Received Wisdom - Apply in Small Quantities Only

There's plenty still to do at the lottie. But biting winds some days, frozen soil others, are slowing me down. It does give me the chance to some reading though. I'm not a scientist but enjoy reading explanations by scientists or experts in a particular field about how things work, or, in the case of soil and growing healthy plants, what exactly is happening at the microscopic level and what we do can encourage natural processes to function most effectively.

Of course, you have to choose your sources carefully and, for me, approach every explanation and piece of advice with a healthy dose of scepticism. I'm old enough to have seen scores of 'facts' in the fields of nutrition, health, medicine and plant husbandry proved wrong. Most of us now accept that: blood-letting is not a cure for illness; formula milk is not better than breast milk for babies; homosexuality is not a disease. Too obvious? How about: margarine is not better than butter for your health; having high cholesterol is not a reason for not eating eggs; chocolate does not cause acne. But in farming and gardening, despite some progress in some countries towards the recognition that organic systems are good both for the environment and personal health, many millions of growers world-wide are still being duped by powerful forces to believe that inorganic nutrients added in liquid or granular forms combined with remedial use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides are a legitimate and sustainable way to grow crops.

But it is precisely because I know how easy it is to persuade when the listener is sympathetic to the argument that when I read about organic growing I don't necessarily want my beliefs to be re-enforced, I want them to be challenged. It is just as possible for 'received wisdom' which is actually nonsense to be handed down as fact in the organic world as it is in the non-organic arena (still chitting potatoes? - maybe wasting your time!). That is why I relish the two papers, both available free online, which I have been absorbed in these last few days. Both, in different ways, have challenging things to say about compost and its value. Both are written by people who are undisputedly supporters of organic systems so I don't doubt their credibility on that score and I am prepared to respect their viewpoint and listen to what they say. I know that both will make me think harder about the complex biology of living soil systems.

Can You Have Too Much Compost?

The first is Steve Solomon's Organic Gardener's Composting. It covers the basics - how to make compost, building heaps, materials - but in great and fascinating detail, and he talks knowledgeably about historical aspects, vermicompost and the vital role of humus in the soil. But for me it gets particularly interesting when he develops a theme with the following prelude: 'Encouraged by a mistaken belief that the more organic matter the healthier, they [home and market gardeners] enrich their soil far beyond any natural capacity. Often this is called "building up the soil." But increasing organic matter in gardens well above a climax ecology level does not further increase the nutritional value of vegetables and in many circumstances will decrease their value markedly.' Talking to puzzled gardeners who came to his talks with tales of disappointing yields, Solomon writes: 'Mr. Organic owned a pickup and loved to haul organic matter and to make and spread compost. His soil was full of worms and had a remarkably high humus level but still did not grow great crops.' and 'In Organic Gardening magazine and Rodale garden books we read eulogies to soils that are so high in humus and so laced with earthworms that one can easily shove their arm into the soft earth elbow deep but must yank it out fast before all the hairs have been chewed off by worms.'

What is the rationale behind Steve Solomon’s belief in the limitations of composting? This links to Chapter 1 of his paper but the challenging material is in Chapter Eight.

Too much of a good thing?

Is It Minerals We Need?

The second heretical paper is Better than Organic - a Conversation with Agricola, by Michael Astera. Astera develops his argument in the context of a supposed interview with one Agricola, not I think the Roman general who conquered Great Britain, but the German scientist Georgius Agricola who is known as the father of mineralogy. This is the clue to Astera's belief that most of the world's farmed land requires re-mineralisation after centuries of depletion. The first question in the interview goes as follows:

Q. You were saying Organic farming and gardening aren’t really working. How are they not working?

Agricola: 'They’re not working on several levels, including corporate greed, business ethics, and of course “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.” But that’s not what I’d like to talk about today. I’d like to focus on the nutrition aspect, and on soil, plant, and animal health. Specifically, why most Organic food isn’t necessarily more nutritious than chemically grown food.'

Don't let that put you off! It is in essence an argument which points to the futility of adding compost to soils which are minerally deficit but he is a friend of organics and as he develops his theme you begin to be intrigued by his logic (and then maybe go out and buy some rock dust). First is a fascinating review of the writing and research of the early proponents of organic systems. Follow the link at the end of Part 1 to get to the essence of his argument in Part 2

I need to get my soil in such a condition that I can plunge my arm in up to the elbow and risk having my hairs ripped off by earthworms before I can feel able to question the value of compost but while I'm waiting for my humus and worm population to build up I'm quite happy to read this kind of stuff. I might even be able to have my own opinion one day!