Transcript excerpt of a field-day discussion (AEA Field Day) among James Johnson, David, and Jinfa Zhang about organic Pima/cotton production. Topics covered in this chunk include planter/planting-density experiments (lost rows, varying spacings such as 60–80 inch), observations about rust disease cycles and gramma grass as a reservoir, detection and history of Fusarium oxysporum race 4 (reported in India circa 1960; arrived in the U.S. on fuzzy seed around 2001; reported in Kansas and near Las Cruces/El Paso), and issues of soil mineral availability vs. total mineral content illustrated by phosphorus measurements (regular soil test examples: 14 parts per million; a total-mineral extraction showed ~2,500 lb/acre of phosphorus in top six inches; one grower had 8 lb/acre on a standard sample). The speakers emphasize that minerals may be present but not biologically available, and describe doing total mining assays to reveal bound minerals.
Questions this video answers
Circa 1960.
Around 2001.
Kansas (also reported between Las Cruces and El Paso).
14 parts per million (ppm).
Approximately 2,500 pounds per acre of phosphorus in the top six inches.
Chapters
So this was the first time that Javier had ever been included in an organic Pima crop or an organic cotton crop at all. We had a bit of a planter problem here. So we actually had a suction hose on the planter that came unplugged. We're constantly battling right now with where to plant cotton as far as how much we want to plant per acre. And the cottonseed just continues to go up and so it's kind of neat to be able to see something that becomes a little bit thin and allows itself to express differently than when we over plant seed. And do we really have to plant so much seed? Can we make the yield on less seed? You know, David still thinks that we're kind of crazy for not planting 80 inch. So we've seen some 60 inch cotton in Texas, we've seen some 72 inch cotton in Texas, we've Seen some 76 inch cotton in other areas. When we have a field like this where we completely lose a row and that row beside it takes over, these are things that make you start thinking especially what if we could grow two crops at a time here? Normally we would apply headline in 20. We applied nickel. We applied nickel. What else did we put in that mix?
20 is a long time ago.
Come on, David, you're supposed to remember all of that in 2020. We, we only applied nutrition and got it to dry completely up this year does. Why did we not have it? It's kind of surprising to me that there's a little bit over here, but we've never had gramma grass better than we have it this year. The weather. So if, if there was a year that we should have been slaughtered by rust, it should have been this year. I heard it's a two year cycle.
So if you got it this year, yeah, next year it's going to be bad next year.
If you get rain like this next year, it's not every year. So the one thing that I was told is Jack, that it, it can't go cotton to cotton, it has to go cotton to grass, grass to cotton. So maybe that's the two year cycle is this year it's on the grass. So but if you have a dry year next year, I don't know whether.
You'Ll have it or not.
If it's dry, you may not have it. Right.
You always get some small, you get a little, you know, golden, you know those beautiful spots, you know, so you, when you have to look, you have to look at a lot of leaves every year to have a really serious damage. You have to have those rings.
We found one leaf this year with.
Where does the rust start? Top of the plant, bottom of the plant.
When it comes from the gramma grass, I think it's going to fly on whatever leaves are on the top, whatever it gets to outside edges, top. And once it's on the cotton, it can go cotton to cotton, but it can't go from cotton to the next year cotton. It has to go back to grass.
Question.
Do you have a Fusarium? There's four here.
You know my honest, I. So am I proven? No. Do I think I probably have it. I think everybody probably has it. So, genpa, where was it found last week or two weeks ago? Where was it published that it was.
Found, you know, in south of Las Cruce, between Las Cruces and El Paso last week? I don't know.
You may not have seen it, but there was an article that came out last week. It's found in Kansas.
Kansas. Race 4.
Race 4. Its origins were in India, right? Yes, the Gamosaki. And what year did it arrive?
It was reported in India in. My God. Even before I was born. Before you were born. Okay, 1960 to be exact.
But we think we've traced it down to. It came to the US on fuzzy seed mine 2001. Well, so again, I think we all have it. Oh, as far as the race four. Oh, I got. So you've got race four. You've got race four. But y' all are proven Race four. I think I have like people that have been in race four fields come out here and are like, yeah, but Jinfa, it's here. It's on the wind, it's in the rain, it's on the sea, it's in the. It's everywhere. So we have to realize that all biology is everywhere. It might not have. We might have brought it from India to here, but because it's on this shore now, we have to assume it's already everywhere.
So funny question, but what are the chances that it was here and we have just now introduced a similar environment or our soils have become common to what they had there and now it's expressing itself.
I could start a Johnson Sioux bioreactor here on my farm, and on the same day, somebody in Australia could probably take whole different feedstock and start a Johnson Sioux bioreactor on their farm. And if we went back and we. We did a test on everything that was in, that they would be far more similar than they would be different, right?
That's right. For sure.
From that we have to extrapolate that what David is saying might potentially be true in that it was always here.
A lot of times we don't think about what's actually in the soil. So if you look at James soil samples on just his regular soil samples, he actually has pretty high levels. But one of the things we started doing the last two years is doing a total mining assay where we take the soil top six inches and we measure everything that's in there. So the soil sample you're looking at, the regular soil sample is actually just showing you a very small fraction of all that's out there. So what's the rest of it that's out there? It's rocks, ground up rocks that are not yet made available through the biological reactions. And so now we, and I had this as a personal experience. The first year I was consulting, I recommended a grower that he put on a ton of rock phosphate because he had 14 parts per million of phosphorus in his soil. And that's really, really low. So he put on a ton of rock phosphate, split out over two years because it was on a pasture. And I didn't want him to be, you know, having a, having soil aggregation or soil layering where he's got, you know, a bunch of too much phosphorus on top. Well, we did his soil analysis two years later and he still had 14 parts per million of phosphorus. And I was like, you put on a ton of rock phosphate which is, you know, the equivalent of roughly 500 and some pounds of actual phosphorus. Why would the number not move? And that's actually, it's not available. But he already had plenty of ground up rock. Grower in South Dakota had 8 pounds per acre of phosphorus in his soil sample. He's growing soybeans, corn and beans on 4,000 acres. And somebody had recommended he put on a thousand pounds of rock phosphate. Not like the map, but just the non denatured rock phosphate. So I said, well maybe you need that. But I'm guessing that with your phosphorus that low, it's because you don't have biology, it's just not available. Do a total mineral extraction. And so we did. And he had 2,500 pounds per acre of phosphorus in the top six inches. Well, your roots are going to go deeper than six inches, so you can multiply that times at least four. Why do you want to put on 1,000 pounds of ground up rock? Doesn't make any sense. So a lot of the farms, it's not that the minerals aren't there, it's they're not available. The biology, it's not available.
