Rock dust
 

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from Rusty Hinge 2 contains these words:


Rock dust added to poor soil has been shown to have an amazing effect,


Where?

Janet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of our labs,several years ago, showed that after conventional
separation in a sieve tower, available soluble minerals were negligible. A
handful of clay would have been a better fertiliser than a ton of dust.
This does not imply that the dust may not have other benefits~ other than
for the vendors. Either way it will eventually break down to available
minerals~~ though it may be some thousands of years.
Best Wishes Brian.

Rock dust
 

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On 24 Feb 2006 09:19:12 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article , Rupert wrote:

This topic was discussed sometime ago and the Jury is out.

Actually, I think that it is more accurate to say that it does work,
at least for most of the main rock types found in the UK, but that
isn't actually the question most people are asking. I.e. if you
need to create soil from scratch, yes, a mixture of rock dust and
even nutrient-poor organic matter is very good.

However, so is a mixture of suitable subsoils and nutrient-rich
organic matter, and that is usually much easier to arrange.

But most people want to know if it will work as a fertiliser, and
I don't think that anyone has presented any useful evidence, so the
jury hasn't even been sent out yet!

It would also depend greatly on the type of rock. Limestone or marble
dust, for example would result in an alkaline 'soil', in the same way
as simply adding lime (much 'lime' sold in garden centres is limestone
dust, anyway). A granite dust would be very mildly acidic and might
provide traces of potash. Then there's gabbro, slate etc., a long
list, all different and each contributing it's own suite of trace
elements.


--
Chris

There was an article in one of the papers last week (end)? on this subject,
about a couple running a smallholding somewhere in Scotland. Apparently they
had amazing results producing huge vegetables of very high quality from what
used to be very impoverished land.
They applied large amounts of what was described as Glacial Rock dust
obtained from a local quarry spoil tip, plus some compost from the council.
My memory is very poor nowadays but I think the word Basalt deposits was
mentioned regarding the material, which was stated to have high levels of
nutrients.
The belief was that these nutrients replaced those which had been leeched
from the soil over time.
The pictured results were very impressive. I think the couple grew their
produce organically.

capstan

Rock dust
 

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:

Adding manure ( I use lots) to the ground I wish to improve will do
no good. It is what I believe is called gravel, with no topsoil at
all. I say believe because my idea of gravel is the sharp edged
small stones that are used for concrete making. This is various
sized pebbles in a very meagre amount of sand and clay.

I suggest a few loads of builders's sand, and a third the amount of
manure. It may not work, but nothing much else will if it doesn't.

I hadn't realised that Broadback was talking about shingly stuff. The
quantity of rock dust needed to give that a reasonably soil-like texture
would need Branson's budget, so sand and fine quarry waste with ground
limestone and muck looks like the only way to go. A few loads of what
builders sometimes dispose of from uneven sites would be good if you can
get it: they may try to call it "topsoil", but you can fairly safely bet
it won't be. They shouldn't charge for that, as you're saving them
dumping costs. I've used it, and had to pull out quite a lot of junk,
but it was manageable.

It also sounds to me like a case for planting pockets. If you don't want
to spend so much money, you could just improve small areas as planting
sites for key plants, and if necessary fill in the gaps as the years go
by.

--
Mike.

Rock dust
 

The message
from Chris Hogg contains these words:

But most people want to know if it will work as a fertiliser, and
I don't think that anyone has presented any useful evidence, so the
jury hasn't even been sent out yet!

It would also depend greatly on the type of rock. Limestone or marble
dust, for example would result in an alkaline 'soil', in the same way
as simply adding lime (much 'lime' sold in garden centres is limestone
dust, anyway). A granite dust would be very mildly acidic and might
provide traces of potash. Then there's gabbro, slate etc., a long
list, all different and each contributing it's own suite of trace
elements.


AIUI the rock used was basalt or some other igneous rock. It's no good
using rock which has been recycled and leached, maybe several times.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Rock dust
 

The message
from "capstan" contains these words:

There was an article in one of the papers last week (end)? on this subject,
about a couple running a smallholding somewhere in Scotland.
Apparently they
had amazing results producing huge vegetables of very high quality
from what
used to be very impoverished land.
They applied large amounts of what was described as Glacial Rock dust
obtained from a local quarry spoil tip, plus some compost from the council.
My memory is very poor nowadays but I think the word Basalt deposits was
mentioned regarding the material, which was stated to have high levels of
nutrients.
The belief was that these nutrients replaced those which had been leeched
from the soil over time.
The pictured results were very impressive. I think the couple grew their
produce organically.


This was reported on Radio4 a couple of years ago. I'm glad you've
confirmed my memories of it.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Rock dust
 

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Do you mean the SEER project run by the Camerons, who sell rockdust?
I've been there and met them. Their demonstration garden consisted of
veg planted in vast amounts of municipal compost spread on the hillside
like lazy beds. (something that strangely was not mentioned for several
years on their earlier website). IMHO This made nonsense of their
claims about the rock dust additive (which they sell).
They are now engaged in experiments comparing the effects of bag
fertiliser, manure, compost, and (just) rockdust applied to grassland,
no accredited results published yet afaik.
http://www.seercentre.org.uk/origina...acre-site.html

But their work and experiments are about the decontamination of land
with too much previous chemical use. They've demonstrated that the
rockdust eliminate the chemicals (somehow) and gave evidence of
projects over many years.

Rock dust
 

In article ,
Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:

AIUI the rock used was basalt or some other igneous rock. It's no good
using rock which has been recycled and leached, maybe several times.

That is true, but that applies mainly to sandstones and similar.
Sedimentary rocks that derive from estuary and sea bottom mud
(including some limestones) are probably also fairly good.

But, really, almost everyone is agreeing that it is a perfectly
good way to make soil from new, but is not a miracle ingredient,
and is very dubiously useful as a fertiliser - EVEN basalt dust.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.