Expert section - MYTHBUSTING - Nitrogen fixers and Deep Tap Rooted Nutrient Accumulators 

There are good actors and bad actors everywhere, in every field, every niche. Some more than others. And if there is money to be made, the more bad actors come out to swindle and steal. Some areas that are heavily with predators are things like cryptocurrency, medicine, farming, meat/veg, etc. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and label all science as bad. Cryptocurrency is a giant scammer party, but that doesn't mean there aren't critical applications (that are green for the planet) that are being developed. Ethereum, nano, these are great examples of world changing technology living in an ecosystem of thieves and bandits. Sure, when tobacco was being marketed as something all the best athletes use, the science that paid for this wasn't unbiased, and thus was flawed. The meat industry is now doing what the tobacco industry did, and pushing propaganda science. But that ALSO doesn't mean that there isn't accurate unbiased science that is Pro-meat, as well as biased "science" that is anti-meat, funded by groups who hope to sell plant based meats. A big indicator of that is what the anti-meat science uses as it's baseline to compare? Do they use industrial agriculture, which everyone knows is terrible, or Silvopasture and regenerative agriculture? Well, what agenda are they pushing? Etc. The world is rife with scammers and liars and bias and agenda. Where it really gets confusing is that this also doesn't mean that plant based meats isn't potentially an incredibly useful technology, even with the inherent bias!!! What an information maze this is, rife with traps and predators, but sometimes those predators are right! Sometimes they are just predators. That's our crazy world that we have to navigate. Same goes for many topics. I am very pro-vaccine in general, but I'm also not blind to the fact that where there is money to be made, one should question the research, especially when there is a conflict of interest in the funding of a thing, ajd the profit of the same thing. I'm certainly not anti vaxx, but I respect people who are, simply because of how muddy those waters are. I'm not anti climate science, or hate climate deniers, because of the same reason. so instead, in those areas, I try to focus on the unifying facts. For climate science, it's that many resources aren't renewable, such as natural materials, coal oil and gas, and biological ones such as life and diversity. So if we can take actions that remedy those things, but they also help with carbon, then we should do it. For example, taking carbon out of the air is a key factor for climate science, but PUTTING carbon into the soils to build a robust food web of life is CRITICAL for the health of our soil biome. So let's do that. We do that with planting more plants and getting more carbon heavy root exudates into the soil. The only consequence of that action is more trees, cleaner air, cleaner water, more animal habitat. That's my approach to these areas of bias in science. I appreciate the sentiment of not trusting science, but let's not have zero faith in science, let's have a heavy skeptical eye towards bias, because there is a lotbof good science being done, ajd it's critical that it gets done, to fight against the biased science that corporations push in order to support their industry's continuation and growth. It wss tobacco and oil in the mid century, but its evident in many places now. The last thing is that the lack of science in an area MAY ONLY indicate a lack of financial incentive to run the science. And if there is a financial incentive to NOT run the science (such as selling fertilizer to farmers) then any science that tries to debunk that, is going to have armies of propaganda science to fight against. So the lack of evidence for something doesn't always mean anything. Failure to prove something isn't proof of failure... especially if the journey to do so isn't even taken. I'm going to pin this comment. I know I went off on a massive tangent here, but the whole discussion is directly centered on the heart of this video... which is to seek information, but also understand that the waters are murky at times, and money muddies all things.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Well said, thank you!

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Well said! I used to be really into science as a kid and still am infinitely curious about how things work. But lately I have been more and more skeptical of mainstream science once I started to follow the money trail. There is good work being done but it is often muddied by massive financial backing by those to stand to gain from a particular outcome. This leads to cherry picking data and spinning of the results by so called "experts". The great thing about gardening is it's not that hard to do our own backyard science. Now it may not be super clinical and we may be introducing our own biases but at least we can see the results for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. Stay curious!

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy this is the approach I like to try and take with these things as well. Sometimes digging through the bias is exhausting though lol

What’s wrong with germ theory?

It looks like permaculture books focus too much on the nodules themselves. I think the overall strategy in the video remains solid though. N fixers mostly provide for themselves. When we just leave them be, they drop leaves, and a lot of that N came from the air. If we chop them, then drop the chopped material, a lot of that N came from the air. At the same time, if the roots die back (seems still to be contentious if they just shrink, or get disassociated), but none the less, even if the nodules themselves aren't a slow release fertilizer pellet, it's still organic material high in N, a lot of which cake from the air. Is that your understanding of it? Anything I have wrong there? I want to make sure my mental model is correct, because I never formally studied this stuff in university. I appreciate your comment so much!

Exactly, nodules aren’t slow release N fertilizer granules, but they are still rich in N (as is the rest of the plant). Another note: rhizobia and N-fixing plants only form that symbiosis when the plant is limited by nitrogen… this means if a n-fixer is happy and healthy in in a N-rich patch of soil, it will not recruit rhizobia to form nodules and fix nitrogen. This means that N-fixers are much more valuable to a nitrogen poor system like a corn field than a lush established climax forest ecosystem. Thanks for responding - your community engagement is top notch!

That last part is very interesting, ajd I've noticed it a lot. I've been digging up a lot of my wilder varieties of seabuckthorn, and I'm noting a huge disparity in nitrogen nodules. Sides of hills and more neglected areas have much more nodules on the roots than areas in my main strip where I tend to focus more attention, more chop and drop, more mulch top upside, and more yellow gold applications around fruit trees. It makes sense and echoes what I'm seeing here. Thanks so much for the comments. I love learning things from you all. Everyone is an expert in something and can teach you something. ❤️

This is 100% true. Failure to provide proof, isn't proof of failure. Especially when there isn't even an attempt to do so, because there is no financial reason to. And even worse, where there IS a financial reason to maintain the status quo.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy this. Ernst Gotsch.

A place to look would be old Soviet records. Don't get me wrong, the Soviet Union was awful for a lot of reasons, but I'm the early days their research really was looking at how to boost food productivity and such for the mass of people. I'm pro Socialism and VERY anti Soviet. But they may have some good stuff.

@@d.w.stratton4078 The information about soviet union comes to us from the same bunch of people who promote vaccines, drugs, monoculture and the like. Its about 90% false, and it would blow peoples minds to discover what actually happened.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Some scientists move past this hurdle and pay for it themselves. I have massive respect for those people. Scientific evidence is worth more than gold.

Thanks!

for sure.

100%

Welcome aboard!

It's a huge part of science for sure.

Man, so many comments I want to pin. This is just such a fantastic comment, as always.

If one was a skeptic, but still open minded, not enough to take a youtube comment as evidence (absolutely no offence meant to you or others) where would one find the information that you speak of? eg; " The plant is engineered to return all of that nutrition to its own root system precisely because its growth rate is so high during the season" Is there somewhere I can confirm this in order to help and/or teach others?

Hi there. What a wealth of info. Would be terrific if you were to create 5 minute content videos like this response, as you walk thru your forest. Some info might be applicable to others more or less but the thinking process is what is common to everyone. 🙏🏼

I enjoy and endorse this comment!❤🙂

That means a lot :)

You’re extremely knowledgeable! What are your thoughts on using Corsican mint for a ground cover in a small space?

Fantastic comment as always Debbie

Yeah but they atract funghi down there

So my understanding is that taproots are not grabbing "nutrients" from deeper sources but minerals. You're absolutely right about topsoil being more fertile, but the different root depth is supposed to draw up minerals not accessible to shallower roots. The Holistic Orchard by Michael Phillips is my source but it's not a scientific text so no cited studies from him.

Amazing comment, all of it. I agree with it all. So many benefits of having robust root systems in the ground. Chopping and dropping, even if they don't actually disassociate the root tissue, and they only shrink it, that's still going to function as more low-resistance water pathways to get water deep, which likely also causes a microbiology explosion, etc. For the last question, the only way would be to take the video down, but what I can do is recommend this one at the end of those ones. It's likely that some of these comments are pervasive in most of my earlier videos, and there's so much good content in those that I think I'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to eradicate any error by deleting videos. It's definitely a tough balance. I will try to mention these things in future videos. One other thing, I find that older videos get almost no views after the first month or so. I think that's just how people devour youtube content. It's also for that same reason that I'm going to focus on "redo-ing" many topics each year, or every 2 years. So many new viewers for example will never run into some of the more important videos I've done, just because they are searching through so many of them, and the habit is to watch the newer stuff.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy if I had to guess, I would postulate that the drop off is that your channel primarily seems to be updates on your garden and progress of this or that. Your most watched videos seem to have concise titles conveying a single topic. The other ones are often more ethereal, and meandering around the garden talking about several points as they come up. Those won't trigger keywords and be searched for often. Nobody is specifically looking for a bunch of people's "updates on chickens". That's not to say they won't enjoy it if they came across it though! I particularly enjoy these because it's fun to see everything in context, but the titles and content probably don't trigger the algorithm to show those kinds of videos to people because it's hard to draw a line between those and other kinds of videos on RU-vid. Whereas "Starting a food forest? My top 6 berries" or whatnot connects to everyone beginning to look into food forests. "An update on the chickens" vs. "3 things I learned after starting a chicken coop" shows maybe how to connect into that more? Anyway, what are your goals? Do you want to monetize? Do you like expressing yourself? I enjoy the updates because they are so relevant and timely, being in a similar climate myself. I don't use your channel for "how to's" I use it precisely for the educational meanderings and that you have a good presence on camera. Playing the algorithm game and "top 3 things" and "5 mistakes I made..." exclusively is exhausting and clickbaity if that's all a channel is IMHO. And the incentives might not be aligned with your intended goals here - you'll have to decide. Edible Acres seems to have struck a nice balance though. Many of their titles are very concise despite always having a bit of meandering as well. Neither of you are the flashy "top X" gardening channels that are annoying which you speak of, where sometimes they don't back up their claims with evidence. Anyway, I watch 90% of your stuff so I don't have any problems myself 😋

Yeah great comment. I've thought a lot about that. If I want to min max and grow as fast as possible, the best way is with "top 10 plants yoy should grow" videos. Or "Walmart hates him, this guy is growing all his own food for free", or similarly stupid things. But I don't like that kind of thing, even if it works, so it's just not me. Then there is the topic based videos. Sometimes I get a hankering to do those, or a activism style video. These take substantially more time to storyboard, film, and edit. 10x more. They are fun to do, and I enjoy making the odd video that is more highly edited. I think its also a good way to bring in new people. But my favorite videos are when I go out in the morning and just walk the land, see something neat, get an idea, and start meandering and discussing. I find them very therapeutic. I also find myself learning more about my land by observing, filming, thinking about what I'm filming, learning from it, etc. Long answer that my focus is definitely not on channel growth, and absolutely not at the cost of being annoying. I know it works. I just hate it so I'm not going to do it. I may do the odd one here and there as a test, so if you see an annoying face reaction thumbnail with a clickbaity title, that's probably me running an experiment, and it will be very infrequent. My main goal is to have fun doing this, because as soon as I don't, I will stop, because the money quite frankly sucks LOL.

Great comment! LOL at the end. Checkmate. Paradox found.

Great comment. I'm nit sure I have the time this year to do the experiments...I know I don't. But I may look into it in future years. The mushrooms can definitely transfer nutrients, which is one of the main reasons we mulch with woodchips.

Not sure in what talks but John kempf has mentioned this sort of thing. Healthier plants get more efficient photosynthesis so don't remove leaves. And his podcast episode with Greg pennyroyal touches on a moment about a similar concept with grapes in viticulture as its also a common practice to stress the plant for a "better" harvest. Forgive me, I think he kind of sprinkles it into a lot but he's plant health focused so it's his mindset.

😀

Thank you kindly 🙏 ☺️

Thanks Lyn 😊

Yeah exactly. At the very least people know about it and can go digging for more info themselves.

You too! ❤️

Thanks!

Great points, 100% agree.

Yeah, and reading through all the comments (such as yours and many others) there are just SO SO Many reasons to do these things still, even if some aspects of them are in "myth" territory. Deep rooted plants provide low resistance water and air pathways down to the ground. SO they are still something we should include in guilds. Chopping and dropping things, even if it doesn't disassociate the root tissue, still shrinks them, doing the exact same thing, low resistance pathways get created. So many factors at play. The best thing we can do is just replicate nature as often and accurate as possible.

I pee on root zone of my plants as well.

This is also what I'm thinking, but as you said, I haven't any proof either, other than analecdotal evidence scattered here and there when pulling a plant. But no controlled experiment, and honestly, no time to actually run one. It would be nice if more research was done on this.

Thanks for watching!

Exactly. N fixers have a huge part to play in a system. Even if all they do is grow leaves using N from the air instead of the soil, that N is returned in the fall during leaf drop. It may not be "fixing" nitrogen in the traditional sense of rhizobium bacteria, but they are still improving nitrogen (and carbon!!) in the soils by dropping leaves which were mostly created from thin air and some rain.

I think this is the most likely example of N fixers working, simply because of how industrial agriculture tills crops like these under.

Indeed it's a great point. I touched on it in a few replies to comments, but the absence of research isn't proof to the contrary, it's just absence of proof.

so so true.

Centuries? I was thinking Mesolithic... It may pre-date the Invention of Agriculture as we know it.

@@jcrockett870 maybe I know it predates my grandad because everything he taught me about gardening is now the new thing. Lolz

@@ponypetedm Good for him.

I've been planting rhubarb instead of comfrey because it's similar in function and... rhubarb pie tastes better.

@@OakSummitNursery Seriously, strawberry-rhubarb pie is the best pie ever, and I pride myself on baking a fine one! But how much rhubarb is enough in the landscape? A handful of vigorous plants provide more than we can possibly eat. After we eat/preserve our fill, I let them flower for the insects, but as is the case with comfrey, I won't be deliberately multiplying my rhubarb. Instead, I'm searching out and adding in a diversity of native plants for wildlife/insects, e.g. wild senna, NJ tea, dotted St. John's wort, shrubby St. John's wort, steeplebush, buttonbush, figworts, etc.

My bunnies eat comfrey and they leave great fertilizer for me so I value it.

Thanks 😊

they're* and nitrogen gas is inorganic not organic.

For sure. This is the main reason why I think they are still worth growing. This video wasn't so much about mythbusting if nitrogen fixers are useful, but just Mythbusting the claims that are made that once planted they pump nitrogen to surrounding plants, which I've heard in permaculture so many times.

All fantastic points. #2 is especially important, because the tap root not only accesses the water deeper, but also provides the low resistance pathway to allow it to actually get down there.

It's always good to have that big picture in mind for sure. I always want to know "why" but sometimes we're decades or centuries from being able to figure out the answer. Sometimes we may not even be capable of understanding something as different to us as plants. I talk about this a lot in my "plant intelligence" video. We know just so little about plants. So often the best we can do is an empirical approach. Try something, see how it works. Try to control all the variables and only change 1, then see how that works. Rince and repeat for the million or so variables and see if we can learn anything at all. But when it comes down to it, we just do our best and try to mimic nature as closely as possible. That's the way to get as close to the mark as we can.

It's honestly such an important way to think. As soon as we start radically departing from what nature has done for billions of years... and each organism has slowly evolved to excel at... and the orchestra of billions of them all working together in this intricate web... it really makes it questionable when we start doing things that doesn't COMPLETELY mimic what nature does. Amazing comment.

I have to say, the loud buzz and drone of leaf blowers every fall makes me despair at the ecological illiteracy of my neighbours. All those leaves are the food for the trees they love having in their yards. Plant Nutrients in Municipal Leaves (1998). Joseph R. Heckman, Ph.D., Extension Specialist in Soil Fertility; Daniel Kluchinski, Mercer County Agricultural Agent; and Donn A. Derr, Ph.D.. Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension. Fact Sheet FS824

and to be clear, I'm not saying nitrogen fixers don't work. There is a long history that they do work. Even if they can grow leaves and get their nitrogen from the air (leaving more soil based nitrogen for other plants), then they are a benefit. The point of contention is that the nitrogen nodules themselves help other plants, and also that some people claim that the nitrogen fixers pump nitrogen to all the surrounding plants.

They are all nuts around them. Lucy is the best, she sits and watches them kindly. If they freak out and flutter about, she will get excited, but if they don't run and if they stay calm she does too. Harry and Ginny are nutso maniacs. They bark and circle and scratch the cage. They get the chickens all riled up and stressed out. So we are trying to work with them one on one. Sit them out there, hold them and pet them and force them to just watch them next to us, without freaking out. It's going to take some time for sure.

That's such a common thing too. I love this comment of yours. The hatred on so many nitrogen fixing trees (many many of them are on invasive lists of conservation authorities) is similar. They are "invasive" in poor soils, because they can get Nitrogen from the air. So when humans cut down forests to build subdivisions and highways, and these pioneers dominate the new disturbed dead soils, they are labeled as invasive. They aren't invasive, they just dominate their niche. As the soil builds from their own leaf drop each season, their niche slowly disappears and other plants now will outcompete THEM. Often humans have such a short time span that we don't see these longer term implications.

dandelions are a great case study for this exact phenomenon. I wish more research was done on them and their ability to capture calcium and return it, and exactly how deep they do this from.

russian olive?

great comment as always, and a great attitude to have in my opinion. For the shrub, I agree it's highly likely either Russian Olive or Autumn Olive, but without a picture it's hard to know. Autumn olive, I did a video on them, so you could find that and compare. Russian Olive is very similar but has beige dusty berries and more of a beige color leaf.

All great points. No barrier is 100%. Also if we want deep roots, we can look no further than native prairie grasses!! They have some insane roots.

don't forget the mycelium networks!

@@ediblelandscaping1504 artificial fertilizers? But the statement "There is zero soil biome" is a bit strange. there is an aerobic environment from the water constantly being stirred. this facilitate microbes, so there should be something.

it's similar to how till agriculture fertilizer systems work, or pure chemical based hydroponics. It's all capillary action that drives the water and nutrients into the plant. This can happen with no microbiology, but chelation cannot happen, so the fertilizer must be chelated, ie. in a plant available form.

Thanks 😊

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy please let me know how you go. There are plenty of others doing regenerative agriculture which includes MS cover cropping. I'd like to see another video about it when you get a handle on the science. The entire NPK system we currently use is so stupid. It's killing the earth and doesn't work on any level. Regenerative agriculture will probably go against everything you've ever learned. Welcome to the new old ways. 💖

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EX6eoxxoWKI.html This might help, good luck!

oh, check out my soil science video. I'm definitely many years into regenerative agriculture side of things. Thanks for watching 😀

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy so you are many years into regenerative ag but still can't find science to back up multi species cover crops? Dr Christine Jones explained it pretty well I thought. You said you didn't understand how it works. Why not just ask her. Never mind. I apologise for wasting your time.

Yeah there is no exception to the rule. As green plants decompose, the nitrogen gets lost faster than the carbon, and they slowly get more brown.

This is the real and best way to think about it.

Great conclusion 👌

ooooh this was extremely interesting, thanks fot posting it. I'm going to have to reread that tomorrow to make sure I understood it properly.

The key difference is there is a lot of good research on optimal time to till the beans/alfalfa under in order to maximize Nitrogen addition. Without the till, the beans are really just growing without taking N, which in itself is pretty good. Most of the N replenishment then comes from rains.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy In the regenerative fields they are not tilling the fields and increasing the yields without fertilizer. The fields they are tilling are having troubles. There are a lot of grant programs encouraging regenerative techniques and avoiding no till. I'll look for the studies and post.

A brilliant point. Anything in this area needs to be approached this way. The natural world is so complex and we know so little about it, that the absence of proof isn't proof it itself. So get out there and try it, see what works, and operate in the empirical space of trial and error. We may always know EXACTLY why something works, but we can control as many factors as possible and isolate good practices, and do those. And the best way to start is to look at nature and replicate what nature does.

I think its very possible. The only thing that may need to be answered first, is WHEN do the nitrogen nodules swell. If they swell in anticipation of flowering and fruiting, and the plant then uses that nitrogen to grow fruit (most N is used for leaves though), or if the plant uses that N towards its end of life, to ensure fertility for the seeds it drops, then it may change things. In short, I don't know, and there is no evidence that supports it scientifically. However, that also doesn't mean it's not potentially true, because if there is no money in the science, then it won't be done. But that doesn't mean it may not be factual. Long answer for.... I don't know. But it sounds feasible and makes logical sense.

I love how you have a marker to measure the soil building (the previously installed drip hose). That lets you know it's working and you are on the right path for soil building. Love it.

Yes this exactly. Even just the leaf fall and decomposition, that also. Most of the nitrogen came from the air, and is then put into the soil in the fall and winter.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy I'm looking for a different system, suitable for the Small Scale (almost subsistence only) Farmers of Africa. We have cheap labour, so stripping the leaves off new growth twigs and INCORPORATING them into the soil, is an option for us that you would not be able to afford. I believe that (a) leaves dropped in your Fall are probably much lower in nutrients (including Nitrogen) than mature leaves in their spring/summer peak condition (by Fall, I suspect that most trees will have tried to withdraw as many of the nutrients in each leaf (to be stored in their root reserves), prior to allowing them to drop) and (b) I believe that, left to decompose on the surface, most of the Nitrogen in any leaves (stripped or fall dropped) will return to the Atmosphere, rather than be absorbed into the soil. Horses for courses; we each have to find a system that is economically suitable for our conditions.

To be clear though, the bioaccumulator label is actually likely true. See linked research in the video description. The contested point is "where" those minerals came from: the deep tap root (deep down), or the lateral roots (surface soil). There is no evidence that the minerals are mined from deep below. However, there IS research showing just how many minerals it accumulates.

@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy good clarification, thanks