I don't think so , I've seen a video of him explaining how anaerobic decomposition is totally bad for the soil health and CO2 production, and I guess that green manures are very anaerobic in its putrefaction

Cover crops and green manure are great for your soil because the plants will also feed the bacteria as they grow with the exudates it releases from its roots. Adding legumes to your mix of course will help with nitrogen fixation as well. I've been using green manure systems for many years, and managed to increase stable organic matter levels as measured by a soil test from 3% to 5.5% in only a decade. The result has been increased tilth, higher cation exchange capacity (CEC), and better water holding capacity as well. Unless you're tilling, you'll want to terminate your cover at the right time so that you can easily drill your seed with something like a Truax OTG through the trash.

@@GerryMantha thank u . .. I believe u are spot on.

Yes, a better understanding of some of our physical processes does lead to increased diagnostics, but that doesn't even come close to accounting for the increases seen. We have some of the "best" healthcare capabilities in the world, yet we have terrible health. That is not a diagnostic difference, but a systemic failing.

@@bmtedYou are right, but the reasons for our failing health (although we have way higher life expectancy than in traditional societies by the way) are manifold: high carbon based diet, low body workout, high stress work load etc. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are just one of them. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the importance on soil health. I'm a permaculturist, and I have a small farm in Central Tanzania that is run by regenerative principles. I just don't like one-sided simplified arguments. I don't think it does our case any good.

I'm 100% with you on soil health and stuff. But we need to be accurate and honest in our argumentations. No oversimplifications, no oversimplified arguments.

knowledge*

Soil samples provide a baseline of solubility in the soil and foliar samples give a good indication of what the plant is actually able to acquire. The two often correlate, but not always. We frequently use starter fertilizers at planting to give the germinating seeds and young plants a quick boost, especially when the starter fertilizer is mixed with some Bio Release for stability and additional nutrient solubility.

Fulvic acid and Amino acid are both direct nutrient sources. Fulvic acid provides a broad spectrum of minor trace elements while Amino acid provides an organic form of nitrogen. The trouble with both products is that they are more effective as a foliar for small amounts of nutrition than they ever will be in the soil. The dilution rate in the soil is such that very little of the product will ever find its way into the plant. If you were to put them in the soil, there may be some small stimulation effect on the soil microbes as they use the available nutrients that they encounter, but it is very small and not really worth the cost or effort. In addition, the molecular size of the elements in the fulvic acid, though smaller than humic acid, are still mostly too large to pass into the plant. Even as a foliar, you would only have about 20% uptake, and in the soil significantly less. We have used Amino Acid in the past, but either as a foliar or as a supplement in hydroponic systems. We don't use it very often. I hope this helps, but if you would like further clarification or discussion, you are welcome to call us at 435-753-2086.

We have tested and proven a blend of microbes over the past 15 years or more that reliably produce a consistent fermentation. You can experiment with your own, or you can save time and buy ours. The price is very reasonable.

I’m in south western Ontario it’s the shipping I’m worried about but I’m definitely interested I’m going to be giving you guys a call soon

@@bmted Do you have a more recent video for this process given that you have updated your methods, would be very interested in that

You are correct in that it takes a long time to build organic carbon in the soil, but the plants don't use that carbon. They use the carbon from the CO2. You can look at our "Using Biology to Maximize Growing Systems" playlist for a more complete explanation.

@@bmted I’m well aware of where plants obtain carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, what chloroplasts are, and where stomata are located. I think you misunderstood my comment. I was specifically referring to the segment on nitrogen vs the importance of CO2 at 1:50, and the segment of the video concerning CO2 starting at 4:09. While the segment at 1:50 states the obvious that plants require more carbon than nitrogen, to farmers who grow plants nitrogen is a much more important consideration due to it being a common limiting factor to plant growth and thus actively managed. CO2 is free, abundant, and no one needs to worry about it unless growing in an unvented closed environment. And besides, carbon comes in second place to abundance in living plant tissue. By far the element of greatest abundance by mass (and thus the most important?) is oxygen in living plants. The segment at 4:09 opens with a claim that “the main structure of a plant is carbon dioxide produced by microbiology”. However CO2 is a colorless gas, and is not the compound responsible for plant structure. What gives plants structure is mainly its cell walls, comprised of polysaccharides such as cellulose, and amorphous polymers like lignin. While these molecules contain carbon as well as oxygen and hydrogen, the carbon comes from CO2 which itself is not directly utilized to create these substances. Instead photosynthesis utilizing sunlight as an energy source uses CO2 and water to produce these molecules through a complex multi-step process. In simple terms, it strips the carbon from the CO2 and releases excess O2 during photosynthesis to the atmosphere. Additionally, plants do not care where the CO2 came from in the atmosphere. It could be from the biologically driven part carbon cycle, from abiotic sources or sinks, or from burning one gallon of gasoline to produce 20 pounds of CO2 while driving your car. The video caption at 4:38 states that “the most important component of the soil atmosphere is carbon dioxide”. For whom or what? Soil microbiological processes are in fact impeded by CO2 because it is a waste product that displaces the oxygen that most beneficial microorganisms require for cellular respiration. Hence why the soil structure is of such critical importance, as the continuous slow exchange of atmospheric oxygen and CO2 in the soil is necessary to get rid of CO2. CO2 is not important nor wanted in soil by microorganisms or the plants themselves. The last sentence of this caption at 4:38 states “Everything that favors growth of microorganisms increases the generation of CO2”. So what’s the point here? The goal isn’t to increase CO2 levels in the soil for the benefit of plants. CO2 production is simply one indicator of metabolic activity, and in turn the relative speed at which mineralization may be taking place. Higher rates of activity don’t necessarily have a positive effect. If we wanted to speed up metabolic activity of soil microorganisms where moisture, C, and N aren’t limiting factors, the most effective way to do so would be through tillage. Tillage resulting in high metabolic rates due to the sudden large influx of oxygen causes soil microorganisms to quickly break down organic matter, and then work on more stable forms of carbon, lowering soil organic carbon (SOC) levels. This loss of SOC ends up adversely impacting soil structure, aggregate formation, water holding capacity, lowering cation exchange capacity (CEC), and contributes to climate change. Achieving the highest rates of metabolic activity possible is certainly not a goal for any farmer. I won’t even start on the F:B ratio part of the video, which in fact cannot be simply manipulated by the farmer through the use of “compost”.