The Key to your soil Health (for organic crops high productivity)

Abstract

An organic 1ha market garden producer could enjoy a soil microbiology trophic level adjustment and see tremendous yields increases.
On 8 crops tried average increase found is 76% in relationship with microbiological adjustments produced.

Full text

!
!
!

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"!
!
FOREWORDS:
We set up this case with the purpose to open & deepen the conversation
about how we manage our soil fertility. Scientist, biologist, botanists,
garden market producers, agriculturists, environmentalists, politicians,
and any other environmentally and food concerned persons are very
welcome to join this conversation and contribute to this emerging truth.
More precisely, we bring to the forefront a holistic approach where we
discuss the following: soil fertility, hence subsequent crop
productivity, is a function of a healthy & diverse soil microbiological
web, first.
The more diverse abundant beneficial soil microbiology is, the more
productive our crops are. Note that in this report, we do not enter soil
microbiological species identification, but general morphological
identification where we speak about trophic levels: a soil food web.
Microbial life is indeed responsible for optimal nutrient cycling to
plants, thus optimal plant, crops, and vegetable growth.
59 Degrees, based in Sweden, is a company providing microbiological
solutions for tree systems, wanted to put their professional know-how
under a scientific experiment and apply it to a vegetable production
unit. Over this first goal, 59 Degrees was willing to provide more
consistency and visibility to its surrounding market environment.
In this regard, Flor.ès.Sens Systems, company being specialised in Soil
microbiological diagnostic, soil & land restoration, and holistic
project management, accepted to set up a scientific experiment and run a
trial case to address 59 Degrees' need.
This trial provides direction and a solid offer to the biologic and
organic agriculture needs for scalable, yet cheap, solutions for
regenerative agricultural systems. A total organic agriculture is indeed
reachable, and the door-opening key is at soil microbiological level.
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, author of this report, put a strong emphasis on
“documenting scientifically” that case study.
In this context, “Scientifically” has to be understood as: “observing
what is” using the best technology available in context, and as
pragmatically as possible.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#!
PREFACE:
This trial has its roots in PhD Work done by R.E. Ingham, J.A. Trofymow,
E.R. Ingham and D.C Coleman. Soil microbiology literature says that
plant growth is increased by interaction of microfloral grazers, i.e
protozoa, nematodes & microarthropods eating bacteria in aerobic
environment. From that literature, the 4 authors above show that
microbivorous protozoa and nematodes (referred below as 2nd & 3rd trophic
level) grazing on surrounding bacteria (1st trophic level) had a positive
effect on N plant uptakes, nutrient cycling, plant growth, C, N & P
mineralisation and increased substrate utilisation.1
The present trial report is an extension of this previous PhD work,
where both Flor.ès.Sens Systems and 59 Degrees have been the 2 main
stakeholders. Both companies, with their complementary set of skills,
decided to apply the previous PhD work fundamentals to an organic
vegetable garden production.
While designing and running the below trial, Flor.ès.Sens Systems
assessed the relationship between Soil Organic Matter, Soil
microbiological web activity and crop productivity.
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, among its holistic & multiple Land restoration’s
skills, has been studying closely and applying Dr. E.R. Ingham (author
in the above PhD work) land restorations’ methods, cases and technics2.
The company is specialized in soil direct microscopy diagnostics for any
agricultural and tree systems, & provides Soil microbiological
remediation solutions. The company designed, led, managed, and executed
the below project; also provided with solutions for increasing
microbivorous protozoan number.
59 Degrees,based on the same Dr. E.R. Ingham professional skills, has
applied the foundations of her work to tree systems care. The company is
now extending its offer to agricultural systems. Holistic tree care,
aerobic compost making, and compost extract production (liquid form of
compost) for foliage and root inoculation are the company's main offers.
From its know-how on producing Compost Extract for bioremediation
purposes, 59 Degrees provided compost extract for the purpose of this
trial.
Karshamra Mat Och Trädgård is an Organic vegetable market producers
operating on approximately 1Ha, based in Grödinge, Botkyrka, 30 km south
south west Stockholm, Sweden. The company was suffering low productivity
and crop diseases. They were keen to embark in this non-conventional
biological trial in order to boost their organic vegetable production,
both in quality & quantity.
All 3 stakeholders are looking at providing consistent & efficient
solutions for total biological & regenerative agriculture.
Geo localisation: 59°08’09.05”N

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$!
TECHNICAL JARGON – TERMINOLOGY:
Microfloral/Microbivorous grazers:
Microbiological life such as protozoa & nematodes eating bacteria.
Mineralization:
In soil science it is the decomposition or oxidation of compounds in organic
matter releasing the nutrients contained in those compounds into forms that
may be plant-available.
Soil Organic matter:
It is the organic matter component of soil, consisting of plant and animal
residues at various stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of soil
organisms, and substances synthesized by soil organisms.
Aerobic conditions:
Soil conditions that mostly enable oxidation, i.e oxygen to flow through and
around. Relates to mineralization.
Anaerobic conditions:
Soil condition with absence of oxygen; enable “reduction” of surrounding
organic compounds and development of anaerobic type of life, which is most
of the time detrimental to humans.
Compost extract:
Liquid in which microorganisms have been extracted from compost. Can be
aerobic or anaerobic.
Microbiological inoculation:
Process by which compost extract is applied to soil medium.
Regenerative agriculture:
Agricultural methods using holistic ecosystemic approaches that take care of
building ecosystem services at many levels: soil, soil water holding
capacities, organic crops, rational rotational grazing, etc. It is opposed
to “conventional agriculture” which is mostly “degenerative”: soil loss,
erosion, livestock in feedlots, crop loss of productivity, chemical use,
aquifers pollution, etc.
Microbiology biomass:
Methodology using weight calculation for microbial life (bacteria, fungi,
protozoa, etc.)
Penetrometer:
Instrument measuring soil compaction in pound per square inch (psi) and soil
related depth in cm.
Prophylactic:
Method or product guarding from disease spread or occurrence.
Soil Food web:
Related to the all microorganism composing soil life; i.e. microbiological
life.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%!
Humics:
Come from humic acid, coming from humus. Beneficial to plants, therefore
humans.
Fulvics:
Similar to humic acid. Present in humus. Beneficial to plants therefore
humans.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&!
FOREWORDS (P 2)
PREFACE (P 3)
TERMINOLOGY (P 4)
HIGHLIGHTS (P 8)
ABSTRACT (P 10)
1. INTRODUCTION – TRIAL’S SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND (P 12)
1.1. Basics of soil microbiological nutrient cycling for plants
(P13)
1.2. Effects of microbial grazers on nutrient cycling and plant
growth (P 13)
1.3. Soil structure, aerobic vs anaerobic environments and plant
health (P 14)
1.4. Soil microbiological biomass diversity & biological
succession (P 17)
1.5. Aerobic compost, Organic matter decomposition, nutrient
cycling, plant productivity & health (P 22)
2. THE CONCEPTUAL TRIAL & EXPERIMENT DESIGN (P 26)
2.1. Experimental design (P 26)
2.2. Predictions (P 26)
2.3. General trial layout (P 27)
2.3.1. Yield experiment scenarios (P 27)
2.3.2. Weed pressure experiment scenarios (P 28)
3. MATERIAL & METHODOLOGY (P 29)
3.1. Shadowing microscopy & Soil microbiological assays (P 29)
3.1.1. Shadowing microscopy (P 29)
3.1.2. Soil microbiological assays (P 29)
3.1.3. Soil sample analysis Technic (P 31)
3.2. Soil Compaction (P 31)
3.3. Commercial compost (P 31)
3.4. Microbiological Inoculant & Protozoan infusion (P 32)
3.5. Soil Organic Matter (P 32)
3.6. Monitored points in context (P 32)
3.7. Trial work flow (P 34)
3.8. Crops selection (P 38)
4. RESULTS (P 36)
4.1. Pre-production results (P 36)
4.1.1. Soil pre production’s Organic matter content analysis (P 37)
4.1.2. Commercial Compost’s Organic matter content (P 38)
4.1.3. Seedling’s commercial Compost Microbiological analysis (P 39)
4.1.4. Pre production’s soil microbiological analysis (P 40)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
'!
4.1.5. Pond water microbiological analysis (P 42)
4.1.6. Commercial compost microbiological status (P 43)
4.2. Remediation decision & Microbiological inoculant (P 44)
4.2.1. 59° Degrees compost Microbiological status (P 45)
4.2.2. Microbiological inoculant analysis (P 46)
4.3. Post production Weed pressure experiment results (P 47)
4.4. Post production Yield experiment result (P 49)
4.4.1. Cabbage (P 50)
4.4.2. Celeriac (P 53)
4.4.3. Fennel (P 55)
4.4.4. Onion (P 58)
4.4.5. Potatoes (P 60)
4.4.6. Rutabaga (P 61)
4.4.7. Salad (P 64)
4.4.8. Swiss Chard (P 66)
4.5. Compaction measurements:
5. CONCLUSIONS (P 67)
6. DISCUSSIONS (P 70)
TABLE LIST (P 71)
REFERENCES (P 72)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
(!
Highlights:
Filling the need to address terminology in this section, readers will
keep in mind the following: “Microbiological inoculation” stands for
Compost extracts which is a liquid form coming from compost produced in
aerobic conditions, where the compost’s microorganisms has been
extracted. Following step is field inoculation for the purpose of this
trial.
• In trial scenarios receiving microbiological inoculation and commercial
compost amendment together, total Edible biomass production skyrocketed
compared to “control” scenario with no input.
• Weed pressure, where soil was microbiologically inoculated, was reduced
compared to other non-microbiologically inoculated ones.
• Edible biomass of scenarios receiving “commercial compost” amendment
only, with no microbiological inoculation, underperformed “control”
scenarios.
• Measured soil compaction (psi) remained low and homogenous among all the
scenarios at a same decent depth.
• Microbiological biomass analysis (before & after trial) shows that
scenarios receiving simultaneous microbiological inoculation +
commercial compost amendment, produced higher edible biomass, enjoyed a
higher fungal biomass, a lower bacterial biomass, a higher
Fungi:Bacteria ratio (F:B ratio), and a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level
number.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
)!
All weights below are displayed in “Edible biomass” in relevance with
the crop itself.
Table 1: Highlights – Yield Results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Date of monitoring: 17/07/2017 onward.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*+!
Abstract:
All numbers, quantities and numerical comparisons in this section are
given on average coming from all trial’ statistical series displayed in
section 4 & 5.
An emerging organic biological market garden producer, based in
southwest Stockholm countryside, could benefit greatly from non-
conventional methods, i.e. a tailored Soil microbiological inoculation
coming from a high quality aerobic compost, mitigating pests, diseases,
and increasing market garden productivity & quality.
Among the 8 crops tried, on edible biomass production, we found that:
scenarios microbiologically inoculated & amended with commercial
compost, outperformed “control” scenarios by an average of 72%. On the
same 8 crop trials, scenarios receiving nothing else but commercial
compost amendment underperformed the “Control” by 16% on average.
In relationship with the previous outperforming edible biomass
production scenarios: soil microbiology biomass accounts show Fungal
biomass 4,4 times higher, bacterial biomass level 0,43 times lower, and
that Fungi:Bacteria ratio 9,52 times higher compared to “Control”
scenarios. Simultaneously with the previous, bacterial predators, i.e
the 2nd & 3rd trophic level responsible for nutrient cycling start up
(amoebae & nematodes), is 2,13 times higher than “Control” scenarios.
This confirms R.E. Ingham, J.A. Trofymow, E.R. Ingham and D.C Coleman
work mentioned in preface section3.
Also, in Comparison with “Control” scenarios, the scenarios receiving
nothing else but “commercial compost amendment”, with measured lower
edible biomass production, displayed 1,83 times more fungal biomass, the
same amount of bacterial biomass, a fungi:bacteria ratio 2,1 times
higher, but a low or absent of 2nd & 3rd trophic level.
At microscopic biomass count level, looking at the fungal density/
distribution, i.e the total fungal distribution in our soil samples, we
found that scenarios receiving simultaneous microbiological inoculant &
commercial compost amendment, displayed a 83% greater fungal
distribution (fungi occurrence per each field of view) compared to the
“control”.
Under the weed pressure trials, the scenario receiving microbiological
inoculation, with no commercial compost amended, displayed 38% fewer
weeds compared to “Control” scenario with no inoculation.
Then, comparing scenario receiving “only commercial compost” to the same
one but with a tailored microbiological inoculation showed 33% less
weeds on the latter.
This could be attributed to the fact that both microbiologically
inoculated scenarios show 2nd & 3rd trophic level (mostly the protozoan
group) respectively 1,78 times and 3 times higher than their control.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
**!
A direct correlation between biology and weed pressure can be drawn.
We checked compaction level for each crops in each scenario tried with
John Dickey penetrometer tool. All soil physical conditions remained
roughly equal among all trial. Compaction at over 100 psi was realized
at approximately the same depth: between 22 cm & 24 cm. (see table
section 4)
Table 2: overall 8 crops averages - trial
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Table 3: Weed pressure trial highlight
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*"!
1. INTRODUCTION – TRIAL’S SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND:
The “Green revolution” also called “conventional agriculture” produces
high yields by means of large resource inputs (NPK and other non organic
salts), prophylactics, and plant protection treatments (Gutiérrez et
al., 2005; Pimentel et al., 2005). This mode of production introduces
into our agricultural ecosystems large and numerous synthetic substances
with a broad spectrum of activity, high toxicity and long persistence in
the environment. All the previous giving rise to serious concerns about
public health and environmental pollution (Schuman, 1993; Pimentell,
2005; Pimentel et al., 2005).
These substances can also have negative effects on agricultural
production and practices. When most farmers’, whose knowledge on soil
microbiology basics is close to null, amend soil unconsciously with non
selective herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, hormones, etc., they
disrupt and kill microbiological microorganisms diversity. It results in
a decrease and/or stopping of nutrient cycling that plants depend on,
same nutrient cycling that was previously performed by a broader and
diverse microbiological web of life.
As a consequence, the vicious circle of “conventional agriculture”
starts here where it induces to the farmer, well directed by
agricultural majors, to use more non-natural fertilizers to boost their
crops growth, then to select for pesticide resistant crops, contributing
more and more to the previous soil microbiological diversity carnage;
contributing to a more and more chemically dependent agriculture;
contributing to soil physical condition changes, and a very high cost
model for our agricultural practices; and potentially contributing to a
decline in interest of staying or becoming a farmer.
Well, the good news is that an increasing public demand for quality food
products, health and environment protection has triggered worldwide
initiatives and even government regulations to foster more sustainable
agricultural practices: reduced tillage, integrated pest management, and
soil carbon capture.
So called organic production integrates appropriate cultural techniques
(i.e. crop rotation, planting dates, cover crop strategies, natural C/N
ratio management with plant physiology), also biological pest controls,
naturally occurring chemicals, soil microbiological ecosystems
management in order to help deal with pests while maintaining reasonable
yield with a significantly reduced environmental impact (Rechcigl and
Rechcigl, 2000; Horowitz and Ishaaya, 2004; Russel E.Ingham et Al 1985).
In monoculture organic systems, where single or very few plant varieties
are grown, a holistic approach through soil microbiological management
can mitigate the pre cited ecological disequilibrium. Soil
microbiological management practices promoting evenness & diversity at
soil life level enhance plant growth and productivity (Russel E.Ingham
et Al 1985). Hence, successful crop production under organic agriculture
spirit requires a strong core of knowledge about the Soil
microbiological ecosystem complexity. The previous can help develop

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*#!
strategies to preserve a healthy and diverse soil ecosystem that is
capable of controlling pests and pathogens while stimulating plant
growth and health.
1.1 Basics of soil microbiological nutrient cycling for
plants:
A step further entering Soil microbiological diversity, i.e what we call
the soil food web, drives us to set the basics of our trial: how and why
a healthy & organic crop production functions, and what do we have to do
to look after at soil food web level to keep our crop productivity high
and of quality.
Theorical discussions about nutrient cycling have long represented the
mineralisation process as a flow from litter or soil organic matter
component to a component representing plant available nutrients (Gosz
1981, Van Cleve and Alexander 1981). Micro faunal grazers were not yet
included in the nutrient cycling process.
More and more evidence has been accumulating in the past decades showing
that faunal grazers (i.e. protozoa and nematodes) are responsible for a
significant portion of the mineralization previously attributed to
microflora only (algae, fungi, bacteria). On terrestrial ecosystems,
since mineralization is a key process in delivering nitrogen, carbon and
other nutrients available to plants needs (Alexander 1977, Marion et al
1981), it is important to understand the roles of all organisms involved
in this process, the interactions that may occur between them, and where
these interactions occur (Russel E.Ingham et Al 1985).
Then, on the top of understanding the previous, it is of the highest
importance to design and apply agriculture strategies capable to
conserve them, feed them, or to bring them back when these microbivorous
grazers community disappeared due to “conventional agriculture”
uninformed practices: ploughing, and chemical amendment of any kind
killing them.
1.2 Effects of microbial grazers on nutrient cycling and plant
growth:
As quoted by Russel E. Ingham in their ecological monograph (Russel
E.Ingham et Al 1985)4: In carbon rich environments (C from organic
matter), mineralized nutrients are released at an accelerated rate when
microbial population (bacteria) are grazed by protozoa and bacterial
feeding nematodes. In these carbon rich environments, net mineralization
of P, S, N into aerobic forms (beneficial for optimal plant growth) is
higher than in environments with less oxygen (anaerobic), less C organic
content and without microbial grazers.
Microbial grazers (Protozoa & bacterial feeding nematodes) having a high
bacterial consumption, release a considerable amount of nutrients for

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*$!
plants. As a consequence, the mineral nutrients rate turnover may serve
plant growth. Elliot et al. (1979a) showed that the response of plant
growth to nutrient dynamics is significantly higher when bacteria are
being grazed by amoebae and bacterial feeding nematodes (2nd & 3rd trophic
level faunal grazers).
Russel E.Ingham et Al 1985 also pointed out that presence of fungi and
fungal feeding nematodes, without bacterial feeder & protozoa, have a
limited effect on plant growth.
Table 4: a complete soil microbiological community
A complete soil microbiological Community
(photo credits: soil symbiotics – Source Soil Symbiotics)
1.3 Soil structure, aerobic vs anaerobic environments and plant
health:
Taking this trial background a step further, we want to insist on what
kind of soil conditions are necessary to see this healthy relationship
between soil microbiological activity, organic compounds present and the
resulting plant health.
The first and most important factor for this relationship to happen is
to get aerobic conditions at soil, and thus microbiological level (DR
E.R. Ingham, Environmental celebration institute, 2014).5
Soil microbiology literature shows that anaerobic conditions, i.e.
reduced oxygen conditions, benefit the development of organisms and
substances detrimental to plant growth. In our human agricultural
models, anaerobic conditions are often reached because of human
disturbances.
The chronological sequence of disturbances happens as follow: tillage
(intensity, depth, repetition, timing), monoculture, bad organic matter
management (timing, type, replacement), compaction (heavy machinery,

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*%!
repetition), fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides etc. From these
disturbances, both soil microbiological population, soil physical
conditions, and nutrient mineralization change.
Consequently, these undesired anaerobic conditions benefit the
appearance of a certain kind of microbivorous organisms. They are
responsible for anaerobic mineralization, detrimental to plant growth.
As soil conditions go anaerobic, we can identify at microscopic level
these detrimental organisms as follows: anaerobic bacteria, ciliates
protozoa that release ammonia from the bacterial grazing (NH3 as gaseous
form of N), and root feeding nematodes that feed on plant roots (see
table 5 below). All are anaerobic markers that we can screen when we
analyse our soils with direct microscopy.
Above and below ground signs of anaerobic conditions are: low crop
productivity, crops’ pest and disease, greater “weed” pressure, water
run off, nutrient losses, and consequent higher level ecosystem issues.
Table 5: Anaerobic microorganisms morphology
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)
The other way around, optimal aerobic conditions are: presence of
decomposing organic matter on the top soil (fungal smell), high content
of mineralized residues at rhizosphere level (soil being chocolate brown
coloured), soil structure being aerated, and appearance of another set
of microbiological organisms. Microorganisms present are: flagellates
and amoebae protozoan (releasing plant available ammonium NH4), bacterial
feeding nematodes, fungi, fungal feeding nematodes, and higher trophic
level microorganisms such as predatory nematodes, mites,
microarthropods, till earthworms.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*&!
As a matter of fact, aerobic soil systems shelter way more microbial
life diversity, provide a much bigger resilience to small disturbances
(low till for instance), reduce use of water by greater soil water
holding capacities, tolerate pests and diseases, enable inorganic
fertilizers and pesticide free systems, set ecosystem conditions for
plants and crops health and productivity.
In such conditions, decomposing organic matter is fuelling
mineralization below ground, nutrients are held plant available at
rhizosphere level, water is kept longer and in higher volume in the
soil, diseases are suppressed by microbial competition inhibition
consumption, toxins are decomposed, soil structure is built, enabling
plant root structure to grow healthier and deeper.
Table 6: Aerobic microorganisms morphology
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014 & Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
About soil structure, the R. Fosters’ book dealing with the
ultrastructure of the rhizosphere 6 mentions the following: as aerobic
soils enable more plant beneficial microbiological life to thrive, the
same microorganisms will contribute to strengthen soil structure,
increasing soil aerobic conditions.
Bacterial bodies hold a glue compound, fungal threads act both as
structural material and spread glomalin all over the soil, mites,
microarthropods earthworms and higher trophic level microorganism dig

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*'!
soil tunnels, contributing altogether to building soil aerobic
structure.
All this complex microbiological life under our feet, that we call Soil
Food Web, is responsible for keeping our soils aerobic, benefiting plant
health and productivity.
In other words, under aerobic/oxygenated conditions soil microbiological
microorganisms are: the architects, the carpenters, the network
designers, the water filtering and drainage services, the organic
fertilizing facility, and much more.
Microbiological life working for higher-level life, reaching sooner or
later human communities basic need for food.
1.4 Soil microbiological diversity & biological succession7:
After we reviewed the basics of soil microbiology for plant nutrient
cycling, effects of microbial grazers on nutrient cycling, effects of
aerobic environment on plant growth, we are now discussing the
relationship between soil microbiological diversity and the above ground
biological response.
Soil microbiology literature shows that microbiological biomass &
diversity is changing as we travel from a soil bare parent medium
towards an old growth forest soil. At each broad stage of the
microbiological succession corresponds a set of above ground plants (see
table 7 below). Early successional stage holds only bacteria & weeds,
while an old growth forest soil is a fungal kingdom with trees.
Between one extreme and the other one of table 7 below are human food
soil systems. These crops are in symbiosis with a certain set of
microbiological diversity and biomass: from bacteria & fungi, including
microbivorous protozoa & nematodes, to microarthropods and earthworms if
we practice a conservative enough agriculture.
First organism establishing life on planet earth bare soil were
cyanobacteria, slowly igniting a change in the surrounding soil’s
conditions; influencing the evolutionary patterns of other very early
successional plants.
While these bacteria are at the very root of current planet earth
ecosystems, they also opened the door to life evolutionary patterns;
they opened the door to more complex species along the tree of life,
above and below ground. Among these branches, appeared human food and
the corresponding microbiology.
When we look at an old growth forest system, we can understand it as the
work of time and/or microbiological evolution with no human or natural
disturbances (volcano, earthquakes, tidal wave, flood, etc). (see table
7).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*(!
When we look at an agricultural system above ground plant response, we
can intuitively project what kind of soil microbiology we have below
ground.
If we want to enable crops to respond to their optimum potential, we
want to make sure we have the right microbiological soil communities
below ground.
In the below graph we see the relationship between 1st trophic level soil
microbiological life biomass (fungi & bacteria) and the human
agriculture crops we grow. Note that the µg weights below are indicative
ranges. The important factor to manage is the ratio between fungi and
bacteria: the Fungi:bacteria ratio.
It shows how soil fungal biomass increases as we go towards forests’
soil and at the same time bacterial biomass decreases.
Table 7: Microbiological biomass distribution & Above ground
biological succession
Microbiological biomass distribution & above ground biological succession
!
! !
!
!
!

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
*)!
!
!
!
Table 8 targets human food systems, and provides more details about
the relationship between Fungi to bacteria ratio, fungi and
bacterial biomass, the related vegetation growing, the soil physical
conditions, nutrients, 2nd & 3rd trophic level needs.
This table will guide us through the remediation decision making in
this trial; i.e what condition we have to provide to enable optimum
plant growth and health.
Table 8: Microbiological Guideline “from early successional to
productive pastures”
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)
NOTA BENE:
For the below microbiological analysis appearing in section 4, 2nd &
3rd trophic level biomass appearing here, are converted in
microorganism numbers per microscope field of view. (see table 12)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"+!
Table 8’ below provides soil ecosystemic indicators for the
successional stage appearing before our human agricultural systems.
It will help us to assess & monitor our soil ecosystems; it shows us
what soil ecosystem conditions we don’t want our human food
ecosystems to go. (see table 8).
Table 8’: Microbiological Guideline “from dirt to weeds”
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"*!
Table 8’’ shows the stages following our human crop systems. We will
use it for shrub, bushes and tree systems providing food for humans.
Table 8’’: Microbiological Guideline “from shrubs to conifers &
evergreen”
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
""!
1.5 Aerobic compost, Organic matter decomposition, nutrient
cycling, plant productivity & health:
Quality compost can be seen as a replication of the humus building
process enabling mineralisation. This happens under aerobic conditions.
It is in essence what our plants need, carrying the beneficial
microbiology with it.8
Aerobic means, that we are setting the right oxygen conditions to enable
beneficial organisms to grow and feed in the pile. While being aerobic,
the same microorganisms will decompose organic materials making it plant
available.
Decomposition: that implies that you have to have the bacteria and the
fungi doing the job. Nothing else on the planet has the enzymes to
perform that decomposition. Optimum decomposition implies having a
diversity of organic materials, all these different temperatures,
different moistures, all of these different chemical concentrations and
different nutrient availability. All of these factors determine which
species of bacteria, which species of fungi are present and functioning,
doing their job of decomposition9 making it plant available.
Quality compost then (aerobic decomposition), is all about the
microbiological life, the bacteria and the fungi and consequent protozoa
and nematodes; these are the beneficial species (see table 9). In order
to ensure these microorganisms strive: we make sure our compost remains
aerobic, we make sure there is a diversity of foods (diverse organic
materials) so they are active, living and growing. Consequently they
will outcompete and wipe out the diseases, the pests, and the problem
organisms.
If we get a good set of organisms growing in our compost, they’re going
to build the structure to allow oxygen to move into your pile so there’s
plenty of air movement through the pile.
Going back to decomposition, and in the perspective of addressing soil
conditions lacking part of the soil food web, we have to ask ourselves
if we need a bacterial dominated or a fungal dominated pile. This issue
is addressed by building up an adequate compost recipe: different types
of organic material feeding different type of microorganisms (cellulose,
browns and nitrogen based).
Then, the chemistry in your compost pile and in your soils becomes a
consequence of what the biology is doing. Microbiology is going to be
making nutrients available: the soluble nutrient pool plant can uptake.
Biology is critically important so the chemistry is going to be what our
plants require.
Once these organisms get back out into your soil, it’s the organisms
that determine how rapidly the nutrients in you sands, your silts, your
clays, your rocks, your pebbles, in the organic matter that you’re
adding back in that compost, are cycled. It’s the biology that
determines the speed at which those nutrients are made available to the

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"#!
plants. Quality in this compost is determined by the biology you have.
Chemistry is a consequence.
Table 9: Aerobic vs Anaerobic mineralization
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)
We see from the table that most of anaerobic mineralization of N, S, P end up as
gaseous form, not taken up by our plants, potentially dangerous for humans.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"$!
Table 10: Other materials produced under anaerobic conditions
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"%!
Remember, the only way to get the nutrients out of the bacteria and
fungi and into a form that is plant available, requires that we have the
protozoa and nematodes 10 . At the very least we have to have those two
organism groups. It would be nice to have microarthropods and it would
be wonderful to have earthworms as well.
Table 11: Benefits of thermal composting.
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)
We acknowledge plant productivity is a consequence of the overall soil
microbiological community health, organic matter content quality &
diversity.
In that regard, we have to develop a set of relevant and consistent
monitoring indicators helping our food systems management decision-
making.
This report aims to propose and study a set of indicators enabling an
informed holistic decision making for a total organic & regenerative
food system:
• Fungi to bacteria ratio (1st trophic level)
• Protozoa & Nematodes population (2nd & 3rd trophic level)
• Organic matter content (C/N ratio)
• Soil physical condition: compaction measured in psi.
NOTA BENE:
The reader will keep in mind that all the previous apply to “all human
food systems”: from vegetables, vines, fruit trees to mushroom
growing, etc.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"&!
2. THE CONCEPTUAL TRIAL & EXPERIMENT DESIGN:
Organic & Biological Soil Fertility solutions are real, available, cheap
and provide good yields. In this trial we explore soil microbiological
solutions to restart plant nutrient cycling, health and productivity.
From topics discussed in section 1: Human food systems’ fertility &
productivity is a function of, i.e is systematically linked to,
corresponding aerobic soil microbiology biomass levels and aerobic soil
organic matter content &/or compost related materials (carbon and
nitrogen content).
2.1 Experimental design:
Following Russel E.Ingham et Al 1985 findings, we designed experimental
scenarios (see trial layout at section 2.3) exploring the improving of
market garden crop yield, health, and weed pressure from tailored
microbiological inoculation that we produced.
We put a special attention in our remediation work to the “1st, 2nd & 3rd
trophic level” population, the fungi:bacteria ratio; i.e. soil
microbiological organisms diversity in relationship to the plant we want
to see growing; a certain volume of bacteria, fungi, amoebae and
nematodes biomass (see table 8). Anaerobic markers were checked as well.
We followed broad targeted Biomass range for 1st 2nd & 3rd trophic levels
for aerobic microbial life suggested by DR E.R. Ingham network (see
table 8).
Simultaneously with the previous, soil carbon & nitrogen content being
of crucial importance in our agricultural systems, we got hold of
commercial compost reputed to be of good quality, analysed its soil
microbiological quality (see table 19), and amended fields with
approximate same weight/m2 (see section 3.6).
We also got the soil’s carbon and nitrogen content analysed by an
independent laboratory (see table 15).
2.2 Predictions:
By managing both aerobic soil Microbiological life activity at 1st 2nd 3rd
trophic level, and Soil organic matter we will achieve: optimum nutrient
cycling plants need to grow, and, as a result better yields, less
disease, and less “weeds”.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"'!
2.3 General trial layout:
Following section 1 & 2, we designed two experiments exploring yield,
and weed pressure changes.
Both experiments holds in itself scenarios designed to witness changes
due to our tailored microbiological inoculation & compost amendments
simultaneously, separately, and compared to the control scenario.
2.3.1 Yield experiment scenarios:
1. Scenario 1: Control.
Control beds are kept with no amendment at all.
2. Scenario 2: Commercial compost amendment only. This scenario
receives commercial compost only.
It is designed to explore the results in yield coming from compost
amendments only; disregarding its possible lack in microbiological
life. Comparison will be done with scenario 1 and scenario 3.
3. Scenario 3: Microbiological inoculation + commercial compost
amendment.
This scenario receives commercial compost amendment with 59
Degrees’ compost extract, topped up with Flor.ès.Sens Systems
protozoan infusion. Supporting points made in section 1 & 2, this
scenario is designed to explore if there is a difference in yield
due to the tailored microbiological inoculation, compared to
scenario 2 and scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
"(!
2.3.2 Weed pressure experiment scenarios:
This experiment is made to assess whether or not tailored
microbiological inoculation decreases the weed pressure.
Scenario 1 & 2 are compared the one to the other.
Similarly, Scenario 3 & 4 are compared the one to the other.
1. Scenario 1: Microbiological inoculation only. No other amendment.
In similar field conditions than scenario 1, does a microbiological
inoculation make a difference with weed pressure?
2. Scenario 2: Control.
Trial bed is kept with no amendment at all. How much weeds do we
have?
3. Scenario 3: Microbiological inoculation + commercial compost
amendment.
This scenario receives commercial compost amendment with 59
Degrees’ compost extract, topped up with Flor.ès.Sens Systems
protozoan infusion. In similar field conditions than scenario 4,
does a microbiological inoculation make a difference with weed
pressure?
4. Scenario 4: Commercial compost only.
Only commercial compost is added to the trial bed. Weed pressure is
checked.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
")!
3. MATERIAL & METHODOLOGY:
3.1 Shadowing microscopy & Soil microbiological assays:
3.1.1 Shadowing microscopy:
In the context, we used an OMAX MD8211E30 microscope, with iris
diaphragm, shadowing features, built in digital camera enabling pictures
and videos and related microscope software for identification purposes.
Magnification used were 100x where we can see details at 2mm, and 400X
magnification where we are able to see 0,45 mm (450 microns).
Shadowing techniques are critical in that context. The microscope has
use DIC, which is a shadowing technique. It allows you to clearly see
things that have the same refractive index as water.
3.1.2 Soil microbiological assays
Biomass assay methodology has been developed by Dr Elaine Ingham, and
has been in use for more than 30 years now.
Flor.ès.Sens System & 59 Degrees Sweden are active in Dr Elaine Ingham
network.
All assays are performed with slide & coverslip, reproducing aerobic
conditions. (Note that plate-count method reproduces anaerobic methods).
In relationship to the on-going market garden operations, we analysed
the below indicators, keeping target on beneficial aerobic microbiology
status & soil aerobic microbiological trophic levels for:
• Soil samples at pre growing season.
• Soil samples for each trial scenario at harvest.
• Commercial compost used for field amendment.
• Commercial compost used for seedling production.
• Pond water samples for watering during growing season.
• Compost extract samples before field inoculations.
To guide the « remediation inoculation solutions » in this very trial,
Flor.ès.Sens systems used a microbiological database about productive
biological ecosystems referred as Native Environments (see table 12
below). As shown in table 8 & 12, each Native Environment relates to a
biological succession level in which we have "Fungi:Bacteria ratio"
biomass target, 2nd & 3rd trophic level. It corresponds to average
expected microbiological biomass ranges for optimum crop production
health results.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#+!
Table below shows targeted Fungi:Bacteria ratio, the corresponding 2nd
and 3rd trophic level, and the corresponding above ground plants.
Table 12: Soil microbiology biomass targets
(Source: Soil Food web inc, 2014)
Our posture is more ecosystem relationship based, than of a syndrome
based and mechanical one.
We look at microbiological morphology over identity.
We look for “beneficial organisms” corresponding to aerobic environment
ecosystems, as opposed to “detrimental” which corresponds to anaerobic
environment.
When in doubt on our microbiological morphological identifications, we
can refer to Dr. Elaine Ingham's network of professionals, specialised
in Soil shadowing microscopy analysis and Soil microbiological
remediation.
We assess the following organism biomass:
• Bacteria biomass & diversity.
• Fungal strands: hyphae & ascomycetes, oomycetes.
• Actinobacteria & Bacterial biomass & diversity.
• Protozoan number & diversity
• Nematodes general type

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#*!
Flor.ès.Sens uses a built in excel file inspired from Dr Elaine Ingham one,
with macro helping the biomass account.
3.1.3 Soil microbiological analysis workflow:
• 1g of the soil sample gathered from each scenario, soil, water.
• 1g of the sample diluted with water according to need; starting at
1/5. Enables clearer fields of view as we go up in dilution.
• 1 drop of the previous dilution is set on slide and covered with
coverslip.
• 20 fields of view analysed per slide.
• 1 slide per soil sample (or more if needed).
3.2 Soil Compaction:
We use John Dickey tool, which is a soil compaction tester.
By pushing the tester into the ground at different locations, this tool
will help us to measure psi and related depth of our soil.
Pennsylvania State University Soil department showed that above 150 psi
root growth is quite completely inhibited and yields reduced.
In order to make sure this trial soil compaction were the same all over
the experiments, we checked all scenarios, at a rate of 10 points
measured per crop per scenario at the end of the trial. (see results in
section 4.5).
3.3 Commercial compost:
Most of small growers and farmers have usually not enough time,
sufficient skills to give to aerobic compost making and microbiological
quality management.
In this trial’s context, Karshamra producers decided to buy commercial
compost from a neighbouring compost producing company reputed of good
quality.
When delivered, this commercial compost was still warm and actively
decomposing. However, we could not get information about organic
material diversity used in the compost, composting methods (aerobic or
not), time to work it etc. 15 % of biochar was inside, and we didn't
have information about the its quality.
One fact helping identify compost microbiological quality is to observe
a pile sitting for some time and finding out what is growing on the top
of it. If we see “weeds” (early successional grasses) coming up, it is a
sign that our pile is highly bacterial. This could help decision making
whether or not amending your field depending what your field may
require. (see table 8 & 12)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#"!
This topic is discussed in the “Discussion” section below.
3.4 Microbiological inoculant & Protozoan infusion:
59 Degrees is producing aerobic compost under section 1.3 & 1.4
statements. The company uses that compost for producing commercial
compost extracts. End purpose is to service & remediate
microbiologically tree and agricultural organic systems.
Flor.ès.Sens Systems share the same skills but with a mobile/nomad
commercial offer; i.e offering aerobic compost, compost extracts
operation set up, and related soil microbiological remediation services.
On top of these skills, Flor.ès.Sens manages recipes for 2nd & 3rd trophic
level biomass increase, i.e increase of protozoan numbers mostly.
Results appear in section 4.2.2.
3.5 Soil Organic matter:
Crop yields & health level are correlated to Soil Organic Matter levels
and microbiology to cycle up to plants. Both Nitrogen and Carbon
constitute the two main building blocks of life.
While approaching this topic, we acknowledge that carbon content, thus
Soil organic matter, has to be cared for at soil level too. Low carbon
content in soil equal to low crop productivity, low water holding
capacity, low microbiological diversity, low ecosystem resilience.
Soil Organic Matter analysis is provided by an independent laboratory11.
Analysis performed using “Dumas method” for molecular weight
determination. (see results in section 4.1.1 & 4.1.2)
3.6 Monitored points’ context:
This section provides context about the analysis we performed for this
trial.
Soil organic matter & Carbon content: pre-production.
• Fields Pre production:
What is the carbon and Nitrogen content baseline to start with?
• Commercial Compost used for amendment:
How much carbon & Nitrogen we may be adding.
Microbiological Biomass assays: pre & post-production.
• Pond water used for fields watering:
Making sure water was microbiologically “beneficial” for the
crops.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
##!
• Compost used for seedlings:
Evaluating microbiological level & quality starting the crops
production process.
• Commercial Compost used for amendment:
Assessing how microbiologically beneficial it was at 1st, 2nd &
3rd trophic level.
• Trial fields before production:
Establishing a microbiological baseline for later comparison at
harvest in same scenarios.
• Applied Microbiological inoculations:
Making sure we kept our microbiological remediation actions in
the right direction with our biomass targets.
• Trial scenarios post-production:
Assessing microbiological evolution at harvest enabling to
correlate soil microbiology trends with yield and weed pressure.
Commercial Compost amended: pre-production.
The below amended amount was decided upon the total volume of compost
the producers bought in relationship with the total surface of
production.
That compost was bought trusting the company selling it as being “good”.
An independent laboratory checked level of C & N, and we checked the
current microbiology status.
• Roughly 1ha in production. 8Kg/m2 of commercial compost amended.
We recognize, we may have been spreading sometimes above or under this
weight/m2.
Microbiological inoculant applied:
After checking the Kasharma Garden soil microbiological status, current
commercial compost levels of microbiological life, i.e overall lacking
in terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd trophic level, we decided to inoculant at:
• 1L/m2
10’000 litres of compost extract were inoculant, coming from an average
of 400 kg of beneficial aerobic thermal compost produced by 59 Degrees.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#$!
We produce the inoculant using a commercial brewing facility: a tank
filled with water in which air is blown by a pump at relevant rate
enabling aerobic conditions.
We recognize we may have inoculant sometimes more, sometimes less than
this volume.
!
Crops’ yields: post-production.
A set of vegetables has been selected for their “monitoring” features:
size, weight, and physiological structure (details in section 3.8).
Each crop used in this trial was allocated 1m2 per scenario.
We compared different scenarios results crop by crop:
• Kg/m2 of edible biomass produced.
Weed pressure: one month after seeding without weeding done.
We will look at weed density in respect to each of the scenarios
designed.
• Kg/m2 of green weight produced.
3.7 Trial work flow:
Action were taken as follow:
1. Microbiological biomass assays baseline analysis for: Pre production
Fields, bought commercial compost for field trial application, seedling
commercial compost, water for future watering operations. Setting the
trial context for remediation decision-making.
2. Soil Organic Matter baseline analysis for pre-production fields &
commercial compost: adding up to the context.
3. Delivery of commercial compost; Microbiological assay and spread on
field at levels defined above. Remediation start.
4. From our biomass microbiological assay performed on the trial fields
(point 1, 2 & 3 here), we put together microbiological inoculant having
the identified missing microbiology. We inoculant the soil on which we
are performing this trial. Consequently microbiological remediation is
performed.
5. Between one and two weeks after inoculation we monitored microbiological
biomass in our trial fields, ascertaining whether to inoculant more or
not. We made sure we were keeping our microbiological targets on the
right track; no second inoculation was performed. Remediation
monitoring.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#%!
6. Monitoring yields at harvest on trial fields. Results check.
7. Monitoring weed pressure on trial fields. Results check.
3.8 Crops selection:
Experiment 1: Vegetable yield
Fennel
Onions
Salad
Swiss Chard
Cabbage
Potatoes
Carrots
Celeriac
Swede
We allocated 1m2 for each crop in each scenario.
Experiment 2: Weed pressure
Pumpkin
Zucchini - Courgette
Leeks
Sage
Broad beans
Purple beans
Beetroot
Parsnip
Note that the purpose of experiment 2 is measuring the difference in
terms of weed pressure with and without microbiological inoculant; Crop
yield results has not been performed.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#&!
4. RESULTS:
All results below are displayed in “edible Biomass” in relevance to the
crop.
All microbiological assays in the below section come from section 3.1.3
workflow.
Table 13: Highlights – Yield Results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Date of monitoring: 17/07/2017 onward.
4.1 Pre-production status:
Making a baseline for our remediation case, we analysed all indicators
at our reach: Soil Organic matter content, commercial compost organic
matter content, Commercial compost used for seedlings, our soil’s
microbiological status, the pond water microbiological analysis, the
commercial compost microbiological status. After that, we could put
together a relevant microbiological inoculation solution.
Note that all the below microbiological analysis have to be compared to
table 12 in section 3.1.2: soil microbiological targets.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#'!
4.1.1 Soil pre production’s Organic matter content analysis:
Date 20/04/2017.
Table 14: Pre production field’s organic matter analysis
(Source: Lennart Månsson International AB, 2017)
Total amount of dry matter, carbon and Nitrogen are at very low level.
We see a very poor soil condition to begin with, and at a critical
status to produce good quality crops (yield and health).
These numbers might be the result of previous years field’s human
management: overgrazing, ploughing, no organic matter residue
management.
Some examples of no till, high residue field management, with well
managed grazing, show level of carbon above 9% with related high yield.12
FACTS :
Low carbon content – Low Nitrogen content – low dry matter content

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#(!
4.1.2 Commercial Compost’s Organic matter content:
Date 20/04/2017.
Table 15: Commercial compost organic matter analysis
(Source: Lennart Månsson International AB, 2017)
In comparison to the current soil organic matter, commercial compost
shows higher indicators at all 3 levels.
From these facts, disregarding soil microbiology status, and looking at
nutrient input only, this compost shows potential benefits for our plant
growth.
FACTS :
High carbon content – High Nitrogen content – High dry matter
content

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
#)!
4.1.3 Seedling commercial Compost’s Microbiological analysis:
Date 02/06/2017.
Table 16: Seedling Compost microbiological analysis
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
While assessing compost microbiology we saw: loads of organic at low
magnification (100X total), good amount of humics and fulvics
aggregates, no disease causing bacteria, a good bacterial diversity
(long rods, bacillus, fat rods, bacterial clumping, lactobacillus),
Flagellates & Amoebae cysts.
Current fungi:bacteria ratio here is in the upper limit for human crops.
Note Seedling compost analysis got done after the trial started. Fact
being the producers had already bought this compost, and had already
started their seedling production.
FACTS:
No anaerobic markers. Fungi :Bacteria ratio way above our needed
target. 2nd & 3rd trophic level in target. Favorable conditions for
seedlings.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$+!
4.1.4 Pre production’s soil microbiological analysis:
Date: 20/04/2017.
Table 17: Pre production Soil Microbiological Status
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
While assessing soil microbiology using low microscopic magnification
(100X), we saw a tremendous and unusual amount of large minerals. We
know that the farmer situated up the production plots where we did the
trial has been amending his soil with non-organic salts (nitrogen based)
& hormones. Current topography tells us that there may have been a drift
from the neighbouring fields to the producers’ fields.
We also saw a very low amount of fulvics & humics, and a low bacterial
diversity. Still, there was no presence of disease causing organism.
The high total number of bacteria is linked to the absence of 2nd & 3rd
trophic level (beneficial protozoa and/or bacterial feeding nematodes),
but also because of the field geographical position next to a
Wetland/marsh (favourable conditions for bacteria to thrive).
FACTS:
No anaerobic markers. Fungi:Bacteria ratio corresponding to soil
food web development. Very high number of bacteria. No 2nd & 3rd
trophic level present.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$*!
On the top of that, we also witnessed a very low amount of fungi
contributing to a weaker soil structure.
These numbers are most probably the results of previous years field
human management: overgrazing, ploughing, no organic matter residue
management. We know from the current owner that a previous owner was
selling this field’s top soil to anyone interested.
We want to remind the reader of table 7 on Biological succession: we can
say our field microbiological status was at a stage of “soil food web
development”, being not very favourable for vegetable growing.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$"!
4.1.5 Pond water microbiological analysis:
Date: 07/05/2017.
Table 18: Pond water Microbiological Analysis
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Pond water quality is good for production.
FACTS:
No anaerobic markers. No detrimental organisms present. Good level
of 2nd & 3rd trophic level.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$#!
4.1.6 Commercial compost Microbiological status:
Date 17/04/2017.
Table 19: Commercial compost Microbiological Analysis
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
While assessing soil microbiology we saw: Actinobacteria present, lot of
Bacteria, fruiting fungi & spores, cysts (ciliates, amoebae,
flagellate), lot of decomposing plant residue (confirmed by Soil organic
matter analysis), and humic acid.
FACTS:
No anaerobic markers. Fungi:bacteria in the low range of our
targets. Absence of 2nd & 3rd trophic level.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$$!
4.2 Remediation decision & Microbiological inoculant
From the remediation decision taken, our posture is 3 fold:
1. Increasing fungal biomass will help build up soil structure. At the
same time it will help build up aerobic conditions supporting
aerobic organism growth, that in turn will wipe the detrimental
organisms out.
2. Increase aerobic protozoan number which in turn will increase
predation on bacteria, decrease the bacterial number, and finally
accelerate nutrient cycling for our plant health and productivity.
3. Both point 1 & 2 will contribute to increase Fungi:bacteria ratio
toward conditions supporting optimum vegetable growth.
FROM PRE PRODUCTION STATUS:
1. No overall anaerobic markers.
2. Compost for seedling set the right conditions for our crops to
start: good F:B ratio, “acceptable to good” 2nd & 3rd trophic
level.
3. Commercial compost will be good enough to amend our very poor
soil: bringing beneficial 1st trophic level (fungi), excellent
carbon & nitrogen content.
4. Pond water is very good.
5. Soil initial microbiological status will not support vegetable
production: too high bacterial level, not enough fungi,
absence of 2nd & 3rd trophic.
REMEDIATION DECISION:
Produce a microbiological inoculant bringing:
•A high fungal biomass (bring the fungi:bacteria ratio up).
•
A high volume of 2nd & 3rd trophic level predators. We will
focus on beneficial protozoa first. Enable a good nutrient
cycling
IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL NOTES HERE:
While we have analysed and screened the missing microbiology in our soils,
and while we produced an adequate microbiological inoculation for our
soils, we want to acknowledge the following: we may probably not reach
optimum targeted microbiological biomass numbers the first season.
We are dealing with complex ecosystem relationships, and the main purpose
here may indeed be to set the right conditions for our agricultural systems
to evolve toward what we would like to see happening in the close future:
optimum plant health and a resilient organic agricultural system.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$%!
4.2.1 59° Degrees compost Microbiological status
Date: 18 & 24/04/2017.
We will produce our compost extract from 59 Degrees compost, which is
reputed to be of excellent quality.
Table 20: 59 Degrees Compost Microbiological Analysis
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
59 Degrees compost is proved to be excellent. It shows a good level of
fungi at 1st trophic level. At 2nd & 3rd trophic we see a fungal feeding
nematode appearing, but no protozoa and bacterial feeding nematode.
That compost will be beneficial to extract fungi and build a highly
fungal microbiological inoculant.
While aerobic protozoan are missing, we will add a protozoan infusion to
the microbiological inoculant helping the remediation decision (section
4.2.2).
FACTS:
No anaerobic marker. Fungi:bacteria in target. Absence of most of
the 2nd & 3rd trophic level.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$&!
4.2.2 Microbiological inoculant analysis:
We monitored 9 batches out of 20 representing a total of 10’000 L of
compost extract inoculant; between the 05 of May and mid June 2017.
Table 21: Microbiological inoculant averages analysis
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Table 22: Microbiological inoculant averages analysis – Statistic
extract
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
All aerobic indicators are present besides bacterial & fungal feeding
nematodes. Loads of fungal spores, flagellates & amoebae cyst present.
The microbiological inoculant is in line with our remediation decision.
FACTS:
Non-relevant anaerobic markers. Above target Fungi:bacteria ratio.
Above target 2nd & 3rd trophic level.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$'!
4.3 Weed pressure experiment results:
As remediation inoculant was produced in line with our remediation
decision, we could start the trial.
Weed pressure experiment happened from the 10th of June 2017 went through
to July 2017. We did not weed during that period and measured weed green
weight.
Following our purposes to assess the relationship between multiple
factors possibly affecting our plant growth, the below table reports:
• Weed green weight measured in context.
• The related 1st trophic level biomass: fungi, bacteria and
fungi:bacteria ratio.
• The related 2nd & 3rd trophic level: 1st level predators as
protozoan and nematodes
• The fungal density: fungal distribution in our microscopic
analysis. How often we see fungi appearing.
• The compaction levels: at what depth psi went over 100psi.
Table 23: Weed experiment results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
FACTS:
Both inoculant trials display a lower weed biomass production.
Both inoculant trials display a higher protozoan number.
Both inoculant scenarios have no anaerobic markers.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$(!
We can see that scenario 1 has a higher bacterial biomass and a higher
protozoan number than scenario 2; we see a lower weed pressure; 38%
lower weed biomass production.
Scenario 3 has a lower bacteria number than scenario 4 but also a higher
protozoan number; it displays a lower weed pressure; 33% lower weed
biomass production.
For both scenario 1 & scenario 3, fungal occurrences are higher than
control scenarios 2 & 4. Only scenario 4 displays a higher fungal
biomass. We hypothesis we may have spread more of the commercial
compost, and that the volume allocated may have had a higher fungal
presence than the rest of the compost spread in other parts.
Still, both scenario 2 & 4 display root feeding nematodes, which mark
anaerobic conditions. The two inoculants scenarios don’t.
Compaction remains roughly the same, hence same soil physical
properties, same root penetration capacity.
Our microbiological inoculant has a noticeable effect on weed pressure;
with or without commercial compost amendment.
Table 24: Main “weeds” appearing on trial

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
$)!
4.4 Yield experiment results:
As remediation inoculant was produced in line with our remediation
decision, we could start the trial on our crops.
The experiment started on the 05th may 2017 and ended approximately at
mid July 2017.
Following our purpose to assess the relationship between multiple
factors possibly affecting our plant growth, all below tables measure
simultaneously:
• Crop’s weight in contexts of their scenarios.
• The related 1st trophic level biomass: fungi, bacteria and
fungi:bacteria ratio.
• The related 2nd & 3rd trophic level: 1st level’s predators
(protozoan and nematodes).
• The fungal density: fungal distribution in our microscopic
analysis. How often we saw fungi appearing.
• The compaction levels: at what depth psi went over 100psi.
Following the tables, we will also document pictures from the same crops
analysed.
In order to provide consistency while looking at the photographs, one
will see that all photo are taken with a tape measure to the side.
Also, for the sake of appraising the visual difference, we picked the
smallest of the trial in each scenario for each crop.
FIELD CONTEXT:
We want to remind the reader of the field’s previous management
mentioned in section 4.1.4: the farmer next door amending his fields
with non-organic solutions, the current producers having ploughed
their field before starting their season, and the field’s geographical
situation next to a marshland. All of these facts setting the context
for a very high bacterial biomass in the soil, very little fungal
biomass, no 2nd & 3rd trophic level and very little organic matter in
the soil. Referring to table 8, 8’ & 8’’, we can say our field
microbiological status was at a stage of “soil food web development”,
not favourable to vegetable growing.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%+!
4.4.1 Cabbage: Purple Kale. Harvest at 81 days.
No leaves picked from transplant till harvest.
Table 25: Cabbage yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control Scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,33) in target with the table 8 section 1.4. Kale crops strive
in this kind of environment.
Predation by protozoa on the 1st trophic level enable good nutrient
cycling resulting in better yields. Fungi biomass helps on keeping an
aerobic soil structure (higher biomass and distribution). Bacterial
feeding nematode being absent, we can see the effect of protozoa
predating on bacteria compared to control scenario 1 (-20%) & scenario
2.
Scenario 2 & 3 received the same amount of compost, but scenario 3 also
receiving inoculant loaded with bacterial predators, scenario 3’s amount
of bacteria is indeed lower. We understand that the protozoan predation
effect on the bacterial population helps to increase the fungi:bacteria
ratio.
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 126% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level, a higher fungal density and
the same soil physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%*!
While scenario 2 has a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1, it
also shows a 2nd & 3rd trophic roughly in the same low range, and
appearance of anaerobic markers (root feeding nematodes), hence
anaerobic conditions developing. Results being lower crop productivity:
-56%.
Table 26: Cabbage yield visual results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
!
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
When the 2nd & 3rd trophic level is not present, we see that commercial
compost reputed of good quality can indeed have negative effect on the
crop yield while benefiting weed development (See results in section
4.4).
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%"!
!
!
!
Table 27: Cabbage yield visual unidentified disease
!
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%#!
4.4.2 Celeriac: Harvest at 73 days.
Total edible biomass is measured by subtracting root-hair weight to
the overall weight. Stems and root are considered edible.
Table 28: Celeriac yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
!
Compared to control Scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,21) below target with the table 8 & 12. Celeriac crops need F:B
ratio around 0,75 in order to grow much better.
Besides the above, predation performed by protozoan on the 1st trophic
level enable a good nutrient cycling and better yields than scenario 1.
Higher fungal biomass and distribution help build an aerobic soil
structure beneficial to the microorganism our plants need to get the
optimum nutrient cycling.
Bacterial feeding nematode being absent, we can see an effect of
protozoa predating on the overall bacterial biomass compared to perform
scenario 1 & scenario 2.
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 149% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level, a higher fungal density and
the same soil physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%$!
While scenario 2 have a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1,
both of them are very low to enable a decent crop growth (see table 8).
2nd & 3rd trophic roughly remaining in the same low range, soil
microbiological conditions remain bacterial dominated, then crop
production results are low and nearly the same (-4% for scenario 2). We
have no relevant anaerobic condition development yet, even though we saw
some ciliates (anaerobic marker) showing up in scenario 2.
Table 29: Celeriac Visual yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Putting the previous holistic observations onto total non-edible root
biomass production, our data shows that scenario 3 has 162% bigger root
production (vs scenario 1 and scenario 2). (See pictures & results
above).
Scenario 2 displays 3 points more of non-edible root biomass production
than scenario 1, which is barely significant appraising the context of
the respective scenarios.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%%!
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
When the 2nd & 3rd trophic level is not present, we see that commercial
compost reputed of good quality have indeed a neutral effect on the crop
yield while benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See
results in section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%&!
4.4.3 Fennel: Harvest at 73 days.
Table 30: Fennel yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,122) below target with the table 8, still higher than the other
scenarios. Fennel crops need a F:B ratio around 0,75 in order to grow at
full potential.
Besides the above, predation done by protozoan on the 1st trophic level
enable a decent enough nutrient cycling and better yields than scenario
1 (+58%). Higher fungal biomass, in conjunction with a lower
distribution, tell us the overall fungal diameter is bigger than other
scenarios and still contribute to build decent enough aerobic soil
structure.
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 58% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level, a higher fungal biomass and
the same soil physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%'!
Bacterial feeding nematode being absent, we can see an effect of
protozoan predating on the overall bacterial biomass (-53%) compared to
control scenario 1 & scenario 2.
While scenario 2 have a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1,
both of them are very low to enable a decent crop growth. In scenario 2,
despite appearance of bacterial feeding nematode: 2nd & 3rd trophic is
lower than control scenario 1 & scenario 3, soil microbiological
conditions remain mainly bacterial dominated, then crop production
results are lower (-18% for scenario 2). We have no anaerobic condition
development.
Table 31: Fennel Visual yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
Same observation as the previous crop trial, when the 2nd & 3rd trophic
level is not present or low, we see that commercial compost reputed of
good quality have indeed a negative effect on the crop yield while
benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See results in
section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%(!
4.4.4 Onion: harvest at 78 days.
Table 32: Onion yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
!
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,04) much below target with the table 8, still higher than
scenario 1. Onion crops need a F:B ratio between 0,5 & 0,75 in order to
grow at full potential.
Protozoan and flagellate number is slightly lower than required, and
still could affect the 1st trophic level bacterial biomass. It enabled a
low, still decent enough nutrient cycling and better yields than
scenario 1 (+12%). The overall bacterial biomass remained too high to
reach a decent enough Fungi:bacteria ratio. Another microbiological
inoculation would have been necessary here.
Bacterial feeding nematodes being absent, we can still see the effect of
protozoan predating on the overall bacterial biomass compared to control
scenario 1 & scenario 2 (-57%).
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 12% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level, a higher fungal biomass and
the same soil physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
%)!
Both pre-growing season and control scenario 1 bacterial biomass level
are insanely high, reminding us of the field’s previous management and
surroundings.
While scenario 2 has a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1 & 3,
both of them remained very low to enable a decent crop growth. In
scenario 2, 2nd & 3rd trophic is roughly equal to control scenario 1, soil
microbiological conditions remain mainly bacterial dominated, then crop
production results are equally low (-3% for scenario 2). It could be
attributed to original poor soil conditions topped up with commercial
compost favouring bacterial growth and low 2nd& 3rd trophic level in
comparison with scenario 3. No anaerobic condition development.
Table 33: Onion Visual yield results
!
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect on 1st trophic level
biomass, still was insufficient to take the initial bacterial biomass to
level enabling decent nutrient cycling.
Same observation than for the previous crop trial, when the 2nd & 3rd
trophic level is not present or low, we see that commercial compost
reputed of good quality has a neutral effect on the crop yield while
benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See results in
section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&+!
4.4.5 Potatoes: Harvest at 92 days.
Table 34: Potatoes yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,131) below target in regards to table 8, still higher than the
other scenarios 1 & 2. Potato crops need a F:B ratio around 0,75 in
order to grow at full potential.
Furthermore, protozoan predation on the 1st trophic level enabled a
decent enough nutrient cycling and better yields than scenario 1 (+42%).
Higher fungal biomass & distribution continue supporting the soil
aerobic structure building up; beneficial to the microorganisms our
plants need to get the optimum nutrient cycling.
Bacterial feeding nematode being absent, we can see an effect of
protozoan predating on the overall bacterial biomass (-30%) compared to
control scenario 1 & scenario 2. On the top of that, we also witnessed
omnivorous nematode feeding both on bacteria and fungi. Current soil
conditions enabled this one to be, which is a sign of aerobic
conditions, thus favourable for our crops.
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 42% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level, a higher fungal biomass and
the same soil physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&*!
While scenario 2 has a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1, both
of them remained very low to enable a decent crop growth. In scenario 2,
2nd & 3rd trophic is roughly equal to control scenario 1, soil
microbiological conditions remain mainly bacterial dominated. Scenario 2
drop in production (-43% for scenario 2) could be attributed to the
higher number of bacteria compared to scenario 1 (+17%). It could be
attributed to original poor soil conditions topped up with commercial
compost favouring bacterial growth and low 2nd& 3rd trophic level. Control
scenario 1 display anaerobic condition development (ciliates & root
feeding nematodes).
Table 35: Potatoes Visual yield results
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
Same observation for the previous crop trial, when the 2nd & 3rd trophic
level is not present or low, we see that commercial compost reputed of
good quality has a neutral or negative effect on the crop yield, while
benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See results in
section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&"!
4.4.6 Rutabaga: harvest at 64 days.
Table 36: Rutabaga yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,058) below target in regards to table 8, still higher than the
other scenarios 1 & 2. Rutabaga crops need F:B ratio around 0,75 in
order to grow at full potential.
Protozoan predation on the 1st trophic level enabled a good nutrient
cycling and better yields than scenario 1 (+73%), and a decrease on
overall bacterial biomass(- 27%).
Higher fungal biomass & distribution continue to support the soil’s
aerobic structure building up the beneficial microorganisms our plants
need to get the optimum nutrient cycling.
While scenario 2 has a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1, both
remained very low to enable a decent crop growth. In scenario 2, 2nd & 3rd
trophic is roughly equal to control scenario 1 (-28%).
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 73% better yields, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level (+940%) and the same soil
physical properties than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&#!
Scenario 2 bacterial biomass is higher than Control scenario 1 (+24%).
At this level of microbiological life, Scenario 2 production dropped (-
12%), and also developed anaerobic conditions (Ciliates appearing). It
could be attributed to original poor soil structure conditions, topped
up with commercial compost favouring bacterial growth and nearly absent
2nd& 3rd trophic level.
Table 37: Rutabaga Visual yield results
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
Same observation than for the previous crop trial, when the 2nd & 3rd
trophic level is not present or low, we see that commercial compost
reputed of good quality has a neutral or negative effect on the crop
yield, while benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See
results in section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&$!
4.4.7 Salad: Harvest at 64 days.
Table 38: Salad yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,142) below target in regards to table 8, still higher than the
other scenarios 1 & 2. Salad crops need F:B ratio between 0,5 & 0,75 in
order to grow at full potential.
Higher beneficial protozoan number (+96%) effect on the 1st trophic level
enabled a good nutrient cycling and better yields than scenario 1
(+87%), and a decrease on overall bacterial biomass (- 63%).
Higher fungal biomass & distribution continue to support soil aerobic
structure, building up the beneficial microorganisms our plants need to
get the optimum nutrient cycling. Soil physical conditions may help the
above yield.
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 87% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level (+96%), and soil physical
properties enabling +41% depth in cm than the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&%!
While scenario 2 has a lower fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1, both
of them remained very low to enable a decent crop growth. In scenario 2,
2nd & 3rd trophic is lower than control scenario 1 (-76%).
Scenario 2 bacterial biomass is roughly equal to that of Control
scenario 1 (-3%). At this level of microbiological life, of
Fungi:bacteria ratio, Scenario 2 production dropped by -27%.
Table 39: Salad Visual yield results
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
Same observation than for the previous crop trial, when the 2nd & 3rd
trophic level is not present or low, we see that commercial compost
reputed of good quality has a negative effect on the crop yield, while
benefiting other biological development, i.e. weeds (See results in
section 4.4).

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&&!
4.4.8 Swiss Chard: harvest at 70 days.
No leaf harvest has been done from field transfer till end of trial.
Table 40: Swiss Chard yield results
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Compared to control scenario 1: scenario 3 displays a Fungi:bacteria
ratio (0,065) below target in regards to table 8, still higher than the
other scenarios 1 & 2. Swiss Chard crops needs a F:B ratio between 0,5 &
0,75 in order to grow at full potential.
Higher beneficial protozoan number (+550%) effect on the 1st trophic
level enabled a good nutrient cycling and better yields than scenario 1
(+63%) while bacterial biomass remained nearly the same (- 5%).
Higher fungal biomass & distribution continue to support soil aerobic
structure, building up beneficial microorganisms our plants need to get
the optimum nutrient cycling.
While scenario 2 has a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than scenario 1, both
remained very low to enable a decent crop growth. Still, in scenario 2,
FACTS:
Scenario 3 display 63% better yield, a higher Fungi:bacteria
ratio, a higher 2nd & 3rd trophic level (+550%), and same soil
physical properties the control scenario 1.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&'!
2nd & 3rd trophic is higher than control scenario 1 (+356%) and enabled a
better crop yield (+34%).
Besides the fact that we did not inoculate scenario 2 with
microbiological life, naturally occurring 2nd & 3rd trophic level growth
confirmed our predictions and as a consequence enabled better crop
yield.
Table 41: Swiss Chard visual yield results
Our microbiological inoculant has a positive effect, cycling up the
commercial compost carbon & nitrogen content, on our crops.
When the 2nd & 3rd trophic level is present, we see better results in
yield.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&(!
4.5 Compaction measurements:
Date 17/07/2017.
The sampling has been done taking 10 measurements for each crop tried,
in each scenario while monitoring the yield results. A total of 240
points measured with the “john Dickey tool”.
The penetrometer displays both a psi gauge and a depth scale in cm.
Process was the following: when the psi gauge was reaching 100 psi,
depth in cm was recorded.
Table 42: Average measured depth in cm under 100 psi
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
FACTS:
Average soil depth in cm remained the approximately the same for all the
crops, for all the scenarios; enabling similar physical root penetration.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
&)!
5. CONCLUSIONS:
Table 43: Relationship Yield / F:B Ratio / 2nd & 3rd trophic
level for microbiological inoculation & commercial compost
amendment.
(Source: Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017)
Using R.E. Ingham, J.A. Trofymow, E.R. Ingham and D.C Coleman work13, and
applying it to our vegetable production trial, we confirmed their
predictions and at the same time we proved ours to be relevant.
We reach better crop productivity when soil microbiological community is
more complete both at 1st 2nd 3rd trophic level. More precisely, our data
shows that there are better crop yields and lesser weed pressure when
the previous trophic levels reach certain levels mention in table 8.
Starting with very weak soil microbiological status, 1st 2nd & 3rd trophic
level not present or low, our trial shows that soil amendment along with
material reputed to be “good” we may indeed be ineffective or
detrimental.
This trial makes a clear point on how beneficial aerobic microbiology
performs on our crops yield and overall health. As a consequence, we
have to give relevant soil microbiological management in a context of
soil restoration, soil microbiological health, i.e soil health.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
'+!
6. DISCUSSIONS
In the perspective of this trial, when one wants to remediate or
regenerate soil, the process must start by monitoring what the current
microbiology is in order to address what is potentially missing, in an
informed manner.
After having assessed the current soil microbiology status, and before
amending it with “organic compost reputed of good quality”, the same
compost must be assessed microbiologically in order to check if it will
be beneficial or detrimental; looking at aerobic or anaerobic markers.
In terms of aerobic compost, we also want to mention that its maturity
will make a difference in terms of microbiological diversity, thus on
plant health and productivity. In this regard, organic matter diversity
used for the compost making is crucial as well.
Looking at plant response from fungal presence, we observed a limited
effect on plant growth. We hypothesize fungi play a crucial in
accelerating the broader aerobic soil structure build-up.
From data gathered, 2nd & 3rd trophic level play an essential role in
plant productivity and health; i.e beneficial protozoa such as amoebae &
flagellates. Beneficial protozoan are the kick-starter of any healthy
and productive vegetable production.
In the same manner as per initial soil microbiological status, farmers
have to consider the actual carbon and nitrogen content present in their
soils. Our analysis confirms this. It triggers from the farmer side a
brainstorming about soil residue strategy, cover crop strategy, or
compost amendment addressing the crops needs for carbon and nitrogen.
Soil compaction is another important indicator to consider when looking
at crop productivity.
Considering the diversity of microbiological status in one field, we
also want to highlight our limited capacity to address all of the fields
in the same way.
However, we are insisting on our purpose being giving the soil ecosystem
a direction, a beneficial trend. We are not fixing a car part.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
'*!
TABLE LIST:
!
Table 1: Highlights – Yield Results
Table 2: Overall 8 crops averages - trial
Table 3: Weed pressure trial highlight
Table 4: A complete soil microbiological community
Table 5: Anaerobic microorganisms morphology
Table 6: Aerobic microorganisms morphology
Table 7: Microbiological biomass distribution & Above ground biological succession
Table 8: Microbiological Guideline from early successional to productive pastures
Table 8’: Microbiological Guideline “from dirt to weeds”
Table 8’’: Microbiological Guideline “from shrubs to conifers & evergreen”
Table 9: Aerobic vs. Anaerobic mineralization
Table 10: Other materials produced under anaerobic conditions
Table 11: Benefits of thermal composting.
Table 12: Soil microbiology biomass targets
Table 13: Highlights – Yield Results
Table 14: Pre production field’s organic matter analysis
Table 15: Commercial compost organic matter analysis
Table 16: Seedling Compost microbiological analysis
Table 17: Pre production Soil Microbiological Status
Table 18: Pond water Microbiological Analysis
Table 19: Commercial compost Microbiological Analysis
Table 20: 59 Degrees Compost Microbiological Analysis
Table 21: Microbiological inoculant averages analysis
Table 22: Microbiological inoculant averages analysis – Statistic extract
Table 23: Weed experiment results
Table 24: Main “weeds” appearing on trial
Table 25: Cabbage yield results
Table 26: Cabbage yield visual results
Table 27: Cabbage yield visual unidentified disease
Table 28: Celeriac yield results
Table 29: Celeriac Visual yield results
Table 30: Fennel yield results
Table 31: Fennel Visual yield results
Table 32: Onion yield results
Table 33: Onion Visual yield results
Table 34: Potatoes yield results
Table 35: Potatoes Visual yield results
Table 36: Rutabaga yield results
Table 37: Rutabaga Visual yield results
Table 38: Salad yield results
Table 39: Salad Visual yield results
Table 40: Swiss Chard yield results
Table 41: Swiss Chard visual yield results
Table 42: Average measured depth in cm under 100 psi
Table 43: Relationship Yield / F:B Ratio / 2nd & 3rd trophic level for
microbiological inoculation & commercial compost amendment.

!
Flor.ès.Sens Systems, 2017
'"!
,-.-,-/0-12!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*!-345467385!94:46;8<=!>45!%%?!/4@*@!A:BC;83B74:!4D!E83BC;78?!DF:67!8:G!B=C;C!:CH8B4GCI!
6;8JC;I!2!CDDC3BI!4:!:FB;7C:B!3K357:6!8:G!<58:B!6;4LB=@!
"!-:M7;4:HC:B!0C5CE;8B74:!A:IB7BFBC!2!LLL@C:M7;4:HC:B3C5CE;8B74:@34H!
#!-345467385!94:46;8<=!>45!%%?!/4@*@!A:BC;83B74:!4D!E83BC;78?!DF:67!8:G!B=C;C!:CH8B4GCI!
6;8JC;I!2!CDDC3BI!4:!:FB;7C:B!3K357:6!8:G!<58:B!6;4LB=@!
$!-345467385!94:46;8<=!>45!%%?!/4@*@!A:BC;83B74:!4D!E83BC;78?!DF:67!8:G!B=C;C!:CH8B4GCI!
%!-587:C!A:6=8H!0>!<5FI!;CDC;C:3CI@!
&!,@!.4IBC;?!N@O@!,4M7;8?!P@Q@!043R!2!F5B;8IB;F3BF;C!4D!B=C!;44BSI475!7:BC;D83C!
'!O;@!-587:C!A:6=8H?!I475!.44G!LCE!7:3?!"+*$!
(!17;!N5EC;B!T4L8;G!L4;RI!4:!34H<4IB@!
)!!O;@!-587:C!A:6=8H?!I475!.44G!LCE!7:3?!"+*$@!
*+!-345467385!94:46;8<=!>45!%%?!/4@*@!A:BC;83B74:!4D!E83BC;78?!DF:67!8:G!B=C;C!:CH8B4GCI!
**!UC::8;B!9V:II4:!A:BC;:8B74:85!NW!7:!TC5I7:6E4;6!
*"!1CC!X8EC!W;4L:!8:G!,8K!N;3=F5CBB8!38ICI@!
*#!!-345467385!94:46;8<=!>45!%%?!/4@*@!A:BC;83B74:!4D!E83BC;78?!DF:67!8:G!B=C;C!
:CH8B4GCI!6;8JC;I!2!CDDC3BI!4:!:FB;7C:B!3K357:6!8:G!<58:B!6;4LB=@!