"It all starts with the dirt," with Melinda Turner of Farm Nutrient Advisory

In this week's podcast, discover how optimising soil health is your key to farming profitability. We're joined by Melinda Turner from Farm Nutrient Advisory, a specialist in the fields of animal science, soil and plant sciences. Melinda brings a straightforward, no-nonsense approach to this complex subject. 

Melinda discusses some of the common challenges in nutrient management. It's such a vast topic and, with many 'snake oil' sales people out there, it’s no wonder many farmers find it overwhelming. Melinda runs us through mineral imbalances in the soil, like low levels of calcium among others, and how they affect other nutrients and their availability. 

“You quite often get high potassium soils that can play havoc with magnesium interaction and also in terms of your calcium uptake, because the magnesium is needed for the hormone release that triggers calcium absorption,” she explains. “So, if you've got too much potassium in your soil and you're not applying appropriate magnesium and calcium, you can have quite a knock-on effect with a number of those minerals and vitamins as well. "

Melinda also shares her expertise in soil testing and analysis, underscoring its importance in maintaining optimal nutrient levels. She advises regular testing, "For both soil and herbage, every couple of years would be a minimum." She highlights that the cost of extra testing is soon reaped by the benefits of healthier, productive and, more importantly, optimised livestock, soils and forage. 

She also highlights the importance of how variable soil conditions are from farm to farm, so relying on what your neighbours, or the local fert rep, tells you to do, without proper scientific testing beforehand, can waste a lot of time and money. 

And, of course, we dive briefly into the world of genetics with Melinda explaining how soil health influences genetic expression in plants, much like nutrition does in livestock. Tune in to gain valuable insights into nutrient management and its crucial role in successful farming. 

Head Shepherd is brought to you by neXtgen Agri International Limited, we help livestock farmers get the most out of the genetics they farm with. Get in touch with us if you would like to hear more about how we can help you do what you do best - info@nextgenagri.com.

Thanks to our sponsors at MSD Animal Health and Allflex, and Heiniger Australia and New Zealand.

These companies are leaders in their respective fields and it is a privilege to have them supporting the Head Shepherd Podcast. Please consider them when making product choices, as they are instrumental in enabling us to bring you this podcast each week.

Check out Heiniger's product range HERE
Check out the MSD range HERE
Check out Allflex products HERE

Transcript

Mark Ferguson: 0:00

Welcome back to Head Shepherd. We're with Melinda Turner today from Farm Nutrient Advisory. Welcome, Melinda.

Melinda Turner : 0:05

Thank you, mark, nice to see you all here. Thank you for having me.

Mark Ferguson: 0:09

I rise it all A bit of a change of gear today. We normally talk more at the animal end, unless where they come from or where the nutrients they're made up of. And I think, if I have an admission at the start of this podcast, this is the subject I know at least about, I think, and in animals I'd like to try and be across most of remnant production, but Nutrients is one of the areas where I'm always weakest and like to refer to others other than myself. So, yeah, it's great to have you along to chat through Nutrients. Before we get into that, if you could just tell us a little bit about your background and how you sort of ended up where you are today.

Melinda Turner : 0:48

Yeah, thank you. Well, in terms of education, my passion has always been animal science and I started majoring in an animal science degree and then kind of got the hang of agriculture. In terms of being in the arts, I had obviously a big part of the region, so did another major focusing on more of the soil and plant sciences, and from there I got into the workforce and worked for a small fertilizer supplier where it just became very, very obvious that the pressures of meat and KPI and tonnage targets really do get farmers getting sort of poorer advice and they should be able to see the hand. That became obvious that there was a real need for farmers to have access to unbiased and honest scientific advice, and opportunity Presented itself where it also coincided with the number of my clients at the time asking for me to go out on my own. And yeah, that essentially is kind of led me to where I am today and I provide legalised and written nutrition advice solely based on what the actual plan requirements are. We've now additional commercial pressures guiding those decisions.

Mark Ferguson: 2:26

Yeah, awesome, and it's a great combination of obviously often you have somebody talking soils and someone talking nutrition and not, and having that combination must be awesome for those clients and obviously that soil chemistry to plant and animal performance is all interlinked. Yeah, I mean, maybe for those who are trying to understand how you go about improving profitability on a farm through the nutrient balance, what does that look like?

Melinda Turner : 2:56

Yeah, and I think you kind of mentioned it there where everything is interlinked, and I guess the main concern with our industry at the moment is there is a major disconnect between what happens or what goes on in the soil and how that goes through.

Melinda Turner : 3:14

So my role is essentially to work with farmers to optimise that nutrient efficiency and I do it in an integrated farm systems, a holistic approach. So by that I mean we focus on all of those levels and we look at the soil industry, how that influences those nutrients, moving and transmitting all that for the past through the crop, and then, just on that level as well, the balance of nutrients, how that impacts the actual nutrition and utilisation, feed conversion ratios and just making sure everything that gets applied on to the soil from the fertilizer point of view is actually improving the productivity of the end product. Going up the date and by minimising all those inefficiencies along the way, we're improving not only the profitability but the general sustainability and farm resilience as well. Gone through with all these increasing regulatory pressures, we work on less inputs and maximising output for what we are using and work on that profitability rather than the production factor.

Mark Ferguson: 4:37

Yeah, which is such a different thing as I quote lots of times in this podcast that Bill Malcolm saying there's no maximum profit. You can't maximise production to get maximum profit. There's always a tip over somewhere in terms of spend to optimise profit. I guess one of the things with nutrients is easy, if you think of it really simplistically, that you have the leakyest or the lowest nutrient being the one that you need to fix first, but obviously it's the complexity of how they interact with each other. As for us, us people who don't have a good understanding, it's that real balance between how one nutrient will tip over another nutrient and that interaction that makes it even more difficult to get your head around. And then different soil types to complicate that a little bit further.

Melinda Turner : 5:32

Yeah, definitely, and I think again, going back to that production versus profit, I mean you definitely have to factor in that that diminishing the yields and I think that the deer scenario is a the prime example of that where they are just the driven product production as opposed to the profit and the input going in are a lot more excessive than they need to be and it doesn't necessarily correlate to what they're getting out the day because they're losing so much in efficiency at the mean time. And it does impact the soil condition and with the different soil types I mean the fundamentals of the actual chemistry and the interaction of the elements within the soil. It's applicable regardless of the soil type but, as you touch on, there will be different deficiencies and methods of fixing them accordingly. But I think the issue we have at hand is a lot of the soil tests. Because we're rich, driven by a sales industry, the actual soil tests under the deficient mineral isn't necessarily given the attention it deserves and so, regardless of what the soil tests say, it's always the same recommendation being applied.

Melinda Turner : 6:58

And also, I mean the soil tests alone only give a very small picture of what's going on and the ratios of the nutrients within the soil, as you've touched on, play a massive hand at the interaction on the actual availability.

Melinda Turner : 7:16

You may have an optimum or even a high quantity of one nutrient, magnesium for example, but if your potassium is through the roof, then that will still actually be hindering the availability and the availability of that magnesium.

Melinda Turner : 7:37

So the herbogenalysis which I have promoted and I get down on the list of problems I look after is the piece of the missing puzzle that you like a lot of problems don't focus on. And not only does that give you the support of what's in your soil and your fertilizer and the regime actually working, but it actually shows you what the stock is eating, and so it's much more directly related into that activity of the efficiency of the farm and opens up the possibilities of if you can't pick something with your fertilizer and again that will come down to soil fight you may be there off supplementing directly at the other end. So it's not a deficiency of the farm but it is with the animal. So yeah, there's a lot of interactions and chemistry that antagonizes or complements at each level, whether it's in the soil, in the plant and then in the room itself. There's a lot of antagonists going on as well.

Mark Ferguson: 8:46

Yeah, it's always interesting that half of the Indian population is vegetarian, or maybe more than half, but they know things like that. You have an acid with when you're having green leafy, green vegetables, you have an acid. So you get all that sort of stuff which obviously our sheep are trying to do or our cattle are trying to do on a daily basis, and it's all those interactions that are important. Once it gets into, like a forage test, it's still not safe to assume the animal's getting that because of those other things going on. So you can have a forage that's okay, but you can have an animal that's still deficient.

Melinda Turner : 9:24

Yeah, definitely. So I mean in terms of what I think what we've got off and see here is that we grow high quality pastures and crops and that quality isn't necessarily what the stock actually need. And so even if you take crude protein alone, we farm with significant amounts of things. Still, in a lot of sectors we push that crude protein into the sort of the 30%, and I mean even for a high performing dairy cow the maximum crude protein they can actually efficiently metabolise is the 18% maximum. And so all of that additional goodness of your life is actually burning energy to excrete it, and that in itself can tag on to the emissions kind of argument going on. Where the animal isn't actually fed or what they can metabolise, the emissions are greater as a consequence. Even with all these genetic gains in high performing stock that we don't feed to the actual animal's requirements, then you're not going to achieve the potential of that either. And similarly, there's a lot of calcium deficiency in relation to phosphorus in our pastures. A lot of the new bit analysis and this is specific to a farm system, but a lot of the new bit analysis is actually got excessive phosphorus compared to calcium, which is quite a significant impact because the calcium drives obviously in terms of skeletal sort of strength and milk production but also general hormone function and from a milk lever capacity in any kind of lambing or carving, we don't have long term sufficient supply of calcium. We're kind of starting off in the back foot, going into those really high requirement times as well.

Melinda Turner : 11:44

So the hermit analysis is really important and the trace elements especially aren't particularly accurate in a soil test because they are such minute quantities and a lot of the time they're very soluble.

Melinda Turner : 11:56

So what you take in a soil sample one is hard to actually kind of pick up with the true volume and secondly a little bit of content on the moisture content at the time of sampling, whereas the hermit analysis is more of a long to kick show of those nutrient availability. So the trace element status can show a lot, and I mean selenium. Even with selenium fertilizer and selenium stretches, selenium is sort of quite often low. So iodine is typically one that's not actually tested for much here routinely anyway, but is a huge impact on well anything in terms of your metabolism. While we think of iodine deficiency and whose case scenario is greater, that is as clinical as it can get. But obviously you've got a spectrum where you're working or growing with a deficiency which is subclinical not necessarily getting to that clinical stage and that hermit analysis can help you just identify those areas for potentially huge gains with very little input where you're on that nutrient deficiency at all levels again, Interesting.

Mark Ferguson: 13:21

Is it kind of like my career that every day is a school day, like I feel like we're always learning.

Melinda Turner : 13:25

You're sort of one thing that was true yesterday, gets challenged tomorrow and then you have to re-adjust what in there, yeah, and I think I feel like I'm still I'm just fine finishing my my masters now in life stuff in production, and so that's definitely been one big eye opener in terms of the reality of what's out there and I'm doing it through the Royal Veterinary College, so it's more of a global perspective than what's provided here in New Zealand.

Melinda Turner : 13:59

And I mean, I certainly it is definitely a matter of you never going to know everything there is to know, and when you get complacent then there's going to be definitely room for improvement.

Melinda Turner : 14:13

And I think with a lot of the science or general textbooks from a fertilizer point of view in New Zealand, it is quite repetitive from what's being done kind of decades ago, and it hasn't really progressed, whereas there's a lot of a lot of new science out there. And again, I think it's just more a common sense approach where we're not actually farming the soil, we're not actually farming the animal, and so you've got to look at it from the animal perspective and make sure everything you are doing from the nutrient input point of view is adding to the benefit of the purpose of farming. And that that disconnects is probably where I took a lot of farms for sure, with no fault of their own. It's just the way kind of our industry has progressed. I guess with the very isolated areas we don't have a soil rep or you have an animal nutritionist, that there's no kind of complementary blend in between, which is where I felt there was a nice gap in the market.

Mark Ferguson: 15:27

Yeah, exactly for sure. If we do dive into a couple or a number of the common mineral deficiencies, what's the sort of science behind? What's the major if you go on to a new farm? That's never really thought about this stuff before. What are the major things that you normally challenge with and how you go about that?

Melinda Turner : 15:44

I'm really a common one and I'm probably one that, without even going on farm, you just know it's going to be the fact that there's lack of lining, and so, with the soil, tests don't always promote an accurate view of orchute phosphorus levels, and so the LCP can both under and under, and a lot of the time, as I say, those tests aren't acted in when recommendations are applied and there's no footage to be complimented that. So the first thing we'll do is add some more robust soil testing plus a herbage, and that will probably 95% of the time show low calcium for phosphorus in the herbage. And even if the calcium pH is what they consider optimal, the actual balance to what's been applied in phosphorus is still impacting the responsibility to to get that calcium supply for optimal production. And again, I kind of use optimal, because does it mean to say they're all going to be peeling over with calcium deficiency? But again there's that trend where they can be functioning with a deficiency that they'll just never achieve the potential and if it was actually acknowledged. So the the lining or the lack of appreciation for calcium in our soils is definitely a big one, which is a little bit of a fight, I guess, to move traditional inputs because, yeah, we're very much fertilizer driven and the industry has the impression that that lining, on hillhunter especially, is too expensive to do, when in fact, if you look at it from the animals perspective, it's too expensive not to actually line and make sure those animals are grown as up to you as they can.

Melinda Turner : 18:05

And then, yeah, in terms of the new analysis, there's all sorts of other factors that can come into play, depending on the soil type.

Melinda Turner : 18:16

You quite often get high potassium soils and that can play havoc with magnesium interaction and and again, also in terms of your calcium uptake, because the magnesium is needed for your hormone release that triggers calcium absorption, and with an endaerial activation which also helps with calcium absorption.

Melinda Turner : 18:41

So if you've got too much potassium in your soil and you're not applying appropriate magnesium and your calcium, you can have quite a knock on the thick with a number of those minerals and vitamins as well. So it's definitely, yeah, this is quite a what a number of macro nutrient imbalances that are reasonably common, regardless of what part in New Zealand you are. And again, those trace elements for the selenium and the iodine, especially across the board. Unless it's supplemented, there's reasonable confidence that there's a deficiency there to some extent as well. And yeah, the salinized trenches. Obviously we're kind of working on trenches for free-says, which minimizes much trenches as well as what's going on, and the amount of selenium in those trenches is just not adequate for any deficiency anyway and not long term enough to have kind of that longevity with the progression either.

Mark Ferguson: 19:52

Yeah, I guess the risk of putting selenium in a trench, I guess, is what I don't know. So a couple of decades where all of a sudden we had cobalt and selenium and things in trenches. It's kind of you think, oh, they gave us selenium. They've had their selenium for the year, but in lots of cases that's nowhere near enough.

Melinda Turner : 20:09

Yeah, and I think yeah, that's definitely a really big issue and while in terms of whether it's the vet industry or the fertilizer industry, you can get hold if you're supplementing through one form, you don't supplement through the other form.

Melinda Turner : 20:28

But the reality is, with the amount of selenium in those trenches and the frequency of the lack of them getting used, putting the fertilizer on is why you're very unlikely to get that toxicity. When you're doing it in for a more direct supplement for the animal, then that's got more risk for toxicity. But the trenches have such a tiny amount, so it does give definitely a false sense of security that they may still be thinking their lamin percentages aren't that good, but selenium doesn't even get considered because they drench, and similarly the iodine I mean the iodine is quite or less, I guess like 50 or so of reproductive importance and not tested for at all. So that's the other aspect where not only could you be iodine deficient and selenium deficient, but iodine is deficient, selenium for the group as well. And without testing and acknowledging all those interactions, it's quite a big function and the plan is to figure out where the improvement can be with some of the information being put across.

Mark Ferguson: 21:50

So the trenches definitely aren't those providers as much as they imply, I guess from a long term standpoint, yeah, and I guess more than maybe anywhere in agriculture, the sort of marker in the entrance to the home of the snake or sarsman, and there's some pretty interesting claims in terms of animal not necessarily soil additives but in terms of things you can drench or lick, blocks and all that sort of stuff. There's lots of conflicting or confusing advice anyway out there, and often not from any experts, just from people selling something. Navigating that whole area is maybe the reason I've shone away from it, because it is such a, I think, very farm specific where, or at least enterprise specific where the right combination of micronutrients is important, that whole complexity must be is overwhelming for farmers, I guess. If, how do you recommend farmers go about sort of navigating that complexity?

Melinda Turner : 22:54

Yeah, and I mean I think it's impossible or really unfair to expect farmers to kind of know the right decision in that sense and with because everything that is on the market. It is very heavily touched on from the sales reps that obviously have a ulterior motive. So I think a lot of. In regards to supplementing generic off the shelf products, they've got a lot of stuff in there that quite often is offsetting each other. As it is and each farm is so individual, it's really difficult to actually get a generic product. That's, that's what's needed, and the same can be said in the fertiliser regime.

Melinda Turner : 23:43

There's a very, very typical standpoint, kind of super costly application across the board, regardless of soil type, and the reality is it doesn't apply to an individual system.

Melinda Turner : 23:59

So it is a matter of obtaining the independent device that is available out there, and it may be a matter of bringing in multiple individuals, whether it's a soil specialist and then a sector nutritionist. But the independence is a really important, important factor, unless you go into the endelvins and the real intricacies of the chemistry and apply it biologically from each level. As well as hard, a hard expectation for farmers to do, and they've got enough to worry about. So I think it's kind of up to our industry to acknowledge the way it is at the moment is probably not providing as good advice, as there's a lot of commercial incentives out there. So, yeah, there needs to be that shift in that scientific thinking. And, yeah, on one individual specialty and quite the same farms, just as that they're their own individual systems and even the manual stuff can compare because of the different stock, the different management soils change dramatically from place to place.

Mark Ferguson: 25:24

So yeah, Is it getting better, or at least do we now have the tools to make it better with things like variable rate applications and, I guess, some of these I don't know how far advanced the sensor systems to fly over and do some at least macro nutrient testing from the air. Is any of that showing any light at the end of the tunnel in terms of us getting better as an industry to do this more efficiently?

Melinda Turner : 25:49

Yeah, there's still really little out there available in New Zealand in terms of nutrient mapping eerily at the moment and a lot of it's been kind of focused on nitrogen etc. With the precision spreading I think with grounds spreading it's definitely got a lot of potential and can cater a lot more areas.

Melinda Turner : 26:16

That from an aerial perspective and this is where I've had a few discussions with the projects and the fact that all soil takes on hill places and we do varying hill places, we do varying ratings and the clear places, because if you've got a steep hill place out the back, you know it's not going to be the same as a sort of more gentle slope elsewhere on the farm.

Melinda Turner : 26:48

They then change the rates that the recommendations I use have faced in physical soil tests. They then change the rate, space and gradient and I've actually tested and recommended based on that gradient. So I think, yeah, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors. If you're doing the testing hot layer, that should be done in the first place. Farmers pay extra for that technology. For them it's actually nothing in that sense. So yeah, unless they can I mean I don't test a whole side of the hill, I don't, it's kind of more of a transit line. So unless they calibrate to the gradient hold and the coordinates of where I've soil tested and then they back up like from there, that would happen to each hill. But I'm yet to see that office.

Mark Ferguson: 27:49

That doesn't sound like something as slark as it happened, but yeah.

Melinda Turner : 27:51

That's too nice I mean it's not pretty each hill but unfortunately at the moment, again working with that disconnect, you've got the sprayers of the fertilizer, but then there's that disconnect to how that actually applies academically on the ground with the sun and light myself, and how we get the data and recommend based on that. They then kind of ignore that data and then do their own recommendations. So it's always a matter of that disconnect in our industries when in fact it should really be looked at, as I say, holistically in that integrated approach.

Mark Ferguson: 28:32

Yeah, I guess if you're in the River Island of Australia and listening, you want to make sure that you're wondering what we're talking about, because you can drive it as all flat, it's all pretty consistent, whereas where you are based from out of an API, driving into any direction from there, you're driving into hills that are kind of vertical to overhanging in some situations and I guess what are the? Do you see different challenges across different regions of where you work?

Melinda Turner : 28:58

Much of them. I mean, from the industry standpoint, much of the issues or areas from group of poor farmers are actually very much the same with the others at all, and that comes from the lack of long-term appreciation for calcium and the impact that is on your levels of farming, the intricacies in terms of trace elements and obviously you got sort of some areas that are higher in your minerals than others. So I mean it could both change, but it's more a matter of kind of just individual assessment. But I guess logistics is probably the biggest issues. Obviously we can go from areas that have multiple supplies within a stone's throw to things out in the middle of nowhere, because then there's a lot of quite difficult ones where you've just got to work on logistics, making sure that the farmers are getting this deal they possibly can in terms of kind of track loads and looking that out, because it's some well, that's not the actual kind of scientific role I play as such.

Melinda Turner : 30:22

The logistics side has to be efficient to make sure everything works as a whole. But even I mean I look at South Ireland as well and, yeah, very similar expectations of people what the history of being a pilot farm is when I go there Because, yeah, as I say, our third law the books that a lot of the reps refer to. It doesn't change according to where you are. It's pretty much the same. This is what we do, regardless of what anything else is, so yeah, yeah, I guess, if you're listening along, thinking all this testing sounds expensive.

Mark Ferguson: 31:08

I'm assuming that if you compare it to a five-year fertilizer bill of doing something that's actually wasting money or not arresting the biggest limitations, clearly that's where the win is. You spend a bit more than testing than you normally would, but you spend a much more efficient spend on your, on your fertilizers or your soil. So amelioration, whatever that's, fertilizer all along.

Melinda Turner : 31:31

Yeah, I think, I mean on average, I think about that If you're doing your kind of sufficient soil soil testing, it can be less than one percent of your actual fertilizer expenditure and it's not I mean while it adds up if you're doing every paddock testing. But again, it's got to be agronomically applicable. So while every paddock testing which is quite a fashion in the cell phone, especially while it provides you with an enormous amount of data and it's really useful to kind of divvy up zones of varying soil type or nutrients and values, you're not going to have a different truck going into a different paddock and you've got to still apply it efficiently. So it's a matter of planning it into zones that are applicable on a management and logistically efficient planner. And we have soil testing and we do every couple of years. It's not an annual thing, mainly because you can get such variation year to year which isn't actually to do with the soil status but more just sort of on the variation. So every couple of years, and Moobitch analysis would be as a minimum every couple of years, but then that's dependent on how intensive a farm system is as well. But some farmers see true benefit in doing it Seasonally, especially if we're working with dairy farms where we run that ruminant nutrition analysis and we change the mineral balance and see what the season and their feed and something that changes as well.

Melinda Turner : 33:24

So it's definitely worth while it can say hundreds of thousands of times actually, especially when it comes to just simply showing the farmer and explaining why they don't actually need phosphorus for two or three years.

Melinda Turner : 33:42

And you monitor that so you don't say we're going to go cold to again, just hope we're going to be okay. You actually monitor it to make sure the nutrients are staying kind of in the optimal levels, but on a regular basis. We don't put phosphorus fertilizer on for multiple years because it's been poured on and it hasn't been utilized because it hasn't been able to actually be extracted because of the lack of calcium. So you work on that lining instead and that lining as a lane of cost at the moment especially, is a lot cheaper than a fine phosphorus fertilizer, so it's well worth it. I mean it can be sort of between two, three hundred dollars per cycle. So you might be up for sort of one, two thousand dollars for a full, comprehensive analysis, but again every couple of years and when you're looking at potentially eighty, a hundred or fifty thousand dollars of fertilizer. It's a valuable tool to have.

Mark Ferguson: 34:46

Yeah and it's yeah. We're pretty hot on knowledge is power in this, on this podcast and anything we do. And I had an addition to that recently I was reading a book and it was not. Knowledge is useless until it's applied. So I guess application of knowledge is power. But if we are like obviously having that information rather than just sticking with what's been done for thirty years or what, what the first rep is doing is exactly right.

Melinda Turner : 35:13

I think that's our biggest issue here is that we do like just repeating what sort of the science that we've done and putting in the data. And yeah, I do like that because the reality is a lot of the sort of testing being done is more to superficially tick a box for a farmer to kind of just have that feeling that he's getting the shit that he deserves. But the reality is when you're actually delving those numbers it is not applied in any sense and, to take this that furthest, we really need to look at the actual animal performance to make sure that when it's going through the way through to the whole purpose of that farm system, as I say, and that's where the profitability focus comes into.

Mark Ferguson: 36:07

Yeah, and you can kind of see why snake oil evolved in this area, because it is often they're very small changes, subtle changes that can have a big impact, and that's so you can kind of and you have some lots of individuals that have any total evidence about they did this and the cows were amazing, the sheep were amazing. So there is get it right and it's really powerful. But there's sort of what I guess maybe nine times out of 10, there's people are feeding a heap of nutrients that they don't need to, injecting a heap of nutrients that aren't useful or whatever. But you can see how it is like. It's such an.

Mark Ferguson: 36:39

That's why I never, ever downplay it, because it's really important. It's just that just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's not important, and because I think it's, it is massive. It makes sense that getting all this in balance is going to have an optimum system, optimum animals. We're in the game of improving the genetics of animals, but, as you said a few minutes ago, there's no point cranking out the genetics to be more productive if we're not able to feed those, particularly those high performance animals. So it's a, it's a really, it's a really important area and I'm glad to summon out there independently smashing it out. That's awesome.

Melinda Turner : 37:13

Yeah, and I think that's no, it's too far. Through a read a a read quote the other day where we had a picture of a deer and her pikes with a AP value of less than 0.05. And then it was like, oh, it must be, must be true, and I think that's that's. The issue we have here is, a lot of our research is from the products of buyers themselves, and and so it's definitely requiring independent perspective, which I think our government has got slow to put on. With the conflict of interest which is out there, which unfortunately, I think, is a large driver of our farmers. I think it's a hard time for them.

Mark Ferguson: 38:02

Yeah, the, I just saw something on your LinkedIn, a post of a farmer's massive Alfa and Pays and Olive, of other problems in that sort of. So it's something that you must really frustrate you when you go on to a farm and see decades of wasted fertiliser use.

Melinda Turner : 38:15

Yeah, and I think and the Alfa and Pays is a prime example of that old science, I suppose where I mean it was designed in North America and they've got really alkaline soils and their pH is above the eight in the areas where the Alfa and Pays was actually developed and and the issue they have is on the other end of the spectrum. Then we have calcium. When it's in an alkaline solution actually locks up phosphorus, so their plants are deficient in phosphorus because of high calcium, Whereas in acidic soils, which primarily what we have, it's the opposite, where the lack of calcium is making the phosphorus get fixed by the element in the iron and manganese oxides etc.

Melinda Turner : 39:04

So in the laboratory, the Alfa and Pays, they actually manipulate the soil sample to a pH of five and then they read how much one available phosphorus is appearing at a pH of eight in five.

Melinda Turner : 39:19

And then our industry applies that to our farms where and that linked in post in particular you refer to their pHs were mid-fives. So you're looking at a thousand times more acidic, which is just there's no capability at all with what that also means. And the calcium numbers were there during this day that it was a mere deficiency and just utterly, utterly ignored. So unfortunately, it's a really common thing and was definitely the main driver of why I started my business and kind of went out alone. And yeah, I think it's a real change that there's a lot of farmers out there that are genuinely trying to do their best and doing what they think is right and even referring to kind of those more snake oil form. We've got these farmers who are genuinely trying to look outside the box and do what's right and but they remind them those sales reps to make those decisions for them. And yeah, they, they have managers behind them making sure they sell products whether it's needed or not.

Mark Ferguson: 40:44

Now it's intriguing I feel a bit cheated that I've done at least 12 months of soil science in my life and my life and I don't think I ever knew that about Olsen-Peters. So I've definitely learned something just in 10 seconds again.

Melinda Turner : 40:57

Probably the bit more bottom dollar than most of the reps don't know that yeah.

Mark Ferguson: 41:03

But that makes a heap of sense all of a sudden. And yeah, that's. That's really interesting, the I reckon if I had a I would have heard a million times that you can't afford to put lime on on Hill and High Country and that's clearly just a mindset thing that we've got locked in our brains and and we've just decided that fertiliser or, I guess, some sort of false false for a few other things we can throw up there and a bit of sulfur and and jobs right. But obviously you're showing and proving that while it's harder to move around, it's well, because it's you've got to move a lot of stuff, but it's still that's. It can be the the best spend, the best spend of your dollar.

Melinda Turner : 41:45

Yeah, definitely. And again, it's all about farming the animal and, and while you can, you can put it on super phosphate for less tonnage. It is expensive, it's a polluter, it is highly soluble, so it does run off. It does leach as well. It doesn't leach to the waterways largely because the subsoil has a higher affinity for phosphorus than it does nitrogen, which obviously continues to the waterways, but leaching still takes it out of the harm systems reach and a waste of money essentially. So I think. Yet the line is there for me and they're estimated and it's a simple, something really simple like that.

Melinda Turner : 42:36

Yeah, I do feel even in myself a little bit of a treat where you kind of get a massive response on these harms and when you've done to begin with it was actually say, well, let's just put on it, and it may be, how quick that's turned around is, and then it's a matter of, yeah, working with those mineral balances in a more sustainable manner as well. So what you actually buy and put on the ground is going to stay there. So, again, just that poll to submit to the soil and the actual animal. That's the key. I'm not a lot of extra profit and resilience for most of our farmers.

Mark Ferguson: 43:21

Excellent, I guess. One last thing I want to cover before we close out, and I never expected to have my interest so strong in soils for this long. Normally I'm straight back to the animal, but it is awesome how it all connects. Obviously, the moment we've got sort of a regen ag movement where I guess, if people read that wrong, they get told that the sun provides all the nutrients because it fires up the plants and they extract the nutrients Obviously. I mean, unless alchemy has started to occur recently, I don't think the sun can provide any nutrients. But how much truth is in, I guess, a mixed pasture being able to extract different nutrients and therefore give the animal more available of what they need.

Melinda Turner : 44:03

So I think I mean, while I have utmost respect for the philosophy and the objective behind the regen movement, the way they've rationalised it now just gets on a lot of farmers backs up, because it's definitely kind of suggesting that they're doing everything well, whereas the reality is a lot of the regenerative principles there, they're not anything new. Rotational grazing, for example, that's a long, historic, ancient method of growing faster and the reality is, yes, those, those queries do help significantly and it's not so much more from nutrients falling from the sky but the fact that when we over raise our pastures which we are quite good at doing here in New Zealand, it reduces the root impacts because the plants itself above ground doesn't have sufficient leap to kind of photosynthesise and produce the sugar in the carbon from above ground. They have to actually extract it from below ground, which is their carbon residue. So the root structures shrink when we over raise and during that kind of continuous system and set stocking as a prime example of that. So when you do allow for better residuals or the good grazing, you get that deeper root structure which in itself can actually explore a lot more of the surface area and get those nutrients that would normally be extractable. So this definitely true. In that and in regards to the diverse, I believe diverse species is beneficial. I don't know if I go quite as far as kind of the 20, 30 species seed that they do, but even again, from that animal perspective, it allows them to pick and choose whether it's a bit more fiber or a bit more sugar versus protein, and again, that protein and carbohydrate ratio that we feed our stock is quite awfully hot. So if you've got a diverse species, it helps with that. There is definitely a difference between plants and the nutrients that can take up more readily. So, like your chigarine, your flowers, they're going to take up more copper, but the legumes aren't actually going to take up much saline and can get to the grasses, and so there definitely is a difference in what plants take up and it's a matter of building resilience. I guess into that system where you're less likely to over raise, you're going to have more suppression of weeds.

Melinda Turner : 47:08

So all very applicable and full concepts, but they're not regenerative. They've spoken around for a dog these years and they're just now being pushed under that name. Yeah, I suppose they still. Largely they believe that there's no reason to suck them in the animals If you're doing it right in your farming, regeneratively and doing it correctly. The animal doesn't need anything else and that's just from a nutritional point of view, and I'm sure you can relate to this, is that, that's just. It's impossible because, again, different, different pastures, different soils, different seas, and it doesn't matter regeneratively. We still don't have sufficient saline and iodine and I sort of go up and put that pastures. So yeah, I think they're still at this. Next, very good principles, but just proven ancient farming.

Mark Ferguson: 48:11

Excellent. You got a very good way of explaining stuff and really appreciate that. I'm imagining you're relatively flat out, but if people are interested in your services, what's the best way to get in touch with you?

Melinda Turner : 48:23

I do have a Facebook page, farm Nutrients Advisory. I'm also on LinkedIn to some of my main members who are there, but probably just either flip me an email, melinda at farmnutrientsconz, or a message on Facebook and send me an easier, busiest method, I guess.

Mark Ferguson: 48:46

Excellent. That's been a really fascinating chat. Melinda really appreciate that. And been a nice break away from chatting about genetics and and and remnants. But obviously it all starts with the dirt. So, yeah, definitely been a great chat. So really appreciate your time. I really appreciate you guys having me. Thank you Thanks.