fbpx

Molybdenum to suppress viral expression in plants

Molybdenum, like other heavy metals, deactivates viruses by denaturing their protein coat, and in this, molybdenum appears to be a particularly effective metal/metalloid.

This hardly needs translation. Provide adequate or generous molybdenum to reverse viral infections in plants. To know what is adequate molybdenum in your context you really need a sap analysis to identify what plants are absorbing. Soil tests are useful for molybdenum, but in some cases, molybdenum can show up very low in the soil, yet be at high levels in the plant. The mysteries of biology at work.

This is another case where nutrition management solves problems where are there are no synthetic chemical solutions.

1. Datnoff, L. E., Elmer, W. H., Huber, D. M. & Others. Mineral nutrition and plant disease. (American Phytopathological Society (APS Press), 2007).

2. Verma, H. N. & Verma, G. S. Inhibition of local lesion production by some chemical compounds. Indian Phytopathol 20, 176–178 (1967).

2020-10-06T09:53:38-05:00March 19th, 2020|Tags: , |

All you need to do

All you need to do is…  use compost teas to rebuild soil biology and developed balanced fungal and bacterial populations. There is no need to remineralize soils, the soil’s base geology already contains far more nutrients than your crops need. Biology can release all of the crop’s nutritional requirements.

All you need to do is… grow cover crops, and keep the soil covered with green growing plants all year long. Always present and growing plants provide a food source for biology, and they will provide all the nutrients the crop requires.

All you need to do is… remineralize your soils, add rock powders, and supply the trace minerals and macronutrients that are missing from your soil’s geological profile.

The list could continue. Add microbial inoculants, foliar sprays, livestock, stop tilling the soil.

First, there is no such thing as ‘all you need to do…’. Living systems are nuanced, and there are often a dozen or more things that could be done to produce a positive shift in soil and plant health.

Secondly, the interactions between soil geology, biochemistry, microbiology and plant physiology are an intricate system, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Each ecosystem is unique, and the set of tools and practices that are optimum in one ecosystem are the wrong recommendation in a different ecosystem.

Each of these tools and practices can produce remarkable responses in some contexts because they are what is most needed in that ecosystem at that moment. In a different context, they may be almost completely ineffective.

Each tool is useful, even necessary in some contexts. Very few tools are useful in every context.

The tools which are useful in every context are the naturally designed ones, principally green growing plants and living roots.

All you need to do is develop the management practices and tools that fit your farm as part of a complete systems approach.

2020-03-21T09:23:49-05:00March 18th, 2020|Tags: |

The work required to have an opinion

“I’m not qualified to have an opinion on a subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people do who are supporting it. I think that only when I reach that stage am I entitled to speak.” ~ Charlie Munger 1

This quote is so good, it hardly needs a commentary.

What are the subjects about which I am not qualified to have an opinion?

What if we only considered advice from people who have a qualified opinion in their areas of expertise? How would agronomy and agriculture be different?

See The work required to have an opinion.

  1. From the Munger Operating System
2020-03-16T14:15:13-05:00March 17th, 2020|Tags: , |

Nutrient absorption against the direction of water flow

When plants absorb nutrition in a form other than simple ions from the soil solution, we need to reconsider nutrition transport pathways and mechanisms. A first step in connecting the dots is identifying as many dots as we are able. William Albrecht was passionate about the idea that nutrients should be available but not soluble, and he described how plants absorb nutrients into the roots even against the flow of water:

Nutrients are not washed into the plant by the transpiration stream: they enter under their own power1

In that contention that solubilities of high order are required for entrance the plant root, we are apt to believe also that such entrance is connected with the large amount of water moving from the soil into the root, passing through the plant, and evaporating to the atmosphere from the leaf surface. More water is moved through and transpired by the plant according as the evaporation rate from the leaves increases with the rise of the daily temperature, the wind, or air movement over the leaf surface, the lower humidity of the atmosphere, and the larger supply of water in the soil. But because there is a decided flow of water from the soil through the plant for evaporation to the atmosphere, that is not proof that the fertility elements are necessarily moving along that same course because of that current of water as transpiration. Calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and all the other essentials are not swept into the plant because they are applied to the soil in water soluble forms of fertilizers and flooded in, as it were.

There are natural facts, some readily demonstrated in the laboratory, which refute such erroneous beliefs that the water solubility within the soil is a requisite for fertilizer availability and flow with the water into the growing crop. As the first fact, plants will grow and their nutrients will move normally from the soil into the roots without the evaporation of water from the leaves. A potted plant, enclosed in a water saturated atmosphere with carbon dioxide under a glass bell jar in the light, will grow normally. This fact tells us that while the transpiration stream is halted because the saturated atmosphere will not take any water of evaporation, the fertility elements are, nevertheless, flowing into the plant from the soil.

In research at the Missouri Station, some soybean plants were grown on soils of such low saturation of the clay by calcium, that the totals of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the total crop of tops and roots were less than those of the planted seed. Such facts tell us that the fertility elements may flow out of the root, or in the reverse direction of the flow of the transpiration stream of water.

That same reverse flow of fertility can be demonstrated under the conditions used for the potted plant within the bell jar, or when there is no flow of transpiration. Such facts inform us that even in the absence of water movement within the plants, the nutrients will move either into, or out of, the plant, entirely independently of either the static or the flowing condition of transpiration water. Forces, other than the water flowing into the plant root, must move the fertility elements serving in connection with plant nutrition.

Still as another situation, the desert plants have shown according to research reports by Dr. Went, now Director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, that nutrients go into the roots for nourishment of the plants when in the daytime the water is transpired to move from the soil to the atmosphere. Then, also, they go into the roots when at night time the atmospheric moisture of condensation moves from the plant back to the soil sufficiently for plant survival through such diurnal reversals in movement of the limited moisture supply.

These facts deny, categorically, any necessity of water solubility of nutrients for their flow into, or within, the plant for any delivery services of them by the transpiration. They tell us that the fertility, which is feeding – not watering – the crop plants, behaves according to certain laws of physico-chemical relations within the soil and plant, while the water movement behaves according to the meteorological conditions and the climatic situations controlling the conversion of water from the liquid to the gaseous form and vice versa.

Water solubility of plant nutrients in the soil is not the rule of nature for their services to plants. Rather, they are naturally insoluble there, by which condition they remain there against loss through leaching out of the soil. By virtue of that condition they are still there when the growing root comes along. But that fact does not deny their being available through other mechanisms than aqueous solution.

1. Walters, C. The Albrecht Papers, Volume 1–Foundation concepts. Acres USA, Page 219

2020-04-20T15:32:14-05:00March 16th, 2020|Tags: , , |

Organic matter – the “constitution” of the soil

Many reference the Albrecht papers but it seems few have read them, which is distinctly unfortunate, considering he pioneered many of the soil nutrition management guidelines that are still used today, a hundred years later.

When we manage applied fertilizers and amendments, it is very important to consider the nutrient release curves, and time applications so we have the greatest nutrient release at the moment of peak crop demand. Nutrient release curves should dictate whether a product is applied in fall, spring, or after planting.

Of course, when we have abundant organic matter and functional biology delivering all of the crop’s nutrition requirements as the system was designed to function, such close management finesse is no longer required. William Albrecht described this first:

Organic matter – the “constitution” of the soils1

The most neglected and most important chemo-dynamic factor of the soil is the organic matter. Organic matter may be said to be the constitution of the soil. As a definition of the word constitution in that usage, we take its meaning when the doctor consoles the friends of a patient in serious illness by reminding them that the patient has a good constitution. According to its meaning, as used in medical practice, a good constitution is the capacity of the individual to survive in spite of the doctors rather than because of them. The organic matter in the soil has been the capacity for our soils and our crops to survive in spite of the soil doctors, rather than because of them.

Your attention has already been called to the importance of the organic molecule when it is on the clay. There is also the tremendous significance of the organic matter as a season’s release of plant nutrition. This release is timed to increase during the growing season or become larger as the temperature goes higher. The microbial activities follow Vant Hoff’s law and double their rate of decay of the organic residues with every 10° rise in centigrade temperature. Nature has always been fertilizing with the organic matter which is dropped back to the soil from the previous plant generations which have died in place. Organic matter is still the most reliable fertilizer in terms of the nutrient ratios and of the time when maximums must be delivered.

Another aspect of organic matter about which we probably haven’t thought much is the value of some organic compounds in cycle, that is they may be dropped back as crop residues and the next crops roots may be taking them up, using them and dropping them back again. Plants need the various ring compounds in very small amounts to make some of the essential amino acids. They need the phenol ring in phenylalanine, one of the essential amino acids, essential for plant growth as well as for animals and ourselves. They need the indole ring, which is a phenol ring plus a side ring. It is the compound which gives the odor to feces when the digestion acts on the tryptophan of which that ring is a part. Tryptophan is the most commonly deficient amino acid, and is one of marked complexity.

1. Walters, C. The Albrecht Papers, Volume 1–Foundation concepts. Acres USA, (1975). Page 67

PS If you are reading this post on social media, there is a good probability you are not seeing everything I post. You can subscribe to the blog here for an email in your inbox each morning I post something new.

2020-03-16T14:13:13-05:00March 13th, 2020|Tags: , , |

Endocytosis, how plant cells utilize large molecules for nutrition

When plants absorb large molecules or microbial cells through the roots (or the leaves), how are those large molecules absorbed into cells and used as a source of nutrition?

Endocytosis is one known mechanism of cellular absorption of large molecules, and has been known to be a significant method of nutrient absorption in animal cells for over 70 years. It has only been in recent decades that this process is also recognized to function in plant cells. There has been much progress in the knowledge of this process in recent years, but I wanted to give credit to an original champion of this idea and share the thoughts she expressed originally in the 1970’s, and then updated in 1993.

From Bargyla Rateaver:

Endocytosis1

The membrane is a thin layer of mostly protein and lipid (fat) molecules, in constant motion. The layer may be undulating and rough, but always it’s molecules are moving; this movement is essential to the cell’s life, as cessation of movement indicates death.

Imagine a group of large molecules, poised outside this membrane, that are ready to get into the cell. The membrane itself engulfs them and pull them down into the cell.

Such engulfment was only crudely made visible with older equipment; with the modern electron microscope advancements, even molecules can be discerned, at least in outline, so we now know that the engulfment is really a complicated, precisely programmed series of events.

This occurs because of some special activity in certain small, three-legged, protein molecules, called clathrin.These are programmed to fit themselves together into a cage, or basket, resembling a  Fuller dome, upside down.

Even if these molecules are isolated, in a solution, they assemble themselves that way, just on their own, as though their mere structure impelled them to do so. It is these clathrin molecules that give the cage its “bristly” surface appearance in sections only: actually it looks like a basket with 12 plane faces (dodecahedron)

They come from somewhere in the cell, maybe the protein factories (ribosomes), and assemble themselves at a spot on the inside of the plasma membrane, where they start to form themselves into the cage.

As they draw themselves together to make this cage, or basket, they draw the membrane down with them, like a lining to the basket. Large molecules and/or aggregates of them on the membrane at this spot, presumably waiting to enter the cell, are caught in this cage. There are several stages of this drawdown.

First, a cup-shaped depression, or pit, is formed. It comes to be lined with the membrane, that therefore must conform to the pit depression. It is called a coated pit, because of the clathrin surface.

Next, the cup becomes deeper, resembling a flask.

Lastly, the neck of the flask closes, and the pit has become a cage, a closed basket, a bag, a ball, and it contains the large, enclosed, entering molecules or particles. It is then called a coated vesicle, because it is a closed, round, ball-shaped cage, with the clathrin surface, a coating of hexagons and pentagons.

The clathrin molecules have completed their task of bringing a bag full of large molecules into the cells. They disassemble themselves, detach, and go off to do the same chore someplace else on the cell’s plasma membrane. (Sometimes the vesicles keep their coat for a while.)

Without the clathrin cage, the naked membrane ball is called a smooth vesicle. It embarks upon its predestined path through the cell, to unload its cargo of large molecules or particles at predetermined locations.

Imagine a ball of yeast dough, into which you press a finger to make an indentation; the pit made by your finger gradually smooths out. You see a kind of dimpling in and out. This is what goes on all over the cell membrane surface, all the time, at a fast pace, measured in seconds or minutes.

Although it takes time to describe this, the actual action is unimaginably rapid. Within minutes the molecular load is found in the various organelles; this means enormous numbers of reactions have taken place to engender the movements.

1. Rateaver, B. & Rateaver, G. Organic Method Primer Update: A Practical Explanation : the how and why for the Beginner and the Experienced. (The Rateavers, 1993). Page 22

PS If you are reading this post on social media, you are likely not seeing everything I post. You can subscribe to the blog here for an email in your inbox each morning I post something new.

Politics of peer review and published literature in regenerative agriculture systems

I have participated in several discussions recently about the inherent challenges of research to evaluate regenerative agriculture systems and management practices, and the general shortfall of much of academia in stepping up to be leaders in this space. This is clearly a multifaceted conversation. One I believe it is important to engage in and seek to produce the changes we would all like to see.

I came across this commentary from Arden Andersen and thought it worth sharing and reflecting on. Since this was published in 2000, some things have changed, and more have remained the same. How can we make it better?

Peer Review And Politics 1

It is ironic that would-be scientists insist on seeing new discoveries and work printed in peer-review literature because they really have no understanding what they are asking. Pioneers have no peers and certainly no peer publications to publish their work. When Bruno suggested that the earth revolved around the sun, he was put to death by his peers. Galileo was threatened with torture by his peers for suggesting the same thing. Simmelweis’s peers ran him out of his homeland for suggesting that physicians wash their equipment and hands between patients. Nikola Tesla was laughed at by his peers, including Thomas Edison, for suggesting that alternating-current electricity ought to be the electricity of the day. Although Tesla patented more than 1,000 inventions, his works in “free energy,” resonance, and biophysics are still ostracized in the peer literature. Albert Abrams was considered a genius until he demonstrated a cure for cancer and other diseases thought to be incurable; then his peers labeled him a madman. Wilhelm Reich was jailed by his peers for his work in orgone energy and cancer therapy.

Peer review is actually political review, designed to determine whether the work alienates the monopoly. Are non-astronauts peers of astronauts? Are non-presidents peers of presidents? Are non-pioneers peers of pioneers? I say. No. Pioneers have no peers except other pioneers. The emphasis on peer review should be secondary to results in the field. It is in the field that farmers, gardeners, and landscape “doctors” are either made or broken.

Statistics are another flag commonly waved by many classroom agriculturalists. There are volumes and volumes of statistics that supposedly validate modern chemical agricultural practices, yet the system is still failing. Statistics have the inherent flaw that they represent only what the researcher wants them to portray; this information is often skewed from reality. If I surveyed all the alfalfa fields in America, I would probably find that 99 out of 100 had hollow stemmed alfalfa. From those statistics, I would conclude that the hollow stemmed alfalfa was normal and the solid-stemmed alfalfa abnormal. In reality, hollow-stemmed alfalfa might be common, but it is undesirable/abnormal compared to optimum alfalfa. Solid-stemmed alfalfa is uncommon, but it is normal for healthy alfalfa to have solid stems. In addition, the refractometer values of the hollow-stemmed alfalfa will be significantly lower than those of the solid-stemmed alfalfa, so according to our statistical data, alfalfa should have low refractometer values. This we know is incorrect because alfalfa should have refractometer values above 12.

According to statistics, weeds, diseases, and insect pests infest crops regardless of the nutritional balance (according to conventional testing established by statistical research) of the soil and crop. This information is used to justify the continuous call for pesticide use in agriculture and the lie that Americans would starve if pesticides were not used. The reality in the field is that pests are directly correlated to a nutritional-balance threshold, below which these pests eradicate the crop and above which they leave the crop alone. Simply because the majority of the agricultural “scientists” (data collectors) in this country are unable to achieve or surpass this threshold does not invalidate the threshold. If you personally are unable to run a four-minute mile, does it invalidate the fact that it is possible for a person to run a mile in four minutes? If you are unable to make music with a piano, does it invalidate the fact that music can be made with a piano?

Agricultural authorities would like us to believe that because they have been unable to achieve nutritional thresholds in soils and crops at or above which no pest pressures occur, where yields are at record levels, and quality is unsurpassed, it simply cannot be done. Research data verifying the achievements of many “real-world” agriculturalists are needed, not to benefit the researcher or the customer because they already acknowledge the validity of the new paradigm, but to assist those who are unable to conduct such research themselves. Farmers, homeowners, and small business owners are purchasing biological products and services because they work in the field, not because there are volumes of research data sanctioning them.

There are volumes of research verifying the position of biological agriculturalists in the works of Callahan, Steiner, Albrecht, Northern, Senn, the Soviets, and others, yet it is ignored by the Land Grant University agriculturalists. Neither agriculture nor society needs the inhibition of progress so that the old guard can reinvent the wheel. Saving face is an ego trip we can ill afford, and unless agricultural institutions shed that arrogance, admit their misguided feats, and participate in viable agricultural science, they are obsolete, deterrents to progress, and an unnecessary burden on the public pocketbook. The fundamental question they need to address is: Are you going to continue to teach a lie, or are you going to participate in the solution?

POLITICS

Conventional agriculture claims to be scientific. Then why does conventional agriculture…

  1. Ignore the works of Callahan, Becker, Popp, and Kaznacheyev in biophysics, who repeatedly have proved that all living systems are fundamentally energetic?
  2. Ignore basic principles of chemistry concerning the interaction of compounds, the meaning of pH, the use and value of humic acids, and the formulation and manufacture of fertilizers?
  3. Ignore biology and refuse to acknowledge that proper nutritional management solves the very problems conventional agriculture attempts to circumvent by means of genetic engineering, e.g., insect-resistant crop varieties?
  4. Ignore basic geology relative to the interaction of soil particles, minerals, and humus and their correlation to soil tilth, compaction, and hardpans?
  5. Ignore basic ecology in their often-indiscriminate applications of toxic poisons, overuse of leachable fertilizers, and apathy about soil erosion and environmental integrity?
  6. Ignore the volumes of research documents in microbiology, proving and reproving the biological characteristic of the soil and the necessity of its maintenance for sound farming?
  7. Ignore the basic business-management principles of maintaining sustainability, keeping records on quality, and maximizing self-sufficiency on the farm?
  8. Ignore the fundamental common-sense precept, which is to follow the path of least resistance and acknowledge nature as the scientific model?
  9. Ignore British research showing that nonacidified, rock phosphates are far superior to high-analysis add phosphates in long-term farming systems.
  10. Ignore Soviet research showing that natural beneficial soil microorganisms can completely control soil-borne disease and pest organisms if they are provided the proper nutrition and conditions to do so.
  11. Ignore research by T. L. Senn at Clemson University on the value and use of seaweed as a fertilizer and on the characteristics and uses of humic acids in conjunction with fertilizers.
  12. Ignore the extensive use of humic acids by European farmers, for at least 15 years, to enhance the efficiency and reduce the leachability of chemical fertilizers.
  13. Sanction and perpetuate the obscuring and demoting of William Albrecht’s landmark work in soil science, as well as his forced early retirement, in order to secure substantial financial grants from a major chemical company for research having a predetermined outcome contrary to Albrecht’s documented work.

Conventional agriculture claims scientific integrity. However…

  1. Since World War II, American farmers have increased their use of agricultural pesticides tenfold—to about one billion pounds (500,000 tons) per year, yet crop loss due to agricultural pests has doubled.
  2. Soil erosion is occurring at 20 times the rate of natural replenishment, even faster than during the Dust Bowl, which occurred before the chemical Green Revolution.
  3. More than 50% of our groundwaters, lakes, and streams have been contaminated, some beyond use, with agricultural poisons and fertilizers.
  4. Pesticide-resistant weeds, diseases, and insects abound and are increasing in number. The farm population is declining and aging. Agriculturalists’ awareness and understanding of farming sustainably, profitably, and without the use of toxic chemicals is scanty in most and nonexistent in many areas of the United States.

Are these traits of good science, sound farm business management, and common sense? Absolutely, unequivocally No! These are traits of an agricultural system held captive by special-interest groups and petrochemical exploiters. It is an agricultural system held at arm’s length from true science, farm business management, and common sense, by a “religious dogma” readily exposed for what it really is by true science, sound business management, and common sense. I dare say that there is not one university agricultural department in this country that can raise any crop consistently over 12 brix at its weakest point or that has any clue as to the nutritional management necessary to do so. Yet there are farmers all across this country with little or no college education who routinely achieve such results.

The motto of conventional agriculture seems to be analogous to what the old Sicilian Mafia accountant said when asked what one plus one equaled: “What do you want it to be?” Thanks to true scientists like Philip Callahan, T. L. Senn, William Albrecht, and many others functioning primarily incognito within the conventional system, the answer to “What does one plus one equal?” is returning: “Exactly what nature intended it to be!”

 

  1. Andersen, A. B. Science in agriculture: Advanced methods for sustainable farming. (Acres USA, 2000).

 

2020-03-16T14:11:29-05:00March 10th, 2020|Tags: , |

Direct absorption of molecules

The implications of plant absorption of large molecules and endocytosis are that the present mainstream model of agronomy based on measuring and managing nutrient ions is significantly incomplete, and can not be the basis for a regenerative agriculture without additional testing and management paradigms.

Bargyla Rateaver was one of the first, if not the first advocate for plant absorption of large molecules and endocytosis in North America that I am aware of. The Organic Method Primer she authored is under-appreciated for the encyclopedia of practical and agronomic knowledge it is.

Here are Bargyla’s thoughts on the subject, updated in 1993:

Direct Absorption1

Since the disastrous integration of manmade chemicals into agriculture, a huge structure of error has been built upon the false premise that “only ions can be absorbed”. Based on this, a measurement of soil and recommendation for soil have utilized the concept of “cation exchange” and the “CEC” has been the be-all of soil testing. Small structures such as ions are said to be “able to cross the membrane”. Discussions of the varied means for this fill textbook chapters on the subject of absorption.

We now know that this is all passé, an outdated formula promoted by the greedy minds of the chemical dispensers. There have been a number of investigators over the years who have documented that entire molecules were absorbed, but only small molecules. W. Flaig1 in 1968, speaking at the Vatican’s convocation on organic matter and soil fertility, entitled his work “Uptake of organic substances from soil organic matter by plants and their influence on metabolism”. In Japan, Satoshi Mori and Naoko Nishizawa proved that barley roots preferred to take up organic nitrogen compounds if offered these as well as inorganic forms.2

In the chapter on cover crops, we refer to Fritz Went, who saw in Amazon jungles that mycorrhizae absorb nutrients directly from decaying leaves on the ground. Nora M. Stark, who worked with him, in those early days before endocytosis was known, made the penetrating remark: “It is possible, that in extremely poor soils, mycorrhizae are important in supplying nutrients directly from litter to living roots”. She also mentioned that, in one case, she had “traced a hyphae from a dead fruit into a living feeder root cell”.3

Hainsworth notes, on pg 27, that carnivorous plants absorb digestion products of their prey apparently without reducing them to simple inorganic compounds.

We know now that whole molecules of any size can be taken into cells, and clusters of molecules that are particles, by endocytosis (and fluid phase endocytosis) via coated pits–extremely clever devices by an omniscient Creator: the cell membrane invaginates, trapping molecules on the clathrin-coated membrane surface, thereby forming vesicles to enclose such molecules and carry them through the cell, dropping them en route, and/or dumping unwanted or storage molecules in the vacuoles, finally returning to the cell membrane from which they came. (Plastic beads and bacteria enter via uncoated membrane regions; this takes energy. Large algal cells are taken up by fusion with the larger host protoplast, note L. C. Fowke et al.)

As there are hundreds of these coated pits and ensuing vesicles being constantly formed on cell membranes, the provision for cell absorption of compounds (and clusters of them constituting particles) is amply demonstrated; whole molecule absorption is not a small, erratic, exceptional, unusual phenomenon. On the contrary, those crowds of pits indicate that this is one of the Creator’s normal ways of circulating whatever cells need from one to another, from the environment to the cell’s interior metabolism4, or out of it to the environment, by exocytosis.

This new knowledge enables agriculture and horticulture to dispense, forever, with the theories of ion absorption. Long ago M. Dikkers told us that the plant deals with molecules, not ions.

It seems, however, that agricultural academia has either not yet caught up with the new research data, or minimizes it, or simply cannot bear to acknowledge that the monstrous pile of data accumulated throughout the world’s agricultural efforts can be wrong. One author, aware of endocytosis, nevertheless said it must be simply an adjunct to the usual ion absorption theory!

We are therefore the first to have introduced to agriculture the information and concerning the actual facts of how plants absorb through coated pits, distribute by smooth vesicles and exude via smooth vesicles, and the repercussions this implies for husbandry. It totally reverses dependence on the worthless Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) tests, to which even organic growers still desperately cling.

We firmly believe that this discovery is the second great find of this century, second to only the disclosure/explanation of the DNA/RNA spiral, as it affects worldwide agricultural practice.

It seems that academia can afford to admit a previous error, if such does not impinge on financial benefits. In 1983 University of California researchers in San Francisco acknowledged that, although it had always been thought that a cell nucleus formed by highly complicated processes, it actually could form “spontaneously around any DNA in the cell. regardless of source, independently of genes”.

Such a nucleus had a membrane “identical to normal nuclear membrane…double layer of fat molecules pierced by many pores through which large molecules are transported”.

When confronted with his own microscopic view proving that granules can enter cells, Christopher Somerville of Michigan State University, expressed surprise. He looked at cells of an Arabidopsis thaliana hybrid, into which a plastic. PHB (polyhydroxybutyrate), made naturally by a bacterium, had been engineered. Small amounts of the plastic were made by the hybrid, in leaves, stems, roots. That the plastic occurred as particles, not ions, was undeniable, because the stained particles showed up as red dots. The dots would have had to be particles, as microscopes today are not yet able to show individual molecules (or ions!) sited in cells.

“The researchers expected to find PHB in only the cytoplasm of the plant cells, but it appears in the nucleus and vacuoles as well. That’s mysterious to us because these compartments are surrounded by membranes and it appears that the granules may be able to cross through”.5 Two strange aspects appear here: that there should be any doubt that the granules entered the cell, and that it should be surprising that they “crossed” the membranes of the cell organelles, when they must have first “crossed” the cell plasma membrane. The idea of ion entrance is implicit in the word “cross”, a concept the academic mind apparently finds almost impossible to forget; all relevant theories are based on it.

Obviously, the granules entered by endocytosis.

Much is known about this process in animal and human cells, but very little about it in plants, since there are only a handful of researchers around the world, who are working on it. Only three of them made it possible for us to show you electron micrographs depicting the stages in progress of molecules going into cells.

Plant cells differ from all others in having a cellulose wall, giving a plant rigidity; it is made of a meshwork of fibrils. It is apparently not difficult for items to pass through the cell wall, a mere tangle of microfibrils of cellulose, and there has not been any mass of data to prove or disprove this.

Inside this cellulose-mesh wall is a membrane. All living cells are surrounded by such a membrane, called in plants the cell’s plasma membrane.

No one seems to think a molecule has trouble getting through the cellulose mesh; it is confrontation with the membrane that was thought to pose all the problems. It is passage through this that has prompted so many scientists to devise explanatory theories.

In spite of all the theories, no one has ever seen the ions (such as K+), cited in soil tests, go through the membrane. Now we can track the progress of molecule masses by means of electron microscope pictures.

1 Inst, für Biochemie des Bodens der Forschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Braunschweig, Germany.

2 Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

3 N. M. Stark “Mycorrhizae and Nutrient Cycling in the Tropics” in Mycorrhizae, Proceedings of the first North American Conference on Mycorrhizae, April 1969, ed. Edward Hacskaylo. Misc. Pubn 1198, USDA Forest Service, 1971.

4 Another very clever system is that of plasmodesmata, openings in contiguous cell walls, through which protoplasm (cytoplasm) is continuous from cell to cell, so that materials can move through these special, narrow passages.

5 BioOptions Vol 3 (3) pg. 2

1. Rateaver, B. & Rateaver, G. Organic Method Primer Update: A Practical Explanation : the how and why for the Beginner and the Experience. (The Rateavers, 1993). Page 21

Matching seed with soil quality

Much of the available genetics for commodity crops today are bred to perform well on imbalanced soil and are unlikely to perform as well on biologically healthy soils as varieties bred for those environments.

Here is a quote from Arden Andersen, Science in Agriculture –

Now, a poor seed will not produce good seed on poor soil, but it will produce the quantity of poor seed it was bred to produce. A poor seed on good soil results in impedance to the flow of energy back into the soil. A good seed on a poor soil causes impedance to the flow out of the soil into the plant. Therefore, seed matching is very important. The analogy can be made to two people talking to each other on their CB radios. If both CB’s are tuned to the same frequency, communication is successful. If one or the other is out of tune and can either transmit or receive but cannot do both, communication is unsuccessful. I have experienced seed matching on many acres, and without exception, those farmers employing anhydrous ammonia, potassium chloride, must use certain hybrids to obtain the desired volume of yield. The feed value is very poor, but that is of little concern to these farmers because they are selling the crop. Farmers who have well-balanced soils on biological mineralization programs will fail using the same hybrids. They must use seed grown on similar programs in order to achieve maximum efficiency.1

Back to John ~

My personal experience with alfalfa has been that the varieties bred and optimized for biological systems exceed the performance of varieties bred in the standard system across al soil types and management systems. However, mainstream alfalfa fertilization practices may not be quite as systemically damaging as annual commodity crop production.

I believe there is a lot of eagerness and desire in the market for more vigorous varieties, bred for biological systems, in many crops.

1. Andersen, A. B. Science in agriculture: Advanced methods for sustainable farming. (Acres USA, 2000). Page 83

2020-03-16T14:08:28-05:00February 28th, 2020|Tags: , , , , |

The contributions of soil biology to plant nutrition

Have been known for decades, but have not gained traction in a business environment that offers no economic incentives to agribusiness for reducing or eliminating the need for applied fertilizers. Applied fertilizers produce an apparent magical response, and we are discovering that is indeed magical since it can not be sustained into the future.

Soil Microorganisms and Higher Plants is a classic, and worth reading if you desire to understand more of what soil biology can deliver, here are a few excerpts:

The biogeny of soil is the most significant indicator of its fertility. As soon as the activity of a microbial population begins in a rock, the first signs of fertility are manifested. The degree of soil fertility is determined by the intensity of the life processes of the microbial population.

It is impossible to solve problems of pedology, not to speak of agriculture and plant growing, without taking into account the microflora of soil. Plants are a very strong ecological factor, selecting certain species of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and other inhabitants of soil. As a result of wrong agricultural practices and crop rotation, the soil becomes infested with harmful microbial forms. By use of suitable plants in the crop rotation, one may change the microflora of soil in the desired direction and eliminate harmful organisms, in other words – restore the health of soil. Page 2 – 3

Increased accumulation of microbes in the root soil was first observed by Hiltner in 1904. He proposed the term  “rhizosphere”. In investigating the root system of various plants, Hiltner came to the conclusion that the accumulation of microbes in this area was not accidental and it was caused by the biological activity of the roots. Page 281

The microflora of the root zone is of great importance in plant nutrition. Growing near or on the roots, microorganisms, together with the plants, create a special zone – the rhizosphere. Soil in this zone differs in its physical, chemical, and biological properties from that outside the rhizosphere. The interactions between microbial species and between microbes and plants result in the formation of plant nutrient compounds. Substances present in the soil are subjected to a greater or lesser extent of processing before their absorption by the roots. The plants do not absorb those compounds which are characteristic of soil outside the rhizosphere but rather they absorb metabolic products of the rhizosphere. The rhizosphere microflora prepares organic and inorganic nutrients for the plants. Page 264

In the rhizosphere, iron, manganese, and other metals occur in combination with organic compounds formed by microbes. Amino acids, organic acids, and other metabolites of microbes form stable complex compounds. They are utilized by plants and used as a source of specific organometallic nutrients. These are found in greatest concentration in the rhizosphere and are preserved in the soil for long times. Page 281

Free PDFs of the book can be found on our reading list here.

2020-03-16T14:14:50-05:00February 27th, 2020|Tags: , , , , |
Go to Top