Item 3 is important in more ways than most people realize. Last year many farmers in my area that planted soybeans early had a problem with slugs eating the sprouting beans and were forced to replant multiple times. This spring I went to a growers conference and heard a presentation by a Prof. Tooker from Penn State Ag about the slug problem, which he has been researching for several years. Turns out that the slug infestation can be directly traced to the use of insecticides used in seed treatments. The insecticides kill beetles (and other beneficial insects) that eat the slugs but don't kill slugs because they aren't insects (they are mollusks). No beetles more slugs. Take away is don't use treated seed. However, standard practice at seed companies is to treat seed with fungicides and insecticides, thus creating a problem rather than solving it.

The attempt is surely to solve for an abundance of beetles, but it is often helpful to think of many of these 'problems' as imbalances.

Nature does not work in two-variable equations, and the abundance or absence of an element typically has repercussions that are difficult to study.

An often-cited example of missing the bigger picture in controlling one variable would be the Chinese campaign against the Four Pests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign

When I think about insects and slugs, then slugs are typically considerably larger and have more body mass. Is it only the smaller slugs or slug eggs that the insects eat? I have a hard time imagining a beetle eating a slug.

We just need to add a mollusk treatment!

The beetles are the mollusc treatment.

OP is making a joke: the solution to too many pesticides is even more pesticides.

copper kills invertebrates (it's in a range of fishtank infection treatments, doesn't kill fish but will kill snails and crabs)

Copper kills funghi too, and that's a problem as funghi are important element of healthy soil.

Please - if I wanted to know what an LLM thinks about this, I would have asked it myself.

I was just coming to comment the same thing. This seems like an ai bot answer. And it's a green username

It really is a "nobody asked" kind of comment.

Amusingly, it is catastrophically wrong, like AI slop typically is.

Can you explain the catastrophe? It does seem AI generated but it doesn’t seem wrong

It doesn't mention soil pH at all. AI didn't mention anything about sending off samples to a soil lab for testing, just "dump good sounding stuff on your soil, that'll make everything better!" It didn't even mention grabbing a recent soil survey to get a rough idea of what soil you are dealing with. It is garbage advice which will lead you to waste money and likely make your soil worse instead of better.

2 provides 4 from the insitu minerals. It may be necessary to add minerals if you are growing plants that require something the native minerals dont have. But, the majority of minerals plants need are available everywhere. The soil biology is required to unlock it for plants to use.

If you see the macrobiota in soil it is an indicator microbiota is present. The more the merrier.