ROI Standards ~ for growing plants in DIRT

This treatise is a bit 'disjointed'. Granted. This website is new, and in this writer's opinion, the most important activity is to get information posted, which will become more 'readable' in time as I 'work through it'.

Please be patient and bear with me - this is all about the premise on which to establish Dirt Science. The process of restoring life to dirt - the ground which is no longer soil because it has been "worked".

The important thing for readers to realize, is that this site deals with some new issues and trends to address some very real-world problems that affect all of humanity. Growing enough food for humanity to eat, is one of the main issues that the world is facing in the next decade and beyond. As the world's population reaches over 3 BILLION, having enough food to eat is THE main issue. Historians have written volumes about the lack of food being the main reason MANY wars have been initiated - and in this age, that remains true. Life is about food. And lack of it is one of the main causes of death - especially caused by a violent end.

This author's premise is that commercial agricultural farming is in a LOT of trouble for many reasons - and soil science has not been helpful in doing much of anything (that I have been able to find) about solving the problem, and I personally think that soil science has a responsibility to do that. But I cannot make soil scientists delve into the basis of plant life - microbiotics and promoting their environment.

Most of the world's food is grown on cultivated land which in my opinion is no longer soil. Soil science does not like the word 'dirt'. I do, for multiple reasons, and go to some lengths (below) to establish my assertion that dirt is a legitimate substance for plant growth by virtue of common usage, contrary to the dictionary Usage Panel. Dirt is a better word than 'media' or 'medium'. Look them up if you care to.

I understand the dictionary definitions of soil and dirt. I also understand that dictionary definitions have evolved over time - and dictionary definitions will continue to evolve - albeit slowly.
________________________________

According to soil science et.al., which includes the USDA, NRCS, ARS and the U.S. Agricultural Extension Service (and therefore Master Gardener Associations), SOIL is UNDISTURBED 'earth' or 'land' or 'the ground', the way nature made it.

In this author's opinion, THAT is the dividing line between soil and non-soil.

Non-soil includes DISTURBED by man 'earth' or 'land' or 'the ground' and use of natural amendments and combined organic products for the purpose of promoting plant growth.
Including soil that has become DIRT - by being changed by man.

To this author and this company, cultivated land is no longer distinctly soil.
Because it has been changed by man.
Cultivated land can no longer be expressed as part of a natural horizon.

It is not the intent of ROI to take issue with soil science regarding what soil is - but rather to distinguish that which is not specifically 'soil', and therefore is not strictly within the domain of soil science.
This author claims that dirt is not within the realm of soil science, and the majority of soil science folks I have conversed with, agree.

So you ask - "why does that matter"?
Good question.
The answer is quite simple...
A change of "mind-set" is needed to try and avert a global food shortage disaster that is looming on the horizon.
What is the name of this disaster? 3 billion hungry humans on this planet by 2050 and not enough food for them to eat. Hunger causes civil unrest, which leads to war, as is well-documented by human history, for as long as human history has been recorded.

Fact is, no more soil is being made - but a LOT of soil is being changed into dirt - and there is simply not enough fertile soil left to grow enough plants to feed that many people - and more, as that population continues to increase...

The world needs to learn how to produce edible harvests from DIRT. By methods our forefathers used, before synthetic chemical fertilizers were invented. Chemicals that have contributed to world-wide pollution and erosion from unsustainable agricultural practices promoted by the synthetic chemical fertilizer industry because of greed for money. Including the manufacturers of chemical pesticides, including herbicides.
All are playing a part in the pending disaster facing the human race.

It is this author's opinion that soil science (et.al.) has been remiss in acknowleging that this disaster is coming, and also believe that the soil science community is not going to address the issues appropriately because of their CYA 'heads stuck in the sand' attitudes.

It is a well-known issue that commercial agricultural ties with soil science are responsible for the on-coming fiasco that is significantly linked to institutions of higher learning world-wide, that support synthetic chemical manufacturers of agricultural products with a significant DISREGARD for age-old organic food production practices.

The views below are presented so that interested soil scientists, university researchers and college professors will not be confused by this author's distinction of "non-soil" - i.e., Dirt.

There's another distinction that needs to be made... Soil science has not 'picked up' on the word "SUSTAINABILITY" - and that's a shame, because it appears to me that soil science is not helping to correct an on-coming global issue. In fact this author thinks that soil science is "dragging their feet" - and I won't let you wonder why, for very long... It has to do with where soil science gets their $$ funding. It's all about the money, y'know?

Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present, WITHOUT compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That's not happening - so our mentality needs to shift away from the slash/burn mentality of just seeking more productive soil to trash - and start focusing on DIRT. Because I believe that the solution is going to be found in DIRT, not by destroying more forests, to defoliate virgin soil. Because eventually - all the virgin soil is going to be 'raped' by mankind. And the earth will cry...

There needs to be a multitude of new voices being heard in the agricultural community, because this problem is still growing, and is going to get seriously worse, all too soon.
I'd like to point you to one of those voices from 12 years ago that has still not been heeded sufficiently to get soil science 'off their duff'.
Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with this presentation by the University of California at Davis: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Concept.htm because it is still valid.

How organic matter in soil impacts plants, has STILL not become a significant focus of soil science. And while many man-made non-soil products are talked about in the science of horticulture, the subject of Dirt per se, is not one of them.
This author thinks that dirt should be considered as a separate entity from soil, because soil science will not recognize the multitude of various types of dirt that support plant life, even including nursery potting media that delivers seedlings to millions of gardeners every year.

Why you ask? Because a major part of the solution is in the hidden 'universe' of beneficial microbes. Found in dirt with a higher content of organic matter than exists in most soil. Dirt in gardens all over this world. Producing quality food for humans. Part of the solution.

Cultivated land has always been important, because it IS what man uses to grow food commercially - which is why it is called 'agricultural' land - no longer soil as nature made it. And especially since the end of World War II, it has become a major challenge to retain dirt's productivity. A battle that we are losing. A battle that will affect our children and grandchildren - for many, many generations to come.

Humans have got to learn how to stop 'trashing' our planet, or future generations will suffer DIRE consequences.

Soil science recognizes that dirt is not soil, per se, and perhaps some dirt never became actual soil. How a plant grows in dirt, needs to become the science of dirt - because it is very clear that soil science has 'fumbled' - and still does not recognize the validity of dirt as a substance in which the majority of the world's harvests are being grown. Soil science is still treating cultivated land as if it were still natural soil. But it is not.

Dirt science? That's what this author calls it.
Listen up... I don't care what it's called - call it the science of sustainable agriculture - as long as it is not called soil science - the science that allowed humanity to develop this problem - by not paying attention to the compromising of the basis of productive land - the microbes that made it productive in the first place.

In our English dictionary, Horticulture is defined as (1) the science or art of cultivating plants, especially for ornamental use. (2) the cultivation of a garden.
The focus of this definition is on the plant, not the root-based growing medium. Man-made mixtures are common, as well as promotion of amendments for adding to soil.

Amend: To improve, better or alter. Change. OK - amending soil changes it to what? Dirt.

Horticulture is a recognized science, focused mostly on plants. Organic material within the root-zone of a plant is addressed within agricultural microbiology, - but not particularly from a microbial perspective. Microbes are essential for sustainabilty, just as much as putting back organic material into the ground for microbes to feed on.

Biology is a recognized science that does include a focus on microscopic organisms. But not particularly within the realm of a medium for growing plants. A huge gap exists between horticulture/agriculture and biology. Why do you think that gap exists? Because microbiology does not sell commercial fertilizers and other chemicals that kill microbes along with unwanted plants (weeds) and insects that eat plants.

What is meant by the term "microbes"? In this context, it means the beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa and microartropods that make Mother Nature's system work.

The emphasis in modern times - in particular since the late 1950's is on "helping" Mother Nature get the job done faster.

Which is OK. I'm all for that. But not by producing synthetic 'treatments' that kill the good bugs and microbes along with the 'bad' ones. The commercial approach is simply: ALL BUGS ARE BAD. ALL WEEDS ARE BAD. Yeah, that's what Hitler said about the Jewish nation. He was wrong, and the proponents of synthetic chemicals are too, for the same reasons.

Helping Mother Nature is fine. I practice that perspective also - by composting. Composting is a method of breaking down organic material into organic matter using the natural microbial activity that nature designed. Just faster, by producing an environment (water and air) to accomplish that goal.

A leaf falls to the ground and it may take a year for it to decompose and return to the organic cycle. Composting does the same thing in 2-3 months. WITHOUT synthetic ANYTHING. Just water and air.

But physical compost is cumbersome to handle. So the newest practice is the making of compost TEA - which grows the beneficial microbe populations exponentially - from just millions per gram - to billions per quart of water. A HUGE ADVANCE in organic farming. Just google "compost tea" and see for yourself.

But is composting a recognized science? No.
But is adjunct to several sciences. Composting is called a science-based ART form. Composting is all about microbes, and how those microbes impact future plant functions. Particularly plant functions that produce harvests for human food. Called organic gardening and organic farming. But does commercial agriculture 'recognize' organic farming? Only when forced to, because agriculture is 'funded' by manufacturers of synthetic chemicals used on food crops. Hello??

It's time to "tie" these aspects of producing food together, for our common good.

Until now, making a planting media in which to raise plants has barely been a recognized science-based ART form - it's only been a 'step-child' of horticulture for profit. By commercial plant nurseries. Which flourish - because they too promote the excessive use of synthethic chemicals that kill microbes.

Well folks, this author thinks that it's time that all these activities be CONSOLIDATED and given due consideration. Compost and compost tea have "come of age" as a means to replenish the beneficial microbe populations in 'spent' agricultural land. Regular additions of organic matter and the use of cover crops can increase aggregate stability, tilth, and diversity of microbial life, and by homeowners keeping organic material OUT of landfills, for use in/on dirt - to grow food for humans and animals cared for by humans, that organic material then returns to the natural cycle as nature intended.

Microbes that impact plant growth within the realm of organic production of human food have long been known, but have not been given prominence deserved. Microbes make HUMUS - a substance that science can define, but has not been able to figure out how microbes make it.

And it doesn't really matter if science understands how microbes make humus - point is that recognizes that microbes DO make it, and science recognizes that humus is an important factor in fertility of any terrestrial plant.

Coal was once humus - before millenia turned it into coal by heat and pressure. Oil was also humus first. Now that science has recognized that humus is valuable for growing plants, y'know what commerce is doing? Locating the ancient humus deposits and strip-mining them. NOT a sustainable practice. Ancient humus deposits - that did not meet the conditions to become coal or oil (too close to the surface of the earth) are NOT a sustainable resource.

When they are gone - the is no more. But the 'funny' thing is - that humus is made by the SAME MICROBES that make compost. Yup. Quality compost has more (and fresher) humic and fulvic acids than the stuff being dug out of the earth from ancient deposits.

What's incredible, is that even though science knows that, science does not support the practice of making humus from the natural composting process - because science cannot replicate it synthetically - so science considers composting to not be commercially viable. Back to the love of money. Greed.

The Science of Dirt purports that microbes are the most important living creatures for plant sustainability, and humans need to learn how various microbe populations interact to make nutrients for land-based plants - from organic material by transforming it into organic matter.

Fact is, many kinds of dirt with a high organic content and associated microbe populations, will grow most plants betterthan ANY kind of natural soil. It's a microbe thing, turning organic material into organic matter, and a percentage of that, into humus.
Science does not yet understand how microbes do that. But we do know that microbes DO that, in high-organic dirt, BETTER than they do in 'standard' low-organic soil (less than 1%) found in most of the United States.

What does that mean? It means that YOU should be putting ALL of your kitchen scraps into a compost pile in your backyard - and using that compost to grow some vegetables at home. That can save a considerable amount of money annually, and the fresh food tastes a LOT better than what you can buy at the grocery store.

The study of microorganisms and tiny creatures (microarthropods) in high-organic dirt in which plants are grown, is the focus of dirt science including compost tea - both as a leachate - and the as a 'brewed' product. The science is not new. It's all about growing plants naturally - not with over-use of synthetic chemicals.

Notice the words "over-use". That does not mean that synthetic chemicals are "bad" per se - just 'over-used'. Over-promoted to 'make a buck' when such overuse has been PROVEN to be bad for the earth. Over-use ('excessive' use) of ANY synthetic chemical fertilizer and/OR pesticides (including herbicides) is BAD for this planet.

Sure, homeowners that don't read labels share some of the blame for over-use, but the MAJOR culprit is bad agricultural practices based predominantly on synthetic chemicals to the detriment of replacing organic content and microbial populations. Promoted by institutions of higher learning that are 'in bed' with the synthetic chemical manufacturers.
Some people think that synthetic fertilizers have been the saviour of the burgeoning world's human population But science has now shown those chemical products to be a significant polluter and a detriment to survival of humans on this planet. Because of irresponsible use.

Can we simply stop using such chemicals? No. We cannot. Not any more than we can simply stop using fossil fuels. The synthetic fertilizer industry has succeeded in making humans dependent on those products to grow enough food to feed the burgeoning populatons. But the fossil fuels are becoming harder to obtain. A classic example is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico at a depth greater than a pipeline can be repaired - so at this writing, a 42,000 gallons/day oil slick is engulfing the shores from Louisiana to Florida. Killing fish and wildlife indiscrimiantly for the sake of an oil company buck. When will we learn?

This author predicts that a process of 'withdrawal' WILL take place over the next several decades, based on public outcry over recent proof - that after 25+ years of mechanized cultivation practices, in conjunction with over-use of synthetic chemicals to grow plants - agricultural land has been decimated by destruction of organic matter and microbes in that dirt - that MUST be somehow, be put back. To restore microbial life in the dirt.

In the early part of this century, most farms integrated both crop and livestock operations. Indeed, the two were highly complementary both biologically and economically. The current picture has changed quite drastically since then, hasen't it? The agricultural enterprises have all but eliminated the small organic farmer. To the detriment of the world. Because of greed.

Much of the natural soil in the United States has less than one percent of organic matter to begin with, and unfortunately now, much of the cultivated land now has even less.

Many say that without an infusion of synthetic fertilizers, that land would be incapable of growing any kind of productive harvest for human food. Because now the natural nutrition of much cultivated land has been seriously depleted.

But there are scores of dedicated farmers 'out there' who now understand the lies that have been propagated by the commercial synthetic chemical companies - and are PROVING that organic practices not only work - they revitalize the soil that was made 'sick dirt' by lies and greed.

Much of this country's cultivated land is simply "dead" dirt now - soil that used to be productive. That's what the greed of man has accomplished. Now what? Now we have to figure out how to put natural life back into that cultivated land.

Science involving putting life into dirt is what the this ROI headquarters laboratory is studying, as the company strives to develop methods to restore decimated land to capabity for SUSTAINABLE productive plant harvests of human food by re-introducing organic matter and the accompanying microbial populations that benefit plant growth, including desease and pest resistance and treatment.

Dirt science is focused on the top 2+ feet of ground in which most vegetable plant roots grow. Sure, not very far below the top layer of cultivated land, natural soil is found - but with decreasing organic material - down to the depth of bedrock where almost no organic material exists. Such soil is not a factor for producing food harvests for humans. Only the root zone of edible plants and/or their harvests, provides human nutrition from under the ground.

Dirt science also recognizes that in many cases a 'transition zone' exists between the top surface of cultivated land and the lower horizons of yet-undisturbed soil.

Such a transition zone also exists when a prepared planting dirt creates a raised bed on top of amended ground - popular with home gardeners. A transition zone can assist a growing plant to acclimate between disturbed dirt and the soil beneath. A Compost tea drench has proven to assist plants in such transition between dirt and soil - an area than can also be accessed by mycorrhizal fungi, as deep as most edible-plant roots can penetrate.

Dirt science recognizes that natural nutrition is better for plants and dirt/soil microbes - because synthetic treatments promote destruction of the environment necessary for microbe reproduction.

What vegetable plants need, to produce sustainable high quality harvests, is natural nutrition. Nutrition made by microbes from organic matter and 'held' or 'retained' in microbes and arthropods, and substances produced or assisted by those microbes. Including the processes of microbial chelation and cation exchange.

Feeding humans and animals (that are cared for by humans) is becoming more difficult simply because when a plant grows, it takes more elements from the dirt than synthetic fertilizers can provide. A fertilizer that provides just nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) is not enough. Micronutrients are also necessary. Few commercial fertilizers used on agricultural land put those micronutrients back. So the land becomes depleted.

That's what eventually reduces the nutrition from the food grown on that land. The nutritional value of plant harvests suffers from such deficiency. Kernels of corn and peas in the pod are no longer as nutritious as they used to be - because the nutrition is no longer available to the plant from the dirt, while it produces a harvest. Same is true for fruits and nuts as multiple studies are now showing.

The act of changing natural soil by means of mechanical cultivation practices causes root organic matter to become exposed to weathering, which causes a degree of erosion - by wind and water. Excessive tilling is REALLY bad for the ground, and plants.

Now agricultural practices are calling for less tillage. Less disking. Less disturbance of the ground which makes organic matter decompose too quickly. But they are still not talking about practices to replace the nutrition taken up by plant by returning the organic material, or boosting the microbe populations... Hello?

What was the reason that it took 25 years to even come to that conclusion? It was very evident 10 years ago, but tilling is also part of the weed destruction process, because synthetic fertilizers grow weeds as well or better than it does food crops.

The basic fact is, that for home organic gardening, a planting medium made with aged organic matter from compost, can grow plants MUCH better than the best original soil ever could. Particularly if fortified with quality compost tea in which microbes have been 'bred' for such a task.

Organic nutrients are made by microbes, nature's way. Bacteria, fungi, actinobacteria (sometimes called actinomycetes), and in which protozoa and larger 'decomposer' critters participate. Even earthworms take part in the process IF there is enough organic material in the dirt for them to eat. A large part of the

For the sake of further discussion regarding company ROI Standards for growing plants organically - ALL forms of non-soil planting media (including compost and compost tea) are included under one simple banner...
...DIRT.

Therefore, Dirt Science has come of age, by virtue of being separate from all classifications within Soil Science. Soil science does not and will not include the study of dirt - and that suits this author and this company just fine. _____________________________

Therefore, if what was originally soil, has been moved or compacted or polluted by man, contrivance of man, or animal or plant cared for by man, it is considered by ROI to be dirt.

Which includes a good portion of the entire solid surface of the planet populated by man, since that portion of it that can support growing vegetables and plants to feed domesticated animals, is no longer in the natural state as nature made it or as nature (only) distrurbs it.

By ROI standards, anything added to soil by man makes it dirt, which could make it worse (contaminants or pollutants such as excessive man-made synthetic fertilizers) or just change it (man-made distrubance) or make it better (increasing organic material or organic matter or enhancing microbe density and diversity) - is encompassed within the ROI study of dirt, as it impacts plants that grow in it.

Compost in any 'finished' form, is dirt - by virture of human action to compile such organic materials, to grow microbes, to create organic matter (from organic material) faster - to sustain plant life better.

Dirt, as distinguished on this site includes ANY man-made planting media or combination of amendments to sustain plant growth, and what used to be soil - that has been changed by man.

The DEFINITION of DIRT, adopted by ROI is: "A physical substance that may contain minerals and/or organic substances including live and/or dead organisms and such other solids, liquids and gasses as the discretion of man deems appropriate ~ from 'disturbed soil' to a media designed specifically for the propagation of plant life - and anything in between - as long as it is dirty."

It is not an objective of ROI to establish separate classifications of dirt - but rather to establish the Science of Dirt as a consolidated set of standards for the various major components recognized as comprising the organic and/or inorganic constituents of Dirt.

For example, raw organic material and organic matter and the microbes that inhabit such, are essential components of dirt. Not all 'dust' blowing in the wind is dirt. Could be just sand or silt or clay particles - which to soil science - is soil, separately or collectively.

Organic material and organic matter are essentially the same thing, with organic matter being the altered (decomposed) state of organic material-in*decay to the point that the original kind of material is no longer easily distinguished by the naked human eye.

Such altered state takes place by action of microbes (bacteria, fungi, actinobacteria and other 'decomposers'), either aerobically or anaerobically and also by elements of 'weathering'.

All methods of organic material decomposition are recognized by the Science of Dirt, and each has aspects beneficial to plant life.

ROI recognizes that support of plant life is the primary focus of man-made production of dirt, with transportation for man as a secondary motivation and 'community' (housing) as a lesser reason.

Generally-speaking, Dirt is a man-made product - although sometimes caused by nature (as in storms and resultant erosion) - but is usually caused by 'assistance' from man in some form or fashion.

For example:

organic material naturally decomposes, but the act of composting is recognized as a human-intervention activity that can greatly speed up the natural decomposition process.
Although compost tea leachate can be produced by rain, such leachate processed through a compost pile is not a 'natural' event, since a compost pile is a contrived activity of man.
Mud resulting in a natural pond is a 'natural' soil event, even as diverted by beaver or some other creature (besides man and not under control by man).
But mud resulting from man-made diversion, or in a depression excavated or caused by man, is dirt, since it will contain organic matter, and therefore microorganisms and plant nutrients.
A seed blown in the wind that germinates on undisturbed soil and moistened by non-acid rain is a natural event.
A seed that germinates on 'disturbed soil' or cared for by man in any way - grows in dirt.
Even when a soil scientist disturbs natural earth, that earth becomes dirt, since such scientist is human - and thereafter, 'distrubed soil' remains dirt, forever.

Also note that disturbed water in which organic matter AND microbial organisms are present, is Dirt.

Mud and grime is dirt, even diluted to microscopic proportions.
But man-made potable water (or sterile[ized] water) for human consumption is not dirt - although it is 'artificial' in basis - because it does not fit the dictionary definition of dirt (not dirty). So pure fluids are not dirt. Only a dirty fluid with decomposing OM and microbes in it - is dirt.
Compost tea is very POTENT dirt, because it also contains nutrients for plant growth.

Now that we have dealt with the fact that dirt exists, and what it is (separate from soil) let's further consider ROI Standards of compost, planting dirt, potting media and other forms of dirt in which to grow plants. _____________________________

Some of the standards developed by ROI deal with the POTENCY of dirt, and GRADE of dirt, relative to plant growth, as well as plant disease and pest defenses as relates to microbes that populate organic matter in dirt. Potency for plants has many values, but the only ones of value - are those that can be expressed by qualitative AND quantitative means.
Methods of obtaining such qualitative and quantitative values may have expression within Standards. There are two distinct perspectives to such methodology - one is in a laboratory setting - and the other in the field. A 'world' apart.

So the ability to test various values of dirt in the field, is an especially important set of criteria in establishing ROI Standards, particularly for making compost, compost tea and artificial (non-soil) plant growing mediums.

While organic matter (OM) is recognized as a derivative of organic material, it is noted that well-decomposed organic matter is much more immediately beneficial to plant life than raw organic material is, and microbial decomposition (aerobically or anaerobically) and 'weathering' are the primary basis for such transmutation.

Because different testing methods give different results - the correlation of different results (even from identical samples), can be difficult, and a purpose for generating Standards is to designate and simplify interpretation of, and direction for using, plant-beneficial regimes - which can be a daunting task in the field.
Evaluating the myriad of conditions and situations in which plants grow, to establish such a regime, can be assisted by Standards.
But the Standards themselves must be flexible - because the objective of them is to enable individual (types of) plants to THRIVE - reaching maximum (natural genetic) potential.

ROI Standards are presented alphabetically, rather than in a percieved 'logical' order, to aid location of information by readers. For this reason, some duplication of information will result under different topic headings.

This first edition of ROI Standards was prepared for publication with assistance from the Coastal-Bend Composters and Organic Gardeners. We are very grateful for their assistance and support.