In the last 40 years or so, I have been privileged to be inside over 4000 organisations with a decision to be made. These were multi-nationals down to one man moribunds, voluntary organisations. If there is one thing that I have learned it is that leadership is everything. I therefore watch with dismay (no pun intended) as the government in-fighting over Brexit leaves that exercise in a mess and the rest of government incompetently over-managing regulation resulting in stifling innovation and inhibiting entrepreneurial activity. I weep for my country.
Will there be a better tomorrow?Only if we can very urgently cut out a big slice of un-productive costs.
Some years ago, I was working for TACIS (the technology transfer arm of the EU) in Tajikistan. The economy had collapsed and my team’s job was to assist in reviving it. I remember some of the characteristics of that failed economy and draw some ominous comparisons with the UK now. We have increasing crime but have police stations closing on a wide scale. We have a growing population but not enough nurses and are closing wards in hospitals. We have poor productivity and yet we have a growing civil service. Yet we pay more taxes, or some of us do. There was a warning recently from one of the think tanks that the national debt would reach £3 trillion. That will be around £100 million pa interest, maybe more. I remember the historian, Jane Marshal, observing;
“It is in the history of the world that whenever an empire collapses and for whatever reason, those left in government in the centre pass more and more regulations (or whatever they call them at the time) in the belief that they can stop the decline. What always happens is that they stifle innovation and inhibit entrepreneurial activity and accelerate the rate of decline. That is what is happening here (the UK) and now.”
We really do need to urgently axe some layers of government, otherwise the whole lot will go.
“Recreational tillage” soothes the soul but it really does dramatically increase organic mater oxidation and loss. Forcing a tilth with a power harrow is the worst offender.
The problem with forcing a tilth with power harrows, or any other cultivation tools, is that organic matter is oxidised at a rate corresponding to power input. This was first shown by Sarah Wright working at the famous USDA research centre at Beltsville in the USA. It was reinforced by research I did for ICI Plant Protection back in the 70’s and early 80’s; then, a fair guide in most soils was that conventional, high-power-input cultivations would oxidise and lose around 35 % of the humus per annum but direct drilling would limit the losses to around 10%.
There are two results of this loss which are, amongst others, worthy of note in this context. Firstly, the more organic matter is lost, the greater the cultivation power needed next time around, leading to a declining soil structure, demanding progressively more power in a downward spiral. Secondly, N losses progressively rise in parallel. Further, as organic matter level falls, so does water-retaining capability. This, in turn, allows more soluble N to be leached out.
What Michal Gove needs to do it look at the energy we could save by recycling more to land, using science-based process to encourage it, rather than allowing regulation to progressively restrict it.
There is one fundamental rule in nature: Given enough dilution, given enough time, Nature will handle anything. The trick is to know how much dilution and how much time. To some extent, the two factors are interchangeable. Fortunately, humus (that complex mixture of hydrocarbons, carbo-hydrates and proteins with significant colloidal capacity) is a very effective chemical “buffer” which will smooth out release of toxins and nutrients. There is also a biological buffer in that the mycorrhizae can be selective and take what they need (and no more) from an otherwise too high a concentration of a toxin or nutrient in a feedstock (such as compost). These mechanisms add enormously to the safety of recycling to land.
Having said that, like all living mechanisms, don’t push it too far, knowing how far depends on reading the research, using common sense and not rushing the fence – build up slowly and learn to manage the stress in the system.
Also see “How to make on-farm composting work”, by Bill Butterworth, MX Publishing, London 1998,
As the previous post here showed, Organic N, then, is different. It just sits there in the store, alive with micro-organisms and giving some (but very low losses) to the soil atmosphere and groundwater. However, it is different in a staggeringly complex and important way. When conditions favour both plant and fungi, the mycorrhizae feed at one end of their hyphae on the organic matter and the other end of each hypha either crosses the root hair wall into the plant body, or wraps round the root hair (much like the placenta of a mammal). This is a closed conduit!Not only is this why natural ecosystems do not leak nutrients and pollute the ground water, they also feed the plant with complex molecules, already some way down the route for forming cellulose and amino acids – so accelerating growth. Even more staggering, these mycorrhizae can suck nutrients out of some plants (weeds?) and transfer then to others (crops?).
There is enough urban waste in the world to supply enough nutrients to feed the world – without manufacturing fertilisers. (But we do actually need both.)
See the next blog in this series for more on profitable, eco-mimic fertiliser mechanisms and also “Survival” by bill Butterworth, published on Amazon.
S Michael Gove’s staff look at the environment v. Farming, they might do woerse than to read this series of posts on N fertilisers.
When ammonium nitrate hits the soil moisture, it forms two “ions”. The ammonium carries a positive charge and is an “anion”. The nitrate carries a negative charge and is a “cation”. Sands have a very low ability to hold onto nutrients whether they be anions or cations.. Clays have some useful colloidal capacity which has some ability to hold onto anions (so it will hold some ammonium ion) but not much ability to hold cations (so it will hold very little nitrate).
“Humus” is a very complex and variable black tarry material made up of large, Carbon-based chain molecules (so in chemists’ language they are “organic Carbon” molecules) forming hydrocarbons, carbohydrates and proteins. The proteins carry one or more Nitrogen molecules. These molecules are insoluble in water. So this humus-N will not leach out in rain or irrigation. More than that, humus is very colloidal, so it will hold both ammonium and nitrate ions and reduce the leaching of synthetic N.
So, pushing up the organic matter in soils is a real economic and environmental plus.
See the next post on this blog for how organic N storage work sand promotes crop growth.
In the UK , around 80 % of the cultivation energy we use is to undo previous traffic compaction and around 50 % of the energy we use to manufacture and spread fertiliser goes into the groundwater. This is neither profitable in the short run nor sustainable in the long.
The nature of the Nitrogen molecule carrier/store dramatically affects not only N fertiliser losses to groundwater, but how it gets into the plant and promotes growth.
Nitrogen fertiliser can be applied in two forms; as soluble in water (such as ammonium nitrate) and as organically bound N (as part of long, Carbon-chain molecules).If the molecule is relatively small and in-organic (mot part of a Carbon chain molecule), then it can be absorbed across the root-hair wall and progressively built up by the plant metabolism into amino acids and plant proteins. This route has served us well and saved countless billions from starving and postponed their death.
There is a problem. While “artificial” or “synthetic” fertiliser N certainly has its place, the energy cost of manufacture and the losses to groundwater are unsustainable. The alternative will be discussed in the next post on this blog.
Also see “Reversing global Warming for Profit” by Bill Butterworth published on Amazon.