Bread From Stones -by Dr. Julius Hensel. (Agricultural Chemist)

The people are sick. When they have low iron, they develop the desire to eat this clay, plaster, chalk, or uncooked meat. They’ll eat eggshells, pull the bark off trees. It’s even written in the medical literature that they will eat building materials.

My father's sheep are behaving strangely this year. First of all, they don't want to graze the grass on their meadow. My father has to cut the grass every day for them from the other parts of the land. Perhaps Hensel was right, perhaps the meadow became too acidic from the manure that sheep produced over the years, and now sheep don't like it anymore.

But another thing is even more interesting. The sheep are eating clay bricks like crazy. They are old homemade bricks, so they are much softer than industrial bricks, so they can be chewed by sheep. They ate a huge pile of it and keep eating it. I know that sheep like to eat dirt from time to time, but I have never seen them eating clay, and in this quantity. Perhaps by not eating enough fresh grass they now have a lack of minerals in their bodies and are finding them in clay.

Now, Hensel never liked clay, to him clay was a soil devoid of minerals. It is something that is left when the plants eat all the minerals from the soil. Maybe some of them have some type of minerals in abundance, but the stones should have much more minerals than clay. Of course, clay is much easier to eat than stones. But stones can be eaten too, if they are dissolved in the river and the animals drink water from the river, as it was practise in the past. But today, animals drink pipe water, so they probably have a lack of minerals.

Two days ago I was at a village festival, and I had the opportunity to observe many people. Some of the villagers had huge bones, their hands were enormous compared to the modern generations. Their muscles are normally developed, nothing like on bodybuilders, but their bones are much bigger. And nobody is paying attention to that and trying to find the answer to their unusual physique. How did they develop such big bones? Bodybuilders are also working out very hard, but they don't develop such big bones.

When it comes to the clay, clay is good for bacteria, bacteria love clay and clay allows them to better attach to our intestines. So clay is healthy but for different reason than stones.

Administration of probiotics to regulate the immune system is a potential anti-tumor strategy. However, oral administration of probiotics is ineffective because of the poor inhabitation of exogenous bacteria in host intestines. Here we report that smectite, a type of mineral clay and established anti-diarrhea drug, promotes expansion of probiotics (especially Lactobacillus) in the murine gut and subsequently elicits anti-tumor immune responses. The ion-exchangeable microstructure of smectite preferentially promotes lactic acid bacteria (LABs) to form biofilms on smectite in vitro and in vivo. In mouse models, smectite laden with LAB biofilms (Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium) inhibits tumor growth (when used alone) and enhances the efficacy of chemotherapy or immunotherapy (when used in combination with either of them) by activating dendritic cells (DCs) via Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) signaling. Our findings suggest oral administration of smectite as a promising strategy to enrich probiotics in vivo for cancer immunotherapy.

 
Mineral chelators are also used for plant fertilization:

Understanding and Applying Chelated Fertilizers Effectively Based on Soil pH

Plant nutrients are one of the environmental factors essential for crop growth and development. Nutrient management is crucial for optimal productivity in commercial crop production. Those nutrients in concentrations of = 100 parts per million (ppm) in plant tissues are described as micronutrients and include iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), boron (B), chlorine (Cl), molybdenum (Mo), and nickel (Ni). Micronutrients such as Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu are easily oxidized or precipitated in soil, and their utilization is, therefore, not efficient. Chelated fertilizers have been developed to increase micronutrient utilization efficiency. This publication provides an overview of chelated fertilizers and considerations for their use to county Extension faculty, certified crop advisers (CCAs), crop consultants, growers, and students who are interested in commercial crop production.

What is chelated fertilizer?

The word chelate is derived from the Greek word chelé, which refers to a lobster's claw. Hence, chelate refers to the pincer-like way in which a metal nutrient ion is encircled by the larger organic molecule (the claw), usually called a ligand or chelator. Table 1 lists common natural or chemical synthetic ligands (Havlin et al. 2005; Sekhon 2003). Each of the listed ligands, when combined with a micronutrient, can form a chelated fertilizer. Chelated micronutrients are protected from oxidation, precipitation, and immobilization in certain conditions because the organic molecule (the ligand) can combine and form a ring encircling the micronutrient. The pincer-like way the micronutrient is bonded to the ligand changes the micronutrient's surface property and favors the uptake efficiency of foliarly applied micronutrients.

Why is chelated fertilizer needed?

Because soil is heterogeneous and complex, traditional micronutrients are readily oxidized or precipitated. Chelation keeps a micronutrient from undesirable reactions in solution and soil. The chelated fertilizer improves the bioavailability of micronutrients such as Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn, and in turn contributes to the productivity and profitability of commercial crop production. Chelated fertilizers have a greater potential to increase commercial yield than regular micronutrients if the crop is grown in low-micronutrient stress or soils with a pH greater than 6.5. To grow a good crop, crop nutrient requirements (CNRs), including micronutrients, must be satisfied first from the soil. If the soil cannot meet the CNR, chelated sources need to be used. This approach benefits the plant without increasing the risk of eutrophication.

Several factors reduce the bioavailability of Fe, including high soil pH, high bicarbonate content, plant species (grass species are usually more efficient than other species because they can excrete effective ligands), and abiotic stresses. Plants typically utilize iron as ferrous iron (Fe2+). Ferrous iron can be readily oxidized to the plant-unavailable ferric form (Fe3+) when soil pH is greater than 5.3 (Morgan and Lahav 2007). Iron deficiency often occurs if soil pH is greater than 7.4. Chelated iron can prevent this conversion from Fe2+ to Fe3+.

Applying nutrients such as Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu directly to the soil is inefficient because in soil solution they are present as positively charged metal ions and will readily react with oxygen and/or negatively charged hydroxide ions (OH-). If they react with oxygen or hydroxide ions, they form new compounds that are not bioavailable to plants. Both oxygen and hydroxide ions are abundant in soil and soilless growth media. The ligand can protect the micronutrient from oxidization or precipitation. Figure 1 shows examples of the typical iron deficiency symptoms of lychee grown in Homestead, Florida, in which the lychee trees have yellow leaves and small, abnormal fruits. Applying chelated fertilizers is an easy and practical correction method to avoid this nutrient disorder. For example, the oxidized form of iron is ferric (Fe3+), which is not bioavailable to plants and usually forms brown ferric hydroxide precipitation (Fe(OH)3). Ferrous sulfate, which is not a chelated fertilizer, is often used as the iron source. Its solution should be green. If the solution turns brown, the bioavailable form of iron has been oxidized and Fe is therefore unavailable to plants.

In the soil, plant roots can release exudates that contain natural chelates. The nonprotein amino acid, mugineic acid, is one such natural chelate called phytosiderophore (phyto: plant; siderophore: iron carrier) produced by graminaceous (grassy) plants grown in low-iron stress conditions. The exuded chelate works as a vehicle, helping plants absorb nutrients in the root-solution-soil system (Lindsay 1974). A plant-excreted chelate forms a metal complex (i.e., a coordination compound) with a micronutrient ion in soil solution and approaches a root hair. In turn, the chelated micronutrient near the root hair releases the nutrient to the root hair. The chelate is then free and becomes ready to complex with another micronutrient ion in the adjacent soil solution, restarting the cycle.

Chemical reactions between micronutrient chelates and soil can be avoided by using a foliar application. Chelated nutrients also facilitate nutrient uptake efficiency for foliar application because crop leaves are naturally coated with wax that repels water and charged substances, such as ferrous ions. The organic ligand around the chelated micronutrient can penetrate the wax layer, thus increasing iron uptake (Figure 2). Compared to traditional iron fertilization, chelated iron fertilization is significantly more effective and efficient (Figure 3) than non-chelated fertilizer sources.

Therefore, chelated fertilization can improve micronutrient use efficiency and make micronutrient fertilization more cost effective. The images in Figure 3 show the difference in three treatments with lychee: chelated Fe(II) is greener than FeSO4 plus sulfuric acid, and FeSO4 plus sulfuric acid is greener than no iron fertilization (Schaffer et al. 2011).

Which crops often need chelated fertilizers?

Vegetable and fruit crop susceptibility to micronutrients differs significantly (Table 2). For those in the highly or moderately susceptible categories, chelated fertilizers are often needed. For those with low susceptibility, no chelated fertilizers are needed unless the soil is low in micronutrient bioavailability, as demonstrated by a soil test. Soil pH is a major factor influencing micronutrient bioavailability; therefore, if soil pH is greater than 6.5, then the soil may have limited micronutrient bioavailability, and chelated fertilizers may be needed.

Which chelated fertilizer should be used?

The ligands EDTA, DTPA, and EDDHA are often used in chelated fertilizers (Table 4). Their effectiveness differs significantly. EDDHA chelated Fe is most stable at soil pH greater than 7 (Figure 4, A and B). Chelated fertilizer stability is desired because it means the chelated micronutrient will remain in a bioavailable form for a much longer time period, thus increasing micronutrient use efficiency in vegetable and fruit production. The stability of three typical chelated Fe fertilizers varies at different pH conditions (Figure 4, A). The Y-axis represents the ratio of chelated Fe to total chelate and ranges from 0 to 1.0. A value of 1.0 means the chelate is stable. The X-axis represents soil pH. At 6.0, the ratios for all three chelated Fe fertilizers are 1.0 (stable), but at pH 7.5, only the ratio of EDDTA chelated Fe is 1.0. That of DTPA chelated Fe is only 0.5, and that of EDTA chelated Fe is only 0.025. So, in practice, EDDTA chelated Fe fertilizer is most effective when pH is greater than 7 but most costly. Accordingly, crop yields of these three chelated fertilizers are in this order: FeEDDHA > FeDTPA > FeEDTA (Figure 4, B). See Micronutrient Deficiencies in Citrus: Iron, Zinc, and Manganese (SL 204/SS423: Micronutrient Deficiencies in Citrus: Iron, Zinc, and Manganese) for effective pH ranges of iron chelates. Table 3 shows the relationship between soil pH and chelated fertilizer requirement.

Correction of Fe deficiency depends on individual crop response and many other factors. For instance, for vegetables, the rate is usually 0.4–1 lb. chelated Fe in 100 gal. of water per acre. Deciduous fruits need 0.1–0.2 lb. chelated Fe in 25 gal. of water per acre (Table 5). Foliar application is more effective than soil application. For foliar application, either inorganic or chelated Fe is effective, but for fertigation, chelated Fe should be used. In high pH soil, crops are also vulnerable to Cu deficiency stresses. Chelated Cu is significantly more effective than inorganic Cu. A commonly used copper chelate is Na2CuEDTA, which contains 13% Cu. Natural organic materials have approximately 0.5% Cu (Table 5).

In addition to soil pH, Mn is also influenced by aeration, moisture, and organic matter content. Chelated Mn can improve Mn bioavailability. Mn deficiency occurs more often in high pH and dry soil. Similar to other micronutrients, foliar spray is much more effective than soil application. For commercial vegetable production, 0.2–0.5 lb. MnEDTA in 200 gal. of water per acre can effectively correct Mn deficiency (Table 5). Zinc is another micronutrient whose bioavailability is closely associated with soil pH. Crops may be susceptible to Zn deficiency in soil with pH > 7.3. Spraying 0.10–0.14 lb. chelated Zn in 100 gal. of water per acre is effective (Poh et al. 2009). Animal waste and municipal waste also contain Cu, Mn, and Zn micronutrients (Table 5).


If we apply the same logic to human beings, then we would also want to have a lower pH in the intestines for the best absorption of minerals. And how do we accomplish that? By increasing the number of probiotics in our intestines.

 
And then there is gold...

Scientists Mine Gold With Alfalfa

As a child growing up in the mining village of Parral in northern Mexico, Jorge Gardea-Torresdey learned quickly about the devastation that resulted from the effort to extract gold and silver from land around his community.

Toxic chemicals, including cyanide and mercury, leached into the soil, leaving it useless for anything else, and even as a kid he figured there had to be a better way.

That's why today he has an alfalfa field growing near his lab at the University of Texas, El Paso.

Don't laugh. Those alfalfa plants are mining gold. And if his research continues to hit pay dirt, someday gold used in everything from medical procedures to high-tech industries might well come from fields of alfalfa.

Using Plants as Tools

So far, his plants have produced only nanoparticles of gold — tiny specks less than a billionth of a meter in diameter — but Gardea thinks they are capable of a much more prodigious output.

"I think we can get 20 percent of the weight of the plant in gold," he says. "That could be possible."

The success he and his colleagues have had so far, he says, amounts to a childhood dream come true. It turns out that he happened to be the right person, at the right place, at the right time.

His passion for chemistry began as a high school student when he worked in the laboratory at one of the mines near his village. Years later, he finished his graduate study just as a new field was emerging. Scientists were experimenting with using trees and plants to extract toxic materials from the ground.

The process, called phytoremediation, relies on the natural ability of some plants to take up materials, even heavy metals, through their roots. Scientists across the country are experimenting with using the process to clean up toxic spills ranging from explosive materials to hydrocarbons.

Gardea plunged into the field nearly a decade ago, working mainly with alfalfa.

"We found that alfalfa can take up metal more than other plants," he says, suggesting that it is probably suitable for cleaning up some highly toxic sites. The plant concentrates the metal in its shoots, making it possible to remove the hazardous material from the area.




 
I stumbled on that this morning. The original was in French and I will paste it below. Although I find the subject of soil to be related to this topic here, I looked up the content summary for the promoted book, and I'm not sure if they discuss the soil topic in it. It still seems like an interesting book to read.

soil.jpg

Translated with Google:
These samples are of the same soil type and have been in corn-bean rotation for over 20 years, but their treatment was very different. The soil on the left has not been plowed or fertilized with anhydrous ammonia in over 20 years and has benefited from a cover crop of rye. The soil on the right has been plowed every year, as well as fertilized with anhydrous ammonia in the fall.
This photo was taken approximately 2 minutes after the samples were submerged in water.

The plowed soil practically “exploded” as soon as it hit the water. Repeated tilling of the soil destroyed its structure, removing interstitial space and the biological “glue” that helps hold the soil together, and as a result the soil fell apart. On the contrary, through minimal soil disturbance, the no-till soil has excellent interstitial space and extensive biological activity, which has given the soil a healthy structure that can withstand water shock.

In less than 5 minutes, the plowed soil was completely gone, while the untilled soil remained almost entirely intact.
We wanted to see how long this could last and continued adding water (to compensate for evaporation) for several weeks. We stopped after 6 weeks, during which the unplowed soil sample was still 95% intact. To find out how to protect our soils and lands, our book "Forêts" explain everything. Sold by “La Relève et La Peste”, an independent publishing house.

Book topic: Communication and intelligence of trees, History of trees, Deforestation and clear-cutting, How to replant a forest?, Learning about wild gathering, The call of the forest, How does the forest play an essential role in our health?


FRENCH:
Ces échantillons sont du même type de sol et sont en rotation de maïs-fèves depuis plus de 20 ans, mais leur traitement a été très différent. Le sol de gauche n’a pas été labouré ni fertilisé avec de l’ammoniac anhydre depuis plus de 20 ans et il a bénéficié d’une culture de couverture de seigle. Le sol de droite a été labouré chaque année, ainsi que fertilisé avec de l’ammoniac anhydre à l’automne.
Cette photo a été prise environ 2 minutes après que les échantillons aient été plongés dans l’eau.

Le sol labouré a pratiquement « explosé » dès qu’il a touché l’eau. Le labourage répété du sol a détruit sa structure, supprimant l’espace interstitiel et la « colle » biologique qui aide à maintenir le sol cohérent, et par conséquent le sol s’est désagrégé. Au contraire, grâce à une perturbation minimale du sol, le sol non labouré a un excellent espace interstitiel et une activité biologique étendue, ce qui a conféré au sol une structure saine qui peut résister aux chocs de l’eau.

En moins de 5 minutes, le sol labouré avait complètement disparu, tandis que le sol non labouré est resté presque entièrement intact.
Nous avons voulu voir combien de temps cela pouvait durer et nous avons continué à ajouter de l’eau (pour compenser l’évaporation) pendant plusieurs semaines. Nous avons arrêté après 6 semaines, pendant lesquelles l’échantillon de sol non labouré était encore intact à 95%. Pour découvrir comment protéger nos sols et nos terres, notre livre "Forêts" vous explique tout. Vendu aux éditions "La Relève et La Peste", une maison d’édition indépendante.

Sujet du livre: Communication et intelligence des arbres, Histoire de l’arbre, Déforestation et coupe rase, Comment replanter une forêt ?, Apprentissage de la cueillette sauvage, L’appel de la forêt, Comment la forêt joue un rôle essentiel sur notre santé ?

----------------

While on the subject of soil and replanting a forest, does anyone know of Ernst Götsch in Brazil?
What this man achieved is impressive and he is a role model in terms of sustainable agriculture.
He reforested 480 hectares of dead abused soil from scratch and without irrigation or chemicals.

Ernst Götsch
(born 1948) is a Swiss farmer and researcher working mostly in Brazil. He has advocated for an ancient system of climate and biodiversity-friendly sustainable farming techniques known as syntropic agriculture.

Aware that the answers he looked for would not come from the laboratory, he resigned, and in 1974, leased areas in Switzerland and Germany to begin his experiments in the field. Influenced by the theories of Ecological Agriculture launched by Hans Peter Rush and Hans Müller, he systematically combined the cultivation of vegetables, roots, and grains, in search for beneficial cooperations that resulted in greater productivity. He took an important step by integrating fruit cultivation into his designs, and observed the benefits the trees brought to the system, thanks to their biomass from the woods and the positive interactions with other species. He proposed to increase the diversity of the consortia, including not only short cycle species but all stages of a forest occupation – from pioneer (placenta) to climax. He then understood deeply that the dynamics of natural succession should be incorporated into agriculture, favoring, as in a forest, the establishment of ecosystems with increasing levels of organization. In that period, one of his conclusions was that the health of the plant did not depend exclusively on the treatment given to it as an individual. Neither was the rotation of crops or consortia. It was necessary to consider the ecosystem as a whole, including intraspecific and interspecific relationships.

The results of his experiments have given him job offers in other countries. In Namibia and Costa Rica he applied his ideas in different climatic and social contexts, which brought him closer to the tropics. The migration to Brazil was the consequence of a partnership with a fellow countryman – a landowner in Bahia who wanted to enter the cocoa market and invited Ernst to manage the venture. The previous owner had extracted the timber to supply his own sawmill, and when there was no tree left to cut, he converted the land into pasture. In 1982 Ernst moves with his family to the 480 hectares intended to the project. In addition to the job opportunity, it would also be a chance to test whether the methods he had developed in Europe and especially in Costa Rica would serve the dual purpose of reversing soil degradation and establishing a productive cacao plantation. In the following years, he reforested the property, introducing cocoa as a key crop, and published the results in Breakthrough in Agriculture” (1995). At that time, his work was known as Successional Agroforestry.

Here is a 2 min intro to his land and achievements:

This other video interviews large-scale ex-traditional farmers who tried and perfected his method:

He has 59 videos on Vimeo and only 43 on Youtube. So it seems more active on Vimeo. They are mostly in Portuguese but should have English subtitles.
 
Julius Hensel also promoted something which he called physiological salt water. I don't know how healthy would this be.

Still better than Glauber’s salts (sulphate of soda) and common salts is a mixture of salts exactly corresponding to the composition of the salty portion of the blood, and containing besides Glauber’s salt and ordinary salt, sulphate of potash and phosphate of soda. All these salts combine in their tendency to form combinations with the glycocoll of the different parts of the body, as also with the urea which exists in posse in the bases creatin, sarcin, xanthin &c. By such natural salts of the blood the flesh substance is preserved from decay and putrefaction, i. e. from chemical disintegration.

A mixture of salts formed in faithful imitation of the salty contents of the blood I term physiological normal salt* and a solution of 1/4 ounce of it in 1 quart of water I simply call physiological salt water.

By drinking this “physiological salt-water” the most natural means of transfusing blood is provided, as it corresponds in composition to the serum of the blood and is absorbed in the intestines by the lymphatics whence it passes through the lymph to the blood. The lymph being at once electrified and rendered capable of resisting chemical decomposition, the whole organism is beneficially affected, for the electric “fluid” passing along the walls of the chyle-vessels passes into the whole system, the result being that the effect on the patient is immediately visible. This weak solution of salts does not introduce anything of a foreign nature into the body, but only adds substances which are absolutely indispensible, as at least 1/4 oz of salts are passed off by the urine every 24 hours as a consequence of the oxidation caused by breathing, and must be restored to the system, else the amount of bodily electricity will be diminished. It consequently forms a beverage suitable for every condition.

Macrobiotic

Glauber’s salt is a form of sodium sulfate. It can be found in some mineral waters.

Phosphate soda was once a popular drink in America:


Potassium sulfate can be found in another popular drink, Club soda:

 
In the end, in his book, Macrobiotic, Hensel was promoting the salts and minerals, in different forms. Now, people who study medicine, when thinking about salts and minerals, they think about enzymes and hormones and stuff like that. But what if there is another important aspect of the story that they are not paying much attention? What if that story is about electrical conductivity? What if Hensel was basically promoting electrolytes?

And what else can we do to improve the conductivity of the human body?

In clinical practice, bioimpedance signals are obtained by injecting a low-frequency electric current into the body. Since blood is a highly conductive material when compared with the surrounding tissues and organs (lungs, bones, muscles, etc.), the electric current travels preferentially through the blood vessels. Therefore, bioimpedance signals are highly sensitive to changes in the electrical conductivity of blood [4,5,6]. The electrical current primarily flows through the blood plasma, as red blood cells (RBCs) are electrically non-conductive at the frequencies relevant to impedance measurements, i.e., up to electrical frequencies of 1 MHz [7,8]. Because of their non-conductive nature, RBC concentration and complex motions significantly influence the electrical conductivity of blood. A higher concentration of RBCs results in an increased presence of non-conductive material within the blood, reducing the overall conductivity. When red blood cells form channel-like pathways within blood vessels, it facilitates an easier flow of electrical current through the conductive plasma, increasing the overall conductivity.


We know that proteins, RBC and hemoglobin decrease conductivity of blood. Maybe that is the reason why in religious ceremonies there is a ban on eating meat for a certain period of time before the ceremonies?


It has been found that patients with normocytic anemias have bloods of a higher specific conductivity than do normal people

 
Hensel also talked about unhealthy moist air:

In marshy districts, such as Holland, where dense vapor presses on the ground; in fortresses surrounded by moats containing stagnant water, and in plains in the neighborhood of bodies of water with mountain chains behind them impeding the movement and dissipation of the exhalations, as is the case at Hoboken on the Hudson with the Jersey Heights behind; further in tropical regions during the wet season or when swarms of mosquitoes and flies hatched from the marshes fill the air, the atmosphere is as poor in oxygen as it is in electricity. For as already pointed out, the layer of vapor naturally presses upwards the dry and consequently electric layers of the atmosphere and raises them above itself.

It is due to this fact that both mountaineers and those dwelling in the upper stories of our modern stone palaces are more secure from diseases than those living on the ground floor who are exposed to the operation of the moist ground which conducts away electricity.
In damp and musty dwellings we fall a prey to crick in the neck and rheumatism, and foggy air produces epidemic catarrh (Russian Influenza?). On the other hand yellow fever cannot reach 3000 ft above the sea-level, since there the peculiar electricity of air in motion is communicated to our bodies.

The truth of this proposition is shown even in the case of lifeless flesh. Thus while on the coast of Brazil meat must be boiled or roasted on the day the animal is killed, to prevent its spoiling, and for the same reason human bodies must be buried on the day of death, on the other hand meat hung out to dry on the high points of the Grison Alps or the Cordilleras never decomposes at all.

We are all healthier in a dry atmosphere on a sandy soil which holds the electricity, than we are in moist regions which carry off the proper electricity from our bodies. The loss of electricity originally affects only the nerves of the skin, since electricity naturally collects on the surface of the body whence it radiates; but since the nerve material forms an integral system, the condition of the external nerves is soon communicated to the nervous material of the inner surfaces and consequently to all the glandular organs.

To this should be added the protection of suitable clothing to protect against injury from humid foggy air, which conducts away man’s electricity. To breathe dry wintery air 'is not only not injurious but as we see in Davos even wholesome.

Macrobiotic
 
Hensel also talked about unhealthy moist air:
So according to this, winter is good, as are mountains and deserts. What about living near the ocean? There is sand but it's humid, although not as marshes since the air circulates and the movement of the waves creates negative ions which is supposed to be healthy. Any thoughts on this?
 
What about living near the ocean? There is sand but it's humid, although not as marshes since the air circulates and the movement of the waves creates negative ions which is supposed to be healthy. Any thoughts on this?

According to Hensel, everything that blocks the movement of humid air will create an unhealthy environment. He gives several examples of such places near the ocean:

Yellow fever is endemic in the equatorial regions, replete with watery vapors, on the west coast of Madagascar where the mountain range that traverses the island and the mountainous ridges on the opposite coast of Mozambique, in consequence of the rotation of the earth from West to East, impede the escape of the watery vapors that have been formed under the equatorial sun, so also on the Gulf on Guinea where the steep mountains prevent the escape northward of the masses of vapors raised from the sea. In addition it rages along the flat coasts of the gulf of Mexico up into the broad valley of the Missisippi, where owing to the revolution of the earth the vapors are banked up against the western mountain ranges and also along the East coast of North America as far up as Philadelphia; in these cases the Rocky Mountains, the Apalachian and the Alleghany Mountains obstruct the escape of the heavy watery vapors.

While we have thus delineated the chief regions where yellow fever rages, there are similar conditions in Asia — along the coasts of the Bay of Bengal where the high mountains of Tibet present an insurmountable wall nearly half a geographical mile in height, to the vapors which rise from the Indian ocean—here we encounter the Indian Cholera. When we study the case of the city of Cairo, situated in the flat coast district of the Mediterranean, and deprived of electricity as it is under certain conditions of weather and in certain years by the basin of the Red Sea which being enclosed by mountainous ridges collects a mass of vapor, thus giving rise to cholera; and when further we see in the Bay of Bengal, where the conditions are still more unfavorable both plague and cholera breaking out, there is really no need to hunt with the microscope for a “bacillus” as the cause of cholera, and to steam from Alexandria to India for the purpose of trying whether the Alexandrian bacillus can be transmitted to Indian Apes.

Macrobiotic
 
Here is one article that claims that the problem of acid soils is not in the acidity per se, but in the loss of fertility because of loss of minerals:

Soil Acidity is a Deficiency of Fertility

Acidity is a common soil condition in many parts of the temperate zone. It occurs where the rainfall gives water enough to go down through and to wash out much of the fertility. In general, if the rainfall is high enough to provide plenty of water during the crop-growing season, there will also be enough water to leach the soil of much of its supply of nutrients and to make it acid.

Natural soil acidity is in reality, then, mainly a shortage of fertility in terms of many plant nutrients. This is the situation because the soil has been under cropping and leaching for ages. This was true before we took over to intensify these effects.

A Little Science Led Us Astray

It was the growing agricultural science of the early decades of the twentieth century that brought liming of the soil back as a more general agricultural practice. We cannot say that liming was an art carried over from colonial days. It had been pushed out when fertilizers came into use. Liming the soil has become an extensive practice under the encouragement of an embryo soil-testing service. That service was guided by the belief that the applications, (a) of limestone which is a carbonate of calcium, (b) of hydrated lime which is an alkaline calcium hydroxide, or (c) of quicklime, caustic oxide of calcium, are all beneficial for crop growth because each of these is ammunition in the fight against soil acidity, or against the high concentration of hydrogen in the soil.

This struggle to drive the hydrogen ion, or acidity, out of the soil was aided by the technological advancements giving us instruments and equipments that measured the hydrogen ion to a finer degree than known before. The ease and speed with which soil acidity could be detected and measured encouraged the widespread testing of soils. This activity discovered soil acidity almost everywhere. Through the help of the measuring gadgets we were impressed by the apparent universality of soil acidity. Only a few humid soils were not seriously stocked with acid. We discovered that for acid soils, in general, the productivity was lower as the degree of acidity was higher. From such a discovery we might expect ourselves to conclude–even though it was later found to be the wrong conclusion–that the presence of the large amount of hydrogen ions in the soil was the cause of the poor crops. This conclusion would be expected also from the bigger troubles in growing the proteinaceous, mineral-rich legumes of higher feeding values.

The extensive use of limestone in the corn belt has now multiplied itself into the millions of tons of these natural rock fragments that are annually mixed through the soil. This increased use was prompted by the beliefs (a) that limestone is beneficial because its carbonate removes the acidity of the soil, and (b) that soil is most productive if it is neutral, or when it has no active hydrogen ions in it. Under these beliefs (now known to be poorly founded) we have become belligerent foes of soil acidity. Limestone has become the ammunition for fighting this enemy hidden in the soil. Under national financial aid we have been prone to believe that in putting limestone on the soil we can follow the old adage which says “If a little is good, more will be better.” We are just now coming around to a better understanding of how Nature grew crops on the acid soils before we did. We are now beginning to understand what limestone really does when it makes better crops.

More Science Shows Limestone Feeds Crops While It Fights Soil Acidity

Only recently have we recognized the fallacious reasoning behind the conclusion that it must be the presence of the acidity in the soil that brings the crop failure when liming lessens the soil acidity and makes better crops at the same time. While the convenience of soil testing gadgets encouraged this erroneous belief about soil acidity as an enemy, it was the diligent study of the physiology of the plants, of the colloidal behavior of the clays growing them, and the chemical analyses of all these, that finally pointed out the errors of such hasty conclusions. It pointed out that soil acidity is not detrimental, but is in reality beneficial.

We now know, of course, that in applying the limestone, which is calcium carbonate, there is possibly some reduction of acidity by the carbonate portion. At the same time there is being applied also some calcium–a nutrient highly deficient in the leached soils–to nourish the calcium-starved crops. This nutritional service comes about both directly and indirectly. We have finally learned that it is this better nourishment of the crop rather than any change in the degree of acidity of the soil that gives us the bigger and better crops. Unwittingly we have been fertilizing the crops with calcium while fighting the soil acidity with the carbonate, the hydroxide, or the oxide of lime.

In spite of our ignorance of how the lime functions, we have benefited by using it. However, an erroneous understanding of what happens to the crop and to the soil when we lime cannot successfully lead us very far into the future. We cannot continue to grow better feeds under the mistaken belief that we do so merely by the removal of the soil acidity through the use of plenty of carbonates on our humid soils. Wise management of the soil to grow nutritious feeds can scarcely be well founded on facts so few and so simple.

Better Nourishment

We now know that instead of saying that acidity has come into our soils we should say the soil fertility has gone out. Legumes which make good feed for milk-producing animals must have fertile but yet acid soils from which to make the feed that will be good. Lime is one of the foremost fertilizers in making soils capable of supporting the protein-producing crops. For this service to plants, phosphorus is also needed. Then, too, a plant needs potassium to make the carbohydrates from which the proteins can be constructed through the help of these soil-borne nutrients. Not only one element but many nutrient elements are needed. These are taken out of the soil as the plant trades hydrogen as acid for them. Consequently the highly acid soil is simply one that has become deficient in fertility.

We can grow legume crops on acid soils if we will give them calcium and all the other fertilizers needed by the soil to grow them. Red clover was commonly said to be sensitive to acid soils. Yet liming the millions of acres has not restored this crop to those extensive areas. The high cost of its seed is sufficient testimony of the crop’s scarcity today. This crop usually needs potassium, or phosphorus, or possibly other fertility elements on a soil deficient to the point of being naturally very acid. Then, too, when a soil is properly fertilized, red clover will grow even if the soil is highly acid. We now know that the soil acidity is not the problem in growing the legumes. The production of these protein-producing crops is a matter of ample soil fertility among which the calcium is only one nutrient. If we provide this one by means of limestone and then add all the other necessary fertilizer nutrients for the soil in question, we can grow legumes of highly nutritious values as feed without removing all of the soil acidity. Growing legumes is a matter of feeding these crops, and not a matter of fighting soil acidity.

Soybeans came in as a “new” legume crop. They were reported to “grow on acid soils.” But on such soils they were also reported to be “a hay crop and not a seed crop.” We did not realize that if they were not building proteins and other complexes demanding soil fertility to make a seed crop and that consequently they could not be a nutritious hay in these respects. Soybeans need lime, too, if they are to give good feed. They are showing growth troubles when the soils are not well supplied with magnesium. They are also reporting the need for manganese on some soils. Soybeans can be grown on an acid soil that is fertile in more respects than in calcium only.

We need no longer hunt for “acid tolerant” legumes. Any plant that is well nourished tolerates acidity. It causes the soil to become acid when it takes the fertility from it. The root itself is acid and makes the surrounding soil area acid by the carbonic acid it respires. It is this carbonic acid by which the plant carries on the business of taking calcium, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and its whole array of nutrients from the soil. It trades hydrogen or acid for them. Acidity is therefore “natural” for any plant.

Growing legumes is not a problem of getting rid of the acidity of the soil. On the soils where we say acidity is a problem, the problem is one of putting in place of the acidity the list of plant nutrients lost excessively from the soil as it became acid. Legumes that make tons of vegetative mass on so-called ”acid” soils do not make the nutrient values or quality of feeds made by those other legumes we say are “failing” on acid soils. We can grow some legumes on naturally acid soils but they will not be the equal in feed value of those on soils once naturally acid soils but given other fertility as well as some calcium in the belief that it was removing acidity. Good feed can be grown on acid soils provided that they are given the fertility required by the plant to manufacture it. Soil acidity is a problem because it means that so much fertility has gone out to let so much hydrogen come in.


So we can see how we got such a lack of minerals in our diet. First, we started putting artificial fertilizers with just three minerals (N, P and K) in them. And then, we added one more (calcium) to fight the acidity of the soil. But we forgot to add all the other minerals which are needed for plant, animal and our health.

Like I said in the other post on the forum, I think that falling rocks from the space would be a blessing for the life on the Earth, from this perspective. It would literally fertilize the surface of the planet with minerals and rejuvenate the biosphere.
 
Compost Tea
It's a great way to fertilize for farmers. It also helps reduce the cost of purchasing fertilizers.
It's a well-balanced, organic supplement made by steeping aged compost in water. It improves soil structure, reduces water stress, and is an ideal alternative to toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers

Does compost tea increase yield?
Moreover, the 1:25 compost tea extract, whether applied to soil or foliage, notably improved vegetative growth parameters such as stem internode count, plant height, and leaf count per plant. Both soil and foliar application of compost tea resulted in significant increases in yield and average fruit weight.

Can compost tea cause nutrient burn?
Compost tea is not able to burn plants because, by its very nature, it is a diluted extract of compost which contains a diverse population of beneficial microbes and nutrients in a gentle organic form, making it easy for plants to absorb without causing burning.
 
I sent an email to a soil scientist about Hensel's 'remineralization-only' approach to agriculture. The response basically confirms my own thoughts and research. Remineralization is important, but without organic matter and a robust soil food web (aka a multi-tiered and biodiverse microbiome fed by adequate applications of compost or manure) these minerals will not be readily taken up by plants. Hensel made it into an 'either/or' opposition - remineralization VS. organic matter - when the current science suggests that the best approach is 'both/and'.

The response in full:

The idea that plants can grow well or better without organic inputs or chemical fertilizers, based only on remineralization, is interesting and controversial. Remineralization benefits are actual, mainly when used to replenish the mineral content of soils, and the scientific literature suggests that it is insufficient for optimal plant growth, especially in agricultural practices.

Dr. Elaine Ingham’s work emphasizes that the soil microbiome is vital in supporting plant health. As you are learning in our Foundation Courses, the soil food web, via the microorganisms present in the soil, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes, is responsible for breaking down organic matter and transforming it into plant-available nutrients. This process is crucial for the continuous release of nutrients, which remineralization alone cannot provide.

Rock dust supplies minerals and trace elements necessary for long-term soil health and plant nutrition. However, these minerals need to be made bioavailable to plants. And here is where the soil microbiome and organic matter come in. Organic matter provides food for soil organisms, which helps break down organic and mineral materials into forms plants can absorb.

Research supports (some citations below) the necessity of organic matter for building soil structure, retaining moisture, and supporting microbial life. Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2004) showed that organic amendments improve soil properties such as water retention, nutrient cycling, and microbial activity, which are essential for plant growth and health. Without sufficient organic inputs, the soil biology and structure deteriorate, reducing nutrient availability and plant health.

As for Hensel’s work, his concept of remineralization was groundbreaking in its time (late 19th century). However, new advances in soil science show that minerals alone cannot sustain plant growth indefinitely. The scientific community supports that plant health requires techniques that balance remineralization with organic inputs, ensuring that the soil has the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics necessary for healthy, productive plants.

In summary, while remineralization is beneficial, it is not a substitute for organic matter and its contributions to soil biology. Organic inputs, like compost or cover crops, replenish the carbon sources that microbes need to thrive and perform essential functions in nutrient cycling. Combining organic matter and remineralization is critical to maintaining long-term soil fertility.


References:

Blanco-Canqui, H., & Lal, R. (2004). Mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil aggregates. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6), 481-504.

Ingham, E. (2000). The Soil Food Web: Its Role in Ecosystem Health. Ecological Literacy, 98-110.

Jones, D. L., Nguyen, C., & Finlay, R. D. (2009). Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil-root interface. Plant and Soil, 321(1), 5-33.

Rahmati, M., & Kousehlou, M. (2023). Chapter 5 Nanoparticles as Soil Amendments. De Gruyter EBooks. Chapter 5 Nanoparticles as soil amendments
 
Fertilization by cosmos:

A meteorite 100 times bigger than the dinosaur-killing space rock may have nourished early microbial life

The devastation of a giant meteorite impact on early Earth may have allowed life to flourish, new research suggests.

A study of the remnants of a 3.26 billion-year-old impact reveals that microbial life — the only type of life at that time — may have ultimately benefited from the impact of a meteorite 50 to 200 times larger than the one that killed off the nonavian dinosaurs. While destruction reigned immediately after the impact, the meteorite and a resulting tsunami ultimately released nutrients that were crucial to microbes, the researchers reported.

"Not only do we find that life has resilience, because we still find evidence for life after the impact; we actually think there were changes in the environment that were really great for life," said Nadja Drabon, an assistant professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University and the lead author of the study, published Oct. 21 in the journal PNAS.

Drabon and her colleagues investigated evidence of an impact during the Archean eon (4 billion to 2.5 billion years ago) in what is now South Africa. Back then, this region was a shallow sea environment. There are probably only a few places on Earth where rocks this old preserve a moment in such detail, Drabon told Live Science.

In the layers, researchers can see spherules — tiny, glass-like orbs that form when a meteorite impact melts silica-containing rock. They also see conglomerates, or rocks made of other chunks of rock. The conglomerates are evidence of a globe-spanning tsunami that tore up the seafloor and smooshed the debris into clumps. The chemistry of the rock layers reveals remnants of the meteor itself, which was a primitive type of space rock called a carbonaceous chondrite. It would have measured between 23 and 36 miles (37 to 58 kilometers) in diameter.

Even though the South Africa site was a good distance from the impact, the collision had major consequences. Not only did it cause a worldwide tsunami, but it also threw up dust that would have blotted out the sun. Evaporated minerals show that the impact also heated the atmosphere enough to boil the upper layers of the ocean.

"It would have been quite disastrous for any life on land or in shallow water," Drabon said.

Within a few years or decades of the impact, however, life was returning, and it may have been in better shape than ever. That's because, post-impact, there were spikes in elements essential to life, the study authors noted in the study.

The first was phosphorus, an essential mineral that likely would have been in short supply in the oceans 3.26 billion years ago. Today, phosphorus erodes out of continental rocks into the oceans, but during the Archean, Earth was mostly a water world, with a limited number of volcanic islands and small continents. A carbonaceous chondrite of the impactor's size would have held hundreds of gigatons of phosphorus, Drabon said.

The second was iron, which would have been plentiful in the deep Archean oceans but not in the shallow seas. The tsunami caused by the meteorite strike would have mixed the oceans, bringing this metal into shallower regions, Drabon said. Red rocks in the layers above the impact show this change in the environment.

The study helps to explain how life began to flourish on a young planet beset by space collisions. The geological record suggests that meteorites larger than the one that killed the dinosaurs hit the early Earth at least every 15 million years. Life was resilient, Drabon said, but those impacts may have shaped life's evolution each time they occurred.

"Because of the extinction of the dinosaurs, mammals were able to radiate, and without that, who knows if we would be able to be here?" Drabon said. The Archean impacts may have had similarly decisive effects on the kinds of microbes that flourished and the kinds that faded away.

"Every impact is going to have some negative effects and some positive effects," Drabon said.


It's a cosmic equivalent of spring river flood.
 
Back
Top Bottom