Storey's in the Dirt

Regenerative Farming & Food Sovereignty

Featured Posts

Welcome to Storey's in the Dirt

Real-world knowledge for living systems — physical, digital, and human — meant to be returned to again and again. Grounded inquiry, working tools, and place-based stories from the farm and beyond.

Writing & Research

Writing that emerges from practice — field observations, long-form inquiry, and systems thinking shaped over time.

Field Notes & Essays

Essays from the field, seasonal reflections, observations on systems, and regenerative practice.

Deep Dives

Sustained investigations into regenerative land systems, seasonal living, and systems thinking — books in progress, revealed as they develop.

Tools & Systems

Practical infrastructure for regenerative work — templates, trackers, and experimental tools for managing living systems.

Practical Tools & Downloads

Downloadable Recipes, trackers, schedules, templates. Immediately useful, low-cost.

Apps & Experiments

Experimental tools for data sovereignty, knowledge management, and systems thinking. Built to solve real problems.

Conversations

Conversation with people I find interesting

Podcast & Conversations

Conversations with those who are fun to talk to. These conversation go above beyond all other content.

Recent Field Notes

Mulder's Insight on Nutrient Interactions

Mulder’s Chart and Nutrient Interactions When deficiency stopped being singular As agricultural chemistry matured beyond identifying single limiting factors, a new problem emerged. Correcting one deficiency often revealed another. Adding one nutrient sometimes made plants worse, not better. Fertility became less predictable, not more. This was not failure. It was a sign that chemistry was beginning to encounter relationships. One of the first thinkers to formally recognize this shift was Gerard Mulder. --- From limits to interactions Liebig had shown that growth is limited by the scarcest essential factor. Mulder extended that insight by asking a deeper question: > *What happens when nutrients do not act independently?* Through chemical observation and early experimentation, Mulder recognized that nutrients influence one another’s behavior in the soil and within plants. Deficiency, he showed, is not always absolute. It is often induced. --- What Mulder’s Chart revealed Mulder’s Chart—sometimes called the nutrient interaction chart—mapped how nutrients can: * support one another (synergy) * interfere with one another (antagonism) This was a quiet but profound shift. Fertility was no longer just about presence or absence. It was about proportion and interaction. An excess of one element could block the uptake or function of another. --- Antagonism and synergy Mulder identified patterns that are now foundational to soil science: * excess potassium interfering with magnesium and calcium uptake * high phosphorus reducing availability of certain micronutrients * imbalances creating symptoms that mimic deficiency In these cases, the nutrient was present. It simply could not function. This explained why adding more fertilizer sometimes worsened plant health. --- Early chemistry meets complexity Mulder’s work represents one of the earliest moments when agricultural chemistry confronted complexity it could not ignore. Total nutrient levels were no longer sufficient explanations. The system mattered. This insight did not overturn Liebig. It completed him. Limits exist—but limits also interact. --- The garden lesson: why “by the numbers” fails Gardeners experience Mulder’s insight regularly. A soil test identifies a deficiency. That nutrient is added. A new problem appears. Leaves curl. Color shifts. Growth stalls. What changed was not the plant. It was the balance. Fertilizing strictly “by the numbers” assumes nutrients act independently. Mulder showed they do not. --- Why fixing one problem can create another When one element dominates: * exchange sites become crowded * uptake pathways are disrupted * biological mediation is stressed Symptoms follow. These symptoms are often misdiagnosed as new deficiencies—leading to additional inputs and escalating complexity. Mulder’s Chart provides the missing context. --- Why Mulder matters in this series Mulder stands at a critical point in agricultural history. Between: * Liebig, who showed that limits exist * and Albrecht, who showed that balance governs function Mulder revealed that limits interact. This insight pushed chemistry toward systems thinking—well before biology had the tools to fully explain it. --- Setting the stage forward Mulder’s work makes one thing clear: You cannot manage nutrients in isolation. Presence is not enough. Balance matters. This realization prepares the ground for what comes next—where ratios, structure, and living mediation move from implication to principle. Next, we will continue along this path, as soil science begins to formalize the mechanics of exchange and balance that Mulder first brought into view.

•Soil & Microbiology

Impact of Haber-Bosch on Agriculture

— Haber–Bosch and the Industrialization of Nitrogen When chemistry broke the natural limits of fertility If Liebig defined limits, and Albrecht explored balance, the Haber–Bosch process fundamentally altered the scale at which agriculture could operate. This moment cannot be skipped. Not because it solved everything—but because it changed everything. --- Nitrogen before Haber–Bosch Before the early 20th century, nitrogen was a limiting factor in very real, physical ways. Usable nitrogen entered agricultural systems through: * biological fixation by legumes * animal manures * composted organic matter * limited natural nitrate deposits These pathways were slow, cyclical, and tightly bound to biological systems. They placed a ceiling on yield. That ceiling shaped population, land use, and food security for millennia. --- The breakthrough The Haber–Bosch process—developed by Fritz Haber and industrialized by Carl Bosch—made it possible to synthesize ammonia by combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen under high pressure and temperature. For the first time: * nitrogen was no longer biologically constrained * fertilizer production could be scaled industrially * fertility could be manufactured on demand This was a genuine scientific triumph. It allowed agriculture to feed populations that would otherwise have been impossible to sustain. --- Why it was embraced Haber–Bosch arrived at a moment of urgency. Europe faced food shortages. Industrial nations faced population pressure. War and geopolitics demanded reliable nitrogen sources. From the perspective of the time, synthetic nitrogen was not reckless. It was necessary. The process worked. Crops responded immediately. Yields soared. --- The shift it triggered By removing nitrogen as a natural bottleneck, Haber–Bosch reshaped agricultural thinking. Fertility became something that could be: * added externally * corrected quickly * scaled indefinitely Nitrogen moved from being one element among many to the dominant driver of yield. This reinforced NPK thinking and accelerated the separation of chemistry from biology. --- What nitrogen alone could not do Synthetic nitrogen feeds plants—while it was understood that nitrogen did not add humus or minerals directly, the cascading consequences of bypassing biological pathways were not yet understood. Over time, systems heavily dependent on soluble nitrogen often experienced: * declining organic matter * reduced biological diversity * increased compaction * greater susceptibility to pests and disease These outcomes were not immediate. They emerged over decades. --- Chemistry outruns context Haber–Bosch demonstrated the extraordinary power of chemistry. But we now know, power without balance has consequences. When nitrogen is abundant: * other nutrients become limiting * biological processes are bypassed * soil structure is neglected This does not invalidate the science. It highlights the cost of single-factor dominance. --- Why Haber–Bosch belongs in this series Ignoring Haber–Bosch would leave a dangerous gap in the story. It explains: * why nitrogen became central * why yield eclipsed resilience * why biology was sidelined for decades It also explains why modern agriculture is now forced to re-integrate: * mineral balance * soil biology * carbon cycling The solution to nitrogen limitation created a new set of limitations. --- Setting the stage forward Haber–Bosch did not end the story of soil. It accelerated it. The task now is not to undo this chemistry—but to contextualize it. To place nitrogen back into relationship with: * carbon * minerals * microbes * structure Only then does its power become sustainable. Next, we move deeper into how chemistry carried the arch of agricultural history into the twentieth century.
•Soil & Microbiology

Rudolf Steiner & Biodynamic Agriculture

— Rudolf Steiner and Biodynamic Intuition Competing ideas at the edge of early agricultural science As agricultural chemistry and soil science were becoming more formalized in the early 20th century, not all serious thinkers moved in the same direction. Alongside laboratory chemistry, field trials, and emerging industrial agriculture, there existed competing frameworks—attempts to describe life, soil, and plant health that did not yet have a complete scientific vocabulary, but were deeply rooted in observation. One of the most influential—and most controversial—of these figures was Rudolf Steiner. --- An outsider to formal agricultural chemistry Steiner is often excluded from traditional agricultural histories, particularly those centered on chemistry, yield optimization, or what later became conventional agriculture. This exclusion is understandable. Steiner was not a soil chemist. He did not work within the emerging frameworks of nutrient analysis, base saturation, or pH. His language was philosophical, symbolic, and at times difficult to reconcile with reductionist science. And yet, dismissing him entirely misses something important. --- Competing ideas, not opposing intent Steiner’s agricultural lectures—later forming the foundation of biodynamic agriculture—were offered at a time when: * chemistry could measure nutrients but not relationships * biology was observed but poorly explained * soil life was known to matter, but not how or why Steiner was attempting to describe patterns he could see, using the intellectual tools available to him. His intent was not anti-science. It was pre-scientific in the literal sense: *before the tools existed to translate intuition into measurement*. --- Biodynamics as early systems thinking At its core, biodynamic agriculture emphasized: * the farm as a self-regulating system * soil vitality as foundational to plant health * the interdependence of soil, plant, animal, and environment These ideas now sound familiar. Modern systems biology, agroecology, and soil food web science echo many of the same principles—though expressed with data, microscopy, and molecular tools rather than metaphor. Steiner lacked a shared scientific language. But he was not lacking perception. --- Where the language fell short Many of Steiner’s concepts were expressed through: * cosmic rhythms * energetic forces * symbolic preparations To modern ears, this language can obscure rather than clarify. But it is important to remember the context. Microbial ecology did not yet exist. Enzymes were poorly understood. DNA was undiscovered. Steiner was trying to articulate biological complexity without a biological vocabulary. --- Intuition ahead of instrumentation From a modern perspective, it is reasonable to say that Steiner was intuitively tracking phenomena that science would later explain. Soil life. Biological mediation. The importance of structure and vitality beyond chemistry alone. Had Steiner lived in an era of genomic sequencing, soil respiration assays, and microbial profiling, his work would likely have looked very different. One can reasonably imagine him as a scientist delighted by tools—testing, measuring, refining rather than relying on metaphor. --- Why Steiner belongs in this series This series is not a ledger of who was right or wrong. It is a record of how understanding evolved. Steiner represents a parallel path—one that did not dominate policy, industry, or formal science, but persisted because it addressed something chemistry alone could not yet explain. His work stands as evidence that: * there were competing ideas about soil health * reductionism was not universally accepted * intuition often precedes explanation --- Bridging intuition and evidence Modern soil science increasingly validates principles Steiner emphasized: * systems matter * life mediates chemistry * soil vitality cannot be reduced to inputs alone What has changed is not the direction of inquiry—but the tools. Today, those tools allow us to translate intuition into data, and philosophy into testable frameworks. Steiner’s contribution, then, is not a blueprint. It is a reminder. That science does not move forward in a single line. That insight often appears before language. And that progress is sometimes recognizing *what someone was trying to say*, even when they could not yet say it clearly. --- Setting the record straight Including Steiner here is not an endorsement of every method or metaphor associated with biodynamics—but it is a salute to a man who spoke about soil the way a psychedelic steampunk wordsmith might: vividly, intuitively, and far ahead of the instrumentation of his time. It is an acknowledgment that agriculture has always contained multiple ways of knowing. Some paths gained instruments. Others preserved intuition. The work ahead is not choosing between them—but learning how to integrate what each was reaching toward. Next, we will continue forward into how modern science finally acquired the tools to explain the biological mediation that thinkers like Steiner could sense—but not yet measure.
•Regenerative Agriculture

Albrecht's Soil Balance Insight

— William Albrecht and the Concept of Balance Where chemistry and biology finally meet If Liebig gave agriculture its first chemical language, and Hensel reminded us of its mineral foundations, William Albrecht provided the hinge. Albrecht’s work marks the moment when agricultural chemistry stopped asking only *what is present* and began asking *how those things relate*. This shift—from inputs to relationships—is where chemistry and biology finally begin to speak the same language. --- A new kind of question By the early to mid-20th century, agriculture had accumulated data. Soil tests measured nutrients. Fertilizers corrected deficiencies. Yields increased. And yet, problems persisted. Soils compacted. Roots remained shallow. Plants showed deficiencies even when nutrients tested “adequate.” Livestock health varied dramatically from one farm to another. Albrecht asked a question others were not yet asking: > *What if the problem is not how much—but how balanced?* --- Base saturation: chemistry with structure Albrecht’s most influential contribution was his work on base saturation. Rather than focusing solely on total nutrient levels, he examined how key cations occupied soil exchange sites—specifically: * calcium * magnesium * potassium * sodium He observed that soils functioned best not when these elements were simply present, but when they existed in functional proportions. This was a critical departure. Soil was no longer a container. It was a system of relationships. --- Calcium: structure before nutrition One of Albrecht’s most important insights was reframing calcium. Calcium was not merely a nutrient for plants. It was a structural element for soil. Adequate calcium: * promotes aggregation * improves porosity * enhances root penetration * supports water and air movement Without it, even nutrient-rich soils could become dense, anaerobic, and biologically constrained. This explained a puzzle many farmers and gardeners recognized instinctively: > Why do plants struggle in soils that test “fertile”? Structure was the missing link. --- Explaining what NPK could not Albrecht’s framework revealed why NPK alone often fails. Nitrogen can stimulate growth. Phosphorus can support roots. Potassium can improve stress tolerance. But none of these can compensate for: * poor aggregation * imbalanced cation ratios * restricted root systems When calcium is insufficient—or overwhelmed by other cations—nutrients may be present but inaccessible. This is nutrient lockout. Albrecht did not reject chemistry. He refined it. --- From soil chemistry to living health Perhaps most distinctive was how far Albrecht extended his thinking. He drew direct connections between: * soil mineral balance * plant nutrient composition * livestock health * and ultimately, human health This was not philosophy. It was observation. Animals grazing mineral-balanced soils showed: * improved fertility * stronger immunity * better overall vitality Plants grown in balanced soils resisted disease more effectively. Soil chemistry, Albrecht argued, sets the trajectory for the entire food system. --- Why Albrecht matters to gardeners Gardeners see Albrecht’s principles play out every season. Compacted beds resist roots. Repeated fertilization fails to correct chronic problems. Plants show deficiencies that fertilizers don’t fix. Albrecht explains why: It’s not just what you add. It’s what the soil can *do* with it. Balance determines function. --- Relationships over totals Albrecht’s work shifted agriculture toward a deeper truth: Elements do not act alone. Calcium interacts with magnesium. Potassium competes for exchange sites. Sodium influences dispersion. Ratios shape behavior. Presence alone is not enough. This insight sets the stage for everything that follows. --- Setting up CHNOPS in context When we return to CHNOPS—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur—we will do so differently because of Albrecht. These elements operate within a mineral framework. Their availability depends on structure. Their behavior depends on balance. Albrecht reminds us that chemistry becomes biology when relationships are honored. He did not close the conversation. He opened it. Next, we will begin to look at how these principles expanded further—into biological mediation, cofactors, and the full complexity of living soil systems.
•Soil & Microbiology

Sørensen's pH Scale and Agriculture

— Søren Sørensen and the pH Scale Measuring the hidden chemistry that governs life As agricultural science moved deeper into chemistry, one persistent problem remained: Soil reactions mattered—but they were difficult to describe with precision. Farmers knew some soils were “sweet.” Others were “sour.” Certain crops thrived in one field and failed in another, even when nutrients appeared similar. What was missing was a common language for acidity and alkalinity. That language arrived in 1909 through the work of Søren Sørensen. --- Why acidity mattered Long before the pH scale existed, growers understood its effects. They observed that: * legumes struggled in sour (acidic) soils, while crops favoring sweet (alkaline) conditions performed better * lime improved structure and crop performance * nutrients behaved differently from field to field But these observations lacked precision. Without a way to quantify soil reaction, recommendations remained general and inconsistent. Chemistry needed a ruler. --- The birth of the pH scale Sørensen, working in biochemical research, introduced the pH scale as a way to measure the concentration of hydrogen ions in solution. The scale: * ranges from acidic to alkaline * is logarithmic rather than linear * reflects exponential change with each whole unit Here’s the simplified breakdown: * More hydrogen ions → lower pH → acidic * Fewer hydrogen ions → higher pH → alkaline (basic) pH Value — What it Means * 0–6: Acidic (lots of hydrogen ions) * 7: Neutral (balanced) * 8–14: Alkaline (fewer hydrogen ions) This exponential point is critical. A shift of one pH unit represents a tenfold change in acidity. Suddenly, subtle differences could be expressed clearly—and compared reliably. --- From laboratory to soil Although developed for biochemical applications, the pH scale quickly proved invaluable to agriculture. Soil reaction was no longer subjective. It could be measured, tracked, and adjusted. This transformed soil management. pH emerged as a master variable because it influences bulk processes that early 20th‑century scientists could observe and measure: * Nitrification — the conversion of ammonium to nitrate slows sharply in acidic soils * Organic matter decomposition — acidity alters decay rates and nutrient release * Root function — acidic conditions increase root injury and restrict elongation * Calcium availability — low pH reduces calcium presence on exchange sites * Toxicity — acidity increases the solubility of elements like aluminum and manganese, which can damage roots * Chemical reactions at the soil interface — governing whether nutrients remain available or become locked away In many cases, nutrients were present—but unavailable due to pH constraints. --- Why pH governs nutrient access Each nutrient operates within a preferred pH range. Outside that range: * phosphorus can bind tightly to other elements * micronutrients may become insoluble or toxic * microbial processes slow or shift This explains a common frustration: > *Why does a soil test show nutrients that plants cannot use?* pH determines whether chemistry is allowed to function. --- The garden lesson: chemistry before correction Gardeners often rush to add nutrients when plants struggle. Sørensen’s contribution reminds us to pause. If pH is out of range: * fertilizers may be wasted * amendments may underperform * biological activity may stall Correcting pH does not feed plants directly. It creates the conditions for feeding to work. --- pH as a bridge concept The pH scale quietly unites chemistry and biology. It is a chemical measurement. But its consequences are biological. Roots sense pH. Microbes respond to it. Minerals behave differently because of it. Sørensen did not study soil specifically. Yet his work gave agriculture one of its most powerful interpretive tools. --- Why Sørensen belongs among the pioneers Sørensen did not tell farmers what to add. He gave them a way to understand why additions succeed or fail. The pH scale allowed agriculture to: * diagnose before prescribing * compare soils meaningfully * refine mineral and biological management It also prepared the ground—quite literally—for deeper insights into balance, cofactors, and biological mediation. --- Setting the stage forward With pH, agriculture gained an exponential lens. Small changes mattered. Thresholds became visible. This concept will return when we revisit CHNOPS, cofactors, and biological exponents. Because in living systems, scale is never linear. Next, we continue forward—toward how pH, minerals, and biology intersect to govern the chemistry of life in soil.
•Soil & Microbiology
View All Field Notes →