Rock Dust?

[JJJessee]

I've been using glacial rock dust and azomite in potting mediums I mix for almost a year.
I've also sprinkled azomite directly on my raised beds.
My understanding is that using a powdered, igneous rock dust provides a slow release of trace elements that may be missing from a soil, but is most helpful in giving a "foothold" to certain types of beneficial fungi necessary for building organic soil health and fertility. I saw woman on YouTube claim that watering Ramial Chip Wood with a dilution molasses, rock dust, and mushroom spores made an excellent compost in fairly short order relative to normal break down times.

[Tapout]

Sup Jess I have used rock dust and its something that you wont see a difference right away. It takes time for the minerals to become available to your plants. You are correct that in its initial form the rock dust cant be used until its broken down. Worms also help speed up this process.

[jhamilton1208]

New guy here... But isn't rock dust the same as sand? So wouldn't it be like throwing greensand in your garden? In a way I mean..

[RayR]

Originally Posted by jhamilton1208

New guy here... But isn't rock dust the same as sand? So wouldn't it be like throwing greensand in your garden? In a way I mean..

Sand is mostly quartz, it's an inert crystalized silica so it's not the same as rock dusts or greensand. Greensand is a silicate too but it contains potassium and iron which will break down over a long period of time. Rock dusts are from weathered volcanic deposits (like Azomite) or sedimentary deposits or contain both like glacial rock dusts. Rock dusts generally contain a wide variety of trace minerals.

[jhamilton1208]

Ok, that explains a lot and makes sense. thanks.

[fonseca]

Originally Posted by drbobintx

I'm not saying that rock dust doesn't have any effect, but I'm confident it isn't very significant.

I felt the same way until I used micronized Azomite in some of my containers last year. It had a surprising effect on the flavor of my heirlooms. Tomatoes grown with Azomite were noticeably saltier (and more flavor IMO) than the same cultivars in the non-Azomite mix. It was not subtle, and I even received comments about it from non-foodie friends who tried them. I noticed no difference in the growth habits or disease resistance of those plants.

I have used other mineral amendments like Rich Earth and glacial rock dust in the past, but I never noticed any difference in flavor. Perhaps because they are much coarser than the finely-powdered Azomite, and slower to become available.

Purely anecdotal, but I'm going to do a comparison grow again this year.

I would not expect to see research on rock dust in the US. Most agricultural university research is corporation-funded, and there's no incentive to research rock dust when it can't be monetized.

[drew51]

Originally Posted by fonseca

I would not expect to see research on rock dust in the US. Most agricultural university research is corporation-funded, and there's no incentive to research rock dust when it can't be monetized.

But it can be and is actually.

Originally Posted by pdxwindjammer

I have done hours of research on remineralizing soil and I am convinced that it will provide more nutritious vegetables. It provides minerals, which help the plant take in more nutrients. I am using it now and will see if it makes a difference.

Originally Posted by pdxwindjammer

This is not herbicide or pesticide. It is finely ground rock. Can't see how it would be harmful in any way. I don't remember if I provided this link in my original thread but I would encourage you to watch some of the videos within - http://remineralize.org/

Well it can be harmful in many ways. It could contain heavy metals or other contaminants like arsenate. Minerals are easy to add to soils without using rock dust. Some rock dust may take a decade to become available to a plant.
I have some mineral deficiencies and use sulfates to replenish the soil. Sometimes as a foliar spray so it is quickly available to the plant. I have a manganese deficiency in my soil. Manganese sulfate in a foliar spray has solved the problem.
I'm all for using all types of rock dust, but I would not stop using fertilizers with complete trace minerals. Or apply chemicals as needed. To me I don't pay attention much if something is organic or not. Like sulfur to me is a chemical, and I will always consider it as such. Even the word organic to me has to do with carbon chemistry so Agent Orange is technically organic. I wish they would have used another word for organic in gardening, because it already has a meaning.

[Redbaron]

Originally Posted by drew51

Even the word organic to me has to do with carbon chemistry so Agent Orange is technically organic. I wish they would have used another word for organic in gardening, because it already has a meaning.

Actually it is that reason why they originally called it organic. It all has to do with the original word for it: "humus farming". That term didn't catch on, but it was the original difference. Another old term that never caught on was chemical manures. Early soil scientists found there resulted a difference in the humus content of soil depending if you used inorganic chemical manures compared to organic manures. These differences in the humus content of the soil effect many of it's fundamental characteristics for agriculture. That actually is using the same meaning as the chemistry meaning for "organic". Just a shortened form of "organic manures in humus farming"....shortened to "organic farming". Humus is soil organic carbon after all.

Only later, well after "organic farming" was well established in the public lexicon, did pesticides enter into the picture. It wasn't until the pesticide era that the chemistry meaning of organic and the agricultural science meaning for the term diverged.

If you need a scientific reason to use organic agricultural methods, it is probably best to go back to those original soil scientists that discovered the essential fundamental foundation of the soil is humus, and any method designed to optimise humus in the soil has many scientifically confirmed benefits.

[fonseca]

Originally Posted by drew51

But it can be and is actually.

Can be monetized? How so? How is a company like DuPont, which is currently funding research into nitrogen fertilizer application rates at the University of Missouri, going to monetize rock dust? They cannot. They have zero interest in paying for research that does not provide financial benefit (and could potentially harm their revenue stream), and soil scientists know it when they write their proposals. If you look at rock dust trials, you will find recents ones originating in universities in Central and South America. The US? Not so much. Our land grant universities are beholden to corporate partners, and far too often, that is who the research benefits. But that is another topic.

Rock dust is free for the taking in many regions: it is a waste product at quarries. I used to go to a granite quarry in VA and get all the fines I could haul at no cost. They couldn't give it away. It supposedly had 55 trace minerals and 5% K. They had tried marketing it as a turf enhancer. Farmers were not interested because the cost of transporting and spreading on fields is substantial.

[Worth1]

https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&b...d=0CLMDENsLMBc

[gvozdika]

From reading about Julius Hensel (the author of "Bread from Stones", first(?) promoter of rock dust use), it is clear that chemical companies were fighting for their profits even a hundred years ago. Nothing's changed. Rock dust is free, at least for me. I'm adding it into my containers this year. It just makes sense. As I understand, it needs mycorrhizae to make nutrients available to plants and no chemical manures

[drew51]

Originally Posted by fonseca

Can be monetized? How so?
.

Go to Amazon and search rock dust. You make my point, it's dead cheap, yet being sold for a hefty price. Like $1.00 per pound


Redbaron, you make it way too complex, Agent Orange is organic, I didn't make it so, it just is. It fits the definition. Your statement makes little sense to me. For me it's about carbon chemistry because the molecules behave a certain way, differently from other groups. So Organic chemistry was born.
BTW I have about 45 credits from MSU in organic chemistry.

As far as rock dust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwF3TFOzIik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKc0TAURMFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf2t8HxJ7T4

[Redbaron]

Originally Posted by drew51

Redbaron, you make it way too complex, Agent Orange is organic, I didn't make it so, it just is. It fits the definition. Your statement makes little sense to me. For me it's about carbon chemistry because the molecules behave a certain way, differently from other groups. So Organic chemistry was born.
BTW I have about 45 credits from MSU in organic chemistry.

Agent orange if used in agriculture is not organic. You just swapped chemistry with agricultural science. That logic fallacy is called an equivocation.

[drew51]

No, the equivocation is what you are doing with the word organic. And who says I was talking about gardening? I wasn't, and Agent Orange is still organic. It is an organic compound, or mixture of various organic molecules.
You exactly hit on the problem I have. How do I know what meaning you mean? Sure most times you can tell, but you walked right into the problem. I was not talking in an agricultural sense. Hence the dilemma I have with this word. Organic in argriculture makes no sense to me, as some chemicals are organic and others are not. Some were, but are not now. Talk about a misleading term, it defines ambiguity.

[Redbaron]

Originally Posted by drew51

No that is what you are doing with the word organic.

Let's try again. Definition of organic from Merriam-Webster:

a (1) : of, relating to, or derived from living organisms <organic evolution> (2) : of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides <organic farming> <organic produce>
b (1) : of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) : relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds

You are using b (1)(2) in the context of a (2). That is a fallacy called Equivocation.

In the context of this thread, rock dust is an organic amendment. But in the context of your chemistry class, rock dust isn't organic. So it is important to use the proper context to avoid confusing people.

Originally Posted by drew51

And who says I was talking about gardening? I wasn't, and Agent Orange is still organic. It is an organic compound, or mixture of various organic molecules.
You exactly hit on the problem I have. How do I know what meaning you mean?

We are on an agricultural forum, precisely

Tomatoville® Gardening Forums Index > We're Here For The Tomatoes!™ > Soilbuilding 101™ > Rock Dust?

That's how you know. So here we use the definition a (2). Using a different definition would be off topic, confusing and out of context... ie. an equivocation.