Optimizing Soil Fertility and Plant Health— The Key Role of Soil Aeration in Soil and Plant Health

BY NEAL KINSEY

When considering healthy plants and the soils that can best grow them, the greatest need in terms of achieving vibrant plant health and lasting vigor is to consider “the trunk of the tree” instead of getting hung up out on a limb somewhere and never tackling the core problem. To determine this problem, certain basic questions and answers should first be considered, then other concepts that sometimes tend to be overlooked can more easily be brought into view.

Well-known and respected microbiological researchers from many parts of the world agree that the healthiest soils are found to be those with the most active living organisms. Soil life then should be at least considered as a major factor in determining soil health.

The living organisms in a soil and the health of that soil are intertwined. Those who study soil life point out that the population of beneficial living organisms which grow and thrive in each soil determines to what extent that soil will grow and produce abundant, healthy crops. On the basis of such research a logical question should then be what promotes the greatest amount of life in the soil? That answer should be a major factor related to providing the greatest support for soil health.

Soil Life is Key

What are the most critical needs for sustaining life itself? Could that answer also be crucial toward proper sustainment of life in the soil? And could it be that the correct amount of life’s most critical requirements would then be the real “trunk of the tree” in regard to building better soil health? The truth of the matter is both reasonable and can be shown to be scientifically achievable.

provide what is truly needed for optimum soil and plant health! Anything less and that much less is what you should expect in return!

Various short term for profit programs have allowed so many destructive actions and so much degradation to the land that there are now a host of programs that “make it better” and are touted as basic solutions to the problems the previous thinking of past and present generations have caused.

As a whole, in this entire world someone has ‘responsibility’ over all the land. Someone is put in charge of it and generally has a say about what can or cannot be done to that land, and too often not with a mind toward what would be best for the land or what is produced on it. The real bottom line is, when you give the soil what it actually requires, only then can it

What works best? Is it when plants improve soil health or when soil improves plant health? In other words, can you best use plants to improve the soil and its fertility level, or the soil to improve the plants and their health and nutritive providing abilities? This question cannot be correctly answered and solved without livestock. But in the process of answering such a question, what is best for soil biology - the true life of the soilwould need to be included.

So then what is the trunk of the tree for deriving the most benefit from agriculture? Is it making the most money, or making the greatest yields? Is it growing the best plants or the most nutritious foods? It should be the key to all of those packed into one logical program with the most economical approach being what can best be done to most help the soil and the crops that grow there.

The best answers to soil fertility, plant growth and feed or food quality are not geared to the philosophy of how much can growers get for the least amount they can give, whether that is money, fertility or the amount of effort being put forth.

However, most of the time the solutions that get adopted are because it can be shown that to do so means there is substantial profit to be made by the sale of something to the farmer. This is not meant to even imply that anything is wrong with increasing income from the added value of work being done.

But if the bulk of the profit accrues to those who are devising the program at the expense of the soil and what grows there, is it really true profit? And, are those programs being proposed the actual solutions needed or just another “band aid” as a stop-gap measure that helps only temporarily improve the situation in some way?

Dr. William Albrecht once described an experiment his team tried for CONTINUED ON extracting more nitrogen from the colloidal humus once they learned to isolate that humus from the soil. He said they tried every conceivable acid and many “reasonable” combinations, but could never find a formula that would do the job. the most productive approach.

For long-term solutions to soil fertility and to best supply actual plant needs, sufficient time is needed to plan and take a meaningful and careful approach. When growers have a program that is the best they can plan out or afford, even though believing and choosing to follow that program, they should still choose at least one small field of average or better production and split it in half for a test. Follow the normally proposed fertility program on half of it. On the other half, use a true soil building program such as the one developed by Dr. William A. Albrecht for use in building nutrients by natural production methods.

On the rest of the land, if the cost is just too much for the full fertility program test the soil to see what is needed to make the most difference. If the budget still will not cover it all, find someone who can help spend the money based on prioritizing the needed nutrients and put it where it makes the most difference.

That will usually be quite different in approach as compared to a normal program that just strives to “feed the crop what it needs” and let the soil fend for itself. Just about all of agriculture is purposely geared to think that way today under the guise that farmers and growers cannot afford the cost in terms of time and money required to do anything more. But how do you know if you have never tried it?

But conversely, by extracting exudates from plant roots and using an inordinately large amount as compared to the normal release from plants and crops, it was the secret key to unlock that N. Yet they were unable to duplicate that in the lab. So far as is now known, no one ever has. When science can’t even do that, it is hard to believe that even the best team of scientists would be wise enough to figure out all that a plant really needs.

Build the Soil to Feed the Plant

No matter how intelligent humans may be considered, taking care of the soil to feed the total biological needs of the entire “team” - then striving to provide needs for the specific crop - works time after time. But too many want to skip building up soil fertility and just feed the crop. When that happens, could growers be robbing themselves of the greatest benefits in terms of both soil health and the highest yields and quality for whatever they are producing?

Most likely there is no one who really knows how to provide all of the exact nutrients each plant will thrive on to do its best. When anyone proposes to improve upon what life in the soil can do in that regard, even the best “guesstimate” will likely fall far short of properly feeding the soiland thus will also rob the plant of its full potential - to grow the best yields and highest nutrition from the proper inputs.

So the question then becomes what is the purpose of constant plant feeding? If it is just to sell a product to feed the crop without regard to the measurement of the real needs and condition of the soil in that field, it is not necessarily going to be of the greatest benefit to the grower or provide the best outcome for what he wants to grow based on the cost of return.

Dr. William A. Albrecht was a strong proponent of providing the soil what it needs and let the soil provide whatever plants are to be grown there what they need. For many who claim to use the Albrecht system or some other specific approach it is just an excuse to sell a “feed the plant” type “fertility” program. As a rule, a grower is told he cannot afford to do anything more than feed the crop. Is that actually the truth, or just a sales pitch? Sometimes this may be necessary, but generally speaking, it is not

Due to agriculture being permeated with a feed the plant approach, most growers still tend to try and cut corners with a program that requires minimal inputs in regard to time or money. Generally, it becomes a question of how can I maximize production and still provide enough to do that with as little inputs as possible. When that is accomplished, too many are satisfied with conditions that can just help them remain where they are. However, when the process keeps taking without giving enough back it is a losing battle. Production and especially quality keep on sliding downhill. This type of thinking should not be considered and will never correctly apply to those who want a program that provides true soil health.

Will the use of cover crops, crop rotations, compost applications, striving for the correct soil pH, and applying the fertilizer that has provided top yields in the past solve the real issues that are needed to provide excellent soil health? When used as needed any one or a combination of these measures may help improve soil health, but this is still not getting back to the trunk of the tree—the true foundation to best provide real soil health. That is because under normal conditions even following all of these as accurately as possible still will not completely provide the real basic needs that are required for excellent soil health.

Think about this for a moment. Consider someone growing livestock and trying to maximize profits, with a stocking rate of one cow per acre. How many will place their stock in a confined area and expect the animals to fend for themselves on whatever feed is left there and thrive to the point of providing top quality while doing so? Ridiculous, right? But how many expect that very thing from the life in the soil which by weight is equivalent to feeding at least one average sized cow per acre? as one of the most significant problems. This is usually caused by too much water (in relation to providing sufficient air space) being held in the soil, which prevents the air from reaching to the proper depth causing interference in microbial activity.

Based on the study of soil microbiology, the nutrients we apply to grow a crop are not in the form the plant needs to produce the best quality and yields possible. What we apply must first be converted by microbes to the form that can best be supplied to the plants. In fact, microbiologists who study the productivity of the soil maintain that the more life there is in the soil, the more fertile that soil becomes. They measure soil productivity by measuring the amount of soil life that is present there.

Just how important is air for soil health? It is a major key for humus formation. Humus is formed within the soil’s aerobic zone. The aerobic zone is the depth to which air remains sufficiently available for the most beneficial microbial activity for good plant health in each different soil. Due to the abundance of air, microbiologists say that on average 70% of all humus is formed in the top two inches of soil. 95% is formed in the top 5 inches. And 100% is formed within the depth of each soils’ aerobic zone.

One good measurement to determine each soils’ aerobic zone (how deep the microbes that depend on air can get enough to live and function) is to remember that it as deep as a fencepost will rot in each particular soil. This is generally between 6.5 to 7 inches deep.

Air is needed to keep a healthy set of microbes to supply plant nutrients and build humus in our soils. But what can be used to determine if the correct amount of air—not too little and not too much—is present?

Plant roots move throughout the soil in search of moisture and nutrients, and yet farmers and growers are told to place the needed nutrients right up close to the plants. How does soil life and consequently the health of a soil thrive when so much of that soil life is “confined” to a very small feeding area?

Broadcasting needed soil nutrients helps feed the entire population of living organisms in the soil. To achieve the utmost in terms of soil health benefits, the total area must have sufficient nutrition. Too little causes nutrient shortages and too much causes nutrient toxicities that result in other needed nutrients becoming unavailable for crop use.

Soil Life Needs Air

The second law of thermodynamics states that life only comes from life. In the study of soil biology this should be a prime consideration since the more life found to be present in the soil, from earthworms to microbes, the healthier and productive that soil proves to be. Once that can be measured, then perhaps the question to be asked and considered should be what are the basic needs for all life?

There are four basic needs for life—shelter, food, water and air. Which one of these on average can more likely be missing and life would go on the longest? Shelter would be the answer most of the time. Then between the three that are left, food would be the answer. Then water, with air being the most critical of all since we can only live a very short time without it.

The most critical need for sustaining our life is also the most critical to the soil for life. But how many consider that providing an adequate amount of air to the soil as the most critical step to building excellent soil health? And even so, if the soil lacks aeration, is there anything that can be universally done to change or correct that lack?

Most of those working in agriculture fail to recognize the significance of the need for just the right amount of air in each different soil, let alone the keys that must be involved for correctly solving this problem. Perhaps that is one of the big reasons it is not pointed out as the greatest problem affecting soil life and soil health.

When proper soil aeration is lacking, how can farmers and growers know that truly is the case? What provides the proper amount of aeration to the soil to best promote soil life and soil health?

When considering clay soils the lack of sufficient air is considered

This is an important question that too few can answer. When soil aeration is lacking, how can farmers and growers detect that actually is the case? What provides the proper amount of aeration to the soil to best promote soil life and soil health? There is a way to determine this answer that too many in agriculture reject because it does not translate into immediate sales and profits, though it is very profitable for landowners and the land in terms of soil health.

How to Achieve Ideal Soil Structure

That answer has to do with measuring and correcting the physical structure of each different soil. The physical structure of a soil (how well it works up, takes in water and provides the needs for plant roots) determines the amount of air and water that is present in relation to the soils’ mineral content. The ideal soil for microbial activity has a specific physical structure. That is 25% air, 25% water, and 50% mineral content— of which 5% or more of that mineral content would ideally be humus.

Textbooks on soil science illustrate the physical structure of an ideal soil as 50% solids and 50% pore space. However, to this point none of those books go on to provide what changes are needed in order to enable soils that are lacking such qualities to achieve that correct physical structure.

Achieving the ideal physical structure for each soil—the proper amount of air in relation to water in each soil—can only be correctly determined by measuring the percentage of saturation of the elements that have a major influence on pore space in that soil. To correctly understand and feed the soil those elements are calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium.

In order to bring the physical structure of a soil into alignment with the textbook definition of an ideal soil; first measure and adjust the base saturation percentages of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium to match the correct percentages needed for the total exchange capacity (TEC) of that particular soil. The pie chart included below shows those needed relationships.

Once base saturation is achieved by making any needed corrections, this will help promote the proper nutrient uptake, the proper physical structure and the ideal biological environment for the soil and the crop.

In other words, to optimize needed soil aeration requires the correct relationship between specific elements, namely calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. When there is too much of any one of these, there will usually be too little of one or more of the others. Until any

CONTINUED ON PAGE 16