Steve Solomon + Allan Savory = Andre Voisin

Steve Solomon and Allan Savory both nod to the work of Andre Voisin as influential and important. Solomon has recently put the seminal Voisin text up on his free online library site and Savory wrote the preface for a reprint of the other main Voisin book. Solomon likes Voisin's research on soil profiles and the effect of minerals on soil health, while Savory cites Voisin as the only other person to develop a holistic understanding of pasture management. Pretty interesting crossover, I would say. I came to permies to see if anyone here had some insights into the question of nutrient density for soil health, but there doesn't seem to be any talk of Solomon's The Intelligent Gardener or Voisin's Soil, Grass, and Cancer. Have any permies read either? Looking for some real talk on the issues. I have found a lot of good info on Will Albrecht, who is connected to the Acres USA pasture management people, but not much on Voisin or Solomon's new work. I am curious how much overlap there is with Voisin and Albrecht, also..

Hi Daniel,
I'm just reading Solomon's Intelligent Gardener. At this point I'm not ready to integrate large herbivores, as I'm working on zone zero. My reading material right now is Solomon - with my soil test results in hand - Lancaster's Rainwater Harvesting and Rosemary Morrow's Earth User's Guide to Permaculture. Feel a bit like my head might explode!
The permaculture text turns out to be pretty vague and has nothing at all about soil mineralization, except a mention of pH. The Rainwater Harvesting (just started reading) is about desert climate, and the Intelligent Gardener is blowing my mind.
So my soil was sent as plain ungardened topsoil, topsoil with char (uncharged) added, and topsoil with biochar (charged with compost tea). I am in a group hoping to do some testing on the impact of biochar in conjunction with serious mineralization. Actually, my interest is hugelchar.
My TCEC without amendments is 10.84, and the deficits of sulfur, phosphorus, and calcium are staggering, and boron deficit is pretty serious. I am in a section of the book where Solomon is talking about feeding the subsoil, and I am thinking that the purpose of doing raised or hugelbeds is to give my plants subsoil, since I have about 18 inches (half a meter) of soil/subsoil and then rock.
This is where I differ with Solomon, but then he's got subsoil to spare!
I haven't read all the way through the book yet, but definitely interested in a conversation. I think this soil mineralization is a subject where permaculture could use a little scientific rigor.
Gani

I have been very happy with my purchases through Territorial Seed (founded by Mr Solomon)... I definitely need to purchase a couple of his books

Hi David,
I suggest Solomon's latest book first. His approach to the "complete organic fertilizer" recipe has changed and deepened. I still find Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades very useful for successions, planting times, etc. but feel the whole soil health approach is well thought out.
I give Territorial a thumbs up too!
Gani

Will do Thank you.

I've read Solomon's The Intelligent Gardener and found it to be generally scientifically valid, at least as far as the basic topic of cation exchange. His formulas for mineral additions are strongly based on Albrecht's theories, and are also in-line with Michael Astera's recommendations. For an excellent overview of soil remineralization, check out Astera's article at http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010178.better.than.organic.pdf.

I implemented Soloman's concept in my garden this year, beginning with a soil test from Logan Labs. I worked through the formulas for each nutrient and came up with a prescription for my soils. Some materials such as lime were available at my local garden center. I ordered other materials, such as copper sulfate and zinc sulfate, from Alpha Chemicals http://alphachemicals.com/home. I tilled them into garden this spring. I can't really say I noticed any difference in plant growth as compared to previous years; however, we had a trying spring/early summer here in central CT. The season started with an extended cold, dry spring, then a mid-spring heat wave, followed by intense heat waves in July. August (so far) has seen seasonal temperatures and excellent growth. I have noticed that some of the veggies have been especially tasty, including the broccoli and tomatoes. I don't know this is the result of the additional of minerals or the plant varieties. It is difficult to put my finger on whether the performance of the plants is the result of re-mineralization or other factors such as weather or variety.

My big issue with the Soloman method is that the refined mineral salts he recommends, such as copper sulfate, are soluble in water. A tablespoon of copper sulfate will dissolve in a glass of water just like regular table salt. So, if I were to apply copper sulfate powder to my soil and then some big rains came through, the material would, worst case, leach right out of the root zone of the soil. Soloman would argue that the cation exchange capacity of the soil would trap the copper sulfate and prevent leaching. In fact, Soloman's prescriptions are such that you only add the quantity of minerals that can be trapped by your soil. I hope it works! Another approach, such as that espoused by Eliot Coleman, is to add rock dusts (finely ground rock, as opposed to refined salts) that are insoluble in water but release their minerals through biological processes. The theory here is that rock powders will slowly break down over time, providing a long-lasting source of minerals. The Soloman method seems more short term.

The trick with the Coleman method is finding natural rock powders that contain minerals in the right proportions needed by your soil. For example, greensand (recommended by Coleman) contains a lot of potassium and micronutrients (good) but also has a high percentage of magnesium. My soil test says my soil is already too high in magnesium, so adding greensand would throw the soil out of whack with regards to the very important calcium:magnesium ratio. With the Soloman method, you can tailor your mineral additions so you get just the right amounts of calcium, potassium, phosphorous, sulfur, mangesium, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, and sodium.

My plan for next year is to add biochar and bentonite clay to my compost pile to drastically increase the cation exchange capacity. I will then add the minerals to the compost, let it sit for a while, then add the whole mix to the garden. I hope this approach will minimize leaching of the relatively expensive mineral powers and provide the greatest benefit to my plants.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading!

Mike, you are further than I've gotten! I look forward to next year's reports from you. We had a drop in TCEC for the sample we sent with 25% biochar, we are guessing it was because the char was charged just days before mixing with the sample. If you are on the soil and health group (yahoo) you may read about our tests. I'm not in the group --yahoo allergy
Gani

Gani, very interesting about the drop in TCEC with the addition of biochar. I hope biochar doesn't work against me...my TCEC was only 6.10 at the beginning of this year. CT has those "weathered eastern soils" that Soloman talks about.

I love reading garden books, especially ones that seem rooted in science. My background is science...I have degrees in biology and environmental geoscience. Even with a science and chemistry background, it is difficult to determine if ideas such as biochar and remineralization are scientifically valid or garden-hippie pseudo-science. I'm hoping for the former, and I'm trying them both out in my garden. I would like to see more result of rigorous field trials. Acres USA published a remineralization study on a pasture in Maine in the most recent edition...results were slightly favorable if not inconclusive. A step in the right direction, though!

To the original poster, your comparison of Solomon and Savory is interesting...Savory is lobbying that controlled grazing with cattle is the key to revegetation of the deserts and controlling climate change (Google his now famous TED Talk). On the other hand, Solomon argues (in The Intelligent Gardener, I believe) that soil improvement through controlled grazing is a myth. This is a topic where Soloman may be out of his league. His knowledge of gardening and basic soil chemistry is very strong, but his opinions on grazing do not appear to be in line with other sources I've read. Of course, some of those other sources include Joel Salatin, who is trying to sell books on rotational grazing. And Solomon is trying to sell books on gardening. Both Solomon and Salatin, however, do seem to possess altruistic motives to improve the world through better agriculture. But from my standpoint, where is that fuzzy line between science and marketing?

Good topic, Daniel. Thanks for bringing this up!

Mike Gaughan wrote:To the original poster, your comparison of Solomon and Savory is interesting...Savory is lobbying that controlled grazing with cattle is the key to revegetation of the deserts and controlling climate change (Google his now famous TED Talk). On the other hand, Solomon argues (in The Intelligent Gardener, I believe) that soil improvement through controlled grazing is a myth. This is a topic where Soloman may be out of his league. His knowledge of gardening and basic soil chemistry is very strong, but his opinions on grazing do not appear to be in line with other sources I've read. Of course, some of those other sources include Joel Salatin, who is trying to sell books on rotational grazing. And Solomon is trying to sell books on gardening. Both Solomon and Salatin, however, do seem to possess altruistic motives to improve the world through better agriculture. But from my standpoint, where is that fuzzy line between science and marketing?

Good topic, Daniel. Thanks for bringing this up!

I've read the Intelligent gardener and althought I enjoyed as well, I didn't agree with Solomon's opinion on grazing. Which he went so far to say that grazing could contribute to the deterioration of soil and depletion of minerals. Which I believe that it could happen only in a heavy grazing situation with consequent erosion and in a long term scal. And more, if having a full reminalizated soil is so good for the nutrition value of the vegetables we eat. Then, if we are omnivores; it should be passed to the grasses that our animals eat and on to the nutritional value of the meat that we eat.

Mike Gaughan wrote:I've read Solomon's The Intelligent Gardener and found it to be generally scientifically valid, at least as far as the basic topic of cation exchange. His formulas for mineral additions are strongly based on Albrecht's theories, and are also in-line with Michael Astera's recommendations. For an excellent overview of soil remineralization, check out Astera's article at http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010178.better.than.organic.pdf.

I implemented Soloman's concept in my garden this year, beginning with a soil test from Logan Labs. I worked through the formulas for each nutrient and came up with a prescription for my soils. Some materials such as lime were available at my local garden center. I ordered other materials, such as copper sulfate and zinc sulfate, from Alpha Chemicals http://alphachemicals.com/home. I tilled them into garden this spring. I can't really say I noticed any difference in plant growth as compared to previous years; however, we had a trying spring/early summer here in central CT. The season started with an extended cold, dry spring, then a mid-spring heat wave, followed by intense heat waves in July. August (so far) has seen seasonal temperatures and excellent growth. I have noticed that some of the veggies have been especially tasty, including the broccoli and tomatoes. I don't know this is the result of the additional of minerals or the plant varieties. It is difficult to put my finger on whether the performance of the plants is the result of re-mineralization or other factors such as weather or variety.

My big issue with the Soloman method is that the refined mineral salts he recommends, such as copper sulfate, are soluble in water. A tablespoon of copper sulfate will dissolve in a glass of water just like regular table salt. So, if I were to apply copper sulfate powder to my soil and then some big rains came through, the material would, worst case, leach right out of the root zone of the soil. Soloman would argue that the cation exchange capacity of the soil would trap the copper sulfate and prevent leaching. In fact, Soloman's prescriptions are such that you only add the quantity of minerals that can be trapped by your soil. I hope it works! Another approach, such as that espoused by Eliot Coleman, is to add rock dusts (finely ground rock, as opposed to refined salts) that are insoluble in water but release their minerals through biological processes. The theory here is that rock powders will slowly break down over time, providing a long-lasting source of minerals. The Soloman method seems more short term.

The trick with the Coleman method is finding natural rock powders that contain minerals in the right proportions needed by your soil. For example, greensand (recommended by Coleman) contains a lot of potassium and micronutrients (good) but also has a high percentage of magnesium. My soil test says my soil is already too high in magnesium, so adding greensand would throw the soil out of whack with regards to the very important calcium:magnesium ratio. With the Soloman method, you can tailor your mineral additions so you get just the right amounts of calcium, potassium, phosphorous, sulfur, mangesium, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, and sodium.

My plan for next year is to add biochar and bentonite clay to my compost pile to drastically increase the cation exchange capacity. I will then add the minerals to the compost, let it sit for a while, then add the whole mix to the garden. I hope this approach will minimize leaching of the relatively expensive mineral powers and provide the greatest benefit to my plants.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading!

Really interesting that somebody here is trying the Solomon's/Albrecht methods. What kind of soil do you have? Sandy, Clayey? What's the size of the garden you're experimenting with?

I'll be following up your experiences.

Joan,

My garden this year is 400 square feet. My soil is a silty sand with trace amounts of clay. It's really been a nice soil to work with. I just tilled another 560 square feet of my lawn to be part of next year's garden. I don't know if I'm going to remineralize a la Solomon or just add lime, greensand, and rock phosphate, plant cover crops (rye and vetch) and call it a day.

I just read and implemented Steve Solomon's recommendations from the Intelligent Gardener. My critique for his book is the same as I have of Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades. He primarily grows vegetables, so he hasn't incorporated trees and shrubs into his landscape, with the benefits they can bring. Many trees and bushes have deep roots and mycorrhizal allies, which help tap into deep layers to get to the lower minerals like calcium, etc. When the leaves fall off in the autumn, they add amounts of these deep minerals to the soil. This would be especially true if you didn't till and if you used wood chips. My results were very similar to Gani's. I live in NW oregon, in the Portland area. I figure I will balance the soil over a couple of years, and then use plants and fungi to maintain it. Others I have talked to in my area have mentioned how much sweeter their vegetables and fruit taste, even in a low sun year, after they balanced their soils.

Allan Savory seems to mostly be speaking about rangeland, and how to keep it as a healthy grassland instead of a desert, which is a great topic, but very different than how can I grow healthy vegetables, or even overall food forest, for that matter.

I am personally using the Food forest model, as the area where I live is naturally forested. I am very interested in biochar and I have just started with some hugulkultur beds. I intentionally planted a mycorrhizal mix into my yard, using wheat as the planting medium, and I have already seen the mycorrhizal mushrooms come up above the ground. Most of them will probably grow below the ground like truffles, so it's likely that I won't see them. The yard already seemed to suffer much less than normal during our driest summer yet, which is one of the key positive attributes of mycorrhizal fungi in our area.
John S
PDX OR

I have a practical issue with Solomon and an ideological. First the practical:He recommends a variety of fertilizers I never heard of, which are not available in our Australian garden centers, so what's the point of doing a soil test when you can't get the remedies? The ideological is that not all what a plant needs to grow is known to man, how can the recipe be exact?

Something else to consider:

"While the origin of the “ideal” or “balanced” soil concept can
be traced back to the late 1800s, it was primarily through work
conducted in the 1940s by Bear and coworkers in New Jersey
that led to the concept of an “ideal” soil being one with 65% Ca,
10% Mg, and 5% K. Based on this work and on his own work
in the 1930s and 1940s, Albrecht promoted the use of the “balanced
soil,” suggesting that optimal growth will only occur in
soils containing the “ideal” composition. It would appear, however,
that the soil’s chemical, physical, and biological fertility can
be maintained across a range of cationic ratios. Indeed, McLean,
who worked with Albrecht in Missouri during
the 1940s, stated that, on the whole,
“there is no ‘ideal’ basic cation saturation
ratio or range” (Eckert and McLean, 1981),
and that “emphasis should be placed on
providing suffi cient, but not excessive levels
of each basic cation rather than attempting
to attain a favorable basic cation saturation
ratio which evidently does not exist”
(McLean et al., 1983). The data do not support
the claims of the BCSR, and continued
promotion of the BCSR will result in the
ineffi cient use of resources in agriculture
and horticulture."

A Review of the Use of the Basic Cation
Saturation Ratio and the “Ideal” Soil
Peter M. Kopittke*
Neal W. Menzies
School of Land and Food Sciences
The Univ. of Queensland

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:259–265
doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0186

http://kalklig.com/Documents/2.2.1%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20Use%20of%20the%20Basic%20Cation%20Saturation%20Ratio%20and%20the%20Ideal%20Soil.pdf

Excellent post, Robert. It makes sense that a point is not really the goal, but rather an available range should be what we aim for in soils. I do think it can be useful to do the soil test, because I was severely deficient is several areas. I got a lot of fruit to flower and set much more fruit than they had before I amended the soils. The ratios shown are just a few in the study, and it focused on soy, alfalfa and grains.

I think calcium is quite crucial to fruit development, and studies have shown that, so I would love to see a follow up study looking at fruit and berries. If you do soil test, getting them to general ranges rather than a precise % like 65 for calcium makes a lot more sense. Elaine Ingham et al from SOil Food WEb have been saying this for years. She has also mentioned that different soils will give you different results, depending on what you want. Bacterially dominated soils will give you a lot of fast growing aggressive leafy plants-weeds. Very fungally dominated soils will give you conifer trees, if that's what you want. Soils in between will give you plant populations that are in between them.

It's important to remember that if you have balanced types of plants and animals, they can provide minerals. PLants will deep roots can bring up calcium or potassium, and bird droppings contain phosphorus. Over time, these processes will balance your soil as well.
John S
PDX OR

How can you have a "perfect soil " when all the plants developed in different soils and different weather conditions ? What is good for lemons for example may not be good for blueberry . I worry that sometimes we should accept what we have more and work with it rather than try to fight nature .

David

In "Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades," Solomon specifically says that the blends of nutrients that create the biggest, most prolific vegetables are not necessarily producing the most nutritious yields, which is his focus. "an overabundance of potassium makes plants change their growth habits, producing more bulk yield at the expense of overall nutritional content." I'm not sure what research he has to back that up, though he does cite "The Albrecht Papers" in that section. He also recommends *against* soil testing for people in the Maritime Northwest, because the soils in the region are so similar.

In the Intelligent Gardener, he has gone away from telling people not to test. My soil tested as pretty similar to what you might expect and I do live in the maritime PNW. There is well established data that too much of some minerals can "crowd out" other minerals. I believe that calcium and potassium are among them, and our soils typically have lots of potassium and a deep lack of calcium, so he's not just pulling it out of a hat.
John S
PDX OR

I think testing vegetables themselves, that grew in the balanced soil would be the proof. I read some reviews about intelligent Gardener book, and one person said, that he tested his vegetables, and they had amazingly high mineral content. It also mentioned, that it had 20 percent protein content-same as meat. Vegetables in deficient soils tend to have more carbohydrates. Also, if one eats mostly his grown food, then that person's health, especially teeth/bone health would be the proof as well. This is how Solomon started thinking about soil minerals after experiencing worse health while eating mostly his grown produce.

My soil has deficiencies indeed because I cannot grow decent sized beetroots, one of the easiest vegetables to grow. Generally I think that soil tests are not bad, but I would prefer cheaper methods (I'm not a farmer). And like many people here the soil is so bad that people build up the soil instead of using what's there (or what's not there). If you build up soil you are most likely to be dficient in something, but what is the something??

Angelika Maier wrote:My soil has deficiencies indeed because I cannot grow decent sized beetroots, one of the easiest vegetables to grow. Generally I think that soil tests are not bad, but I would prefer cheaper methods (I'm not a farmer). And like many people here the soil is so bad that people build up the soil instead of using what's there (or what's not there). If you build up soil you are most likely to be dficient in something, but what is the something??

Thats why the soil test.  No soil is "perfect".  Case in point, I started a new garden patch several years ago.  Soil "looked" really nice, I added compost etc to add organic matter to it and build up the mostly mineral soil.  That patch wouldn't grow hardly anything.  After a couple of years I finally broke down and had my soil tested.  Applying the amendments recommended by the test turned that garden around 180*.  I've since tested yearly and follow Steve Solomons methods of minerally balancing the soil. That patch now grows wonderfully anything I plant in it.  Veggies actually taste better than before.  I haven't had tissue samples tested to see how the mineral content is or tested what the Brix is as that is past my interest, but I do know that now I have a great garden in what was just a few short years ago a virtual garden desert. Soil testing is, in my humble opinion, a great investment in your soil, and one of the first things any gardener should do so that you know what your starting point is and can develop a plan to get to where you want to be.  

Walt Chase wrote:

Thats why the soil test.  No soil is "perfect".  Case in point, I started a new garden patch several years ago.  Soil "looked" really nice, I added compost etc to add organic matter to it and build up the mostly mineral soil.  That patch wouldn't grow hardly anything.  After a couple of years I finally broke down and had my soil tested.  Applying the amendments recommended by the test turned that garden around 180*.  I've since tested yearly and follow Steve Solomons methods of minerally balancing the soil. That patch now grows wonderfully anything I plant in it.  Veggies actually taste better than before.  I haven't had tissue samples tested to see how the mineral content is or tested what the Brix is as that is past my interest, but I do know that now I have a great garden in what was just a few short years ago a virtual garden desert. Soil testing is, in my humble opinion, a great investment in your soil, and one of the first things any gardener should do so that you know what your starting point is and can develop a plan to get to where you want to be.  

I am wondering, was it hard to calculate and find amendments you needed? How did your soil change over the years-did it improve in some minerals steadily or quick? How much I understand you can't suddenly change it, it takes balancing act because of how much soil relationships between minerals work. Did you notice less pest/disease as your soil improved? I have 17 by 17 foot community garden plot, so it is 286 square feet, however that includes paths, compost area and storage bench, so it is probably closer to the 200. Which test did you get? Logan's basic one or other?

I will admit, I cheat when it comes to calculating my amendments.  I subscribe to organicalc through the grow abundant gardens website.  It is a minimal cost and you can use it to run your results through and get organic amendment recommendations.  You could also do it by hand yourself using Steve Solomons worksheets in his book about growing nutrient dense food.

I personally use Brookside Labs as they were recommended to me by our extension agent as having the proper test for our Alaskan soils.  I've been pleased with the results.  Logan labs are another good avenue for soil testing and if you use organicalc their program is set up for Logan labs results.

I have not had a difficult time locating the amendments I needed to balance my soils.  I have had to mail order some of them and sourced them from Black Lake Organics in WA state.  Most I could have sourced locally, but would have had to buy in quantities that were much too large for my use.  BLO will sell smaller quantities.

It has taken about four years to balance out my soil.  It is not something that can be done in a single season.  This year I only added manganese sulfate, boron, kelp and my nitrogen source.  Total weight of the non nitrogen nutrients was 15lb 9oz for 1400 sq feet.  My nitrogen source  weight was 45lbs.  Any seed meal or feather meal can be used as the nitrogen source.  I add kelp meal yearly for the micronutrients @ about 10lb per 1000sq ft.  Boron is the 9oz. on 1400 sq ft  The remaining 5lb is the manganese sulfate.

I assume that next year I will have to add even fewer amendments other than kelp and nitrogen.

Getting the minerals in proper balance takes time due to the way they all interact with each other.  Some things have application limits per year such as the boron so as to not overload the soil and create more problems than you solve.

I have had practically no disease issues and most insect damage is by slugs.  They are a persistent pest here in late summer.

Thank you, Walt, for detailed answer. I guess I should do a soil test. I do a no dig garden, but oh well for the test I should do some digging. My garden is small, so I could order most of the stuff by mail. I have gypsum, and azomite, and a few other things, that might come in handy too. So glad to hear, that you had little disease. We have snails and slugs here too, I guess they love healthy plants...

I did the Logan test and it helped. I had a couple of trees flower and fruit that hadn't even flowered before.  I didn't realize how out of whack my soil was. Much of it was what is normally missing in my climate and geography.  Another part was that the previous owners just sprayed synthetics on the ground as their soil amendment!  I got macro minerals locally, but I drove to BLack forest in Olympia to buy the micros.  A big factor is how much organic material is in your soil.  CHC is measured and it means how much nutrition your soil can digest and hold. If you have sand, there is almost no point in adding minerals because until you add organic material over time, your soil won't be able to hold the nutrition. You'll just be dumping minerals into your local stream system.
John S
PDX OR

John Saltveit wrote:  A big factor is how much organic material is in your soil.  CHC is measured and it means how much nutrition your soil can digest and hold. If you have sand, there is almost no point in adding minerals because until you add organic material over time, your soil won't be able to hold the nutrition. You'll just be dumping minerals into your local stream system.
John S
PDX OR

 How much I understand, it is not all compost, but specifically humic acid, that holds onto nutrients, which forms under certain conditions. People buy humic acid in bags, but I wonder, if there is a way to make compost, that creates good amounts of it?

Time is an important factor in creating humus.  Just by adding wood chips, some compost and a lot of chop and toss, I've greatly improved our garden soil from horrific to pretty good.  The little critters do their work if we let them.  
JOhn S"
PDX OR

Yes, I agree.  Compost and chop and drop will help build up your organic matter and in time your humus content.  You can even overload the soils system with organic matter believe it or not.  My tests a couple of years ago indicated that I needed to lower my OM content.  That will happen over time as compost decomposes and is used by the soil critters to feed your plants.  All I did was not add compost the next year and my OM % went down.  I'll add some three year old compost this fall though.

I think a good deal of the grazing benefit is moving minerals around. There may be adequate boron (for instance) in one part of the area grazed, but depleted in others for various reasons. I know mycorrhyzae are supposed to do some of this but it seems like grazers could be playing a key role. I have read several of these texts and it really isn't that complicated. Plants in good soil can adapt to a relatively wide range of minerals in soils as long as they aren't way out of whack. To think that plants require the equivalent of (for instance) the human bloodstream ratios is not rational. More like the human gut. Their roots and associated cultures just need it present.

There is a good overview on Bionutrient Food Association which explains it in a few minutes. I like that approach. I am not a big fan of the soluble minerals as mentioned because they tend to leach very rapidly. For a small area that is intensive you might have an advantage, but otherwise I think the smart money is to put down dust or small aggregate and let it leach over time. As long as you are getting crusher dust from deep volcanic-origin rock you should have a reasonable representation of the minerals. If you want alot of good stuff way cheaper than azomite you can get it locally from www.RockDustLocal.com.

I haven't taken Elaine Ingham's course but it seems like it would have some benefit in the biome department.  It's on my list!

People buy humic acid in bags, but I wonder, if there is a way to make compost, that creates good amounts of it?

If you find one let me know. Compost is benficial beyond the humic/fulvic acids used to chelate minerals, but it doesn't have much as %. For establishing plants I use a 90+% powder in a drench. I'm also testing it as a foliar feeding component based on some other discussions on here in combination with micronized azomite (the only azomite I use- the rock dust in bulk tends to clog sprayers) and a protein/sugar source. Unless you are putting it on a lawn it is reasonable just getting the powder. I have more places I want compost than compost and am amending my minerals quickly. The plants have cleared deficiencies much faster with the humic than without.

Tj Jefferson wrote: The plants have cleared deficiencies much faster with the humic than without.

How much per say 100 square foot did you use of the humic acid? Did you use soluble or regular powder/granules? I am planning to do test soon and then add amendments together with humic acid.

I use powder reconstituted as a drench, but I don't think it matters, it infiltrates readily so granules should be fine. There are directions on the bag for amounts. I only use it on new plantings when I apply minerals and quite dilute as a foliar spray as noted above. I apply it with the crusher dust and a little dolomite.  

Preliminarily it does not seem to be very effective as a foliar spray for rust, but I am going to try for a couple years.

At some point Bryant Redhawk will pop in and add what will almost certainly be invaluable insight for both of us. He is the plant whisperer...

I read The Intelligent Gardener about 3 years ago and decided to try balancing the minerals in my vegetable garden.  I had been growing organically for several years and adding a lot of compost and had a TCEC of about 20.  When I took a sample to the lab at the University they talked me out of complete soil test.  The results of the test said everything was adequate.  Did I mention  this is the University of Missouri (where Albright did his research)?

The following year I did pay for a complete soil test.  I sampled about 20% of my back yard on the assumption that I could afford to amend that much area.  When I received the results NPK  looked good.  However, most of the trace minerals were in the range of 30 - 40 % of target levels.  Surprisingly, Sodium was the nutrients in  shortest supply.  So, I set up a spreadsheet to do the calculations and went to the local farm supply store and all the local nurseries to find the amendment to I needed.  Nobody I talked to had any idea what I was trying to do.  I finally had to get the last of what I needed shipped from Black Lake Organics.  At least they were familiar with Steve Solomon and Albrects research.  Did I mention  I live about 100 yards from one of the farms where Albert did his research?

So, I broadcast everything over my garden, 4 of my apple trees, and part of the lawn... and the moles went crazy.  The apple trees produced a better than average crop in a drought year.  The garden  was better than expected given the conditions except for the mole damage.  This really annoyed me until I realized that moles are the top of the food chain in the soil and that little piece of their environment that had become an oasis.  This year I have amended another 20% mostly lawn.  So, the moles have spread out and are not doing the damage they did last year.  I am using grass clipping as mulch.  They have become bioaccumulators and since the sulfur levels are on  target white clover is spreading through the lawn (and fixing Nitrogen).

The whole idea of bioaccumulators does not work well here because once you get to the "A" horizon the soil is a fully developed Amisol.  According to the people that run the soil lab it is almost 100% clay and has not been covered by glaciers or ocean for 1.5 million years so has no mineral content to speak of.  So, fertilizing the top soil and using the grass clipping as mulch seems to be working as an alternate method.  Having spent the money on all there minerals I am doing everything I can  to keep them cycling in the same piece of ground. My own opinion is that this kind of analysis and amending of the soil has a place in permaculture, especially where soils are very poor.


50 years after the fact Albert is largely forgotten here where he did his work.  It could be that he was an Agriculture Professor writing about human health or it could be that the University of Missouri is now the home of the Monsanto auditorium and the money that built it.  The point I want to make is that this work is valuable for certain  circumstances and should be kept available for those that need it.  Steve Solomon has done a great service for all of us.  Did mention I went to the doctor last month?  My chloresterol is better than it has been in 20 years.

Edit: Now that I'm reading this it seems alot more like a rant than I intended.  Hope I didn't violate the best nice rule.   Also now that I'm reading this the idea of mob grazing  moles seems intriguing.

Dan Kittredge recommends sea salt as an amendment. I was skeptical too but it is cheap and often depleted in amisols.

Mike Gaughan wrote:I've read Solomon's The Intelligent Gardener and found it to be generally scientifically valid, at least as far as the basic topic of cation exchange.  His formulas for mineral additions are strongly based on Albrecht's theories, and are also in-line with Michael Astera's recommendations.  For an excellent overview of soil remineralization, check out Astera's article at http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010178.better.than.organic.pdf.

Probably a stupid question, but who is Agricola? Couldn't find anything on the article page, or the associated website or Google...

From helping my daughter with memorizing Latin words for school, I remember that "agricola" is Latin for "farmer". See http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/2375/agricola-agricolae and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricola

Maybe the Agricola in that book/document is just a fictional character or construct to juxtapose the two different approaches to "organic farming" .

Oh interesting, thanks Adriaan!

If that's the case, well not to cast aspersions but that seems to add a heavy note of fiction to a scientific and historical discourse that is already seeking to challenge dogma in a lot of ways. I wonder what led the author to make that decision...

Interesting material, regardless =]