4 years ago, I presented a paper relating to 20 years’ experience subscribing to the Albrecht-Kinsey model. (You can read that here). What have we found in those 4 years….
1. Copper
Most of this country is desperately short of copper. Under 1ppm in most cases initially. I made the mistake of not putting enough copper on to pass the threshold of 2ppm. This takes at least 5kg/ha preferably 10kg/ha per year. We may need to stop using copper for a while. A soil test will tell us.
2. Copper again
At a previous conference, Neal mentioned the fact that some crops require more copper than others. He said raspberries are one of those. They need 15ppm to prevent rust. Well he was right. I put 50kg/ha on my raspberries and the bad rust disappeared completely. We were eating raspberries from Dec to May this year.
3. Sulphur
Once again, sulphur is in short supply in Marlborough soils. We have used Neal Kinsey’s recommended rates on our soils, including the grapes. Sulphur and copper are the main drivers of taste. We won the prize for the best tasting grapes out of 75 co-op growers. Over 10000 tonnes collectively.
4. Cation balance
We have balanced our cations to the extent that we have 66-70% calcium, 10-12% magnesium, 3-6% potassium and 1-2% sodium which are shown in our soil tests. This has enabled us to withstand some pretty unusual weather events in the last 2 years. E.g. in Jan/Feb of this year we had 60% of our annual rainfall, when 20% is expected. The one thing we noticed that in spite of excessive rainfall, 70-90mm overnight, there were no puddles. There was no run-off. The neighbours paddocks were awash! How did this happen? The answer of course is because of the calcium/magnesium balance. The soil has the right pore space and the right amount of air and water at all times. (Except extreme events) This means proper in-soak, proper transfer of excess water to the subsoil. Very little, if any, runoff and proper capillary action as the soil dry’s out. This means: Less irrigation, no pollution, more production resulting in higher profits.
5. Soil microbes
Soil microbes break down crop and animal residues, creating more humus and more resilience against adverse events. Under a balanced system there is very little pollution of the waterways! This of course begs the question. Is fencing on our waterways the right pathway to less stream pollution, or should we be better off concentrating on enhancing the soils and the associated microbes to control runoff.
6. Government
There is a move from government circles to limit fertilizer use and cow numbers. How ridiculous! Even if you had only 1 cow and if she was feed the wrong feed she would pee almost straight ammonia and have laminitis and want to be in waterways for relief. The answer is in the mineral balance of the soil, then the microbes and then the feed. This applies to our health as well. You will not have good health by building hospitals. Spend the money on soils which transfers to soil health, microbe health, plant and animal health and human health. All over the world human health is deteriorating. Why is this? It is because we are not addressing the health of our soils.
7. Measurements
We have discovered that measuring before and after is most important. Proper soil test taken regularly…most important. Use only proven tests. E.g. do not use Olsen P on low pH soils. Otherwise you will overdo the application of phosphates with disastrous results. E.g. zinc deficiencies. It takes a long time to use up excess P in the soil. Don’t forget there is a phosphate ion in the middle of every cell. Cancer is rampant cell division. Is excessive P in our food a factor in increased human cancers? We need to measure our soils, our water, our lime and fertilizers for both nutrients and contaminants.
8. Fertilizer
We have followed the recommendations from Neal Ninsey and now our tests are coming in with:
• 66-70% calcium (Aim 68%)
• 10-12% magnesium (Aim 12%)
• 3-6% potassium (Aim 5% for pasture and 7.5% for vines)
• 1-2% for sodium (Aim > 0.5%)
• 3-5ppm for copper (Aim 5ppm)
• 12-18ppm zinc (Aim 16)
• 300-600kg/ha phosphates (Aim >500kg/ha)
• 12-16ppm sulphur (Aim >50ppm)
• 3-5% humus (Aim 5%)
• 50-80ppm manganese (Aim 100ppm)
• 200-300ppm iron (Aim 300ppm)
We use dolomite where necessary, lime, RPR plus trace minerals. We use 200kg/ha KSO4 (Potassium sulphate) plus 100kg/ha DAP on hay and baleage paddock after every cut. The only N applied is in the DAP. We are relying on the soil microbes to supply the rest, up-to 400kg/ha on most paddocks.
9. Fault line
Incidentally we have a fault line running through our property. It was heavy clay with a TEC (Total exchange capacity) of 22. The rest of our property has a TEC of 13-14. On the fault line this year we found 5902kg/ha of calcium which represented 60% of base saturation. On the vineyard the TEC was 14 and the calcium found was 4150kg/ha representing a base saturation of 65%. It has taken an extra 5 tonne of lime/ha to raise the calcium levels on the fault line. A bit more is still required. However, we are now getting good drainage on that area. The pH on the lighter soil is 6.2 but we are still under pH 6.0 for the heavier clay soil. Another year should bring this into line.
10. Foliar tests
We have found we cannot rely on foliar testing for soil amendments. We had good soil zinc levels but low leaf levels because of the high phosphate in the soil. A small foliar application (2kg) bought the levels up to where they should be. Be wary of soil amendments especially for magnesium if foliar tests show a shortage. Too much magnesium in the soil shows up as a shortage as does too little. Better to correct this by foliar feeding and rely on the next soil test for ground applications.
11. Pests
Imbalance in the soil minerals means poor microbial activity, which leads to pest and disease issues. A good example is grass grub. Plants have a symbiotic relationship with the soil microbes. The plants exude sugars in the root zone to encourage the microbes to supply them with the nutrients in exchange for sugars. A plant under stress will exude more sugars than usual. That plant will also give off signals that insects pick up and the brown grass grub will lay its eggs where the extra sugar is present. When we balanced our soils the grass grub damage disappeared. Other pests controlled include porina, Psa in kiwifruit, clover root weevil, facial eczema…and who knows, maybe this approach is the best way to control (but not eliminate) mycoplasma bovis.
12. Disease
We have largely eliminated fungal diseases in our grapes with minimal use of fungicide. However, we do use biological fungicides to back up our soil fertility programme. We have stopped spraying the under-vine and mow instead. Is this combination of soil and plant management helping to make the plant defence mechanisms more effective?
13. Bad aphids
Last year our area had bad aphids in Lucerne crops and my neighbour asked me what insecticide I used. Of course, we did not spray. We had some aphids but not enough to warrant a spray. At the next cut we had lots of ladybugs on the mower but no aphids. The Lucerne crop went onto make a record crop of seed of 900kg/ha which was up 400 kg or 40%.
Recently another neighbour told me he can’t grow brassica crops anymore because of club root. It turns out he hasn’t used any lime or trace minerals for 6 years. He just used phosphate and nitrogen. If he had balanced his soils and used trace minerals, he would not have had a problem.
14. Nitrogen
Did you know that the inhibitor put into urea inhibits the microbes, which convert the urea from a diamide of carbonic acid into NH3 (Ammonia gas), HN4 and NO3? This is the same family of microbes that fix N from the atmosphere into the soil! Well that’s a good way of selling more urea! In a pasture, if we balance our cations, the enhanced microbial activity will provide enough N for 20 t DM/ha. So, don’t put urea on pastures. It will cost you money and pollute our streams. If you feel the need to use N fertilizer, use an ammoniated form such as ammonium sulphate or DAP. This will be slower but more effective and will not pollute. Too much nitrogen causes less uptake of copper and zinc!
15. Restrictions
We are in danger of having restrictions put on us by politicians. We need to get our act together and use N responsibly otherwise we can’t grow a 14-tonne wheat crop.
16. Nitrogen use vs production
Last time I spoke, I made a list of the effects of too much N. 4 years ago NZ farmers used 500,000 tonnes of Urea annually. Now they are using 750,000 tonnes annually. Does this correspond to extra produce or is it causing pollution and distress?
17. Solving issues
The message is that balancing soil cations and addressing trace element issues is fundamental for solving most of the important issues, which effect our everyday living. Pollution, sustainability and health are all improved…but most of all, look at your bank balance. If it’s bad, then look at your soil.
18. Forestry
Neal tells me he advises on forestry with good results. I am about to embark on a forestry venture and I hope to make an impact on production by 40-50% by balancing the soil under the trees. We may be able to solve some issues with needle blight…. Watch this space.
19. 2014 address
The address I made in 2014 still applies. However, the risk of bad political decisions is higher now so therefore our investment in our soils is at risk from people who are in power. We need to educate these people to help them make the right decisions for the good of us all. We can only hope that good sense will prevail.
20. Balancing feeds
Cattle need balanced feed in terms of protein/energy ratios and they also need roughage in order to ruminate properly. In winter/spring grass is short with very little roughage and a protein/energy ration of 1:1. We add barley straw to balance things. Last week I shifted the break before feeding the straw. I didn’t feed the straw until the next day and the cattle had eaten twice as much grass than is usual. I can only conclude that they were eating more grass trying to find the roughage and energy that was lacking. Balancing feeds physically, chemically and by protein/energy ratios of 1-part protein to 3-parts energy is equally as important as balancing your soils. Production usually increases by about 20-30% with minimal cost. Under irrigation straw/hay is feed out for 9 months of the year.
In conclusion
Follow the programme. Look at it as an investment with a long-term return.
After a few short years you will see the difference in both production and lack of issues, regardless of what you grow. You will be able to transfer what you grow to your bank balance with minimal effect to the environment.
Good luck and thank you for listening.
Steve Mackenzie
June 2018
(To read the 2018 sequel to this presentation, click here)
1. Four school men friends had a reunion in their 40’s. Went to Fairweather’s because the bar staff were good looking. They met again in their 50’s because Fairweather’s had good lighting to see by. In their 60’s they went to Fairweather’s because they had wheel chair access. In their 70’s they went to Fairweather’s because they hadn’t been there before... more about this later.
2. I first discovered the balancing effect of soil nutrients over 20 years ago. I first met Neal Kinsey about then, at a seminar in Blenheim where he spoke for a couple of hours, without notes. Afterwards I showed him 2 soil tests, one where the Ca/Mg ratios were 68% and 12%, but P was low. The other test had Ca at 60% and Mg at 5%, but phosphate was high. He said most people would say the second test would yield a better barely crop, but in his opinion the first test was better. In the event he was right and we got a yield of 3 tonne of barley versus 1.5 tonne. It was then we started sending soil tests to America for analysis.
3. The first thing to show up was an acute copper deficiency to the extent where I was advised to take immediate steps to rectify this as the level was 0.03 parts per million (levels should be 2 to 4). We then injected our yearling bulls with copper and within 48 hours the results were unbelievable. They stopped riding each other, they stopped eating the dirt, they stopped scouring. In fact they started behaving normally, (ie eating, drinking chewing their cud and growing and putting on weight) all this from a proper soil test from a laboratory half way across the world.
4. The next thing on the agenda was to balance the cations, Mg, Ca, Na and K and also the trace minerals. We found as we progressed that thresholds are important. For example it is a waste of time putting 2kgs of copper on when it takes 5kgs to actually work.
5. Also the effects of calcium become much more obvious when we reached 60% of base saturation. This is the point where the pore space allows for the proper air and water movement and subsequent biological activity and consequently more plant and animal growth of better quality.
6. The balancing effect means hot or cold, wet or dry becomes less of an issue. Why? Because both air and water movement within the soil is enhanced. This encourages the right microbes to work to break down previous crop residue into humus and parent material into nutrients. Also legumes thrive giving the system the right amount of N.
7. We have found that it takes about 3-5 years to get our soil in balance, (i.e. Ca 60 – 70%, Mg 8-12%, K 3-5%, Na 1 – 3 %). Depending on how far out it was to start with. Funny things happen when the balance is right. Grass grub, cut worm and porina damage largely disappears, Bloat, milk fever, and hypo magnesium staggers also disappear. Others too disappear including backwards calves (iodine) retained placenta (selenium), and laminitis.
8. Weeds also tell us a story about what is right or wrong with the soil. Rhizome type weeds (e.g. couch yarrow California thistles, and morning glories) all tend to disappear. This is because under a balanced regime a fungus prevails which consumes Rhizomes and this is far more effective than any spray.
9. Broadleaf weeds denote wet sour ground, and wireweed means low calcium. Acid soil weeds include sorrel, docks, and hawk weed.
10. We grow red clover, and it disappears when there is a shortage of potassium. People say their pasture is run out! It’s not the pasture, it is the soil that is feeding it. Potassium is very often complexed and unavailable for plant to use when soils suddenly get dry. This is very important for both red clover and grapes. Hence the need for Foliar applications of K in grapes in the summer.
11. An interesting development has taken place in our vineyard. Monsanto has tried to register glysophate as an antibiotic (i.e. it kills bacteria). I believe that prolonged use of glysophate buggers the soil bacteria for long periods of the growing season to the extent that our vines are starved of nutrients. I have used an underwire mower instead of the sprayed strip this year with good results. The grapes matured earlier (before the rain) and tasted better, and we have good strong canes for next year, with no discernible disease spores. When we turned some sheep and cattle into the vineyard, they ate the clover under the vines first! By the way it seems also that under a balanced system that plants and animals provide more of their own protection against predator and insect attack.
Fertilizer:
12. We use suspension fertiliser (i.e. finely ground fertilizer mixed with water and applied in suspension to the foliage). The advantage is in the fineness of the material and the evenness of the spread, plants also absorb and translocate it to the root zone. This is very cost effective for maintenance fertilizer providing there are no drastic shortages with the exception of sulphur. Suspension of elemental sulphur is the only way of raising soil sulphur levels without leaching issues.
13. It is also very good with phosphate especially if the pH is low or out of balance. The phosphate does not lock up with Iron and/or aluminium as easily. Consequently much less is required. If however, you need large amounts of Ca or Mg we have found normal ground limestone or dolomite is required until levels approach thresholds. This applies also to all trace minerals.
Nitrogen:
14. It appears that the 15,000 odd dairy farms in New Zealand use 500,000 tonnes of urea on their grass every year according to Peter Burton (Marlborough Nelson Farming Magazine). That $350 million (or $25,000 per farm) could be used to balance soils and the subsequent clover will provide more than enough N in a form that doesn’t leach.
Effects of overuse of N:
• Elongation of the cell wall – longer grass with the same number of cells)
• Greater evapotranspiration – more water required
• Greater insect attack – insects can handle excessive N without ill effects (i.e. grass grub)
• Non-protein N – Bloat and nitrate poisoning
• Pollution – excess into the system means excess N out of the system.
• Calcium depletion – excess N departs as CaNo3, and this hardens the soil
• Crop lodging – elongation of the stem combined with copper shortages makes the straw weak in grain crops, which I have experienced with corn crops.
15. Do not put N on pastures after a dry spell. There is already an excess of N there waiting for rain – you wouldn’t give a drowning man more water!
Crop Rotations:
16. Grow corn or wheat after a clover crop. Very little N is required. The rule is 1kg of N to be applied to help break down 100kgs crop residue. Over sow in grass and clover after 2-3 years to restore the balance.
17. If you are able to irrigate, grow crops and grasses that can tolerate heat, e.g. fescue timothy in place of ryegrass, red clover in place of sub clover, sweet corn and maize. Grow plants and animals that suit your conditions and select genetically last, after all the balancing areas have been addressed. Most people get this the wrong way round and end up selecting for poor conditions when they should have changed those conditions. A good example of this is Friesian Bulls will adapt to spring or autumn flushes far quicker than beef bred animals because their mothers have been selected for these conditions.
18. Some production figures since balancing our soils are:
• Red clover 750kg/ha
• Lucerne seed 500kg/ha
• Sweet corn 20 – 25kg /ha
• Barley 7 – 8 Tonne/ha with 58lb bushel of weight
• Steers average 1.1kg/day throughout the year running 3-4/ha
• 150% lambing without selecting for lambing ability (in fact tail end ewe lambs were kept)
• Averaging 15 Tonne grapes with excellent brix and acid levels to taste.
19. Not everybody enjoys these levels of production.
Quality:
20. Currently crops are measured by weight, grass is measured by dry matter content, feed is measured by M.E. These measurements do not tell us the quality of our produce. We need to know more. In our grain crops the thousand grain weight or bushel weight is important.
21. Dry matter measurement doesn’t tell us the nutrient density or if the cell wall is elongated by excessive nitrogen use. M.E. doesn’t tell us the balance between protein and energy. This ratio is critical for proper production, i.e. 1 part protein for 3 parts energy. Boosted dairy pastures are 1 to 1. That is why cows supplemented with maize silage do so well. Because maize is high in energy. Barley straw will also do the job, especially if roughage is required. Half a round bale per 50 bulls every second day will double their growth rates and stop the laminitis during the Autumn flush. Contrary to what some experts may tell you (Marlborough Express 25/4/2014).
22. We have started under-mowing instead of spraying. One neighbour has been doing this for some years and he says the vineyard has become thatchy, however he is not balancing the soil and I don’t believe it will be a problem in our vines. I have been criticized for this development including by my wife (an avid and successful gardener), however I am unperturbed by this and I feel I am on the right track.
Risk:
23. Think of your fertilizer programme as an investment and the golden rule of investment is to diversify. We have a vineyard, and we grow sweet corn, peas, clover seed, Lucerne seed, beef, lambs, hay and baleage and we have a contracting business. We also have profit from investments, all made possible by soil balancing.
24. Dairy farmers should, where possible, grow their own supplements to avoid risk of supply. Run off farms need to be balanced so the cows can restore the calcium in their bones, otherwise they won’t produce well.
25. Remember that bones are 2:1 Ca to P. If the ratio in the feed is less than that (say 1:1) then the excess P has to be excreted leaving a shortage of both Ca and P for bone growth. The end result is lower productivity, milk fever and infertility. Perhaps this is why New Zealand dairy cows only boast 5 – 6 lactations instead of 10 – 12.
26. Vineyards are vulnerable to bad weather events as evidenced this year (hail, rain and frost)
27. We are all vulnerable to political interference and market fluctuations, hence some other industry investments.
Profitability:
28. So how does this translate into sustainable profits? Expenses are less – Pollution is less, sprays and remedies for pests and diseases are not required, except for extreme challenges (for example this year in the grapes, powdery mildew was a greater challenge than usual and in spite of our efforts to balance things we still used a fungicide to control it. However the quality of our wine was still up in the top 10% thanks to our balancing programme.
29. Crops mature on time which meant that this year we were able to harvest before the bad weather. Note excessive use of N will delay harvest.
30. Grow the right crops for your climate. Keep rotation right for the N availability, use livestock in conjunction with crops to make use of crop residues and to improve the symbiotic relationship between rumen microbes and soil microbes.
31. Plant crops on time and preferably in the right moon phase. This is quite important, although less so on properly balanced soils.
32. Trace minerals are just as important as major elements. A good example is Boron. If in short supply, pine trees get die back, corn crops don’t fill up properly and clover seed crops set less seed. Up to 20% more sweet corn can be produced with just 2kgs Solubor (Boron fertilizer). Don’t be afraid to foliar feed when things show up short. It is better to remedy the situation than lose production and quality.
33. Irrigation costs are less because of the build up of humus, water holding capacity and the capillary action. As the soil dries out droughts and winters seem less severe. Total dry matter production is up there with the top 10%, however costs are lower, including fertilizer as little N is required.
34. If the structure of the soil pH is correct (i.e. Ca 60 – 70%, 8 – 12% Mg, 3 – 5% K, 1 – 2% Na) then whatever crop you grow will be king. Weeds and insects will be less of an issue, production in tonnes will be more, quality by nutrient value will be better and best of all profits will be greater.
35. If your pastures are running out look to the soil. If you are having to resort to fungicides, insecticides and herbicides – look to the soil! Make sure you don’t pug the paddocks or cultivate them when wet as the legacy of that lasts for many years.
36. Remember the final measurement is your bank balance. If it’s not right – look at your soil!
37. So, I put it to you - are your corps and pastures nutrient dense? Does this transfer into poorer feed for our tables and is this an issue where our own health is concerned? I believe it is, and it’s up to us as farmers to get this balancing caper right, because our city cousins are depending on it for their health and well being.
38. Remember our four friends from the beginning of this talk, and how they couldn’t see very well, were in wheel chairs and didn’t remember things. Maybe they would be better off if their food was more nutrient rich and grown under a more balanced approach. I certainly know how it works for us and all of the plants and animals we grow
39. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for taking the time to listen to what I believe is a very important message, which is balance your soils and subsequently everything else will fall into place, including your bank balance.
Here at Kiwi Fertiliser we work exclusively with Kinsey Agricultural Services of Missouri USA with soil audits conducted by Perry Agricultural Laboratory, also of Missouri. Kinsey Agricultural Services (KAS) specialises in building and maintaining soil fertility for optimum quality and yields. The soils’ needs are determined by a specific set of tests that may differ from other labs, but are based on mimicking the plants ability to extract nutrients from the soil. Any soil test result can be converted to a recommendation, but the most accurate, leading to highly repeatable and excellent results, come from KAS.
To apply Albrecht’s principles of soil fertility, you must find a laboratory that will produce figures that replicate Albrecht’s figures. As most laboratories around the world have their own protocols, it is critical to get this right. Ford pistons will not fit into a Holden engine and vice versa. Without a solid foundation to work to, it is very easy to prove the Albrecht theory doesn’t work. Just send your soil samples to any lab and failure is guaranteed. Kiwi Fertiliser uses Perry Agricultural Laboratory (PAL). Manuals for interpretation and application to any circumstances are provided by Kinsey Agricultural Services (KAS).
Albrecht was involved with E. R. Kuck of Brookside Laboratory so his outstanding work would be properly replicated. This lasted from 1950 until Albrecht’s death in 1974. Both Neal Kinsey (consultant) and Bob Perry (technical) worked for Brookside. Brookside eventually changed their testing protocols away from the Albrecht principles, so Kinsey and Perry both left, with Perry founding PAL in 1982. Anyone can claim to be following Albrecht, and many do; this can be a big problem and the facts need to be verified. The way to check whether they are or not is to get them to show you PAL soil test results and KAS recommendations (see "Sample Soil Reports" below for examples of what these look like). Don’t be taken in by pretenders. If another lab is involved, get the consultant to show an endorsement for that lab from PAL. Neal Kinsey works exclusively with PAL.
The PAL Soil Professional Report shows the values (in lbs/ac or ppm) of 12 standard nutrients, as defined by Dr. Albrecht. Other nutrients are available, but need to be requested separately. PAL results show the actual nutrient values of your soil; the values your soil should have, and the difference between them. In other words, your actual soil results are compared with you actual soil requirements. (It is not compared to other soils, as is commonly the case.) The consultant must then work out using the manuals available, the best materials to use to achieve the required soil balance.
KAS also puts out a report doing just that. However, they operate in over 75 countries around the world, so the availability or cost of some products may mean changes are required to those recommendations. The KAS report is reported in kgs/ha. These reports increase two of the nutrients phosphate and potassium, from the PAL results. There are qualifications listed under (a), (b), etc. to make sure the correct procedure is followed.
If results come back and the cation results look a little odd, a Cation Displacement Test can be run. This problem can occur when some cations (most commonly calcium) are not attached to a corresponding anion. This inflates the values found. The solution is to run a Cation Displacement Test to determine the true TEC of the soil. There are rules your consultant can apply to determine whether one is required or not. These rules include the application of nitrogen within 30 days. This is recently developed technology and as far as we are aware, only PAL offers the test.
Click here to see a sample of a lab report from Perry Agricultural Laboratory.
Click here to see a sample of a report from Kinsey Agricultural Services.
Currently water is a very controversial subject for some. Basically in NZ, most of the agricultural water abstraction occurs in the East Coast and Central areas. However, the principles apply anywhere. It matters not whether the extraction is for rural or urban purposes. What matters is that it is happening with no thought given to aquifer recharge. Check out the meaning of abstraction; you may be surprised.
We tend to think in terms of surface water. Underground aquifers are out of sight and out of mind. But surface and underground water are connected as one. Take it from the surface and it reduces the aquifer. Pump it from the aquifer and it reduces the river. Most of this occurs in summer when the flows are at their lowest. In short, one-way removal of water for crops and cities, will lead to drying the land out. This is the opposite result of our intentions.
A cross-section of a river is basically a concave structure. Below that the aquifer is a convex one; like two spoons with their humps touching. Extraction of water from either causes that one not to contribute to the other; more importantly it can cause separation of one source from the other. So how can we change that? Simply put it is a matter of diverting excess runoff water and allowing time for it to infiltrate back into the soil and eventually the aquifer. Give and you shall receive.
Some rivers have been straightened and stop-banked at to hasten the flow to the sea. This is a flawed concept, reflecting short term thinking. Those stop-banks need to lead to infiltration zones outside of the stop-banks limits where excess winter rain can be channelled for aquifer “duties.” Further inland, snow melt needs to be channelled in a similar way. There are dozens of solutions, but no political will do take any action whatsoever. Everything is borrowed from our grandchildren. Let’s leave things in a better state than we found them; not the opposite.
NZ is a relatively damp place, but irrigation is becoming more and more popular. This is a flawed concept given that under NPK science, we have not extracted anywhere near the potential production from the land by properly improving soil fertility in the first place. By increasing soil fertility using the Albrecht-Kinsey system, we can increase pasture DM and quality by >25% on many properties. The best figures I know are a 46% improvement in five years. This is happening all around the world. Not only that, soil water infiltration and retention will increase along with carbon content with some properties increasing carbon by 5t/ha per year. Topsoil and rooting depth are also increasing. Pests and diseases and their chemical rescue remedies take a back seat. Profitability increases and farming becomes an absolute pleasure again.
It does not stop with soil fertility either. This sentence is from a DairyNZ publication. After the 3-leaf stage, older (ryegrass) leaves die resulting in wastage and feed quality falls as dead material builds up. What absolute rubbish! The plants are under-nourished by the NPK system. Ryegrass plants grow up to 5 green leaves per tiller. How can you expect to increase production; when pasture is operating below its potential on two counts? One, the nutrition is lacking, and two, the rotation is too fast, being based on a premature 3-leaf cycle of one plant. But that is the system we work under. It’s self-limiting totally constrained by borders, boundaries and boxes.
Give Kiwi Fertiliser a call if you are interested in finding out how to improve your farming operations.
I watched the build up to the 2017 NZ election with particular focus on the environment with interest. Various views were expressed, one being by then PM English who said, “It has taken five years for scientists to agree on the science.” The golden rule is you do not involve those that have created the problem to solve the problem. Unfortunately our government is really stupid enough to do just that. While they fund the polluters, nothing will change except for the worse.
What is so hard about agreeing that too much water is being polluted by too much nitrogen? In 1979, 16,000 tonnes of Urea were imported into NZ. In 2016, 260,000t of urea were manufactured, and 560,000t were imported. That’s 820,000t or a 50 times increase in 37 years. Has productivity increased 50 times? Actually, profit and animal health have declined along with the quality of produce, milk in particular. Why do some of Kiwi Fertiliser’s farms produce around 20,000kgDM of pasture with no or minimal nitrogen inputs? This is >25% more than those that apply urea.
The below graph shows how far behind the rest of the world we are in our thinking and our respect for the environment.
Why do scientists fiddle with individual plants like plantain when the more multi-species the pastures are, the less nitrogen escapes? This is not a cow or a farm problem. It is a people problem. Lots of little Band-Aids won’t solve systemic problems. What is so difficult about increasing carbon in the soil, rather than sending it into the atmosphere, which is what happens when we follow institutionalised and other short sighted and ultimately, expensive advice?
At the moment there are no winners in NZ. We are all losing. It would need the majority of urea users to change their habits to turn us into winners. That is, stop the flow of nitrogen into water, and reverse the loss of carbon into the atmosphere by sequestering it into the soil for increased production and environmental stability. It is very easy to achieve and far more profitable than the current system.
Let us at Kiwi Fertiliser show you a much better way to improve production and profitability that includes superior pasture growth, animal health and a reduction in the use of chemical products.
“You can’t be free when you depend on someone else for your food.” –Wendell Berry
News Flash: Man-made warming may have begun earlier than we thought. Gayathri Vaidyanathan, E&E reporter ClimateWire: Thursday, August 25, 2016
Before gasoline-powered cars crowded roads, before even the first coal-fired power plant was built in the United States, humans had begun warming Earth’s climate.
By 1831, the signals of man-made global warming could be seen in the Arctic and the tropical oceans. By 1850, all of the Northern Hemisphere was warming. The Southern Hemisphere followed a half-century later. On the continents, people were clearing land, building railroads and mining coal at the start of the Industrial Revolution. That is when global warming began, scientists announced in Nature yesterday.
Agriculture and Global Warming
Potentially agriculture could repair global warming by catching and sequestering warmth, light and carbon dioxide. It would do this without subsidies because working in co-operation with nature is cheaper and easier if farmers only learned how. Vegetation is the answer. However, the common cultural belief is we must bare more and more soil, plough, erode, and wage war on nature with chemicals to feed the world’s increasing billions.
The story we are told by those at the top of agricultural industries and commodity traders is the world will run out of food if we don’t ratchet up the war on nature—even though the farmers doing this are drowning in debt, crippled by world surpluses and forced to take prices below their production costs. Meanwhile, first world populations mow their lawns every week, pull weeds and herbicide traffic ways. Bare soil is perfectly acceptable. The warmth and light this contributes to global warming goes unnoticed even though anyone in summer with bare feet walking on bare sand, soil or pavement should recognize bare surfaces are a leading cause of warming. Bare soil keeps increasing and agriculture is chief among its causes. Any alien visitor from outer space would look on this with disbelief. In some places herbiciding roadsides is mandated by law, as though making war on nature is politically correct, desirable, justifiable and somehow beautiful.
Just about everywhere environments are spiralling towards chaos. Weather is driven by warmth. Free warmth and light—given off from bare surfaces—slowly drives our weather systems to greater and greater extremes. If there is any reason for shame, it is turning the soil over and leaving it exposed to die. But shame and justification fall short of remedy.
It’s more empowering to ask how farmers can make a difference. Many examples show things could be other than the present. Agriculture is a two-edged blade. One might even say agriculture is central to global warming—both the unwitting cause and the potential solution. We need clarity about how nature works, how to feed nature’s armies of plants and animals, and the benefits that result. We can improve how we handle atmospheric cycles, and the nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and sulphur the atmosphere contains. Though this may sound complicated, it is really quite simple. An historical look at how this occurred may help.
“Maybe some readers find that I have expressed my convictions with too great of a frankness, that I have not always been polite enough. But the times are so serious in which we are living, that if we want to make any impression at all, we must speak in strong terms.” –Lilly Kolisko, Agriculture of Tomorrow
With farming came tillage, erosion and a host of problems as soil life was lost and restoration of soils failed. Re-vegetation is essential to store up warmth, light, water, CO2 and proteins as soil life, resulting in balance, vitality, health and, hopefully, self-realization. The alternative may be extinction if all we do is accept environmental degradation.
Middle Ages to 18th Century Europe
Back in the old days ploughs were made of wood, usually shod at their tips with metal. These ploughs wore out rather swiftly, and the modest damage they wreaked on the soil food web up through the 18th century was fairly sustainable.
Shallow ploughing and harrowing produced a good seedbed for hand sown crops, which benefitted from the nutrient release that followed. As long as the soil food web’s microbial life restored itself tillage was little more than a scratch on the arm. There wasn’t much concern about fertility or weeds. When weeds occurred, folks took an interest in using them. This retained diversity, keeping soils healthy and vital. For the most part farmers built fertility by grazing, storing up warmth, light and carbon as humus. Bare soil was occasional and brief.
As industry awakened, steel ploughs started coming into use all over Europe and its colonies. By the end of the 18th century folks had learned to turn over the soil with their new, sharp mouldboards that left entire fields of bare earth in their wake. Farmers ploughed more and deeper. Teams of animals pulled these steel ploughs and harrows, and at first this seemed far better as long as the soil food web was ignored. Yet this began to liquidate the better part of soil life, draining momentum from the soil’s humus flywheel. The increased release of nutrients led to higher production in the short term, but in the long term this exploited the soil’s fertility—selling off key capital and treating it as income. These were the seeds of soil bankruptcy.
19th Century
As the 19th century proceeded, fertility declined, even where livestock residues were returned to fields. Better equipped estates with more horses ploughed deeper, and tended to have faster fertility losses, particularly on light soils. Even so, with deep, rich, black soils this seemed sustainable. With mechanical sowing and reaping the nineteenth century saw improvements in crop yields while more and more territory was laid bare. Agriculture subscribed to a treadmill of borrowing from its future.
Obviously, at least to some, when you found an old, well-managed pasture, you could expect good yields the first year you ploughed it and released that sweet, clean Actinomycete smell while wrecking the soil food web. It smelled and felt great, but the penny didn’t drop about the damage and loss. Instead standard practice was to grow a cover crop and plough it down prior to planting a following crop for harvest. Ploughing vegetation under was problematic, as burying cover crops caused purification that encouraged weeds, insects and diseases. Nevertheless this also produced a temporary lush effect that seemed restorative. Cover cropping made up for some of the losses while slowing the apparent decline, but not much changed. Ripping up the soil food web and leaving the soil bare ran the soil down.
In those days most ploughing involved ploughs that turned the soil over. There were debates about the relative worth of ploughing shallow or deep. Deep ploughing buried plant residues where there was little oxygen. In response some folks stood their sods up rather than ploughing them over. This was messier and didn’t produce as smooth a seedbed, but some felt it was healthier and better for soil life. In some places farmers formed the soil up in ridges and planted in the ridges. The extra oxygen boosted crops, but ploughing still impaired nitrogen fixing capacity and wrecked the soil food web.
20th Century
Chemical war on nature got in full swing with the birth of the ammonia industry in 1907, while mechanical tractor power enabled chisel ploughs to rip through the soil food web without turning. This left much of the vegetation and trash on the surface, limiting wind and water erosion while allowing the soil food web some chance for recovery—unless soil sterilants like anhydrous ammonia or potassium muriate were applied. But there also were rototillers which completely churned through the soil, destroying whatever structure there was—even where anhydrous and muriate were not used.
The last half of the 20th century really shut down the soil biology with bigger and bigger machinery and round after round of toxic chemistry. Soluble soil testing, which ignored soil reserves, became the fertiliser industry’s tool of choice to sell NPK salts. Yet, the more these salts were used the less fertile the soil became. Organic growers followed this model. They substituted organic inputs for chemical ones, but they too bared the soil and lost fertility.
Throughout this de-evolution, farmers were fascinated with cutting into the soil food web and smelling the rich, fertile smell of Actinomycetes while preparing their seedbeds. Chemical-free succession planting with minimal tillage and humified compost crossed almost no one’s mind. Everyone wanted to prepare a smooth seedbed. Almost no one sowed a mixture of seeds onto the soil and grazed, mowed or rolled down existing vegetation—even throwing down a bit of mulch in bare spots—knowing that something would grow as long as the soil was covered. Lost in the mists of antiquity, the idea of maintaining soil cover was so new it was ignored.
Now comes the question, can 21st century agriculture address the roots of the problem?
http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/2011conferenceinvitedp.pdf
Change in agriculture is up against the likes of D.C. Edmeades, Hamilton, New Zealand, author of a lengthy paper entitled: Pseudo-science: a threat to agriculture? (see link above)
Edmeades brandishes the buzzword “pseudo-science” 37 times in a ten page paper intended to slander Dr. Christine Jones’s admirable work on soil microbiology, cultivation, artificial nitrogen fertilization and carbon sequestration—topics much in need of investigation if we are to arrest the alarming weather trends threatening our economy, safety and well-being. He trots out the fallacious assumption that we must put more land under cultivation to feed world population. And his arguments for continuing the NPK/toxic approach show his 19th century understanding of chemistry hasn’t caught up with cutting edge soil biology, biochemistry and biophysics. He makes no mention of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. He would replace what he calls “pseudo-science” with something illogical and unsustainable that has long been refuted, outdated and surpassed. His paper is replete with references, graphs, sophistries and scientific double-talk designed to confuse the unwary and uninformed.
Inertia to Change
Top agricultural authorities whose livelihoods depend on current agricultural practices tell us the world will run out of food if we don’t keep intensifying the war on nature, disregarding how this devastates soils, pollutes ecosystems and fuels global warming. Yet, the further we go along this path the closer we come to tipping points where the earth’s self-correcting life support systems spiral out of control.
Evil exists to awaken our appreciation of good. The pity is we often wake up when what is good is gone. What is obvious is we need to reverse the degradation of the land already under cultivation and improve its productivity. To do that we need to reduce mechanical cultivation, nitrogen fertilisation, contamination, erosion, overgrazing, monocropping, deforestation and desertification while we improve ground cover, build soil biology, restore nitrogen fixation and practice controlled rotational grazing, biological no-till and diverse intercropping—all proven alternatives. If, along the way, permaculture and biodynamics give us tools with which to achieve these ends with ease and grace, what could be better?
What Nature Does
What nearly everyone missed, as agriculture borrowed from its future, was looking at how nature works. Nature builds fertile soils without ploughing as farmers do. Nature’s army of soil workers come up to feed and breathe, and then tunnel down again, aerating the soil in the finest ways wherever they go. In the daytime, most of these animals hang out in the near vicinity of plant roots where the soil biology is rich. When pooping and peeing they give the soil food web freshly digested remnants of what they consumed at the verges of their sub-surface habitat. This feeds new growth at the finest level while recycling surface litter in a steady way. Left to itself, nature’s intelligence cultivates the soil in ways we can’t duplicate. What we can do is support nature’s work.
Look at earthworms munching on decaying roots, leaves, microbes and other tasty morsels. They require oxygen to metabolize what they eat, so when need arises they eat out air passages and cast off the soil they excavate at the surface. Although soil animals give off carbon dioxide from the foods they consume, they oxygenate the soil as they travel. Many earthworms prefer a bacterial diet, though some of the larger types prefer fungi. Yet ants are the best fungal farmers, complementing earthworms while building and regulating the soil food web’s activities.
Application
When the Masanobu Fukuoka* and Alan Savory† visions of building a living blanket to regenerate the earth came along with diversified no-till summer/winter cropping or grazing, most mainstream farmers dismissed this as nonsense and impractical. The gulf between their cultural beliefs and how nature actually works was too great. Yet, a few serious, large-scale farmers and stockers used these ideas to regenerate their farm and livestock operations, thus building a partnership with nature that improved yields and lowered costs.
There it was—plant with as little disturbance as possible while feeding, balancing and enriching the ecology. Harvest warmth, light, water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen out of the atmosphere for free. While academics ignored such stuff, these early pioneers proved storing warmth and light in the soil’s humus flywheel worked. Foreseeably this would continue to build life into the environment into the future.
Although often ignored, humus acts as a magnet for hydrogen, especially when this prince of protons is in the form of water. Carbon attracts hydrogen. That’s basic chemistry. When plants cover the earth’s surface, they soak up warmth, light, CO2 and H2O, fixing nitrogen and improving rainfall.
Obviously if planting trees restored forests this would help arrest global warming. It may seem a no-brainer to oppose coal mining and plant trees. The worry is forests build their carbon onto the soil, which makes them subject to harvest and fire. Holistic pasture management builds carbon into the soil as humus. Environmentalists on the one hand, and conventional farmers on the other, need to shed their misconceptions and join forces. Prejudice is our enemy. Grazing livestock is only a moral problem if we don’t do it constructively.
“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.” –Rosalynn Carter
What built the world’s most fertile prairies, steppes, savannahs and plains were herds of animals and their predators. Unassisted, nature isn’t going to re-forest the Sahara without first growing pastures, because forests only occur where rainfall is abundant. Observation, the basis of intelligence, shows periodic intensive grazing is the opposite of confinement animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The true costs of CAFOs and their stream of environmental pollution, waste and suffering are not all paid at the supermarket, but rather in physical and social dysfunction.
Though the Sahara was forested 15,000 years ago, today can we re-plant such forests without first improving rainfall and water retention? We will have to re-vegetate step-wise, as forests require lots of rain. We need grazers and chicken herders to store carbon in pastures with well-run pastoral operations. We can grow grass quicker with less water in less time than we can grow forests, and grass stores carbon in the soil. Pastoral animals maximize biomass gains when they eat old growth and recycle it as fertilizer while making way for new growth.
The Path
The regenerative practices of farmers who pay attention and cooperate with nature are cheap and productive. Though it takes intelligence and hard work, the quality of what these farmers send to markets is superior. At the same time they cure rather than contribute to global warming. As farmers and environmentalists learn to read from the book of nature they will discover the best practices of restorative farming, grow quality products and prosper from their partnership with nature. Meanwhile regenerative farmers can take advantage of collapsed ventures that extracted value and left an empty husk behind for somebody who knows how to use it. Look ahead to the glass half full and see revegetating as an opportunity we need to embrace.
Our job is to open public eyes and show that the true cost of the war on nature is hidden in plain sight, and it will dawn on everyone in time. The simple efficiency of working with nature to build a thriving, long-term, regenerative agricultural base will change agriculture. It is expensive to wage war with nature, and the will to continue along these lines is dying. Already first world agricultural universities are running out of new blood for this agenda. Why? Current practices lock participants into spiralling debt, toxic technology and soil degradation—more subtle but comparable to living in a battle zone. Fresh out of high schools, today’s students don’t want careers in a hazardous, toxic, depressing, morass of debt.
More and more examples show how vegetation on the earth’s surface soaks up warmth, light and CO2—which otherwise fuel global warming. New farmers need only realize their opportunities to educate themselves. The information age ensures the necessary information is accessible as long as farmers are discerning of truth. The farmers of today and tomorrow have an opportunity to take up nature’s bounty of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulphur and turn these gifts of the heavens into the means for social health, wealth and happiness.
In A Nutshell
It’s urgent we understand how nature works. Nature is a system. Everything is interwoven and interactive at the finest levels everywhere. Farming starts with the soil food web and interacts with everything all the way to the farthest stars. Life processes start with hydrogen, which is everywhere and in all things. Hydrogen joins with carbon, cinder of the first stars, and its siblings, nitrogen and oxygen. With a little help from a few soil minerals, sulphur, the catalyst, along with hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen—free from the atmosphere—incorporate warmth and light as living protoplasm.
Nitrogen is an amazing player. As the basis of awareness, memory, sensation and desire, it forms the genetic blueprints for life and its reproduction. Carbon provides the framework, as we are all carbon based life forms. Like money in the market, oxygen is life’s medium of exchange, the basis for activity. Since organization arises at boundaries and organization is the basis of life, hydrogen with its infinitesimal content and infinite context is the universal source of organization, the basis of life. Plants take in CO2 and give off O2. Animals take in O2 and give off CO2. With sulphur for ignition, we have nature’s chemistry in a nutshell.
We can also talk about the five percent of biomass that comes from the soil—the cations, sand, clay and humus that interact with the atmosphere’s free gifts which make up the other ninety-five per cent of our biomass. There’s never been greater opportunity to cover the earth’s surface with living organisms, soak up warmth, light and CO2, maximizing vegetative growth and digestive activity. This will end global warming.
When market forces drive change, the rest will follow. Re-vegetate the earth at every opportunity. Seize the initiative. Build life back into the land. Pioneer a new agriculture in partnership with nature. Invent a new way of farming that knits together well-meaning but misguided sectors of society. There’s a long road ahead with health, wealth and satisfaction along the way. My new book, Quantum Agriculture, Biodynamics and Beyond, is an early step in this direction.
A great deal of respect is given to people who have accumulated letters after their name after spending time at a university.
Research institutes utilise these taught skills and soak up our research budget studying specific problems in specific areas.
I see some limitations in our farming research where so called advances in one area are creating problems in another area.
An example of this is where recently a scientist I met had 2 PhD’s in Nutrition but knew nothing about soil.
Most vets have vast knowledge of animal disease, diagnosis and treatment but have not been trained in soil science. This is not a criticism but an observation.
Recently I spent time in Denmark with a senior vet and nutritionist focused on finding the reason for animal diseases particularly in Europe. This is part of a treatment plan for farmers who can lose cows very quickly from Clostridia and similar diseases like botulism.
Dr Erri’s research has led him to the soil for answers. Unbalanced soil nutrients is leading to unbalanced feed which is leading to the inability for cows to naturally fight diseases without the aid of vaccines and medicines to keep them healthy.
A so called advance in Nutrition, which is a trend beginning in NZ, is the use of increasing rumen bypass feeds to produce milk. In Europe this trend is well developed and although this practise produces milk, Dr Erri commented that it is at the expense of animal health. Cows are barely completing 2 lactations under this system. He said that nutritionists are treating a cow like a machine and by bypassing the rumen are not respecting the full nutrition that the bugs in the rumen need to complete their job to maintain a healthy cow and her immune system.
The conditions in a cows rumen also dictate the bugs which carry on out into our effluent ponds which farmers are then encouraged to apply to the soil as fertiliser. Good effluent containing healthy biology can then contribute to a healthy soil.
Another so called advancement in science is the heavy use of chlorine in our cowsheds. In the past two years there has been a massive increase in its use and although scientists are denying it, this chlorine is doing massive damage to our effluent ponds. The chlorine in alkaline, Chloride of Lime and liquid chlorine all produce residuals which, upon entering the pond, wipe out the benificial biology which are there trying to make effluent a good fertiliser for the soil. This is not a theory. I am seeing it regularly as I am called to fix farmers effluent.
Although it is obviously the go-to product to keep a farmer grade free, there has been no respect from educated experts on the effects outside their narrow vision. The next step is the sterilisation of our effluent and eventually sterilisation of our soil.
Furthermore a soil with compromised beneficial bacteria will create an abundance of pathogenic bacteria which will eventually get to the feed which has grown in that soil. If only cows could talk, I’m sure they would have something to say about it.
Amazing what you see when you look at the big picture!
Last year, a farmer asked me if I would help his mate up the road. His friend had started with 500 cows to calve, and with peak milking soon to begin, he now had a little over 460 with which to complete the season. 22 cows had died from metabolic problems, 63 had clinical milk fever, and some had aborted. He was losing milking profit and spending more on medical bills.
September to December is the period where milk production is at its maximum. It’s when most of the money is made. Because of this, farmers should be gearing up to take maximum advantage of it.
Ideally, in that profit window, a farmer wants each of his cows to be producing 2.2kgms/day from September to December. But getting an animal to hit the magical 2.2kgms/day depends entirely on the condition they arrive in at the time of milking.
That means preparing cows to be in peak health at the start, so that they can maintain good condition throughout the calving, milking and mating periods.
Preconditioning is the transitioning period of four weeks prior to calving. The goal is to bring animals up to a 5.0 level of conditioning and this is achieved through a careful combination of diet, trace elements, and supplements.
Will a farmer need to spend money to get animals up to a 5.0 condition? Yes, but spending here will be rewarded in two ways: 1. With increased milk production. 2.With reduced health problems and naturally better mating results.
Think of pre-conditioning as an investment: you spend money to make more money.
If a cow comes into calving with an average-low condition level, she will calve in a tired state. This state will drop further as she expends energy and resources to cope with calving. In her tired state, she may have difficulty pushing out her calf due to low muscle strength.
With her immunity levels compromised, she is more susceptible to metabolic sicknesses.
But even if the cow avoids illness, her reduced conditioning means she has less energy to give to milk production. The farmer may even have to milk her less to avoid making her weaker.
In the case of my farmer, that scenario was true of all 500 cows.
None had a hope of reaching 2.2kgms/day
If a cow comes into calving with an elevated level of conditioning (5.0), she will be able to calve with relative ease. With strong muscles and high energy levels, she can push out the calf without comprimising her own health.
That means she can immediately produce 2.2kgms/day straight after calving. Being healthy, the cow also possesses a strong appetite. Her desire to continually feed enables her to maintain good conditioning throughout the Profit Window and beyond.
And she is far less susceptible to sickness.
When the Forward Farming team was called in to help, we went through the key areas, looking for causes for the herd’s poor health. The Management Plan was sound. The Feed Balance was good.
The problem was in the feed quality, or more precisely, the soil from where the feed came.
Our soil test revealed several key problems that accounted for the poor animal health:
N levels were far too high. One effect would have been the suppression of Ca in the soil which had left Magnesium too high and out of balance with Ca.
Sodium was also too high in relation to K.
If I had seen these soil readings without first knowing the herd’s condition, I would have deduced that their health was compromised. This soil/feed nutritional imbalance was only ever going to hurt these cows!
If you feel you are interested in unlocking more of your farms potential and maybe an answer to your frustrations and questions we can help with the big picture.
David Law
www.forwardfarming.co.nz
Kiwi Fertiliser is a company built on integrity and trust, and has stuck to its guns against the onslaught of the chemical NPK movement that continually tries to discredit any competition. Some farmers have asked, “Why do some academics criticise a system that works so well, and has improved our production and animal health?” They are referring to the Albrecht-Kinsey system of soil fertility.
Some soil chemists are in competition for clients; some are plain ignorant of the facts. Some are both. Obviously critics have never tried the method, nor do they want to understand it. If they did, they would make themselves look like bigger fools. One ploy is to mention “BSCR” or Base Saturation Cation Ratios.
The Albrecht-Kinsey system is practiced in 75 countries world-wide. Every year there are courses being taught in some of those countries. We do not see any critics attending these courses. Those that practice the principles regularly meet with each other. We don’t know any consultants anywhere in the world that use BSCR. Nor has it been taught at any of those courses. Dr. Albrecht did not use it or teach it. Nor does Neal Kinsey who studied privately under Albrecht in the 1970’s. BSCR was invented by the chemical industry at a later date.
When we have a ratio of 10:1, and a ratio of 100:10, the ratios are the same. If the numbers represent kg/ha, or are derived from them, then the first example will have 10% of the nutrients of the second example, but the ratios are the same. Some people are well-meaning and use “ratio” by mistake, but others that should know better do it deliberately. Ratios? Really? Do those with university degrees actually believe their own drivel? Kg/ha and percentages are all-important. So is the lab where you get the numbers from. Few labs prescribe the same numbers around nutrients. If the lab doesn’t tell you the right numbers for your specific soil test, it’s time to change the lab.
Brookside Laboratories that Albrecht was associated with decades ago, has since changed their protocols to better accommodate mass throughput of soil samples. That means the numbers are no longer appropriate for his system. You cannot take a soil sample, analyse it at one laboratory and then try to make anyone’s numbers fit. That doesn’t work. It’s akin to trying to put Ford pistons into a Holden engine, but some “scientific” research uses that very principle. That’s how they wrongly claim, “The Albrecht method doesn’t work.” Use the right lab and it works brilliantly.
Farmers may talk about biological farming. Opponents deliberately twist that to organic farming to suit their own agendas. There is a huge difference between the two philosophies. Do those that choose ignorance really believe they are the same thing?
A fourth excuse is to claim it is too expensive. Now the chemists are economists. At that level of thinking, their minds are in their shoes with no thought at all on increased quality and quantity; not only of pasture and crops, but of animal health and production. George Bernard Shaw said. “Progress is impossible without change, and those that cannot change their minds, cannot change anything.”
This Manawatu grazier’s average weight gain (2012) from arrival as weaners is 1.2 kg/day/head
The following is an abridged quote from a Training Manual for Soil Analysis Interpretation in Northern California - Gregg Young, CPAg, 1999 (For his Master’s Degree):
“Albrecht's research was unusual in longevity (1916-1959), geographic range (on three continents), and thoroughness. He studied complex relationships rather than simple causes and effects. He analysed chemical properties of soils, fertilized and tested for yields, correlated quality considerations (protein, amino acid ratios), performed bioassay and feeding trials with animals, followed their development and that of their prodigy, (sic) and ultimately correlated health and fecundity of animals with quality of feed and soil properties of the soil on which it was produced. His work was primarily with grains, forages, and legumes.
His studies did show how many different plants get what they need from the soil, and his principles certainly show how to optimize productivity and quality for many crops. Albrecht believed in getting optimum soil conditions by using soil analysis and his mineral balancing principles. Plants will then use nutrients according to their needs. This was later called the Base Cation Saturation Ratio (BCSR) theory of soil interpretation. I will present a body of research which substantiates this theory. Albrecht clearly stressed quality over quantity.
He promoted high yields, but made a good case for nutritional quality being the most important goal for production of protein crops (grains, legumes) and feeds. This emphasis on quality can apply to wine grapes and quality fruit and vegetable production.
A key difference between Albrecht and most others was his emphasis on quality of crops, pest & disease resistance, and liming to provide calcium rather than fighting acidity.”
In other words, Albrecht was well ahead of his time. The rest of the world still hasn’t caught up. Albrecht had no peers, nor will there ever be. Since Albrecht, his system has been further refined by Neal Kinsey. Other consultants using the method are also refining it, or at least observing and measuring, to find out exactly what works best for the particular circumstances they work with. However, we still do not use ratios or a system based on ratios, despite being told we do.
Very healthy, content and quiet stags in the presence of a stranger (2015)
The Albrecht method works best when coordinating the soil samples, the laboratory, the consultancy, the products, and the order the nutrients are applied, the management and so on. All fertiliser from Kiwi Fertiliser is custom blended for each soil test. There is no guessing involved. It is precise and it delivers indisputable superior results. Those results are based on quality first and quantity second.
Those that criticise the system always measure dry matter, but not quality. They may measure expenditure, but not profit. Quality leads to superior soil health, plant health, animal health and production, and most importantly, to superior human health. Pollution is reduced. This has been tested by the greatest researchers on the planet: the farmers and growers.
The quote continues. “Comparison of BCSR and SLAN. During the period when BCSR was developed, an alternative school of agronomy grew up called SLAN, which stands for "sufficiency level of applied nutrients". McLean (1977) gave a well-balanced explanation of the two theories, although he did not mention or cite Albrecht and his hundreds of articles on the subject. McLean also did not address the issues of quality vs. quantity, soil biological activity, or fighting acidity vs. amending calcium. Nevertheless, McLean's overview of the two main schools of fertilization, shows the strengths and applications of each.
More research has been done on the SLAN method since it is more applicable to the use of concentrated chemical fertilizers, which has been the industry trend the last 30 years. (From 1999) McLean called for more research in BCSR, and concluded that: "A combination of these two concepts seems to work best as a basis for soil test interpretation in perhaps a majority of conditions."
Highly nutritious, solid-stemmed, non-bloating, high producing Lucerne crop on the programme at Galatea (2011)
Product choice is important and will have an effect on the results obtained. Is that the realm of the Albrecht system or the consultant? The overall differentiating factor is that SLAN is living from hand to mouth. This is the system that has seen a proliferation of pests and diseases and chemical rescue-remedy responses, particularly over the past 50 years, and increasingly so over the past 30. The Albrecht-Kinsey system Kiwi Fertiliser follows, builds soil fertility, organic matter and resilience into the future. The importance of heat, cold, wet or dry, insects or diseases are all banished to the out tray.
The difference is also one of expenditure v. investment. There are many occasions where the fertiliser spend returns little, if anything by way of dividends. The cost of producing a poor crop could be 25c/kgDM, but may only cost $200/ha. On the other hand, an investment of $600/ha may return a superior crop for <5c/kgDM. There are many examples of poor crops nationwide. They are really common. Part of the issue is applying nutrients that are already in excess, and not supplying sufficient nutrient and number of nutrients, including calcium.
A NZ dry-stock farmer has publically claimed a doubling of his stocking rate and a quadrupling of his profit. Others are quietly doing the same.
Many farmers’ stock, after a few years on the programme in facial eczema prone areas doesn’t get facial eczema at all. Their neighbours’ stock does.
A citrus grower topped his pack house awards after 40 years of growing but only two years on the programme. 17,000 trays of green Kiwifruit on second rate soil; 20,000 trays on first-class soils; a Canterbury grower producing 15 tonnes of wheat and more year after year; small seed crops (carrots, legumes, grass) yielding up to double the average; repeated competition winning canola and wheat crops in NSW.
Northland farmers convert some of their land each year. After two years, their bought-in stock kill out at a healthy 1:1 Omega 6:Omega 3. Feedlot cattle can be an unhealthy 20:1 or higher. They have since purchased a second farm.
No facial eczema spores were found on this Waikite Valley grazing property. Neighbours’stock was severely affected. (2016)
A top NZ Dairy Goat Coop supplier’s pastures produce 23,000kg/ha high quality forage. In five years, milk production increased from 28,000kgMS from 600 goats (2010) to 55,000 from 450 goats (2014). That’s a 96% improvement in total production and an improvement of 162% per goat. Their goats produce 137% of their body weight in MS and the average goat weight increased from 64 to 89 kg! The kidding rate increased markedly. 18.5 large bales/ha of Lucerne more than the fertiliser co-op side were produced within 18 months on the exact same budget. That’s about $650/ha extra net profit or $84,500 for half of the property.
The programme has produced best quality and quantity of bananas in South Africa and Guatemala and record wheat crops in Germany. A Maine, USA grower increased his seed potato yield by 20-40%, plus the next generation crops with his seed are better. In Marlborough, over 40 vineyards have converted to the Albrecht-Kinsey system of soil fertility.
In USA there are Robert Sinskey, Beckstoffer, Robert Mondavi and Chateau Montelena, all nationally renowned. In Australia it’s de Bortoli; there are thousands of good news stories worldwide.
An example of an Albrecht-Kinsey crop. Fertiliser for this crop was 3.7c/kgDM for 18t/ha. The crop only had 20 units of N.
In most cases chemical sprays or animal therapeutics are not used, or are rarely used. They all did their due diligence, and are very profitable and successful businesses, using a system that does not work? Using a system that costs too much?
Some people are seriously mistaken. The reader will have to make up their own mind who that is.
“Almost half our emissions (49%) come from agriculture and most of our electricity is already from renewable sources. This means we have few cost-effective options for cutting emissions. New Zealand plans to meet its 2030 target by purchasing emission reductions overseas, forestry, and domestic emissions reductions.” – Ministry for Climate Change.
What?? I have no confidence that the Ministry has the foggiest idea of what to do other than fiddle with symptoms and buy their way out of an easily solved problem with our hard-earned money. Get to the root cause of the problem and don’t waste our $14b on carbon credits!
The knockers make false assumptions that smaller fertiliser companies are in it for the money. That’s not intelligent comment. 130 companies competing for <5% of the market while the two co-ops have >95% of the market? Speaking for ourselves, we are in the market to make a positive difference to NZ agriculture.
Our goal at Kiwi Fertiliser is to make a positive difference to the lives of farmers and growers. We do comprehensive soil audits, and recommend inputs based on what the soil actually NEEDS.
The opportunities for competing companies exist because the co-ops concentrate on what fertilisers they manufacture and sell regardless of what each farm requires. The end result is a polluted environment, leading in part to climate change. To make matters worse, government funding agencies allocate funds to find solutions to those that cause the problems in the first place. Therefore finding solutions will not happen on a government or corporate level. Just pay the $14b; it’s easier.
Agriculture can cut its emissions and more by adopting simple strategies. Pasture can sequester more than enough carbon to reverse the situation we live with now, which is leaking carbon from our pastoral land into the atmosphere. Costs may or may not rise a fraction, but in the medium and longer terms, profitability will increase. Let us at Kiwi Fertiliser show you how to do it.
Protection of soil life, and the microbe’s humus home becomes an essential strategy. There is little point in reintroducing beneficial microbes with one hand then promptly destroying the new population with the other.
The use of un-buffered salt fertilisers dehydrates and kills many beneficial organisms. Over-tillage slices and dices fungi and oxidises humus. However, the single most destructive component of modern agriculture, in terms of soil life, is chemicals. Fungicides kill the good with the bad; herbicides can be worse than fungicides, and nematicides are the most destructive of all.
The single most destructive component of modern agriculture, in terms of soil life, is chemicals.
A carbon source must be included with all fertiliser and nitrogen applications. If we investigate how we are losing soil carbon, it becomes apparent that mismanagement of nitrogen is a major cause. This is not just an issue relevant to carbon loss.
Agriculture currently contributes 80% of nitrous oxide, which is 310 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its global warming side-effects. Nitrogen stimulates bacteria. Bacteria have more need for nitrogen than any other organism. They seek carbon after being fed nitrogen to balance out their 5:1 carbon to nitrogen ratio. In the absence of applied carbon, they have to target humus. The destruction of humus via the mismanagement of applied nitrogen is a major factor that can be easily addressed.
Research demonstrates that we lose 100 kg of carbon for every 1 kg of nitrogen applied over and above what is required by the plant at the time. Think of large applications of starter N, where a young seedling cannot possibly utilise that much nitrogen. We need to regulate N applications and to adopt foliar application of N (which can be dramatically more efficient) and to include a carbon source with every nitrogen application. The carbon source offers bacteria an alternative to eating humus. This might include molasses, or compost, or soluble humates, a carbon-dense source of humic acid that stabilises and magnifies the nitrogen.
Mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are the most important creatures on the planet. These endangered organisms, of which we have lost 90%, produce a sticky, carbon-based substance called glomalin. Glomalin triggers the formation of 30% of the stable carbon in our soils.
One soil organism could single-handedly turn things around. It is a very inexpensive strategy to reintroduce these missing creatures to soils. AMF or VAM fungi can increase a plants access to phosphate and other minerals by up to 1000%. However, most soils are bacterially dominated but can be easily modified to accommodate fungi. Diverse populations of fungi can also keep parasitic nematodes and facial eczema in check.