I recently came across this sort of online debate (summarized below if you don't have time to watch these lengthy videos):
In the first video, the host says lots of good things about the Mittleider Method, before sharing 6 reasons why he doesn't use it.
1. He finds is disrespectful to the soil organisms and microorganisms
2. It pollutes our water ways, seeping through to the water table or running off into streams, rivers and the oceans, contributing to dead zones.
3. It is unsustainable.
4. It creates plant dependence.
5. It doesn't create nutrient-dense foods.
6. it is expensive.
He elaborates that instead of buying a chemical NPK fertilizer and supplementing it with the "Magic Mittleider" blend of 13 other micronutrients which cost around $14 for a 20 oz. container, he can supply between 70 and 90 elements in the form of volcanic rock dust and/or oceanic/seaweed-based fertilizers, pointing out that a 50 lb. bag of rock dost costs a bit more than $20.
The second video is a rebuttal of these 6 points by two proponents of the Mittleider Method, uploaded a week after the first video was uploaded.
In it, they point out that all things are made of elements from the periodic table, and that according to the best information we have from scientists, plants have need of only the NPK, plus about 13 other micronutrients. They can pull Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen from the air, and the rest they must get from the soil.
The speakers then point out that if the plants only need 16, or at most perhaps 18 of the elements, then to add 70 or 90 elements is not only needlessly wasteful, but even dangerous. Looking at the periodic table, you can let your imagination run wild as far as what those other elements might be. Specifically named are elements like Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, and other heavy metals.
The third video is made by the same guy who made the first video, uploaded a few weeks later.
In it, he refers to the statements made by the two men in the second video about the dangers of rock dust. He compares several bags of rock dust from various companies, and verifies that, yes, indeed, each bag contains trace amounts of these elements, amounts far below the level of contamination, and quite far below the accepted levels of normal soils, equating the views expressed in the second video with fear mongering.
I found all this quite fascinating, but it raises a few questions for me. First of all, these two:
1. What are your experiences with or thoughts regarding the Mittleider Method?
2. What are your experiences with or thoughts regarding the use of mineral supplements like rock dust?
Additionally, if soils become depleted of nutrients and minerals over time,
where (and with an eye to human settlement, also when) have the best, most nutrient-dense soils been found? I'm looking for answers in the form of topographical descriptions, as well as political/geographical names and dates. In other words, answers like "riparian zones" or "coastal plains" or "The windward side of mountain ranges" would be fine, but i'm also looking for answers like "The Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia, circa 5000 BC" or "The Great Plains of the US, pre-20th Century" etc.
However, it seems to me that if there is a "supply chain" of soil minerals, it makes sense that we would find the most at the beginning and at the end of the conveyor belt, the beginning being their volcanic origin, and the end being the oceans where they eventually accumulate, including the associated "edge" regions. For example, I've heard that a lot of the fertility of the Pacific Northwest comes in the form of oceanic salmon swimming upstream and being eaten by bears, which then distribute those nutrients in the woods they way bears do best. "Ring of Fire" locations like Alaska or Hawaii come to mind. The Nile River Delta and Israel are much greener than most other parts of northern Africa or the Middle East. Without having a specific example in mind, I could imagine that atolls are rather fertile as well.
Others?
I'd love your feedback.