Episode 84: Joel Williams

Hi, friends, this is John and this is the Regenerative Agriculture podcast where we talk about agronomy and cultural management practices that can regenerate plant health and soil health, and of course ultimately public health, which is the mantra that we care about. Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy people. My guest for this episode is Joel Williams. I'm really excited to catch up to Joel. I've been trying to catch him for some time and given that he's just north of the border of us here in Ohio, it took more effort than I expected. So, Joel, welcome. We're really glad to have you here and glad to be having this conversation.

Thanks very much, John. Pleasure to be here. Looking forward to it as well.

Joel, you've had quite a journey of working in what is now called the regenerative ag space and used to be called biological agriculture and various different names around the world. Tell us a little bit about your journey and some of the things you've worked on over the years and what has brought you here.

Yeah, sure thing. I, I'm originally from Australia and. But I've been a little bit mobile through my career since then. But I was born and raised there and I studied agriculture then and yeah, actually way back when I was young, even before I went to university, I always had a bit of an interest in soils and more organicy or, you know, alternative ways of, of producing food. I used to be a keen back vegetable gardener in my garden and yeah, I was always kind of keen on how I could do things better and better quality, better flavors, but also, you know, without as many inputs. It's always been a bit of an interest of mine actually, since I was about probably 15 or so. And so, yeah, through uni, it was a very conventional ag science degree, but I always had that kind of interest in some of the different ways to do things, so. But still I learned lots of valuable things. But yeah, really, of course, moved on and started working with a company that does biological inputs and microbials and that kind of thing. I'm sure many of your listeners might be familiar with Graham Sait and Nutratech Solutions. So, yeah, I was there for about five years and did a lot of soil chemistry, plant analysis, Folia, that's where I got a bit of interest in the foliar side of things. And yeah, then I moved on to the uk where I started working a bit more in the biological space space, working with composts and compost extracts, doing more of the, the biology kind of school of thought. And yeah, really that was my time there that I, I kind of got more and more interested in the biology side and these days try to kind of really integrate the two of those halves together. You know, as you would know, there's kind of a bit of a. Two different schools of thought there, the chemistry approach and the biology approach. And I, I think that of course the, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it's about how you kind of make those two kind of schools of thought work practically. And that's kind of really where I spend a lot more of my time now working in that middle ground space. And I worked a lot around Europe kind of looking at the, the biology side of things. And after a very brief stint back in Australia I went back to the UK again. I was moving all over the place and for a while I took a bit of a break and did some work in back end market gardening at more maybe consumer facing side of things. I was working at a university doing market gardening and teaching young adults where how to grow food and connecting them to, to their food. So that was kind of good fun for a while. And then I came back to agriculture to do more of this lecturing and teaching. And yeah, I moved then to Canada from the UK where I've now been here for about six years. And this is really, then the last six years is really. I dropped a lot of other side projects and other work that I used to do and I've really solely focused on running my, my own business now, providing independent education and, and that's the bulk of what I do is teaching and education workshops and that kind of thing and a little bit of consulting on the side as well. But the bulk of my work is education.

Joel, let's dive into the chemistry versus biology approach because it seems to me this has been a debate for probably a decade or longer or probably actually it's been a debate as long as I've been involved in this space for at least the last 15 years. And it seems to resurface or remains a constant question with everyone is on their own journey and as new people come in and they listen to the different schools of thought, they get exposed to these different ideas. There is this question that just keeps coming up over and over again where the one school of thought is that well, if we address our soil biology and we get a soil microbial community that has a balanced fungal to bacterial biomass and is really robust and is balanced to the crop we're trying to grow, then we can supply all of our crops nutritional requirements and we don't need to pay attention much to chemistry. And the other school of thought is that, well, if we balance the chemistry and we get soil chemistry balanced properly, then that creates a substrate or an environment where biology can really thrive and we can develop healthy microbially active soils in that manner. And I've shared my thoughts on this in several occasions. I think the truth is it's a both and approach and there's ditches on both sides of the road for people to fall into. But I'd love to get your perspective on that. What have you experienced or what have you observed? You, you mentioned that initially you worked with chemistry a lot and then you worked with biology for a while and now you're doing some combination of both. What brought that pathway about?

Yes, it's, it is one of those old debates, isn't it? And I, I definitely come from originally that background of, you know, the, so optimizing the soil chemistry first, you know, some of those or break ideas of getting the soil to breathe and the structural improvements that are important to then providing the right habitat for biology, as you say. And I think that you're. I agree with your point there. It's. I don't think it's one or the other. Of course having tight and compacted soils is always going to be harder and with, with nutrient deficiencies, I think it's going to be harder for biology to thrive in that environment. Of course, of course that makes sense. But equally the biology have the ability to change the environment in which they grow as well. And so I think that my view on this is that sure, I think that you can do a lot with just biology and that they can correct things situations themselves. They are somewhat self organizing in that regard. But I think that paying a bit more attention to the chemistry and to the nutrient supply is only going to help them do that. I think you can accelerate or speed up or support that process if you're being a bit more holistic in your view. I think that narrow, that concentrating into those narrow worldviews of well, this is just the way to do it and that's how it is is typically, you know, you're going to limit yourself in that regard. So I think that when I think about farmers that I've met over the years and worked with, I would say that I've heard many diverse stories of and pathways to their regeneration. Some definitely came from a chemistry side, some definitely started more of the biological side. And so I think that it's not. There's many roads to Rome, it's not One or the other. But I do think that when you focus on trying to inch forward both sides in parallel, that where I think is a good, a much more practical, pragmatic and good strategy, yes, biology might be able to do extraordinary things, but if they're not, they also take some time to do that. And if they're not doing it in enough time to meet demands of the crop, well, of course, then you know, crop deficiencies or crop losses and that kind of thing can, can be the result. So we don't necessarily want to just stand back and say, well look, I know biology can do this. So I'm just going to be stubborn in my view and refuse to apply anything else. Because if they're not yet there, if they're not yet functioning well, then I think we need some crutches to support things during that transition. So. So yeah, I think that really, in summary there it's, you know, when you see different soil types in different contexts and different farmers journeys, I think there's many different ways to, many roads to roam and many ways to do this. So I think you've got to bring in some of that context. I think a small, quick example there would be, you know, a very light sandy soil versus a more medium, heavier clay soil. Well, of course that argument that says old biology can supply all the nutrients. Well, sure, that's much more realistic, easier potential to do in a heavier clay soil versus a light sandy soil. That is, it's just that that school of thought is always going to be much harder when you're starting. So I think that context is really important and then, But I think that really, like I say, the truth is somewhere in the middle for me. And I think it's about inching both strategies forward, step by step towards the longer term goals.

You know, when you, when you use that phrase of inching things forward step by step, the visual that comes to mind is when marching on the many different roads to Rome, you actually have two feet and you put one foot in front of the other. It's almost like a ratcheting action. But when I think about what this translates to for practical application in fields, it strikes me that there's perhaps three feet and not just two. There is the biological component, there is the chemistry balance component, then there's also just the physical structure. There is a time and a place where in my opinion tillage is a very valuable tool to change the soil's physical structure in the short term to allow some of these other pieces to take place and may not necessarily Be I use the term a reset tool. It's a reset tool. I'm not necessarily advocating constant tillage, but I like that visual.

Yeah, yeah, no, I agree. And that's your original question about chemistry versus biology. People ask it in that same way too. Well, what's more important? So physics, so chemistry or so biology. And where do you start? You know, what should I focus on first in my soul? Health restoration journeys. And, and it's, it's again, it's that same debate. There's all different answers. But I kind of agree with you. I know that soul physics is the one that's often left off in this debate. It's the one that often seems to be. But I agree that you could argue that it is also a very central, a very, very central part of the soil properties that of course soil structure helps creates a better home for biology to thrive. But also which then they can cycle nutrients, but also a well structured soil can help those nutrients move around the soil more effectively both for the plant and for the biology. So some often would argue that physics should be, you know, that really important first point because biology, both biology and chemistry can then function better thereafter. So these debates rage on, don't they? Carrying on in circles.

Well, it's really a question of what are your goals and the timing of your goals. How rapidly do you want to move and are you growing a crop or does your operation justify and does it have the economics to justify moving faster? We have the privilege of working with a lot of higher value fruit and nut and vegetable crops where moving fast is necessary. Like we want to regenerate quickly and we have the economics to justify regenerating quickly. And so in those contexts the answer to where do you start? Is all three. You address everything simultaneously when you have a challenged context with limited resources, rangeland for example, or crops that don't have as much economic value. What are the examples that you've observed of using biology to regenerate that have been very successful and what are some examples that you've observed reserved of chemistry first orientation that have been really successful?

Yeah, okay. I think with the biology first here is in the low value situations like you're, you're asking and in dry land and cereal production, that kind of thing, which is where I seem to work a lot more these days. Back in Australia my background was a little bit, was a lot more horticulture. And then thereafter since moving to the UK and being over here in Canada, I work a lot more in broadacre and dry land cropping situations. And I think that the obvious answer to your question in relation to biology in these types of systems, it is absolutely putting the biology right there around that seed. So either seed treatment or inject liquid injection into the furrow. And, and I think that's an absolute key step. And I think that if you rewind also, you know, 10 and more years, 10, 15, 20 years, to some of the early ideas of the biological approach, you know, things like applying compost teas, for example, there was, there was a big focus on foliar applications of that. And I think that that was not really the best way to kind of start that journey. It's. It really has to be putting those organisms right there around that seed or in that furrow where when that seed germinates and those roots emerge and start feeding that soil biology, that they actually can then find their way to work together and build that symbiosis. So I think that that then becomes a practical way to apply biology at scale. But it's also more cost efficient to be using small amounts of those organisms targeted right there. And that's the goal. This is the other, this other debate we have about biology, isn't it? It's about, well, why do you bother wasting time with applying biologicals? There's already enough organisms in the soil, it's a drop in the ocean. Why put a few million into a place where there's already thousands of billions, trillions of them? It's that whole kind of debate about, well, why to bother? And I think the nuance around applying biology onto the seed and trying to foster that biology, to grow just around the root system as that RO emerges and those exudates feed the biology. The goal in doing that is not to change the whole, necessarily the whole biome of the soil depth. You know, you're not changing the entire biome of the soil, but you are changing it right there in that rhizosphere around the root, the living root. And I think that that's the nuance that, yes, may be a temporary effect whilst that plant is growing by the end of that season and it's being harvested and combined. Yeah, a lot of that biology has gone to sleep by then because its host plant has also gone. Now, that's not to say that, therefore, that activity was a waste of time. You provided the function for that growing season exactly as you could and should be able to. So I think that that's definitely the area and that's the goal. It's about really supporting the plant and not necessarily always directly changing the soil biome. But although that is something that can come, I think, over the longer term with successive use of such strategies, you.

Know, I find this whole argument of, and you just described them very well, that why are we considering adding compost teas or purchased inoculants, where we have this tremendous diversity of tens of thousands of species, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of which many are still unknown, why would we think that adding a product is going to make a difference? And, you know, I find this to be a bit of a red herring argument in that one. That argument is never used by people who've actually tried the product for an extended period. And when you think about to the point that you were just making about adding inoculants, particularly to the seed and adjusting that crop's microbiome, it's like we've been doing this for decades with rhizobium inoculants on legumes. And there is no debate that it's effective. It's known and measured to be effective. So here we're adding a single species on the seed and producing a significant noticeable crop response. And there are many other organisms that can produce similar types of responses when they are put right on the seed and right in that microbiome. And so it's a bit of a false argument to say, well, one species isn't going to change the dynamics because we've been doing it for 50 years very, very effectively. And many other species can have those types of effects as well, mycorrhizal fungi and others. So I'm completely with you on that. And then I think there's something else for us to think about is that perhaps these compost teas and these microbial inoculants are not just about adding additional species, but perhaps they're about adding additional genetic information. When we have a. There's Steven Buhner wrote in, I think, the third of his trilogy on plants. The third book is titled the Secret Intelligence of Plants. And he describes how when a bacteria is cultured in a laboratory and it's exposed to antibiotics, it will develop resistance to that antibiotic, but also to other associated types of antibiotics that it hasn't yet been exposed to. And when you add that bacteria to a soil profile, it shares that antibiotic resistance genetic information with the entire soil microbiome in a matter of hours or days, where they're able to find this antibiotic resistance gene throughout the entire bulk soil microbiome. Well, what if that same possibility also holds true for phosphorus solubilization for the Phytase enzyme or the phosphatase enzyme or whatever the case might be where we can exchange other types of genetic information that supersedes the addition of specific species.

Yeah, I agree. I think that you're right in the premise of the question that they do do a lot more than just be there themselves and provide their specific function. They also can trigger other changes, as you say, in the rest of the population and, or even the plant. And I think that even microbes that we apply biofertilizers that are transient or temporary and transit don't survive. That's not a measure of failure. They may be there for the appropriate time that they're needed to serve a particular function, maybe only during the vegetative stages. And once they've done that, yes, they're not being fed and cultured by the plants anymore, so they, they die off. And that doesn't mean that they were a failure because they didn't persist. Persistence in the environment is not necessarily the metric. It's whether they provided that function. And I think that you're right about your point about the genetic contribution that they make. Whether some of your listeners might have come across as a bit of an emerging term these days, we're starting to recognize that of course, plants and microbes do not work in isolation. They do not operate in isolation. They are indivisible. They work as one. And if we look at their genetic makeup of the genes of the plant and the genes of the soil biome, that we really should be looking at these as one holistic unit. And we have this term now that's being used, called the holobiont, which is, or the hollow biome is the other part of that. But, and that's, that's the essence of what it's trying to do. It says, well, let's look at plants and their associated microbiota as one complete unit. Let's not try and separate them off and study them individually, of course. So. So I think that it's great to see that a lot of plant breeding now is a little bit shifting in the beginning to shift in this direction, because it was crazy that previously we've been doing plant breeding exclusively looking at the genes of the plant, completely ignoring all of the genes of the microbes in that environment who of course, can trigger and induce all sorts of changes in plant genetic expression that we were just completely not focusing in on.

So, yeah, plant breeding is a whole other interesting conversation that it would be fun to get into, but I want to not lose sight of the question that I had asked you about challenged environments and you spoke a bit about seed treatments and you know, our experience has, we're also doing a lot of work now in dry land, challenged environments, challenged economics with small grain crops. And I'm completely with you that the, the use of seed treatments is the single least cost, greatest ROI application that we have measured and we've measured many types of applications and it just wins hands down over and over and over again.

Yeah, that's right. I totally agree. And, and I think then the other half of your question, if we were to jump over to the chemistry, we could say the same thing. You know, a nutritional seed treatment.

Yep, exactly.

Is also a good bang for buck. I, I totally agree there. But I think the other one that that is of interest is then the foliar applications. And you know, I know you're a big supporter of foliar nutrients and it's something that I've also was exposed on, many exposed to many years ago back in Australia and that I've also promoted many years through my career too. And again, I think that that's also another space in which for challenging environments where we're talking about lower dose of nutrients but targeted application, physical placement there on the leaf where at least they can be used then to prime that plant, prime photosynthesis, prime whatever the goal is there with very targeted, low dose but high efficiency applications. And I think that foliars is probably a good example in the chemistry side. That's a very, I think, smart and intelligent way to use fertility use inputs, but in the most precise and least kind of disruptive way.

So yeah, I've been an advocate of foliars for a long time and recently a grower that we work with sent me some information from Caltech R and D and I'm still trying to find the original paper that this was written up in. I'm sure it was a review paper of some type, but they were reporting that foliar applications of various nutrients and the effectiveness that they would have compared to soil applications, they're reporting a foliar application of nitrogen. A pound of nitrogen being the equivalent of 7 pounds applied to the soil or 7 times more efficient. Phosphorus 4 to 20, potassium 8. Magnesium is 75. So you can get 75 times greater efficiency from magnesium applied to a leaf surface than you can to the soil. And so the numbers go on. Manganese is 14, zinc is a 12, iron is 100 and boron is a 5. It's just really interesting how dramatically more efficient foliar applications can be than soil applications. And we shouldn't be thinking about this just in terms of nutrient efficiency, but it's really a question of where is the economic value for us as a grower? What produces an economic crop response that is justifiable in today's world? Foliar applications cost a lot more to apply in terms of application costs, the cost to run equipment over an acre than they might have four or five years ago, but they are still the single largest ROI applications that we see.

Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I totally agree. I think that said, I think some farmers have a bit of a relaxed attitude to foliar sprays. It's this idea of, well, just throw it in the tank and let's get going. And as I know, you know, I think we share the sentiment that we'll actually, yes, foliars can be effective, but there is a lot of devil in the detail. There's important considerations about the mixing, the formulation, how and when you apply, you know, so I think that, you know, it's, it's not as simple as throw it in the tank and get going. You've really got to put it very specific, intentional design into that folio foliar recipe and the timing and all of that. It's the specifics that really are key in this discussion, I think.

You know, I find it interesting just thinking back to our conversation over the last couple of minutes when we were talking about using biology and chemistry, that the way that you framed the conversation was using biology and chemistry for the benefit of plants. So when you spoke about using microbial inoculants, it was to change the microbiome in the root system, not the bulk soil environment. And when you think about using chemistry either as seed treatments or as foliar treatments, you're really changing the plant. And this is a bit of a change from the historical approaches, you might say, the Albrecht approach to chemistry balancing, where the emphasis was on changing the mineral balance of the bulk soil environment or changing to some degree with the use of COVID crops. I suppose, suppose the argument could be made of changing the bulk soil microbial environment as well. How do you perceive the contrast and the merits of those two approaches?

Yeah, good question. And you're right. We often let's. Let's use an example of lime or gypsum or something. You know, we talk about using that to address heat tissue or provide some calcium for soil structural benefit. There is that thought that you are changing the bulk soil. But equally as, as I'm sure many listeners, your Listeners are aware that right in that rhizosphere, in that little 1 millimeter zone around that root, that it is literally a world apart from the rest of the bulk soil, both in terms of microbes as well, and as well as then the nutrient availability, the, the ph in that rhizosphere, the nutrient availability in that rhizosphere and all the various organisms that, that are being actively recruited and functional at that time. So I think you could use that analogy in both chemistry and physics and sorry, both chemistry and biology. And similarly, I would say that using things like liquid limes, liquid gypsums, this type of thing, again injected into the furrow, similar principle to what we talked about before is about providing, you know, a very concentrated targeted application of that calcium, which sure is not going to provide calcium for the bulk soil to improve those overall soil properties in that direct sense, but more in the indirect sense by providing that calcium right there in that root zone. What you are doing is yes, improving the structure right there in that little immediate environment. But then of course, calcium is such an important nutrient, important for cell division. So when we talk about roots growing into the soil and roots helping to restructure, improve the structure of the soil by penetrating down into that soil, well, key to that process is calcium supply for cell division in the root tips so that those root tips can puncture down through that soil. And so I think that what, although you're not applying calcium to change that whole soil and the chemical balance in that sense, you can then provide it in a way that helps the roots change that soil more so as a plant nutrient as calcium as compared to a flock calcium to flocculate the cell structure. So again, I think there's sure, and I'm not saying it's one or the other, I think that there's opportunities to kind of synergistically do both of these strategies towards the broader, greater goal. But of course the application cost of a liquid calcium is much smaller when targeted down into that, into the furrow. But sure, it's probably going to take you a bit longer to do that as compared to a broadcast application. So again, I think it's about that context and what your goals are as you, as you point out. But I think that the changes that you make in the rhizosphere, then they can become cumulative over time. That's the key. It's not going to be immediate change overnight. But of course, as you do that over many successive years through the rotation that then you start to see some of those changes of the, in the soil properties, etc.

I would actually suggest that it's a lot more fun and a lot more rewarding as a, as a grower and as a farmer to, to make smaller incremental changes over a longer period of time because you produce bigger crop responses on the pathway to being there. Earlier you mentioned the phrase there's many roads that lead to Rome. And from the same source we have the quote, it's a lot more fun being on the road to Rome than getting to Rome. And it's one of these things that we've observed is that when you make those smaller, more targeted applications, like putting a couple hundred pounds of pelletized lime or fine particle sized lime into a furrow or into a strip till band as compared to a bulk soil treatment, when you do that, you actually produce a tremendous crop response. We get very strong crop responses from that. And you can repeat those applications over however many years it takes to rebalance your soil's mineral profile. And you will get bigger crop responses for more years than you will if you just put on a bulk soil amendment of limestone at a several tons per acre up front. You'll actually get a bigger crop response and greater economic responses, which is a bit counterintuitive, but it's the process of producing that reaction that when you put a concentrated band and you have this energy reaction, this energy release that translates into higher crop yield. Have you seen something similar?

Yes, correct. I mean, I agree and I think it's the key point that you're making there is the economics. The cost of doing that is smaller, but it's more targeted right there under the plant. So that you will see that response that you're, that you're referring to there versus the cost of that broadcast. You know, the machinery, the labor, the transport, you've got all of those associated costs. And, and sure, the argument is, well, you can amortize that over maybe a five year period and split that cost up, you know, share that across a five year period or whatever. But I think that why not do it in a, in a more cost effective way in the short term that actually is then helping the plants do the work through that better. Because of course, okay, we're look, as you say, you're talking about return on investment, you're looking for a production outcome. But in achieving that you're also typically going to be, if you've got a productive plant, you're going to also be having other benefits down below in terms of more productive root systems and and then soil changes. So, so yeah, I agree. I think it's just, it makes sense. And again I'm, it's not either or, I'm not opposed to the opposing weight, but I think that it's, it makes good sense to me too.

Well, my point is not just on, on cost, it's if, if you look at the cost per unit, let's say per pound of a applied calcium, if you did 2 tons per acre of ag grade high calcium lime broadcast versus doing 200 pounds of pelletized lime in the furrow over five years, the cost per pound of calcium is going to be a lot higher with the, usually with the smaller applications because you're getting a higher grade limestone and it's pelletized, you have more value added to it and so forth. So the cost per pound of calcium is a lot higher. But in that five year period, and I'm just making up a hypothetical example here, in that period when you're adding these small doses of high calcium lime, you're actually going to produce a lot greater crop response. There will be a yield and quality response that will be in our experience a lot higher than if you just add that 2 tons of calcium of limestone up front. So the economic, there's actually a lot of upside to doing smaller applications from a yield and economics perspective. But then in addition to that, the point that you were making is that you actually get cumulative effects in regenerating soil health and soil biology and soil structure that you don't get by just putting on one large slug up front.

Yeah, I totally agree. And of course that higher application up front is a bit more risky. It's higher prone to potential losses. Now depending on what the nutrient is and what the fertilizer is in the form and all of that kind of discussion. But, but yes, that's the point. It's your, your spoon feeding. You're spreading that risk across time compared to one big heavy dose that if you did were unfortunate enough to have a big storm event or rainfall event or whatever not long after, you could be also losing a lot of that before it's even broken down and liberated its nutrients, et cetera. So there's that too.

Let's come back to the conversation on foliars. You were describing how from a chemistry first perspective you see foliars as having a lot of merit and a lot of value. What is the strategy, what is your strategy for producing the greatest efficiency from foliar applications? How, where do you see growers producing the greatest crop response with wisely managed foliars.

Okay. I think I would say that firstly, foliars are not a silver bullet, you know, and they have to be working as part of a, a systems approach. You know, they're an appropriate tool that sits in the system and I think that that's where they can be very effective. So I'm not going to say that they're the magic bees, knees and be all and end all silver bullet, but when used in conjunction.

Oh, come on, Come on, Joel. We love silver bullets.

Yeah, we do. We do too. So as always, as I'm sure many of your listeners are aware, you know, it's about integrated strategies, it's about a broad management approach that's going to use many tools in the toolbox. But when you're setting that, designing that system and setting that up for foliars to be effective, then I think that, yes, I agree, they, they can and it's all of that nuance about, you know, what you spray and when you spray it and all of that kind of thing. But I, I actually my kind of answer to you, although there's lots we could kind of tangent on here to start talking about, but I think my answer to your question is, which also overlaps in our discussion so far, is that, you know, applying foliar nutrition is in my view predominantly all about microbial stimulation down below in the soil. It's of course it's primary photosynthesis. I love it, it's helping the plant grow, but of course it's triggering that flush of rutexudates to feed the biology. And that's where I think the question we started with about this debate between biology and chemistry, this is really, really relevant here, is that for me, this is why when I think about seed treatments, I would prioritize putting biology on a seed treatment over, over nutrition. Now, okay, I think there's scope for both. But just as an, just as a kind of an example for this discussion, I would prioritize biology on the scene and in the same way I would prioritize nutrition rather than biology on the foliar. And I think it's for that reason that for me it's about priming photosynthesis, priming rutexudates to then feed the soil biology down in the soil. And if you think about the amount of nutrients that you apply through the foliar, it really is quite small. You know, if you calculate it back per, per acre, you know, unit of measurement, you're, you're applying tiny, tiny amounts of nutrients, almost insignificant amount of nutrients over that area. And yet often from a foliar spray you can see these good growth responses. And I think that what really that is from, is not from the tiny bit of nutrient you applied. Yes, you're priming photosynthesis. And of course then when you feed the biology down below in the soil from that, the amount of nutrients that they supply to the plant is much, much greater than the small amount that you applied through the Foley, which was just the priming. It was just the priming age.

Exactly.

And so I think that therefore my kind of answer to your question is that to see a good response from Foleys, and let's be honest, you know, many farmers out there have had really mixed response. Sometimes it can work very well, sometimes not. And I think that that overlaps to this point that we've, this point about the systems approach and the point about soil physics and, and this kind of the various, the soil properties is that when you have a soil that is more on its journey towards repair and it's got some better level of functionality, then you're going to see a better response from that foliar spray. You're doing foliar sprays in tight compacted soils where you're triggering root exudates but you don't have a thriving biology there to, to make use of those root exudates. Of course you're not going to see the response back. And so I think that therefore, in order to use foliars to their full potential as one piece of the puzzle, as a tool, you also have to have that broader soil health strategy, longer term soil health strategy in mind in order to be then helping the system give that kickback from the foliar. And that's why I think that then for me, biology is my priority on the seed and nutrition is my priority on the foliage to really support that process.

That's an excellent outline, Joel. Thank you for sharing that. I think yeah. What you described perfectly matches various examples and stories that I've shared in the past that photosynthesis is really the engine that drives this whole process. And the purpose of foliar sprays is really to optimize that photosynthesis engine to drive the soil biology and drive the whole system's performance. I hadn't quite thought of prioritizing biology on the seed and nutrients in the foliar, but I can see that that is when I think to our agronomy practices and consulting practices in our work at advancing eco agriculture, that is generally true with the exception of stressed conditions or high stress situations. A few examples that come to mind are when we're dealing with, let's say canola and canola is being planted at a time where it is going to be particularly challenged. Or other brassicas as well, where they're going to be particularly challenged. With flea beetles, as soon as the seedling emerges, we find that nutrient seed treatments there to actually get the nutrients, the molybdenum and the magnesium and sulfur and boron in into the seed will give us resistance to flea beetles right at emergence, which we don't see with biology. And then the flip also when we look at adding biology to foliars is again unstressed conditions when we have disease stress or potential pathogen stress and we can add phytosanitary bacteria to overcome that. But as a general rule, I think for baseline agronomy, your approach is absolutely correct. And that's kind of, I'm just realizing we've kind of defaulted to that as well.

And I agree with your counterpoints there. I, I'm also not opposed, you know, to doing the opposites there, but I just think that the, the core foundation, the core starting point is how I mentioned. But, but I agree with you. I'm. I think I've seen good response from nutritional seed treatments. They definitely can be very helpful. And I think that that said the foliage nutrition going on to the crop onto the plant in the context of when we are seed saving, which I would encourage many farmers to be doing much more of, I think that the foliar nutrient strategies is helping to enrich the nutrient status of the seed itself to then help alleviate what you're also talking about so that that next generation seed has the nutrients already embedded in the seed from the, from the previous generations. So that's how I kind of view that. But in the practical reality where many farmers are buying in seed from various unknown maybe sources, then I would agree that there's a stronger argument there to make sure that there's enough nutrition to get things going.

Your point is very appropriate. Most commercially produced seed is of such abysmally poor quality. It's.

Yeah. One day it's quite sad.

I mean, the reality is I've had that conversation multiple times. I don't need to go down that earthworm hole again. But I think coming back to biology and nutrition, in my opinion the good news is we don't have to choose. I mean most applications, you can add both biology and nutrition to seed treatments and to foliar applications as long as they're designed correctly. So I'd love to get your perspective on this. How do applications need to be designed to work well and what doesn't work so well?

I think the number one tool in this space is your carbon based inputs. So these are your, your humix, your fulvix, your kelp, seaweed, molasses, amino acids, fish, all of these various things. I think that all of those carbon inputs, based inputs, they all have, I mean they're all different, but they all have a bit of an exchange capacity, they're a bit of a sponge. They can bind onto the nutrients, they can chelate and complex the nutrients. And so I think that they are a very important tool because when you mix your nutrients and your carbon sources together, they're going to wrap up and bind, forming, you know, kind of tying up some of the nutrients, forming those and complex so that the environment becomes more hospitable to then introduce the biology. So I think that your carbon based inputs are absolutely key. And of course those carbon based inputs then can also provides some sense of a food source for the biology to also for them to support. So, so I think that would be key and I think that on top of that it is important to recognize the concentration of your fertility. And this becomes a very difficult question to answer. I get asked this a lot, of course, no easy answer is that for sure, nutrients and biology are very, very compatible. They can be mixed together. I totally agree with your premise. We have this big fear about applying nutrients with biology, that it's going to kill the biology. And I think a lot of those fears are fairly unfounded. Microbes need nutrients too. When we make fermented wine or beer or apple, apple juice or anything, any of those kind of fermented cocktails, we add nutrients to support the biology's fermentation process. So microbes, they need nutrients. It's really important for them too. The key point here is, well, what dose of the nutrients? Too much nutrients? Well, yes, then it can be more compromising on the biology. But I think that that's, so that's the dose makes the poison, you know, that's the, really the key point. It's not somehow inherently just nutrients are bad for biology. So that's the first point. And I think that then with that really comes that more difficult part of this question is, okay, well, what is the concentration of the nutrients that I can mix that will be okay and will not affect the biology? And of course that becomes very difficult to answer because it depends on the nutrient and you know, its properties, but also it depends on which organism are we talking about. We say biology, we're referring to tens of thousands of different species of organisms here. So of course some of them are going to be maybe more sensitive to that, but others not. So there's no real easy and kind of generalized answer to this one. But I think I would just encourage people to be mindful of maybe not going too high on the nutrient side if they are mixing biology.

I actually go into some detail on what we've experienced and what we think we've learned so far in a webinar that I did on how to design foliar sprays. And I think that the way we've been able to somewhat manage it is by trying to manage the ec, the electrical conductivity of the solution, which with specific awareness of copper, boron, and seems to me I'm probably missing one or two others. But copper and boron are specific we have to be cautious of. But you know this, and we're looking at this from the perspective of measurable crop response. And how do crops respond to different foliar applications with different electrical conductivity concentrations? You know, it's quite interesting. I will readily acknowledge that I haven't figured this out yet. We haven't figured it out yet because we know if we put high EC foliars on crops, like vegetable crops, repeatedly every 10, 14 days, there's a threshold at which we soon get a negative crop response. But then we can put extremely concentrated nutrient solutions together in an airplane or in a drone, and if we put them on once every four weeks onto a broad acre crop, we only get positive crop responses where the, the tank mix might be 60, 70% product. So it's, it's interesting to. There's a lot more that we have to learn there on our end. How have you been thinking about those challenges?

Yeah, you're right. And I agree. The EC is a piece of this puzzle to talk about the, obviously the saltiness there for the biology. And in terms of another part of this which overlaps here is that, well, we can, in the spray tank, we could work towards a specific EC to say, okay, here's the threshold. I don't want to go higher than that will become too salty for the biology. So I will stay below that and we could kind of design a formula at that goal, at that target range. And this overlaps a little bit to your comment there, but of course. So then when you go and apply that foliage spray and it covers the canopy of the plant, we then begin that process of the nutrients being taken up from that nutrient solution. But of course, depending on the ambient temperatures and the humidity conditions, we're also going to start the process of some evaporation. So now the water is moving, is evaporating out of that foliar droplet and that nutrient solution is getting more and more and more concentrated as the water is evaporating. So even in theory, if we work towards an ideal EC in the spray tank after the application, at some point the, that nutrient solution is going to get more and more concentrated and in theory maybe be a barrier for microbial proliferation. So again, this is one of those challenges why I kind of defer back to prioritizing nutrients through folia and biology on the seed. But again, I, again, I acknowledge there's, there's opposite rules there. But. So this is then a question. If you read a lot of the literature on foliar sprays, they'll really emphasize the importance of the concentration that you need a good concentration on that foliar spray. You need a high concentration because that crystal creates a concentration gradient where the nutrients on the outside are higher than the nutrients inside the leaf and that gradient is what drives the uptake. Now that said, I've heard of many people going the opposite way now to what you said of applying quite dilute foliar sprays and also having good results with this. And I can only put it down to this point that although it might be dilute originally, once that drop is, is drying up, it becomes concentrated at a certain point in time and that's where we see the rapid uptake into the leaf. So, yeah, the tricky thing, I think that's there's kind of some various points there around the trickiness involved in such a dynamic process. After the application of the spray, things change, you know, as, as it dehydrates and dries and as those nutrients are taken up, it's a very dynamic and intricate process. So I don't think there's any easy answers to that one.

Yeah, yeah, there's, there's many other points to consider as well, like the point of delinquescence, of what the Bray solution is. And there's, there's lots of fun things to consider. You've recently, in your educational work, you've recently launched a foliar nitrogen course that I've heard some very good comments about on social media. Tell us a little bit about that and some, some of the highlights for you that have been coming forward in researching and thinking about foliar nitrogen applications.

Sure thing, yeah. It was really you know, this price of fertilizers that we saw, this fertilizer price hike of nitrogen that we saw in the last year or so, it was really off the back of that. And of course seeing that many farmers were concerned about the price of nitrogen, that was really the impulse that I put this course together from my experience, knowing that foliar applications of nitrogen is a great way to, to use less, but to use it more effectively, more targeted, as we've kind of touched on. And so it was really off that impulse of all of these price concerns that I put this course together with that goal to just really provide farmers with some skills and with some knowledge around how best to do this. And so yeah, I kind of spent, took me quite a bit of time. I spent a good year or so, I had some of the resources already available, but spent a good year or so kind of really building up this course, designing that, building the slide decks, etc. And put together a rather comprehensive course. You know, there are many kind of courses out there on a whole range of different topics these days, which is great to see. I mean, farmers have such incredible access these days to resources and to information. I think it's great to see. And what I really wanted to do with this one however, was to choose one very specific topic and just go as deep as I could into that as compared to maybe more of the generalist kind of often lectures. So yeah, it was a 10 lecture series all on this topic. And on top of the, on the course itself, I really wanted to put together additional resources for farmers. Education is a big passion of mine. Education personally helped me in my life. If I look back at my childhood, my youth compared to today, it was a huge tool for me that really helped me in my life and that's been there for a personal passion of mine. Hence why I like to deliver and offer educational work these days. And so on top of the course, the actual video course and the content, I really wanted to put together a whole bunch of additional educational resources. So there's fact sheets, there's articles, there's reading lists, you know, further reading list, there's some case studies, there's a whole bunch of extra stuff that goes with the course to kind of really round off the package of education. Not so that it's not just a one way delivery of me, you know, talking nonstop about this. So, so that's really the concept of the course and then really into the lecture material. Yeah, we really covered some of the key areas of starting off with nitrogen nutrition and Metabolism. So talking about the different forms of, of nitrogen that plants can use and some of their efficiencies, how the plant can use those. And you know, one of the key findings that kind of talked a lot about there was the difference between feeding the plant organic nitrogen versus inorganic nitrogen and how that embedded carbon within the organic nitrogen is so much more efficient for the plant because it is shortcutting that metabolic pathway. We're delivering nitrogen higher up the metabolism, metabolic pathway, thereby saving energy on the plant. So we kind of had that discussion and there we talked a lot about amino acids and protein hydrolysates and them as a very valuable and efficient source of organic nitrogen. So that was a big part of the discussion. We talked a bit about some of the negatives of nitrogen, some of the concerns around undermining plant health content that you, I know, spoken about yourself, things like the importance of protein synthesis and insects ability to digest those or not. So we talked a little bit about there and then really it was all on the foliar technology. We kind of talked about how nutrients are taken up through the foliage as we were just kind of talking about there, and some of those factors that influence that uptake and how we can design better foliar sprays with things like carbon based inputs, manipulating the spray pH, the water quality, applying it at the right time. Of course, you know, the importance of humidity is a huge factor in the success of foliar uptake, having good humid conditions. So that was really the core of the course. And then we kind of hit some of the practical stuff on how to mix and melt, you know, things like urea, different options for kind of solubilizing different inputs and mixing them together, and some of the crop timings in terms of crop stages and when to apply and, and that kind of thing. So I also invited a few guest farmers from around the world to come and share their kind of case studies. And so we kind of tried to get a practical element there to the course as well, to hear what farmers are doing and how they're doing it as well. So I think that, yeah, that's kind of a bit of a quick kind of course overview in the year that.

You spent preparing for this and researching it. And then also I have two questions that might overlap. One is what did you learn that surprised you or that you found really intriguing and noteworthy. And then what did your audience, what was your audience surprised by? What were they intrigued by?

Yeah, sure, good question. One of my lectures, I really dived into what you were touching on earlier was the point about, well, how much more efficient foliars than soil based. And that was a key lecture in the series that I spent a lot of time reading around. And to echo your sentiment there of the paper that you mentioned earlier or the organization that you mentioned earlier that quoted those impressive figures of foliars being so much more efficient than soil, I read a lot into this space and it's actually a very difficult question to very clearly answer. There's a lot of variables, there's a lot of context and I've read a few papers on this and they all give quite contrasting numbers and analysis and answers because fair enough, there's a lot of different contexts in which we could have that discussion. So it's very difficult to kind of give a generalized answer, say, oh well, 1, 1 pound is equal to 4 pounds or 7 or what, you know, however, which way we want to talk about that. And I think that it's hard to give those kind of universal numbers. I often would steer clear from that personally because I see there's a lot of variability and I know that farmers, they love things like that and they want to know exactly how much they can reduce their soil fertility by and how many.

Don't we love silver bullets?

Yeah, that's right. But I will say this. From the literature that I read, I think it is very clear that yes, foliars are more efficient and have great potential to be. So I think that is very clear. Exactly what the number is, I think is where we may be, need to be mindful or a little cautious in our quoting of some of those numbers. And also I think that, you know, extending it back to the farmer at the field level, you know, I've seen some farmers, I know farmers who are using particularly as part foliars as part of their system, but who where they are using a lot less nitrogen and still achieving good production and yet another farmer is nowhere near that level yet. You know, he's not, they're not ready to. They were only earlier on in that transition of dialing down the nitrogen inputs. And so you see very, I think even at the field level a big contrast in what farmers are able, are achieving or able to achieve. And I think that there's again just a lot of that kind of context there. But I really appreciate.