16 April 2025

What I did:

I read the Introduction, Chapter 1, and Conclusion of Alicia Kennedy’s book, “No Meat Required” and attended her keynote address/ fireside chat. I reviewed the soil health assessment in more depth and critically evaluated how the rankings and recommendations compared to what I know about the land. I communicated with Liz about picking up the seeds from her office and also communicated with Scott Multisch who will be dropping off the fence materials at the farm. I planned a time to get trained on the flail mower with Josh next week so I can prepare the land for seeding the cover crop.

 

What I learned:

Critical Analysis of the Soil Health Assessment

Aggregate stability is a measure of how well soil aggregates (peds, clumps) hold together under rainfall or when a soil gets wet rapidly (for example, under intense irrigation). Aggregate stability can indicate the biological and physical health of the soil, as aggregates are held together by microbial colonies. Soils that have good aggregate stability are resistant to runoff, erosion, and crusting. When soils “crust,” it is as if they become sealed off, restricting gas exchange between the air and soil, making the soil more resistant to infiltration during rainfall events, and creating a more difficult barrier for emerging seedlings. Conversely, soils that have good aggregate stability have good aeration (allowing for microbial communities to thrive), facilitate infiltration, and store water in pore spaces between aggregates. The aggregate stability of Field R was 17%, meaning that when exposed to water stress, only 17% of the aggregates resisted disintegration. This indicator received a score of 22, placing it in the “low” category, but on the border of being “very low,” making it close to being a constraining function. Considering the history of this soil and the various slake tests that have been conducted by engineering classes the past few years, poor aggregate stability is not a new problem for this soil and does not come as a surprise. 

Soil respiration is a measure of the metabolic activity of the microbial community, indicating the abundance and activity levels of microbial life which perform key functions in soils, including nutrient cycling and contributing to aggregate formation. The soil respiration value is low, indicating there is a poor microbial community and/or it is not active. This is unsurprising considering the aggregate stability of the soil is poor, allowing for crusting to inhibit gas exchange and effectively “suffocating” microbes.

The organic matter of the soil is in the high range, however, because there is a poor microbial presence (indicated by low soil respiration and poor aggregate stability), the inorganic nitrogen cannot be freed from the organic nitrogen sources in the soil through the activities of microorganisms. No matter how much organic matter is in the soil, if there are not microbial communities present to make nutrients bioavailable to plants, that organic matter is nothing more than a mulch at most. The SOC (Soil Organic Carbon) value for this soil is 1.74%. Research has shown that soils with less than 2% SOC suffer a decline in structural stability, crop yields, and the ability for soils to cycle nutrients.

This relates to the fact that the predicted soil protein is low. Predicted soil protein is the fraction of the SOM (soil organic matter) that is present as protein or protein-like substances and influences the ability of the soil to make nitrogen available. SOM attracts and holds many soluble plant available nutrients so the nutrients can be made available to the plant. This is critical because it acts as a store of nutrients or slow-release mechanism as microorganisms can break down these compounds over time. In contrast, water soluble nutrients, such as those added by granular chemical fertilizers are water soluble and immediately available to plants but do not get retained by the soil, leaching out if they exist in excess.

This soil is a silt loam, meaning that it is inherently better at retaining water than a sandy loam. According to researchers at Cornell Labs, “In heavier (fine textured) soils, the available water capacity is generally less constraining, because they naturally have high water retention ability. Instead, they are typically more limited in their ability to supply air to plant roots during wet periods, and to allow for enough infiltration to store water if rains come infrequently in heavy events.” The predicted available water capacity is very high relative to soils with similar textures. This suggestion is contradictory to what I would expect for this soil, considering how poor the aggregate stability is. I am skeptical about the high rating.

The extractable phosphorus, potassium, and additional nutrients all scored 100. I could not find information about what specific range/value was too high, however, I do know that excess of one nutrient can inhibit plants from taking up other essential nutrients. 

Reflection

Upon looking closer at the Soil Health Assessment, I discovered that some indicators and rankings seemed to contradict one another. I think this shows the limits of sending a sample to a lab far away for testing to learn about how “good” a soil is. I know that the practices employed on Field R in the past were not sustainable, however the results ranked this soil “High.” Some indicators that ranked high surprised me in this regard, however, other indicators were sub-optimal and verified what I had thought. Combining my personal knowledge and experiences with the data from Cornell is most useful. Did I need Cornell to tell me that the soil aggregation was poor and microbial levels were low? No, I could expect as much. But does this information in numerical terms make these concepts more digestible and presentable to other audiences? Yes, and so I intend to continue to engage with multiple forms of producing and conveying knowledge.

 

Takeaways from Alicia Kennedy

I was quite surprised by how forward Alicia Kennedy was, both in her book and in her comments during the Keynote. For example, she was not afraid to say, “I do not like to eat meat and I do not like when other people eat meat.” Most people might keep such an absolute statement to themselves so as not to offend anyone, however, she has strong beliefs and wants them to be heard.

Despite my differences from Kennedy in diet choices, as I am not vegan, vegetarian, and do not think I will ever be, there were many points she made that resonated with me personally and also related directly to my independent study. 

Kennedy often used the term “agroecology” which I thought was interesting given the research I did on past alternative agriculture movements. She opted to use this term and not regenerative agriculture, although I think the principles behind both are the same. 

I think one of the most compelling statements Kennedy made in her book was about the stereotype of the “image of veganism in most omnivores heads is so white” because “then it’s easy to dismiss.” This is similar to how she said during her talk “counter culture is very white and people often want to wipe it away” instead of acknowledging that there is counter culture that is not white and that existed before.  If a movement is “white,” it can be viewed as just another trend, however if a movement comes from a community that has experienced oppression and violence, it cannot be dismissed, because doing so would be dismissing justice, as this movement “threatens” to become something greater than a food choice, it is a social/political/cultural statement. 

Kennedy brought up the issue of how tech companies want to upscale alternative meat products, however, that would not change the system, but merely replace mass produced meat with mass produced fake meat, continuing with the status quo of capitalism. This made me think about how food justice cannot be produced on a mass scale, just as I have come to acknowledge that regenerative agriculture cannot be produced on a mass scale. It takes relocalization of food systems, plural. There should not be one food system, there should be tons of food systems that are situated in a specific place and within a specific cultural context. Just like there is no one way to engage in regenerative agriculture to grow food, there is no one way to go about consuming food. I think the greater goal is not to give up one food group, like meat, but to give up one way of producing food– mass-scale, mechanized production.

 

What I’m doing next:

Next week will be a lot of field work: setting up the fence, getting trained on the BCS to flail mow the corn debris, sowing the cover crop. I am hoping I can get all of these tasks done next week now that I finally have all the materials I need, however, this is a lot to take on. One of my friends offered to help me set up the fence. I have set up a time to meet with Josh to use the BCS.