion of fish from our oceans they wont be using fish meal or fish emulsion as these are the result of over fishing. Organic matter in the soil, healthy colonies of fungi and good drainage are far more important than if nutrients come from inorganic or organic sources.
While the claim may hold some validity in general contexts, it does not accurately apply to cannabis cultivation and its final product. Organic natural Soil-based farming methods yield a significantly smoother smoke compared to products derived from synthetic processes. The latter, often marketed as safe and effective, fail to match the quality of soil-grown cannabis. This discrepancy likely arises from a combination of factors, including inferior cultivation techniques and inadequate disposal methods for synthetic byproducts.
@@bobbybass3586 Lower water content and higher denser dry matter is most likely why. It isn't the actual fertilizer type that makes the difference it is how it is delivered to the plant that counts. Organic has to go through a process in the soil where the microbes convert the organic fertilizer into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrients. This results in slower growth and a harder plant as the plant doesn't receive nutrient in a surge as it might with soluble inorganic fertilizer. It is why fertilizing with inorganic fertilizer needs to be much more precise with measuring and scales, whereas organic fertilizers and manures can be used heavy handed and a large guesswork margin of error. The smoother smoke is most likely achieved from a denser molecular structure in the the leaf and a higher concentration of the cannabinoids which is the magic ingredient. Slower growth and higher dry matter result in better flavour in fruit and veg too. So it isn't the actual type of fertilizer that makes the difference but more the method and growth characteristics. I favour a thoughtful and knowledgeable mix of organic and inorganic for best results. While organic nitrogen isn't difficult to use with good results, adequate levels of potassium is damn near impossible to achieve organically. Personally I cant stand the smell of cannabis being smoked - lots of students live around me and smoke it in their gardens in the evening, it stinks to high heaven. I like good old cigarettes made with tobacco.
well then it shouldn’t be recommended for everyday people to grow synthetically if you really think about it. Precise measurements are needed for synthetic in order to not fuck up the plant for smoking. I highly doubt many know how much to add of what so all we will get flowing around is garbage weed. While in organic a lot less goes wrong and the quality is more consistent. You know what I mean? I just care about quality and I do not have faith in the average man to even tie their shoes right. That’s all I am saying heheh but thanks for the nice reply
Now I'm all confused. I thought there is a symbiotic relationship between microbes and plants, therefore feeding each other. Along comes a synthetic fertilizer, being readily available to the plant, thus starving out the microbes. Is there any truth to this?
This is very much an 'it's complicated' topic. Soil microbes are a really broad group that covers fungi, bacteria, and so on. Some form symbiotic relationships, e.g., rhizobia and legumes. The bacteria converts nitrogen from the air into ammonia for the plant to use. Mycorrhizae also form symbiotic relationships with plant roots. They can transport water and nutrients and do a bunch of other things. There's also all the bacteria that are involved in the nitrification process. As well as the ones involved in breaking down organic matter. What's my point? Well excess nitrogen can cause legumes to not form the relationship with bacteria since they have enough nitrogen in the soil. Similar situation with the mycorrhizal relationship but often when talking about phosphorus. If you're dumping a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil and no organic matter then the decomposer population quickly shrinks. Depending on the type of nitrogen you add, the bacteria responsible for converting it to different forms will multiply. So it is bad? Not necessarily. Bacteria multiply really really fast and will quickly repopulate an area when it's favorable. Also, since at the end of the day nutrients are nutrients you can overdo it with organic or synthetic. Even legumes in specific scenarios grown just for nitrogen and organic matter can lead to excess nitrogen leaching into the water table, waterways and so on.
Want to check but are some synthetic fertilizers bound with salts which can cause a problem when built up in your soil, inhiberating natural mineral cycles?
Yes, you are technically correct, but from my many years as a landscaper and home gardener...take a plant raised with only chemical fertilizers in a medium like peat moss and put it into totally organic soil. The plant struggles to stay alive and if it does, it is vastly inferior to plants raised & grown in that organic soil without chemicals. This is especially apparent with house plants.
Ahh, your many years as a landscaper and home gardener… very trustworthy credentials there bud 😂 especially when you say chemical fertilizers… dude, with your background, yoo should know that pretty much everything we touch on this planet is a chemical of some sorr. Your point is moot ❤
@@ronfeggio lmfao you don’t even understand what a chemical is… so yeah, your point is moot. AI, nah homie, I’m real as fuck 🤣 Have a good life dude, you clearly need some support ❤️
@@mcgritty8842 Why do you go to such lengths to correct my words? Just substitute chemical with synthetic. Any average intellectual would have understood what I was saying. BTW: I grew up on a farm, worked for the Cornell Cooperative Extension and I've studied organic & inorganic chemistry. I'm sure you're well aware of the high amount of energy it takes to produce ammonia from nitrogen & hydrogen. That's called a chemical process. Get off your phone and get back to school before you end up on the street.
This might be a stupid question but......can u use anaerobic compost bags and bins? I've never had a compost turn into the nice dark dirt I c everywhere on UA-cam. Is it ok to use that to refresh the soil.....give them nutrients . I had a terrible time last yr with growing any kind of vegetable. Thank you......I don't know what I would do without ur videos. 😊
Excellent excellent excellent video. Everyone out there could learn from your words. And citing studies only added to make it better. The comments on the banana were also great. I believe that bananas do feed potassium and that it takes a while for potassium to be available to the plants. I throw all mine in my compost. Experimenting on a small scale can sometimes dispel myths. I too mainly use organics but also use non-organics for seedlings (at a lower strength) and when I see a plant that is struggling or not performing as I think it should. There are so many beliefs that some people propagate. 🌼😍🌸🌺❤️
Ditto for me. I grew a cover crop of alfalfa in my raised beds and covered the beds with tarps to deprive the soil of light. The soil loves it. next year I put some vegetable scraps in there in addition. My dad used to do that.
Mr. Pavlis, I am in possession of a bale of ProMix BX Growing Mix. From what I've read about it, the ProMix BX is not considered organic because of a wetting agent and the fertilizer used in the mix. Since I have so much of it, I would like to use it in some grow bags to grow potatoes and other vegetables. Does either the wetting agent or the fertilizer pose any kind of a risk for growing edibles in the ProMix BX Mix? Thank you for any information you might be able to provide to me. I have read your Garden Myths 1 and 2 books and I also have your Soil Science, Plant Science and Compost Science Books. Thank you for writing those books. They are excellent.
I bet you are wrong. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungi - consider them flowers. The fungi actually lives underground and is impossible to see with your eye, unless lots of them clump together. So you can't look at soil and say they are not there. www.gardenmyths.com/microbe-science-for-gardeners/
Yes. A salt is just an ionic compound made up of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions. Adding plant nutrients to any substrate will increase the salt content. That's because all plants roots can only absorb ions. Where you talking about chlorine salts? In that case, no, not unless the fertilizer contains a chloride.
Yes - but not in the way you are thinking about salt. Salt is a chemical term for any ionic compound, which includes all synthetic fertilizer except urea, and all the nutrients released by organic materials. www.gardenmyths.com/what-is-salt/
I don’t need to watch because I already know the deal. No, synthetic fertilizer doesn’t kill beneficial soil microbes…if everything is done correctly. However, people over fertilize and most synthetic fertilizers are highly soluble and mobile in runoff. You go and fertilize, it rains and washes away. Then there’s the opposite problem when you don’t get very much rain at all. So you mix the fertilizer and water your plants and the water evaporates away. And then you mix the fertilizer and water your plants and the water evaporates away. And if you do that enough times, the fertilizer can build up in the soil in the form of salts. THAT can be detrimental to soil biota.
Salts and acids kill beneficial microbes (in particular myco fungi) and shut down plant natural symbiotic relationship with beneficial microbes. They also lower nutrient density, aroma and the overall fruit/veggies quality. And as you mentioned, big portion of synthetic fertilizer is not utilized by plants because of run off and immobilization. There is already enough of everything in soil, but not enough microbiology to make that plant available. The best thing for plants is correct compost with the right f:b ratio. Remember, plants don't need us, we need plants.
@@blagoeres Salts can be harmful but are not exclusive to synthetic fertilizers. What are you even talking about with acids? Lots of things can affect the pH of soil. No, there is not always enough of everything in the soil because it depends on location, what the location was used for and nitrogen because it is much more mobile. Just from a completely logical standpoint, if plants are using the nutrients in the soil to produce the harvest you then remove from the growing area, the nutrients available have been reduced. There's not a shortage of microbes. It's just not how it works. Immobilized how? Ahhh I see now. I was responding as I went. Once I got to the last part and saw the comment about the fungal bacterial ratio belief system it makes more sense.
When you say that no one should ever use a 10 1010, could you come back and qualify that based on so many of your previous videos that recommend Jack’s 10 1010 on certain occasions?
I appreciate your thoughts .... but please consider this point of view.... from my observation, it is the act of stimulating plants with chemicals that makes them vulnerable to pests and diseases, then requiring other strategies..... so, the better question is, do biome modifications with chemical fertilizers make plants more vulnerable to problems and less able to defend against threats? You see, seems to me, from years of observations, that users of chemical fertilizer users have more problems that require pesticides and herbicides.. you get that, right?
" it is the act of stimulating plants with chemicals that makes them vulnerable to pests and diseases" - but that is not true. Consider this - those same chemicals can be applied using fish emulsion, or sea weed - They both have the same effect because both sources produce the same ions.
they don;t produce the ions at the same rate, and they surely modify the soil biome... and I suspect this biome modification is tied to certain pest problems..... I feel like I am arguing with a guy who doesn't understand how gm crops influence the gut biome, and how the gut biome influences hormones and neurotransmitters (thus human development and disease resistance), yet fights and fights that they are safe.@@Gardenfundamentals1
@@Gardenfundamentals1 it is true, becasue the "shift" in population in the microbes REMOVES symbiotic microorganisms. The plants become more often sick. But it is a very complex topic. Just digging the soil around makes your plants more vulnerable as you destroy the fungal community. BTW the shift in PH is NOT becasue you are adding chemicals. The biology moves the ph as some species die out and become replaced by others as you kill them by telling your plants they don't need to feed the microbes with sugars. If you have missing some important kinds of microbes, you also loose the predators of them. These predators are often a part of the immune system of the plant. An example for these relations if the honey fungus desease in wine. If your plants don't have a symbiotic relationship with trichoderma, they are very vulnerable. Trichoderma eats the honey fungus (and a LOT of other deseases). Trichoderma comes with compost .... not with this synthetic crap.
Synthetic fertilizer does not 'kill' soil but it works quickly. Organic fertilizers work slowly but enhance your soil. However, by the time some of the organic fertilizers break down into microscopic particles the growing season is over.
Yes and if they are retained in organic matter and in the food web they will be there next year and thereafter if replenished. Contrast this to the chemical fertilizers that will have leached away so that you have to completely start over with a full dose of inorganic salts again most of which are leached away before being useful. That’s how the dead zones have been formed in the river deltas and many of our deep groundwater supplies are now becoming toxic. With inorganic salts it’s pour on more on moron.
We talk about plant "food" needs by talking about the elements like npk. They aren't delivered in pure elemental form. Plants take up ammonium or nitrates for their N needs. In this case ammonia which is nitrogen and hydrogens picks up another hydrogen in the soil which makes ammonium. It's the same end product regardless of how it got there.
@@shawnsg it must be frustrating for you or maybe you're much more patient than me. Without basic chemistry knowledge I don't see how the general pop would ever understand something like soil sci. They are so easily swayed by misinformation w/o having this basic knowledge. Channels like this are helpful in a small way of course
You missed a very, very important point which is carbon. While it might be ok to apply some synthetic fertilizers in a garden situation providing you are also adding carbon via manure, compost or mulch this is not the case for big Ag as they only use synthetic and no carbon at all. In order for microbes to eat the synthetic nitrogen they also need a carbon source as there diet is 30:1 and so they will eat organic matter and the biotic glues that create soil aggregates and then the soil collapse and once this happens the microbes do die off and when it rains it runs off as soil is hard. Plus this practice puts a lot of carbon into atmosphere, way more than fossil fuels
When a farmer adds synthetic fertilizers he adds carbon in the crop roots and residue from the crop. If he grows a cover crop it is generally 60 to one C:N. He will need to add N to make 10:1 soil organic matter. Synthetic N then helps microbes grow. The carbon comes from the air as CO2.
That is correct but unfortunately the ratios are way off meaning there is way mor N being applied that carbon going in soil and therefore the soil will collapse. Cover crops can help in a big way. Hybrid GMO corn today will synthesize a lot of CO2 however very little goes for root exudates and most to above ground plant tissues which end up as surface residue which most will oxidize back to atmosphere.
Dear Mr. Pavlis. I have just begun to cultivate vegetables on a commercial scale. I have a rather long question to ask of you so I am not sure if it is appropriate to ask via the comments here for this video. Will it be possible for you to please share your email address so that I can send you my doubts and a details write up of the situation I face currently.
In the film and book The Martian, Mark Watney grows potatoes using Martian rock dust, water, and human poop as fertilizer. He actually gives some thought to the fact that microbes are an essential part to growing the plants. Without them, the plants would not be able access the nutrients. He is a little concerned that the freeze dried poop in storage doesn't have any microbes, but he is able to add microbes to the soil because there are living microbes in his own digestive tract. This is the rare story where the hero's skills as a botanist save the day.
thanks for this video, what i take away from it is: synthetic is best used when you have to give nutrients now, s the plant can directky use them and it should be very closely moderated to not overdo it. Otherwise Bio is the overall best solution.
i seek advice. I mix my own fertiliser using high value (50) parts. ex. 0:50:50 or 25:50:50. i mix up, then add 10 of micronutrients, biron, copper, iron etc. My method of feeding is a plastic jar with holes in the lid. I then just dust around the plant and wait for rain. am i wasting my time? i figure increasing the strength decreases the weight and it means i can spread much wider, and not carry heavy bags of 3:3:3 say. it hasn't rained for months, so i have no idea if it will be useful.
1) Soil rarely needs the micronutrients. 2) Higher NPK values just means you have to add less weight of material to apply the same amount of fertilizer. "i figure increasing the strength decreases the weight and it means i can spread much wider, and not carry heavy bags of 3:3:3 say" - that is correct. However it is also easier to over fertilize.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 thank you kindly. yes, i thought too, easy to over do it. but certainly it's easier to distribute. i can do an acre in with 2 or 3 kg. I will watch for burns. as for micronutrients, ok. thx. i am using land thats been farmed for rice for years. sandy little clay. i worry everything gets washed down when it rains. .
Planta do use macromoléculas or even EAT hole micrones. Aldo, if You cover plant needs with fast absorbible fertilizar, they don't develope a healthy relationship with micrones.
@musictech85 I get where you're coming from. But organic fertilizers won't even do what you believe or wanting it to do. Like you said, you want a natural rhythm to keep ongoing on with or without you. It will always require human intervention in your garden. Unless you were to master it like ancient civilizations did in South America. yes, organic is gonna to be slightly better than synthetic, but not much better, it's only really better for the environment as manufacturer it goes other than organic has a few more ingredients to offer and that it. It takes a lot more than just treating the soil. It working with your ecosystem that provide you the continuing you're looking for.
I disagree with a few figures of speech like molecules=ions (for me it’s an equivalent to saying all opiates are heroine) but to sum up this video, the difference between drug killing You and helping You is a dose, every toxicology and pharmacy book I have ever read starts with this notion
Do you think synthetic fertiliser fields and gardens become depend on repeated applications whereas natural soil systems create biochemical pathways to naturally liberate mineral elements from rocks and sand? [analogous to antibiotics versus natural immunity]
"Do you think synthetic fertiliser fields and gardens become depend on repeated applications" Yes, of course. When we harvest crops, we're removing nutrients from that location and transporting them elsewhere. In nature, plants are surrounded by decaying things, including other dead plants, and they get their nutrients from that process. Under cultivation, we generally remove most of those sources and thus have to continually replace them with some kind of additional nutrients, whether synthetic or organic. Even in nature, if things didn't die or poop, plants would starve. "whereas natural soil systems create biochemical pathways to naturally liberate mineral elements from rocks and sand?" There are 2 kinds of nutrients that plants need: micronutrients and macronutrients. Macronutrients are needed in large quantities and get used up quickly. Micronutrients are needed in small quantities and take a long time to get used up. Most minerals in rocks and sand are micronutrients and aren't going to be affected by the application of synthetic macronutrients. "analogous to antibiotics versus natural immunity" I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Antibiotics are chemicals that kill or hinder the growth of bacteria. Some are naturally occuring, such as penicillin. They don't affect your natural immunity because your body still has to fight off an infection even if you take antibiotics. Your body will still be able to recognize and fight off bacteria in the future even if it had help from antibiotics during the first infection. Antibiotics can cause a problem when they wipe out beneficial bacteria, but that's not how fertilizers work in a garden.
@@pendlera2959 Thank you for the detailed reply. Interesting points. What I am asking though is are organic soil ecosystems self sustaining - can they liberate minerals (including macro NPK) fast enough for plants? They certainly do natural ecosystems but also could do so for agriculture. NPK comes from rocks too and organic material. The antibiotic questions was a comparison, of interest the immune system has much less work to do if antibiotics are started early. [it is known that strep throats and tonsillitis recur more frequently if antibiotics are started in the first 2 days, delayed antibiotics exposes it to the immune system which then creates memory B cells] So in summary I am asking if synthetic fertilisers damage the natural mineral liberation abilities of the soil ecosystem? That is suggested by soil scientists such as Elaine Ingham and Christine Jones.
Continual use of synthetic does change the microbe population in a field. We really know very little about these populations. We have only identified 20% of the species in soil. If a field is left fallow, with no more fertilizer added, it does return to its former self in a few years.
The issue surrounding chemical fertilizer is not so much what it does in the garden, but how it is manufactured. Fertilizer plants are polluting and is fossil fuel intensive. “In 2021, 30 ammonia nitrogen fertilizer plants in the U.S. released 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen pollution into waterways, including 3.9 million pounds of toxic ammonia. This is equivalent to the amount of nitrogen pollution from 62 sewage treatment plants. The production of chemical fertilizer contributes to 0.8% of global greenhouse emissions by pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, like nitrous oxide and methane. Added to that is the energy required to run the plants. Both ends of the subject need to be factored into the equation. Just for the record, I use small amounts of chemical fertilizers in my own garden on top of a mostly organic approach using wood chips, compost, mulch and worm castings. I am not completely opposed to using chemical fertilizers but I am very aware of what the cost is to our environment.
Synthetic Fertilizer DOES NOT Kill Soil Microbes. What makes soil the worst every year after Synthetic fertilizer is what's left after Synthetic fertilizer, which is salt.
Number of microbes isn't a great metric for soil health, same as if you applied it to, say, gut health. Someone could have a massive number of microbes in their gut but be dying of a c. difficile infection. What's beneficial is a large diversity of microbe species, because different fungi and bacteria provide different ecosystem services (including nitrogen fixation from the air) and the interactions of different microbe species cause them to express different genetics in themselves (quorum sensing) and the plants growing in them. A plant that is able to suck copious dissolved nitrogen in through its roots won't need to form symbiotic relationships with microbes it would otherwise need to supply it, and you miss out on the beneficial side effects of those symbiotic relationships on plant health/resilience and soil structure, such as increased organic matter, which buffers pH, improves water retention and tilth and provides a stable environment for the microbial ecosystem. Everyone knows you shouldn't mix wood chips (high carbon i.e. organic material) into your soil because it robs nitrogen. If you add straight nitrogen to your soil (meaning nitrate or ammonium), you end up robbing organic matter by much the same process: the microbes that bloom from the influx of nitrogen also need carbon, and they'll use up whatever carbon (organic matter) is close by.
I have been indoctrinated into the organic gardening culture and have spent countless hrs amending my soil. It works great most of the time , but certain things don't always thrive as expected. Would be nice to give them some quick love with synthetic.
@@bobwilliams4528I think maybe there's just some misunderstanding of words here. Salts is just a chemistry term. It's not inherently bad or good. Synthetic has a negative connotation that doesn't reflect its actual meaning. Heavy metals are in lots of things including organic and synthetic fertilizers. Byproducts is just another loaded term.
of course there are, when you do not fertilize properly. Many farmers still believe that the more you fertilize, the more you will harvest. Heavy metals and other dangerous products can be left even with an incorrect organic fertilization. Plants are not animals, they eat and live in a complete different way. When you spread a fertilizer you are not feeding the plant, you are feeding the soil. Once the fertilizer is converted by microbes and other micro organisms into a form that the plant can absorb, it will be absorbed, but only in the right amount the plant needs. An example: if a tree needs 1 kg of potassium, and you spread in the soil 3 kg of potassium, the pland will absorb only 1 kg. The other 2 kg will remain in the top layer of the soil for many years. if the 1kg of potassium needed was already present, the whole 3 kg will remain in the soil. If you don't know what and how much minerals in the soil are missing, how can you know how much and what type of fertilizer you need? Do not fertilize until you'll get a soil test done.
I've read a lot of the comments here. And, I have to say, it's almost as if the video itself wasn't even watched. What a person "believes," or would "wish" simply doesn't matter. Gardening is not a religion. This gentleman does his best to show at least some of the science behind the statements he makes. Pay attention. And, watch with an open mind. Sorry, but I'm seeing a lot of people giving poor advice in these threads. And, as my intention would be to see folk succeed. It does no one any good to try to make a "convert." Again... Not a religion.
In resum, you said the quimical fertilizer damage the bacterias through the pH. And it's not complete your saying, you don't talk about the symbiosis and the bad effect on bacteria and fungus, the mycorhyze. I don't recommand quimical fertilizer, killing the soil and its fertility.
For what it's worth, microbes don't shut down in the winter, they mostly just slow down. Nitrate and urea based fertilizers should be avoided during the winter though. That said, the fertilizer just sits there, hopefully, until the spring.
I'm not against using synthetic chemicals, but organics seem easier to manage without burning my plants and they're free. If I'm gonna grow conventional produce, why not save money and just buy my produce at the grocery store?
Hiện nay những phong trào làm nông nghiệp hữu cơ/ tự nhiên/ sinh thái đang phát triển rất mạnh. Tôi có thể hiểu được rằng họ muốn có nguồn thực phẩm sạch, không bị ô nhiễm bởi những hoá chất tổng hợp. Nhưng có một thực tế đáng buồn đi kèm theo đó là đa số những người này thường tuyên truyền nhiều thứ sai lệch về phân bón hoá học nói riêng cũng như khoa học cây trồng nói chung, và một điều đáng buồn hơn là họ không bao giờ chịu tiếp thu và nhận thức được những kiến thức sai lầm đó. Tôi đã từng đưa ra ví dụ rằng những vườn nho tươi tốt trồng trên đất đá núi lửa, thực chất nó đang hấp thụ những hoá chất có thành phần tương tự phân bón tổng hợp được thải ra khỏi thứ mà họ gọi là “đất mẹ”, và không có bất kỳ vật chất nào trên trái đất hay trong vũ trụ mà không được cấu thành từ hoá chất hết (hoá chất đơn giản nhất đó là nguyên tố hoá học), sau đó họ cười nhạo tôi và nói rằng tôi đang làm cho một công ty hoá chất nào đó, trong khi tôi là một nông dân suốt ngày chỉ biết cuốc đất 😂.
I’m glad you mentioned that there are changes over longer time periods. It doesn’t take a genius to see how lifeless and poorly structured our chemically treated soils have become. Sorry but better living through chemistry has really degraded soils where they are used. Sure on an ionic level an ion is an ion but the soil processes that produce the plant available ions are very different and you know that. We are barely touching the beginning of understanding what goes on in the rhizosphere so making the statements you make in this video seems very biased and ignorant. Just look at the new understanding of rhizophagy and nitrogen fixation in tricomes as an example. To think that we can manufacture inorganic forms of fertilizer that improve on what natural selection came up with over millions of years is just arrogance. Part of the effects of organic forms of nutrition is the interactions of the soil microbes in the breakdown into plant usable forms that the plants actually have a part in the process. I feel you have done a disservice to the progress finally being made to help regenerate our badly chemically degraded soils. Your choice of the scientific studies you shared was very biased because you chose them to try to prove your point. It makes me wonder if you are being funded in some way by Big Agriculture. I’ve always liked and mostly respected what I hear from you but not this biased opinion. Shame on you. I know you are definitely way more intelligent than to not think this through better before the harm this will do to trying to get healthy soils back in balance.
Doesn't it make soils hard due to accumulation of salts !! If yes then heavy tilling will be required everytime in order to facilitate aeration. This will destroy earthworm channels. Also, the sun and heat on the soil will destroy the micro-climate in which microbes can prosper.
Agreed that the plant doesn't care from where the N comes. There are other considerations. Why organic N from a covercrop may be a better choice for overall soil heath. It adds organic matter to the soil & reduces acidity. ua-cam.com/video/0kxSzK-dvoQ/v-deo.htmlsi=ViMgSBhWzFHGFwPs
@@Gardenfundamentals1 in my experience, quick growth tends to be sappy which in turn attracts more pests and diseases... good healthy soil will buffer out imbalances in PH and nutrient absorption as well as holding more water than Salt wicks.
Chemical fert doesn’t, the salesman does. Farmers spend a lot of stupid money. If they educated themselves more we wouldn’t be facing regulations so stiff
Many people are firmly convinced that if you fertilize a fruit tree with a synthetic fertilizer, you will eat that fertilizer when you will eat the fruit. It doesn't matter how many explanations or scientific studies you'll bring to them to demonstrate that their thought is wrong, their irrational bias will remains. It's not a problem a botanist can solve, maybe a psychologist could.
Tôi từng hỏi nhiều người luôn miệng khoe khoang họ làm “nông nghiệp không hoá chất” rằng “H2O có phải hoá chất không”, họ trả lời là “H2O không phải hoá chất”, tôi hỏi tiếp nếu bạn nói làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất, vậy nước mà các bạn đang sử dụng rõ ràng không phải H2O, vậy thứ nước đó có cấu tạo và tính chất thế nào. Họ im bặt, và một vài ngày sau tôi lại thấy họ khoe khoang ở một nơi khác rằng họ “làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất” 😂. Rõ ràng họ không thể biết một thứ có là hoá chất hay không, thì dù họ có làm ra nông sản chất lượng tuyệt vời đi nữa, họ cũng chỉ là đang lừa dối người tiêu dùng và chính họ mà thôi. Tôi có thể thông cảm với những người này vì họ sợ những nông sản bị lạm dụng quá nhiều phân bón tổng hợp, thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, nhưng một điều đáng trách ở những người này đó là họ thêu dệt nhiều thứ phản khoa học và tuyên truyền khắp nơi. Phân bón tổng hợp-một thứ vô tri vô giác, có lẽ là một nạn nhân của những người có tri giác đó 😊.
"if you fertilize a fruit tree with a synthetic fertilizer, you will eat that fertilizer when you will eat the fruit" - that statement is true. We do eat the chemicals in that fertilizer. The point people do not understand is that the "chemicals" in that fertilizer are essential food for us. Without them we die!
Synthetic fertilizers do stress plants and attract insects and lower yields. There is a long history of research on this starting Sir Albert Howard and most recently you can see the work being done with Advancing Eco Agriculture and John Kempf. One article that has an incentive to be biased is not enough to make a decision on whether this is a myth or not. Just a little experiment in your own backyard in containers will very quickly show you the difference in how plants react when only receiving organic fertilizer (along with other methods, such as adequate water and not fertilizing at times of stress such as drought).
Setting aside that the bulk of research doesn't support the overall conclusion you or these people are making, there is just a completely fundamental aspect I can't ever get around when hearing this stuff. If these practices worked so well, they would be taken up naturally by everyone since they would increase profit. Lower pest pressure would mean fewer pesticides and less labor which means lower cost. Increased yields would increase revenue. Yet no one but the people in these belief systems noticed this? That John person sounds like one of many 'eco' grifters. They misconstrue actual scientific research to convince people of things the data doesn't actually say. Without looking I'm willing to bet he's selling books, classes, coaching or something.
@@shawnsg You're actually incorrect about this. There are many farmers switching over to these practices because of higher yields and lower costs. You can easily find more information on this if you like.
Johnson-su takes time, effort, and investment... something many big farmers are reluctant to engage with when they can buy a load of fertilizer and assure some level of profit...ok... btw, fertilizer use is associated with increased pest pressure and use of protecting chemicals.... you know that, right?..... this is a risk big guys take trying to strike a balance between effective levels and overuse, but they have a strategy for that too they get a little aggressive feeding, at a price. @@shawnsg
Good information however it fails to recognize the symbiotic relationships between plants and soil microbes (bacteria, fungi, archea, protazoa, nematodes, microarthropods). If you use synthetic fertilizer, yes it will feed the plants and the microbes. However, they will not form tight symbiotic relationships to get what they need from eachother. As soon as you stop using synthetic fertilizer, the plants and microbes will suffer. Whereas with organic fertilizers, they will be stronger together and can survive pests, deseases and lack of nutrients for much longer.
Ask yourself, do I want a bunch of freeloading plants and microbes that will die without constant fertilizing? Or do I want to build a strong, healthy ecosystem that will live on with or without me?
Fair comment mate, but it is time consuming & not always easy to build up a well structured soil for crops, gardens, tree planting, landscaping, etc, without using some form of fertilisers, organic or not to help supplement the effort while building that structure.
Thank you for saving me the time to explain this.
@@cuznclive2236exactly 👍👌
@@musictech85it messes with the rhizophagy cycle too.👌👍🙏
Plant are stronger healthier with organic material... less bugs less dieases . Agreed seen it myself. Will not use fake fertiizer
More of a situation where chemical fertilizer destroys microbial habitats by dissolving soil carbon/ organic matter that the microbes live in. Also rhizophagy disproves your claim that plants can’t use larger molecules for nutrition, I definitely recommend looking in Dr. James White work on the topic. The plants can eat whole microbes, and can also uptake larger complex organic compounds in their roots.
"dissolving soil carbon/ organic matter" - no such thing. Fertilizer can't dissolve organic matter. Fertilizer does feed microbes, which grow and become more active, which then in turn digest organic matter.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 which then in turn spirals into all your soil organic matter being dissolved and washed away-IE the Gmo corn fields with low soil organic matter from synthetic nitrogen applications.
That's what they don't understand @@jacobrafaat1516
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Ok, they don't dissolve Soil Carbon, it is consumed by the BACTERIA, and they need a carbon source, which is depleted if not replaced. This why the majority of Ag soils are fucked.
Fertiliser doesn't feed the other microbes, such as, Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi.
Understand the role of the 4 functional groups, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Absolute bullshit. Yep, fertiliser doesn't disolve O.M/S.C. BACTERIA burn up/consume those to digest the fertilisers, and this is why Ag soils are fucked.
Fertilisers do not feed Protozoa, Nematodes, and Fungi. Those OTHER microbes
Learn soil function and the role of Soil Microbes, or fuck off and stick to hydrangers and petunias
Your videos are my first-stop, Number-One choice for all things plant and garden related topics.
You're the best!!
thank you.
Never said anything like that!
Thanks. Good info here mate & there is obviously a lot more to this subject regarding microbial activity in the soil.
I always try to use any synthetic fertilisers very sparingly with the idea you can always add more if needed, but try to rely mostly on organic and composting methods.
Love your videos. l grew tomatoes for 30 years hydroponically, pure hydroponics....NO SUBSTRATE, NFT method...nutrient film technique, only with synthetic greenhouse fertilizers, eg mineral salts. Microbes in the nutrient solution? Don't know, never got it tested.
Good to hear i do wonder wbout the amount of salt being added to soils from synthetic fertelizer. I see this in my grow bags at season end when salt forms on the bottoms of my grow bage
Adding too much is a problem, from both synthetic and organic sources.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 So does organic and synthetic fertilizer have the same or different amounts of salt that can build up?
Chemical fertilizers CAN kill soil microbes.
Since it is hard to control the true application rate of chemical fertilizers, excess nitrogen converts into ammonia which kills microbes.
Organic fertilizers are considered a long term slow release method.
You need 30 parts of organic carbon to one part of nitrogen. Microbes need both in the proper amounts.
Chemical fertilizers - 2L of sugary soda every day
Organic fertilizers - steak dinners every day.
"Since it is hard to control the true application rate of chemical fertilizers" - not true - farmers do this every day.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 Most farmers use precise equipment to apply fertilizers. Typical homeowner usually does not. Farmers also apply fertilizer to acres of land whereas typical homeowners have small plots or containers.
I did say hard. I didn't say impossible lol
If you buy a bag of granular fertilizer, it is not truly mixed homogenously. Even the factory cannot make it uniform, but close.
I tried following precise directions on applying granular fertilizer to start a straw bale garden. Exactly as directed.
After a few days I had a severe ammonia smell. Took weeks for it to air out.
If I had used a liquid fertilizer, I probably would have had a more homogenous mix and better results.
Much better control with liquid fertilizers.
Wrong - Ammonia is already a form of nitrogen - it is ammonical nitrogen. other types are nitrate, nitrite and ureic (urea) Nitrogen doesn't convert into ammonia, ammonia converts into nitrate, which is the form plants can take up. Ammonia first converts to nitrite and then to nitrate by the work of soil bacteria as does urea and in the case of organic nitrogen fertilizer there is an extra step and that is the conversion by soil bacterial into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrient. All solid fertilizers have to become soluble before they are of any use. Organic matter in the soil is ideal at around 8 to 10%. Too much makes soil sour. It isn't about whether organic is better than inorganic, it is about best practice where the combination of the two are correctly applied.
Agree but i generaly think that mineral fertilizer are used to grow bigger fruits and faster growing but which tends to lose taste. I reather grow smaller but with richer taste. I planted Last year some yellow cherry tomato in different part of garden giving him nothing(just planted) and it was healtier and lasted longer with great taste.
Healthier than what? You gave one llant nothinf and anither mineral fertilizer… you proved nothing about synthetic fertilizers 😂 You have no argument to defend
Indeed, it is all in the dosing. If the package say 10 units, use 2 units instead and always add carbon based mulch.
I tend to use a similar technique. But, that's not to say I've got everything dialed in just right, yet. Always learning.
@@JJLom777 Yeah,I always cut the recommended dosage by 1/3.
Tbh, I thought you were fonna bash synthetic fertilizers, like many older farmers tend to do.
I appreciate your honesty and perspective ❤
I’m glad I just found your channel and just subscribed. Please explain why it is not recommended to put lawn fertilizer in a potted environment. This and your previous videos suggests ( but doesn’t explicitly state)that it could be used.
I almost never comment on videos, but this was so clear that a simple thumbs-up is not sufficient. Congratulations - I'll recommend this video to people in future for an excellent overview. GMOs are one of those topics where the more you understand about them the harder it becomes to oppose them.
What does this video have to do with GMO's... did I miss something?
I like hybrid gardening, using synthetic and organic components in the gardening process
Thank you Mr. P. ❄️🫠💚🙃
This is great news. I combine the usage of synthetic fertilizer with organic fertilizer depending on my goal. For example, I scalp my Bermuda lawn each spring and will apply a synthetic because I’m wanting rapid release of nutrients into the soil. The remainder of the season I’ll use organic when I want slower and longer lasting release of nutrients. If I get hit with a fungus and treat that problem I will normally follow up with a synthetic fertilizer to help the lawn recover more quickly.
Recent scientific studies show that a combination of organic and synthetic soil is best.
@@davidspahr4020 the best compared to what? Look at studies from Dr. Jonson State University of California. 140% growth compare to traditional or traditional ecological.
Did you analyze the synthetic fertilizer to make sure there was no other compounds? Sometime when stuff is produced, there are side reactions that produce unwanted stuff. Not because I'm scared of science. As an example, did you see how they (used) to remove caffeine from coffee?
The definition of "organic" is muddied in this presentation. There is the implication by the presenter that "organic" means "not synthetic". However, the studies cited show "Inorganic", meaning from minerals and not containing carbon vs "organic" which means it is carbon-based. I believe the study cited has nothing to do with the "non-synthetic" definition of organic, but rather the "carbon-based" definition of organic. This nullifies his hypothesis.
I use organic to mean any organic fertilizer such as compost, manure, fish heads etc. It is not used in the chemical sense - ie containing carbon.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 But the study you cited does not.
The food for microbes is the decaying organic matter, where do they get their food from,if there is a long term use of only synthetic fertilizers. We always talk about NPK and minerals, but ignore CARBON.
My thinking: Too much is the key and it's a lot less when adding synthetic to living soil compared to pure synthetic or mineral fertilizers grows...
A booster for flower is interesting if growing organicly in small pots. Cannabis can eat up a lot and it's just not there...
In my studies I learned the adding soil organic to a soil it like putting nutrients in a vault. That has a half life of perhaps 40 years. A lot of people think in short order they can go from 2 to 5% with just including a cover crop. They do not know that 6" of soil weighs 2 million lbs and that 3% is 40,000 lbs of carbon and 4,000 lbs of N on an acre. Other element are also locked up in this SOM until mineralized.
Fertilizers help bring nutrient to be used.
"That has a half life of perhaps 40 years" - more like 5 years, but a valid point.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 I am describing soil organic matter not organic plant residue. If it were 5 years just think how fast a soil's organic matter would be depleted. The half life is very dependent on temperatures and tillage. Most OM has a carbon to nitrogen ratio of 10:1 Just think about one acre of soil 6" deep weighs 2 million lbs. 60% of OM is carbon. That results in 6,000 lbs of N in 5% OM. A 1000 square ft garden would be 1/40 of these values. Half of that is 3000 lbs in 5 years or about 600 lbs in the first year. Most Midwest soils producing 180 bu corn each year has about 80 lbs of N being Mineralized each year.
Sorry I think that way...I got my degree in Soil science. I hope I have not left you!
?????
It a good question. The answer is it depends. If for instance your soil has a high pH over 7 the ammonium sulfate in fertilizers will be converted into ammonia and yes that will kill your plants and bacteria. But if your keep your soil pH around 6.0 or 6.5 ammonia will remain in the Ammonium form and will not cause any damage..
That is an example of one fertilizer that can become toxic under specific conditions. There are other nitrogen fertilizers that can be used in high pH soils, though. You can also lower the pH of the soil (though that can be difficult depending on why the pH is high).
@@pendlera2959 yup you could do all that but 95 percent of people wouldn't even know that.
Our agronomist *recommends* ammonium sulfate for our high pH soils. The nitrifying bacteria in the soil consume the ammonia, converting it to nitrite and nitrate, and the sulfate combines with water to create sulfuric acid. Over long periods of time, I'll be able to modify my alkaline soil down to something more neutral.
"If for instance your soil has a high pH over 7 the ammonium sulfate in fertilizers will be converted into ammonia and yes that will kill your plants and bacteria." - the part about killing plants and bacteria is not true. Lots of farms, including my garden have a pH above 7, and they use urea, and they grow crops.
In fact both bacteria and plants can use ammonium as a nitrogen source.
I wonder if the nutrients in some types of fertilizer are stereoisomers that end up more effective than other forms with the same chemical formula in practice. Maybe it isn’t enough to matter, but in human biology I’ve seen cases where one stereoisomer could be doubly effective as another simply due to the particular arrangement of atoms in the molecule.
But even in such a hypothetical case, there’s no reason that the more effective arrangement couldn’t be in the synthetic fertilizer anyway. It would just be random chance which one is better in each biochemical scenario.
Thing about this is, idc what anyone says, the complexity of natural fertilizers such as compost is just going to be better than synthetic fertilizers, no matter how many studies, I believe that even if someone is a biology major, they would agree that the complexity and diversity of organic fertilizers is too much for the human mind to comprehend, as you said, a gram of soil can contain up to a couple billion microbes.
And yes, I know it is about the food you give to the microbes, however, just one basic element just isn't enough, take sugar per-instance, yes it feeds microbes, but it doesn't do it for long, nor does it promote complexity and bio-diversity, a correct fertilizer is one that is local and deeply complex with a mixture of slow and fast burning biological materials, and/or browns and greens.
Also, to add to that, think of each microbe as having a certain job, the job market won't flourish if there is only one job, so it is VERY self-explanatory.
A good example of this is fungi:
Since fungi require brown materials, and/or lignan rich materials like wood or dried leaves, something as basic as sugar just wouldn't do, thus the plant would then be deprived of essential mycorrhizal connections.
However, I do agree that if a plant is deficient in a certain chemical or element, synthetic fertilizers could be a good temporary fix.
Also, at 4:42 , this graph confirms my beliefs, as the population and/or complexity of fungi in the organic field treatments is higher than that of the inorganic field treatments. (However the inorganic field treatments does have SOME fungi.)
I’ll take fully compost humid, kelp and vermicompost over synthetic fertilizer any time. Please stay away from synthetic fertilizers.
It is possible for synthetic fertilizers to harm or even kill soil microbes under certain conditions. Synthetic fertilizers can contain high concentrations of salts or chemicals that can be detrimental to microbial life if applied excessively or improperly. Additionally, repeated use of synthetic fertilizers without proper management practices can lead to imbalances in soil pH and nutrient levels, further impacting microbial populations. However, the extent of harm depends on various factors such as the type and amount of fertilizer used, soil characteristics, and environmental conditions.
I use a combo of organic soils and supplement them occasionally with synthetic fertilizers.
Thank you for this video. I need confirmation. But what about the build up of salts. I’ve heard people say the if you use synthetic fertilizer too long “salts” will build up in the soil. Is that true?
He has a video on this subject, check it out.
Thank you for this informative video!
Except man made fertiliser usually comes coated in a form of plastic coating thus adding to micro Plasticsto plants soil and us if we are eating the leaves or fruit.
I'm happy to hear you say organic is preferred. The charts do show an incease in some biology, but the organic even moreso. You also don't address the issue of the direct and hidden costs of synthetic fertilizer. Those direct costs are bankrupting many farmers. They're expensive! Synthetic fertilizers were the driver of the Green Revolution... which has/is responsible for the loss of topsoil everywhere. Synthetics also build up harmful salts in the soil. The folks who really like synthetilcs are Bill Gates favourite people, and he has no clue about farming and growing nutritionally dense food... which synthetics can't do. They're only NPK, and are normally devoid of necessary trace minerals.
Hi there, please tell me if you ever used Molassies in making your compost please and if so what is your thoughts regarding it to benefit it's use or not to aid compost making.
Thanking you for your hard work in making UA-cam video's.
Maureen
I thought the bad part of synthetics is the salt build up that remains over time?
I believe it's the sodium cyanide and formaldehyde that are chelated making it stay in the plant,can you flush it out, don't know
Thanks for clarification, new gardener, from guam
If someone's paranoid about synthetics messing their soil biome but they got poor soil that need fertilizing, maybe they can set aside a bed or plot, lined at the bottom with charcoal. Only use the synthetic there and compost the weeds that grow on that plot.
dear, Robert Pavlis, could you please respond to me who you are referring to at 3:57. i tried looking up the study because id like to educated myself further, but couldnt find what i thought you said was conducted by " Journal Plants". if you would please direct me to this, id be most appreciative of a response. I've just fallen into your work and ordering your books. You have opened my view towards alot on these microbe and fertilizer talks. Thank you
As someone who studied soil science and plant nutrition at college and put it into practice for several decades it is interesting to read and hear in the gardening world that soil biology pseudo-science is still well alive and kicking. This info here is correct. plants cannot tell the difference. Organic vs inorganic in a one size fits all frame is an over simplification. Enthusiasts of organic very often don't even understand what organic means, assuming anything not manufactured is organic. If its from rock its also inorganic. Do inorganic fertilizers kill microbes? Depends on what inorganic fertilizer it is. Sure ammonia nitrogen will have the earth worms either moving out or dying, while calcium nitrate will have them moving back in in large numbers and both inorganic. If anyone cares about cattle welfare around the world they wont be using bone meal or hoof and horn. If anyone cares about depletion of fish from our oceans they wont be using fish meal or fish emulsion as these are the result of over fishing. Organic matter in the soil, healthy colonies of fungi and good drainage are far more important than if nutrients come from inorganic or organic sources.
Thank you. A lot of these comments had me thinking I had just watched some religious video. And, it is not.
While the claim may hold some validity in general contexts, it does not accurately apply to cannabis cultivation and its final product. Organic natural Soil-based farming methods yield a significantly smoother smoke compared to products derived from synthetic processes. The latter, often marketed as safe and effective, fail to match the quality of soil-grown cannabis. This discrepancy likely arises from a combination of factors, including inferior cultivation techniques and inadequate disposal methods for synthetic byproducts.
@@bobbybass3586 Lower water content and higher denser dry matter is most likely why. It isn't the actual fertilizer type that makes the difference it is how it is delivered to the plant that counts. Organic has to go through a process in the soil where the microbes convert the organic fertilizer into inorganic chemical compounds which is the only way plants can take up nutrients. This results in slower growth and a harder plant as the plant doesn't receive nutrient in a surge as it might with soluble inorganic fertilizer. It is why fertilizing with inorganic fertilizer needs to be much more precise with measuring and scales, whereas organic fertilizers and manures can be used heavy handed and a large guesswork margin of error. The smoother smoke is most likely achieved from a denser molecular structure in the the leaf and a higher concentration of the cannabinoids which is the magic ingredient. Slower growth and higher dry matter result in better flavour in fruit and veg too. So it isn't the actual type of fertilizer that makes the difference but more the method and growth characteristics. I favour a thoughtful and knowledgeable mix of organic and inorganic for best results. While organic nitrogen isn't difficult to use with good results, adequate levels of potassium is damn near impossible to achieve organically. Personally I cant stand the smell of cannabis being smoked - lots of students live around me and smoke it in their gardens in the evening, it stinks to high heaven. I like good old cigarettes made with tobacco.
@@JJLom777 purveyors of pseudoscience, birds of a feather.
well then it shouldn’t be recommended for everyday people to grow synthetically if you really think about it. Precise measurements are needed for synthetic in order to not fuck up the plant for smoking. I highly doubt many know how much to add of what so all we will get flowing around is garbage weed. While in organic a lot less goes wrong and the quality is more consistent.
You know what I mean? I just care about quality and I do not have faith in the average man to even tie their shoes right. That’s all I am saying heheh but thanks for the nice reply
Now I'm all confused.
I thought there is a symbiotic relationship between microbes and plants, therefore feeding each other. Along comes a synthetic fertilizer, being readily available to the plant, thus starving out the microbes. Is there any truth to this?
This is very much an 'it's complicated' topic.
Soil microbes are a really broad group that covers fungi, bacteria, and so on.
Some form symbiotic relationships, e.g., rhizobia and legumes. The bacteria converts nitrogen from the air into ammonia for the plant to use.
Mycorrhizae also form symbiotic relationships with plant roots. They can transport water and nutrients and do a bunch of other things.
There's also all the bacteria that are involved in the nitrification process. As well as the ones involved in breaking down organic matter.
What's my point? Well excess nitrogen can cause legumes to not form the relationship with bacteria since they have enough nitrogen in the soil. Similar situation with the mycorrhizal relationship but often when talking about phosphorus. If you're dumping a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil and no organic matter then the decomposer population quickly shrinks. Depending on the type of nitrogen you add, the bacteria responsible for converting it to different forms will multiply.
So it is bad? Not necessarily. Bacteria multiply really really fast and will quickly repopulate an area when it's favorable. Also, since at the end of the day nutrients are nutrients you can overdo it with organic or synthetic. Even legumes in specific scenarios grown just for nitrogen and organic matter can lead to excess nitrogen leaching into the water table, waterways and so on.
@@shawnsg so this is the main reason why you'd better not fertilize until you'll get a soil test done
@@Carlo_B This channel has a video about why soil tests aren't that useful for most gardeners.
Even if it does starve the microbes that doesn't mean it's toxic to the microbes.
@@pendlera2959 I know the reason why. Soil testing it's useful for industrial farming only.
Want to check but are some synthetic fertilizers bound with salts which can cause a problem when built up in your soil, inhiberating natural mineral cycles?
Yes, you are technically correct, but from my many years as a landscaper and home gardener...take a plant raised with only chemical fertilizers in a medium like peat moss and put it into totally organic soil. The plant struggles to stay alive and if it does, it is vastly inferior to plants raised & grown in that organic soil without chemicals. This is especially apparent with house plants.
Ahh, your many years as a landscaper and home gardener… very trustworthy credentials there bud 😂 especially when you say chemical fertilizers… dude, with your background, yoo should know that pretty much everything we touch on this planet is a chemical of some sorr. Your point is moot ❤
@@mcgritty8842 A moot point is a fact that does not apply to the current situation. But how would you know, you are an AI bot.
@@ronfeggio lmfao you don’t even understand what a chemical is… so yeah, your point is moot. AI, nah homie, I’m real as fuck 🤣 Have a good life dude, you clearly need some support ❤️
@@mcgritty8842 Why do you go to such lengths to correct my words? Just substitute chemical with synthetic. Any average intellectual would have understood what I was saying. BTW: I grew up on a farm, worked for the Cornell Cooperative Extension and I've studied organic & inorganic chemistry. I'm sure you're well aware of the high amount of energy it takes to produce ammonia from nitrogen & hydrogen. That's called a chemical process. Get off your phone and get back to school before you end up on the street.
thanks for information,, i am from indonesia
This might be a stupid question but......can u use anaerobic compost bags and bins? I've never had a compost turn into the nice dark dirt I c everywhere on UA-cam. Is it ok to use that to refresh the soil.....give them nutrients . I had a terrible time last yr with growing any kind of vegetable.
Thank you......I don't know what I would do without ur videos. 😊
" anaerobic" conditions will eventually decompose organic matter, but the microbes that do the best job, are aerobic. They also smell a lot less.
IF you want that Black soil look you need worms. Just add them to fresh manure and wait.
That answers my question! Thanks
Excellent excellent excellent video. Everyone out there could learn from your words. And citing studies only added to make it better. The comments on the banana were also great. I believe that bananas do feed potassium and that it takes a while for potassium to be available to the plants. I throw all mine in my compost. Experimenting on a small scale can sometimes dispel myths. I too mainly use organics but also use non-organics for seedlings (at a lower strength) and when I see a plant that is struggling or not performing as I think it should. There are so many beliefs that some people propagate. 🌼😍🌸🌺❤️
Ditto for me. I grew a cover crop of alfalfa in my raised beds and covered the beds with tarps to deprive the soil of light. The soil loves it. next year I put some vegetable scraps in there in addition. My dad used to do that.
Mr. Pavlis, I am in possession of a bale of ProMix BX Growing Mix. From what I've read about it, the ProMix BX is not considered organic because of a wetting agent and the fertilizer used in the mix. Since I have so much of it, I would like to use it in some grow bags to grow potatoes and other vegetables. Does either the wetting agent or the fertilizer pose any kind of a risk for growing edibles in the ProMix BX Mix? Thank you for any information you might be able to provide to me.
I have read your Garden Myths 1 and 2 books and I also have your Soil Science, Plant Science and Compost Science Books. Thank you for writing those books. They are excellent.
Wild edible mushrooms never seem to grow on fields that are artificially fertilised here in Ireland
They grow in my lawn in Texas
Presumably, the fields that are fertilized are trying to avoid growing mushrooms, so there are probably other factors at play.
I bet you are wrong. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungi - consider them flowers. The fungi actually lives underground and is impossible to see with your eye, unless lots of them clump together. So you can't look at soil and say they are not there.
www.gardenmyths.com/microbe-science-for-gardeners/
Does fertilizer add salts to the soil?
Yes. A salt is just an ionic compound made up of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions. Adding plant nutrients to any substrate will increase the salt content. That's because all plants roots can only absorb ions.
Where you talking about chlorine salts? In that case, no, not unless the fertilizer contains a chloride.
Yes - but not in the way you are thinking about salt. Salt is a chemical term for any ionic compound, which includes all synthetic fertilizer except urea, and all the nutrients released by organic materials.
www.gardenmyths.com/what-is-salt/
Could you please post your references in the decription?
I don’t need to watch because I already know the deal. No, synthetic fertilizer doesn’t kill beneficial soil microbes…if everything is done correctly. However, people over fertilize and most synthetic fertilizers are highly soluble and mobile in runoff. You go and fertilize, it rains and washes away. Then there’s the opposite problem when you don’t get very much rain at all. So you mix the fertilizer and water your plants and the water evaporates away. And then you mix the fertilizer and water your plants and the water evaporates away. And if you do that enough times, the fertilizer can build up in the soil in the form of salts. THAT can be detrimental to soil biota.
Yes and no. The problem exists whether it's a synthetic or organic fertilizer.
Salts are misunderstood.
Salts and acids kill beneficial microbes (in particular myco fungi) and shut down plant natural symbiotic relationship with beneficial microbes. They also lower nutrient density, aroma and the overall fruit/veggies quality. And as you mentioned, big portion of synthetic fertilizer is not utilized by plants because of run off and immobilization. There is already enough of everything in soil, but not enough microbiology to make that plant available.
The best thing for plants is correct compost with the right f:b ratio. Remember, plants don't need us, we need plants.
THANKS FOR THIS VIDEO
@@blagoeres Salts can be harmful but are not exclusive to synthetic fertilizers.
What are you even talking about with acids? Lots of things can affect the pH of soil.
No, there is not always enough of everything in the soil because it depends on location, what the location was used for and nitrogen because it is much more mobile. Just from a completely logical standpoint, if plants are using the nutrients in the soil to produce the harvest you then remove from the growing area, the nutrients available have been reduced.
There's not a shortage of microbes. It's just not how it works.
Immobilized how?
Ahhh I see now. I was responding as I went. Once I got to the last part and saw the comment about the fungal bacterial ratio belief system it makes more sense.
@@blagoerestf you going on about? Yeah, sure , I’ll believe a child VS adults with decades of experience
When you say that no one should ever use a 10 1010, could you come back and qualify that based on so many of your previous videos that recommend Jack’s 10 1010 on certain occasions?
I appreciate your thoughts .... but please consider this point of view.... from my observation, it is the act of stimulating plants with chemicals that makes them vulnerable to pests and diseases, then requiring other strategies..... so, the better question is, do biome modifications with chemical fertilizers make plants more vulnerable to problems and less able to defend against threats? You see, seems to me, from years of observations, that users of chemical fertilizer users have more problems that require pesticides and herbicides.. you get that, right?
" it is the act of stimulating plants with chemicals that makes them vulnerable to pests and diseases" - but that is not true. Consider this - those same chemicals can be applied using fish emulsion, or sea weed - They both have the same effect because both sources produce the same ions.
they don;t produce the ions at the same rate, and they surely modify the soil biome... and I suspect this biome modification is tied to certain pest problems..... I feel like I am arguing with a guy who doesn't understand how gm crops influence the gut biome, and how the gut biome influences hormones and neurotransmitters (thus human development and disease resistance), yet fights and fights that they are safe.@@Gardenfundamentals1
@@Gardenfundamentals1 it is true, becasue the "shift" in population in the microbes REMOVES symbiotic microorganisms. The plants become more often sick. But it is a very complex topic. Just digging the soil around makes your plants more vulnerable as you destroy the fungal community.
BTW the shift in PH is NOT becasue you are adding chemicals. The biology moves the ph as some species die out and become replaced by others as you kill them by telling your plants they don't need to feed the microbes with sugars. If you have missing some important kinds of microbes, you also loose the predators of them. These predators are often a part of the immune system of the plant.
An example for these relations if the honey fungus desease in wine. If your plants don't have a symbiotic relationship with trichoderma, they are very vulnerable. Trichoderma eats the honey fungus (and a LOT of other deseases). Trichoderma comes with compost .... not with this synthetic crap.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 plants fertilized with high doses of nitrogen are known to be more susceptible to aphid predation.
What about using Milorganite in your garden?
Synthetic fertilizer does not 'kill' soil but it works quickly. Organic fertilizers work slowly but enhance your soil. However, by the time some of the organic fertilizers break down into microscopic particles the growing season is over.
Yes and if they are retained in organic matter and in the food web they will be there next year and thereafter if replenished. Contrast this to the chemical fertilizers that will have leached away so that you have to completely start over with a full dose of inorganic salts again most of which are leached away before being useful. That’s how the dead zones have been formed in the river deltas and many of our deep groundwater supplies are now becoming toxic. With inorganic salts it’s pour on more on moron.
Anhydrous Ammonia is the main synthetic fertilizer used in monocultures, does anhydrous Ammonia kill microbes?
We talk about plant "food" needs by talking about the elements like npk. They aren't delivered in pure elemental form. Plants take up ammonium or nitrates for their N needs. In this case ammonia which is nitrogen and hydrogens picks up another hydrogen in the soil which makes ammonium. It's the same end product regardless of how it got there.
Well it couldn't be great for earthworms and the like, it's Alkaline and cold.
@@shawnsg it must be frustrating for you or maybe you're much more patient than me. Without basic chemistry knowledge I don't see how the general pop would ever understand something like soil sci. They are so easily swayed by misinformation w/o having this basic knowledge. Channels like this are helpful in a small way of course
@@Ron-j3t Ammonia generally makes soils more acidic, not alkaline. And what do you mean by it's cold?
No. It is actually a food source for them.
You missed a very, very important point which is carbon. While it might be ok to apply some synthetic fertilizers in a garden situation providing you are also adding carbon via manure, compost or mulch this is not the case for big Ag as they only use synthetic and no carbon at all. In order for microbes to eat the synthetic nitrogen they also need a carbon source as there diet is 30:1 and so they will eat organic matter and the biotic glues that create soil aggregates and then the soil collapse and once this happens the microbes do die off and when it rains it runs off as soil is hard. Plus this practice puts a lot of carbon into atmosphere, way more than fossil fuels
I agree. The video has a specific purpose - it is not trying to say synthetic is better.
ua-cam.com/video/l5JwTkleeDE/v-deo.html
When a farmer adds synthetic fertilizers he adds carbon in the crop roots and residue from the crop. If he grows a cover crop it is generally 60 to one C:N. He will need to add N to make 10:1 soil organic matter. Synthetic N then helps microbes grow. The carbon comes from the air as CO2.
That is correct but unfortunately the ratios are way off meaning there is way mor N being applied that carbon going in soil and therefore the soil will collapse. Cover crops can help in a big way. Hybrid GMO corn today will synthesize a lot of CO2 however very little goes for root exudates and most to above ground plant tissues which end up as surface residue which most will oxidize back to atmosphere.
Dear Mr. Pavlis.
I have just begun to cultivate vegetables on a commercial scale.
I have a rather long question to ask of you so I am not sure if it is appropriate to ask via the comments here for this video.
Will it be possible for you to please share your email address so that I can send you my doubts and a details write up of the situation I face currently.
Ammonia and Urea will raise the pH
In the film and book The Martian, Mark Watney grows potatoes using Martian rock dust, water, and human poop as fertilizer. He actually gives some thought to the fact that microbes are an essential part to growing the plants. Without them, the plants would not be able access the nutrients. He is a little concerned that the freeze dried poop in storage doesn't have any microbes, but he is able to add microbes to the soil because there are living microbes in his own digestive tract. This is the rare story where the hero's skills as a botanist save the day.
thanks for this video, what i take away from it is: synthetic is best used when you have to give nutrients now, s the plant can directky use them and it should be very closely moderated to not overdo it. Otherwise Bio is the overall best solution.
You got it.
i seek advice. I mix my own fertiliser using high value (50) parts. ex. 0:50:50 or 25:50:50. i mix up, then add 10 of micronutrients, biron, copper, iron etc.
My method of feeding is a plastic jar with holes in the lid. I then just dust around the plant and wait for rain.
am i wasting my time? i figure increasing the strength decreases the weight and it means i can spread much wider, and not carry heavy bags of 3:3:3 say.
it hasn't rained for months, so i have no idea if it will be useful.
1) Soil rarely needs the micronutrients.
2) Higher NPK values just means you have to add less weight of material to apply the same amount of fertilizer.
"i figure increasing the strength decreases the weight and it means i can spread much wider, and not carry heavy bags of 3:3:3 say" - that is correct. However it is also easier to over fertilize.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 thank you kindly. yes, i thought too, easy to over do it. but certainly it's easier to distribute. i can do an acre in with 2 or 3 kg. I will watch for burns.
as for micronutrients, ok. thx. i am using land thats been farmed for rice for years. sandy little clay. i worry everything gets washed down when it rains. .
Bacteria and insect in the soil doesn't feed on ion, they need organic matter.
Planta do use macromoléculas or even EAT hole micrones. Aldo, if You cover plant needs with fast absorbible fertilizar, they don't develope a healthy relationship with micrones.
How about a live debate with someone on the other side? I would love to see it.
Someone like John Kempf...
@musictech85 I get where you're coming from. But organic fertilizers won't even do what you believe or wanting it to do. Like you said, you want a natural rhythm to keep ongoing on with or without you. It will always require human intervention in your garden.
Unless you were to master it like ancient civilizations did in South America.
yes, organic is gonna to be slightly better than synthetic, but not much better, it's only really better for the environment as manufacturer it goes other than organic has a few more ingredients to offer and that it. It takes a lot more than just treating the soil. It working with your ecosystem that provide you the continuing you're looking for.
I disagree with a few figures of speech like molecules=ions (for me it’s an equivalent to saying all opiates are heroine) but to sum up this video, the difference between drug killing You and helping You is a dose, every toxicology and pharmacy book I have ever read starts with this notion
Very interesting data
Do you think synthetic fertiliser fields and gardens become depend on repeated applications whereas natural soil systems create biochemical pathways to naturally liberate mineral elements from rocks and sand? [analogous to antibiotics versus natural immunity]
"Do you think synthetic fertiliser fields and gardens become depend on repeated applications"
Yes, of course. When we harvest crops, we're removing nutrients from that location and transporting them elsewhere. In nature, plants are surrounded by decaying things, including other dead plants, and they get their nutrients from that process. Under cultivation, we generally remove most of those sources and thus have to continually replace them with some kind of additional nutrients, whether synthetic or organic. Even in nature, if things didn't die or poop, plants would starve.
"whereas natural soil systems create biochemical pathways to naturally liberate mineral elements from rocks and sand?"
There are 2 kinds of nutrients that plants need: micronutrients and macronutrients. Macronutrients are needed in large quantities and get used up quickly. Micronutrients are needed in small quantities and take a long time to get used up. Most minerals in rocks and sand are micronutrients and aren't going to be affected by the application of synthetic macronutrients.
"analogous to antibiotics versus natural immunity"
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Antibiotics are chemicals that kill or hinder the growth of bacteria. Some are naturally occuring, such as penicillin. They don't affect your natural immunity because your body still has to fight off an infection even if you take antibiotics. Your body will still be able to recognize and fight off bacteria in the future even if it had help from antibiotics during the first infection. Antibiotics can cause a problem when they wipe out beneficial bacteria, but that's not how fertilizers work in a garden.
@@pendlera2959 Thank you for the detailed reply. Interesting points. What I am asking though is are organic soil ecosystems self sustaining - can they liberate minerals (including macro NPK) fast enough for plants? They certainly do natural ecosystems but also could do so for agriculture. NPK comes from rocks too and organic material. The antibiotic questions was a comparison, of interest the immune system has much less work to do if antibiotics are started early. [it is known that strep throats and tonsillitis recur more frequently if antibiotics are started in the first 2 days, delayed antibiotics exposes it to the immune system which then creates memory B cells]
So in summary I am asking if synthetic fertilisers damage the natural mineral liberation abilities of the soil ecosystem? That is suggested by soil scientists such as Elaine Ingham and Christine Jones.
Continual use of synthetic does change the microbe population in a field. We really know very little about these populations. We have only identified 20% of the species in soil.
If a field is left fallow, with no more fertilizer added, it does return to its former self in a few years.
The issue surrounding chemical fertilizer is not so much what it does in the garden, but how it is manufactured. Fertilizer plants are polluting and is fossil fuel intensive. “In 2021, 30 ammonia nitrogen fertilizer plants in the U.S. released 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen pollution into waterways, including 3.9 million pounds of toxic ammonia. This is equivalent to the amount of nitrogen pollution from 62 sewage treatment plants. The production of chemical fertilizer contributes to 0.8% of global greenhouse emissions by pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, like nitrous oxide and methane. Added to that is the energy required to run the plants. Both ends of the subject need to be factored into the equation.
Just for the record, I use small amounts of chemical fertilizers in my own garden on top of a mostly organic approach using wood chips, compost, mulch and worm castings. I am not completely opposed to using chemical fertilizers but I am very aware of what the cost is to our environment.
Synthetic Fertilizer DOES NOT Kill Soil Microbes. What makes soil the worst every year after Synthetic fertilizer is what's left after Synthetic fertilizer, which is salt.
Number of microbes isn't a great metric for soil health, same as if you applied it to, say, gut health. Someone could have a massive number of microbes in their gut but be dying of a c. difficile infection. What's beneficial is a large diversity of microbe species, because different fungi and bacteria provide different ecosystem services (including nitrogen fixation from the air) and the interactions of different microbe species cause them to express different genetics in themselves (quorum sensing) and the plants growing in them. A plant that is able to suck copious dissolved nitrogen in through its roots won't need to form symbiotic relationships with microbes it would otherwise need to supply it, and you miss out on the beneficial side effects of those symbiotic relationships on plant health/resilience and soil structure, such as increased organic matter, which buffers pH, improves water retention and tilth and provides a stable environment for the microbial ecosystem. Everyone knows you shouldn't mix wood chips (high carbon i.e. organic material) into your soil because it robs nitrogen. If you add straight nitrogen to your soil (meaning nitrate or ammonium), you end up robbing organic matter by much the same process: the microbes that bloom from the influx of nitrogen also need carbon, and they'll use up whatever carbon (organic matter) is close by.
So are u saying there aren't any heavy metals , salts or any other by products left behind by synthetic products?
I have been indoctrinated into the organic gardening culture and have spent countless hrs amending my soil. It works great most of the time , but certain things don't always thrive as expected. Would be nice to give them some quick love with synthetic.
@@bobwilliams4528I think maybe there's just some misunderstanding of words here. Salts is just a chemistry term. It's not inherently bad or good. Synthetic has a negative connotation that doesn't reflect its actual meaning.
Heavy metals are in lots of things including organic and synthetic fertilizers.
Byproducts is just another loaded term.
of course there are, when you do not fertilize properly. Many farmers still believe that the more you fertilize, the more you will harvest. Heavy metals and other dangerous products can be left even with an incorrect organic fertilization. Plants are not animals, they eat and live in a complete different way. When you spread a fertilizer you are not feeding the plant, you are feeding the soil. Once the fertilizer is converted by microbes and other micro organisms into a form that the plant can absorb, it will be absorbed, but only in the right amount the plant needs. An example: if a tree needs 1 kg of potassium, and you spread in the soil 3 kg of potassium, the pland will absorb only 1 kg. The other 2 kg will remain in the top layer of the soil for many years. if the 1kg of potassium needed was already present, the whole 3 kg will remain in the soil. If you don't know what and how much minerals in the soil are missing, how can you know how much and what type of fertilizer you need? Do not fertilize until you'll get a soil test done.
There are heavy metals and other contaminants in organic fertilizers, too. Especially anything fish-based.
I've read a lot of the comments here. And, I have to say, it's almost as if the video itself wasn't even watched.
What a person "believes," or would "wish" simply doesn't matter. Gardening is not a religion.
This gentleman does his best to show at least some of the science behind the statements he makes.
Pay attention. And, watch with an open mind.
Sorry, but I'm seeing a lot of people giving poor advice in these threads. And, as my intention would be to see folk succeed. It does no one any good to try to make a "convert." Again... Not a religion.
In resum, you said the quimical fertilizer damage the bacterias through the pH. And it's not complete your saying, you don't talk about the symbiosis and the bad effect on bacteria and fungus, the mycorhyze. I don't recommand quimical fertilizer, killing the soil and its fertility.
I use synthetic in the colder months when soil microbes shut down, then back to organic in spring. Always worked great.
For what it's worth, microbes don't shut down in the winter, they mostly just slow down. Nitrate and urea based fertilizers should be avoided during the winter though.
That said, the fertilizer just sits there, hopefully, until the spring.
I'm not against using synthetic chemicals, but organics seem easier to manage without burning my plants and they're free. If I'm gonna grow conventional produce, why not save money and just buy my produce at the grocery store?
Hiện nay những phong trào làm nông nghiệp hữu cơ/ tự nhiên/ sinh thái đang phát triển rất mạnh. Tôi có thể hiểu được rằng họ muốn có nguồn thực phẩm sạch, không bị ô nhiễm bởi những hoá chất tổng hợp. Nhưng có một thực tế đáng buồn đi kèm theo đó là đa số những người này thường tuyên truyền nhiều thứ sai lệch về phân bón hoá học nói riêng cũng như khoa học cây trồng nói chung, và một điều đáng buồn hơn là họ không bao giờ chịu tiếp thu và nhận thức được những kiến thức sai lầm đó. Tôi đã từng đưa ra ví dụ rằng những vườn nho tươi tốt trồng trên đất đá núi lửa, thực chất nó đang hấp thụ những hoá chất có thành phần tương tự phân bón tổng hợp được thải ra khỏi thứ mà họ gọi là “đất mẹ”, và không có bất kỳ vật chất nào trên trái đất hay trong vũ trụ mà không được cấu thành từ hoá chất hết (hoá chất đơn giản nhất đó là nguyên tố hoá học), sau đó họ cười nhạo tôi và nói rằng tôi đang làm cho một công ty hoá chất nào đó, trong khi tôi là một nông dân suốt ngày chỉ biết cuốc đất 😂.
I’m glad you mentioned that there are changes over longer time periods. It doesn’t take a genius to see how lifeless and poorly structured our chemically treated soils have become. Sorry but better living through chemistry has really degraded soils where they are used. Sure on an ionic level an ion is an ion but the soil processes that produce the plant available ions are very different and you know that. We are barely touching the beginning of understanding what goes on in the rhizosphere so making the statements you make in this video seems very biased and ignorant. Just look at the new understanding of rhizophagy and nitrogen fixation in tricomes as an example. To think that we can manufacture inorganic forms of fertilizer that improve on what natural selection came up with over millions of years is just arrogance. Part of the effects of organic forms of nutrition is the interactions of the soil microbes in the breakdown into plant usable forms that the plants actually have a part in the process. I feel you have done a disservice to the progress finally being made to help regenerate our badly chemically degraded soils. Your choice of the scientific studies you shared was very biased because you chose them to try to prove your point. It makes me wonder if you are being funded in some way by Big Agriculture. I’ve always liked and mostly respected what I hear from you but not this biased opinion. Shame on you. I know you are definitely way more intelligent than to not think this through better before the harm this will do to trying to get healthy soils back in balance.
They are not the same who you trying kid ?
Well actually they are
Lol but it kills soli makes it not able to absorb moisture so that's why American farm lands are like dirt yards
Doesn't it make soils hard due to accumulation of salts !!
If yes then heavy tilling will be required everytime in order to facilitate aeration.
This will destroy earthworm channels. Also, the sun and heat on the soil will destroy the micro-climate in which microbes can prosper.
THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORGANIC NUTRITION AND IONIC NUTRITION!!!! RHIZOPHAGY
Organic nutrition is ionic nutrition. Even the rhizophagy bacteria produce nitrates, or ammonium - same ions as from fertilizer.
Agreed that the plant doesn't care from where the N comes.
There are other considerations.
Why organic N from a covercrop may be a better choice for overall soil heath.
It adds organic matter to the soil & reduces acidity.
ua-cam.com/video/0kxSzK-dvoQ/v-deo.htmlsi=ViMgSBhWzFHGFwPs
Synthetics accumulate in the human body and they don't have a genetic code like organic matter, and that is causing health problems
Metallic salts from syn fertilizer tend to build up over time, resulting in the WRONG microbes.
possibly, and a poor soil biome assures crop disease and pest issues, I can tell you this for sure...... just like the human gut biome
"Metallic salts from syn fertilizer tend to build up over time" - they can, but so can the same metallic salts from an organic source.
@@Gardenfundamentals1 in my experience, quick growth tends to be sappy which in turn attracts more pests and diseases... good healthy soil will buffer out imbalances in PH and nutrient absorption as well as holding more water than Salt wicks.
Someone please start a gofundme to buy this man a new hat. Possibly the most useful gardening show on youtube.
Chemical fert doesn’t, the salesman does. Farmers spend a lot of stupid money. If they educated themselves more we wouldn’t be facing regulations so stiff
beyde zenen geven vunderlekh gute mentshn.
great presentation and research by my favorite garden expert
Many people are firmly convinced that if you fertilize a fruit tree with a synthetic fertilizer, you will eat that fertilizer when you will eat the fruit.
It doesn't matter how many explanations or scientific studies you'll bring to them to demonstrate that their thought is wrong, their irrational bias will remains.
It's not a problem a botanist can solve, maybe a psychologist could.
Tôi từng hỏi nhiều người luôn miệng khoe khoang họ làm “nông nghiệp không hoá chất” rằng “H2O có phải hoá chất không”, họ trả lời là “H2O không phải hoá chất”, tôi hỏi tiếp nếu bạn nói làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất, vậy nước mà các bạn đang sử dụng rõ ràng không phải H2O, vậy thứ nước đó có cấu tạo và tính chất thế nào. Họ im bặt, và một vài ngày sau tôi lại thấy họ khoe khoang ở một nơi khác rằng họ “làm nông nghiệp không hoá chất” 😂. Rõ ràng họ không thể biết một thứ có là hoá chất hay không, thì dù họ có làm ra nông sản chất lượng tuyệt vời đi nữa, họ cũng chỉ là đang lừa dối người tiêu dùng và chính họ mà thôi. Tôi có thể thông cảm với những người này vì họ sợ những nông sản bị lạm dụng quá nhiều phân bón tổng hợp, thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, nhưng một điều đáng trách ở những người này đó là họ thêu dệt nhiều thứ phản khoa học và tuyên truyền khắp nơi. Phân bón tổng hợp-một thứ vô tri vô giác, có lẽ là một nạn nhân của những người có tri giác đó 😊.
@@alattapnhamky3774?
"if you fertilize a fruit tree with a synthetic fertilizer, you will eat that fertilizer when you will eat the fruit" - that statement is true. We do eat the chemicals in that fertilizer.
The point people do not understand is that the "chemicals" in that fertilizer are essential food for us. Without them we die!
@@Gardenfundamentals1 of course you will eat the chemicals, and not the fertilizer. However, people believe that chemicals = deadly poison
Synthetic fertilizers do stress plants and attract insects and lower yields. There is a long history of research on this starting Sir Albert Howard and most recently you can see the work being done with Advancing Eco Agriculture and John Kempf. One article that has an incentive to be biased is not enough to make a decision on whether this is a myth or not. Just a little experiment in your own backyard in containers will very quickly show you the difference in how plants react when only receiving organic fertilizer (along with other methods, such as adequate water and not fertilizing at times of stress such as drought).
Setting aside that the bulk of research doesn't support the overall conclusion you or these people are making, there is just a completely fundamental aspect I can't ever get around when hearing this stuff.
If these practices worked so well, they would be taken up naturally by everyone since they would increase profit. Lower pest pressure would mean fewer pesticides and less labor which means lower cost. Increased yields would increase revenue.
Yet no one but the people in these belief systems noticed this?
That John person sounds like one of many 'eco' grifters. They misconstrue actual scientific research to convince people of things the data doesn't actually say. Without looking I'm willing to bet he's selling books, classes, coaching or something.
@@shawnsg You're actually incorrect about this. There are many farmers switching over to these practices because of higher yields and lower costs. You can easily find more information on this if you like.
Synthetic fertilizers stimulate plant growth and microbes in the soil, if used in modesty.
@@mikebendzela608 That is exactly what he was, a scientist employed by the British government
Johnson-su takes time, effort, and investment... something many big farmers are reluctant to engage with when they can buy a load of fertilizer and assure some level of profit...ok... btw, fertilizer use is associated with increased pest pressure and use of protecting chemicals.... you know that, right?..... this is a risk big guys take trying to strike a balance between effective levels and overuse, but they have a strategy for that too they get a little aggressive feeding, at a price. @@shawnsg
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟