Starting in the 1980s, composting was increasingly mechanized promising faster results and higher quality. Commissioned by USDA and NYSERDA to investigate quality issues we found large large fossil-fuel usage implications to pile turning and evidence of stratification of test elements at depth. Pile-turn intensification led to greater nitrogen losses. In the end, the research concludes turning improves sampling homogeneity but more turning didn’t result in better compost.

[Summary Journal Paper]

[Composting Energy Index]

[Variability due to Compost Sampling]

Composting took off in the 1990s, celebrated as a safe and eco-friendly solution to reduce landfilling leaves, grass, and food scraps. With minimal regulations in place, public and private programs promoted its widespread adoption. We investigated the hygiene safety of these non-sludge, non-manure composts. Microbiological hygiene was highly variable with 1/3 of composts meeting quality standards.

CODIS 2008 Paper

Critics claim tillage in organic farming destroys soil structure, spurs critters to consume organic matter, and releases stored CO2. What kind of tillage, and how much? To test this, we took weekly soil measurements during a growing season and compared varying intensities of tilling. Rototilling every week for weed control did not affect soil carbon, but we also observed other things.

Swiss research in the 1970s showed that organic leafy greens avoided the high nitrate levels common in conventional ones—an early breakthrough linking food quality to soil health. And it wasn’t the first. Our article dives into pioneering organic farming studies that shaped the field long before its broader recognition.

Farmers are told to overlook the natural nitrogen 'gift' from healthy soil and rely instead on soil yield equations. We carefully measured soil biology and nitrogen release and compared to yield and N-uptake with and without N-fertilizer. Soil contributed nearly 70 lbs/a N due to soil microbial respiration.

Our vineyard composting work encompassed a decade of work in California with the late Alan York, the renowned biodynamic viticulturist. We designed and implemented full vineyard recycling of grape marc press cake (dark pile) and cattle manure (foreground) mixed with vine prunings for a high-quality 9-month compost process. Impacts on grape vigor became primary determinants of use rate in the soil.

[Part II Paper in Practical Winery]

Disruptive technologies are often praised for transforming industries with simpler, more efficient solutions. However, they can quickly shift from innovation to overhyped ventures when marketing overtakes substance - case of "solutions in search of problems." One case is "QuickCarbon," a handheld IR spectrometer introduced as a potential game-changer for measuring soil carbon in the field, allegedly eliminating the need for soil labs. The device failed to deliver reliable results. It didn’t stop here. Its purpose was then pivoted to assessing "bio-nutrient availability" through vegetable surface coloration analysis—another claim that has yet to prove satisfactory.

This trend reflects a deeper issue: using end-users as beta testers instead of conducting rigorous, science-backed trials. Often, individuals behind such technologies—frequently without an established company—offload risk onto customers. While this may seem cost-effective, it undermines credibility, erodes trust, and sidesteps accountability to investors and scientific standards. It’s a reminder for stakeholders to ask early-on for evidence and scrutinize claims before embracing "game-changing" innovations, but there is no rule-book on how to proceed.

Growers and crop consultants have been reading about a new “soil-health” test introduced by the Cornell soil health lab and called “ACE-protein”. The procedure allegedly measures protein itself which is a variable fraction of organic nitrogen associated with seasonal N-mineralization contributing to crop yield. However, mounting evidence shows the procedure also extracts soluble humic matter which is a significant source of colorimetric interference.
Due to these measurement errors and the many peer-reviewed papers already published, the test originators are re-purposing the test as an “indicator” of soil health. Our brief essay examines some of the issues.

“Regenerative farming” is an increasingly popular term, used to label a wide range of practices, from “sustainable” and “ecological” to “organic.” However, the term itself isn’t new—it was coined by the organic farming community over 40 years ago, as our research discovered. In fact, Bob Rodale introduced the term to help bring organic practices into the mainstream, as tensions rose over whether organic farming could gain broader acceptance.

Today, regenerative farming is often touted as going “beyond organic.” Yet, many of its practices—like no-till farming and crop rotations—have been staples of organic and eco-farming for decades. A growing concern is the lack of standardization for what qualifies as “regenerative.” Unlike organic certification, regenerative farming lacks a unified framework, opening it up to broad, conflicting interpretations. To truly deliver, regenerative farming must embrace clear definitions and validation systems. Otherwise, it risks becoming just another buzzword that undermines its potential to enhance sustainable agriculture.