Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

[VetusLignum]

Personally, I have no obsession with glyphosate, either in its favor or against it. Like you, I regret the difficulty of discussing without passion the qualities and defects of this product.

Gabe Brown does not use glyphosate because it is an antibiotic and a chelator.

Exactly. We try, if we use an herbicide, to choose those that have the shortest half-life and that can readily be consumed by biology. We don't use glyphosate because it's patented as an antibiotic and a chelator. Being an antibiotic it is very detrimental to soil biology. Also, from what I've learned, I believe that it's negatively affecting human health. I don't use atrazine as it, too, has many long-lasting negative ramifications. On our pastureland we have never used any herbicide. I have many crop fields that have not seen an herbicide for five years, so they could be certified organic if I wanted to, but why?
http://www.ecofarmingdaily.com/gabe-bro ... ewardship/

However, he still doesn't say which herbicide he uses.

More on chelation:

Glyphosate binds (chelates) vital nutrients such as iron, manganese, zinc, and boron in the soil, preventing plants from taking them up. This could also have implications for humans and animals that eat GM glyphosate-tolerant crops, as it could affect nutrient value.

Due to its strong metal chelating properties, glyphosate was initially used as a descaling agent to clean out calcium and other mineral deposits in pipes and boilers of residential and commercial hot water systems.

https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/gly ... ing-agent/

[Did67]

Two or three choices deserve a check: chelation is a rather particular phenomenon, property of certain molecules of the EDTA type "to trap" metal ions. Chelation is not at all a deprivation of plants of these elements: we use chelators to provide certain elements either through the soil (roots) or through the leaves (foliar treatments) while preventing them from being insolubilized (for excess calcium or aluminum in some soils - such as iron; iron blockage = chlorosis; you can check).

The mention of atrazine also surprises me. This herbicide has been banned for 20 years. [verification made, this was prohibited in 2004 only in the EU; but its use had already been greatly reduced due to the resistance of certain weeds]

I do not have time to dig, but I am not sure that we are not dealing with one of these "geotrouvetout" who happily mixes up notions as and when it suits him in his reasoning. It is at this stage only a guess!

On the other hand, the notion of half-life duration is a criterion that I would use if I were to use synthetic molecules - I said, in conferences, that if I had to use a fungicide, it would certainly not be not Cu ++ but a much more labile synthetic molecule.

Note, however, that the half-life can be short, but the molecules resulting from decomposition are just as toxic, or even more. So you have to know the whole chain and the effects of all the derivatives. Hard hard !!!!

[izentrop]

detoxproject.org

My bible on extraordinary claims:
Is glyphosate an antibiotic? http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/01/le-g ... tique.html

Is glyphosate a chelating agent? (1) The insto of a patent accommodated with glypho- and Monsantophobe sauce http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/01/le-g ... eur-1.html

[VetusLignum]

detoxproject.org

My bible on extraordinary claims:
Is glyphosate an antibiotic? http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/01/le-g ... tique.html

Is glyphosate a chelating agent? (1) The insto of a patent accommodated with glypho- and Monsantophobe sauce http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/01/le-g ... eur-1.html

There are a lot of debates about glyphosate, and they don't interest me. In most cases, there is no clear conclusion. For my part, as I have already said, I am not against the ban on glyphosate, with the exception of its uses in conservation agriculture. And I consider that it is not the most dangerous phytosanitary product.

In this thread, I have summarized the video of Gabe Brown at your request, but it is not for this reason that I agree with everything he says. On the issue of herbicides, I researched, at your request, why it was not using glyphosate, without doing any advanced research to make sure it was valid. I would like to know which herbicide he uses, but I have not found.

[izentrop]

I have summarized the video of Gabe Brown at your request

Thanks for doing it.
I have nothing against you. Only against me for having believed at the beginning of this subject that "regenerative agriculture" had a scientific basis.
I realize more and more that it is a gloubiboulga surfing on popular prejudices.

[Did67]

For my part, I just allowed myself to question the assertions of the guy ... Not the fact that you report them (although when we report in a neutral way, we can always wonder if this is not worth membership !!! In any case, this is confusing, you have to understand the reader!).

As soon as someone on Youtube puts on two or three stupidities, I allow myself to think that the rest of what he says no longer interests me. To me, he lost all credit. Wrong, of course, because the rest can be interesting or just ... But that's my way of reacting. A bit sectarian, surely ...

[VetusLignum]

I have summarized the video of Gabe Brown at your request

Thanks for doing it.
I have nothing against you. Only against me for having believed at the beginning of this subject that "regenerative agriculture" had a scientific basis.
I realize more and more that it is a gloubiboulga surfing on popular prejudices.

"regenerative agriculture" is first of all an expression, a way of describing another way of doing agriculture, and which is more positive than "conservation agriculture".

For my part, I just allowed myself to question the assertions of the guy ... Not the fact that you report them (although when we report in a neutral way, we can always wonder if this is not worth membership !!! In any case, this is confusing, you have to understand the reader!).

As soon as someone on Youtube puts on two or three stupidities, I allow myself to think that the rest of what he says no longer interests me. To me, he lost all credit. Wrong, of course, because the rest can be interesting or just ... But that's my way of reacting. A bit sectarian, surely ...

We cannot verify everything we say, we all say more or less inaccurate things at one time or another. I maintain that Gabe Brown's video is interesting in more ways than one.

[izentrop]

In 2005, its F / B ratio (fungi / bacteria) was 67%, while that of the neighbor was 10%. An ideal ratio would be 100% (1/1).

In official publications, we find instead: Mushroom / bacteria ratio: balanced between 1 and 5%

Most samples have a balanced ratio, but 41 of them have a ratio
too low (<1%, too many bacteria) and 12 too high a ratio (> 5%, too many fungi). The
high values ​​relate almost exclusively to meadows with acidic pH (between 5 and 6,2). he
is actually known that fungi are more adapted than bacteria to live in soils
acids and that they are stimulated by high levels of organic matter. It is more difficult to
conclude for low values ​​and an excess of bacteria. It is possible that the grasslands without
mineral or organic fertilization are more often affected. https://comifer.asso.fr/index.php/fr/co ... ter-halska

[VetusLignum]

In 2005, its F / B ratio (fungi / bacteria) was 67%, while that of the neighbor was 10%. An ideal ratio would be 100% (1/1).

In official publications, we find instead: Mushroom / bacteria ratio: balanced between 1 and 5%

Most samples have a balanced ratio, but 41 of them have a ratio
too low (<1%, too many bacteria) and 12 too high a ratio (> 5%, too many fungi). The
high values ​​relate almost exclusively to meadows with acidic pH (between 5 and 6,2). he
is actually known that fungi are more adapted than bacteria to live in soils
acids and that they are stimulated by high levels of organic matter. It is more difficult to
conclude for low values ​​and an excess of bacteria. It is possible that the grasslands without
mineral or organic fertilization are more often affected. https://comifer.asso.fr/index.php/fr/co ... ter-halska

What does a 1% ratio mean? A biomass of 1 fungus per 100 bacteria?

Here are my benchmarks:
• F / B ratio below 1 (100%): meadow
• F / B ratio between 2 and 5 (200% and 500%): pioneer shrubs, brambles
• F / B ratio between 5 and 100: hardwood forest
• F / B ratio above 100: old hardwood forest, or coniferous forest
https://sustainablegrowthtexas.com/sgtx ... nt-growth/
https://extension.illinois.edu/soil/Soi ... health.htm

It is often said that for agriculture you need a ratio between .75 and 1.
But some say it would take even more: agriculture / the-garden-of-lazy-garden-more-than-bio-without-fatigue-t13846-13670.html? Hilit = johnson # p358614

[izentrop]

Yep, a commercial site as a reference well it is not clear and a recent study confirms it: Ratio mushrooms / bacteria: bad historical interpretations and potential implications https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9X18300389

The relative contribution of bacteria and fungi can be better assessed using the F: B assimilation ratio, rather than the biomass ratio or the production ratio. However, uncertainties remain in the estimates of microbial production and assimilation due to their complex responses to soil wildlife activities. Regulation of soil fauna on microbial biomass, rate of turnover and respiration, as well as associated changes in energy allocations in the soil food chain should be highlighted in future studies.