Soil Your Undies Information

Hi there,

If you are reading this you have clicked the link for Soil Your Undies and are hopefully wanting to know why the results I achieved, as noted in the caption, do not concur with conventional thinking.

The answer is that across multiple sites in my tests (I buried some 50 pairs of y-fronts across 15 different land use types), the most intensive and fertilised agricultural fields often had the highest levels of degradation on the y-fronts, indicating that they are the most biodiverse, and by inference, healthy soils. This is what the conventions suggest. The same was true of the earthworm counts – the fertilised soils of the improved pasturelands often had the highest counts, again indicating soil health.

And yet science, academia and environmental research (together with some of my own VESS, root and soil structure studies) suggest otherwise – that these soils are not particularly healthy, often with varying levels of compaction poor root structure and plant biodiversity (see also my ‘Where The Wild Things Are’ project). So why the discrepancy? Why do these surveys persist in encouraging incorrect thought? And what studies are really needed if we are to better understand the ecological health of different land use types and managements of place?

The following summarises a conversation I had with AI on the subject after I had carried out my field research across the 15 sites. The results had left me confused so I was searching for answers. What I learned taught me a lot about soil and about how AI answers questions and learns (or not!).

At the end of the conversation is a table that offers my own (untested) combined analysis approach, developed with AI, to assessing any piece of land to perhaps better understand overall ecological health as opposed to soil health.

Question One

(asked of AI by Ted Leeming)

Does the presence of earthworms indicate a healthy soil?

Yes, the presence of earthworms strongly indicates healthy soil because they physically improve soil structure, fertility, and water drainage, and they are sensitive indicators of soil conditions like pH, moisture, and compaction. Earthworms break down organic matter, incorporate nutrients into the soil, aerate it, and improve water infiltration. However, soil health is a complex concept, and while high earthworm numbers are a positive sign, the absence of earthworms, or the presence of only one type, can signal underlying issues such as soil compaction, waterlogging, or excessive tillage.

Question Two

Is nitrogen fed non native species grassland where glyphosate has eradicated native species considered healthy?

Not really, no.

A nitrogen-fed, non-native grassland where glyphosate has been used to wipe out native species would not generally be considered healthy from an ecological perspective. Here’s why:

Low biodiversity – Native grasses, wildflowers, mosses, and soil fungi often support a wide web of insects, birds, and mammals. Replacing them with a handful of non-native species dramatically reduces that diversity.
Artificial nutrient balance – Extra nitrogen (whether from fertiliser or deposition) tends to favour fast-growing, competitive plants that crowd out slower native species, leading to a homogenised sward.
Chemical disruption – Glyphosate may initially clear a field, but it also harms soil microbes and the recovery of native plant communities, making it harder for a balanced ecosystem to re-establish.
Ecological function loss – A healthy grassland usually cycles nutrients naturally, supports pollinators, provides habitat structure, and builds soil health. A simplified, fertilised, non-native pasture offers much less of that.
Such a grassland can still be productive (for grazing or silage), but it is not the same as being ecologically healthy. In conservation terms, it’s often classed as species-poor improved grassland, which ranks low in habitat value.

Question Three

But such grasslands have lots of earthworms. How do you explain that?

Great point — and it makes sense. Having lots of earthworms doesn’t automatically mean a grassland is “ecologically healthy,” it just reflects the conditions earthworms thrive in. Here’s how it fits together:

Earthworms love fertile, moist soils. Nitrogen inputs and the dense root systems of fast-growing grasses create exactly that environment: steady organic matter, plenty of root exudates, and softer soils that worms can move through easily.
Simplified systems can still be worm-rich. Even if plant diversity is low and native species have been lost, earthworms can flourish because their needs (food, moisture, soil structure) are being met.
But worms aren’t the whole story. While earthworms improve soil structure and nutrient cycling, they don’t replace the ecological roles of the lost plants, pollinators, fungi, and other soil life. You can have a high worm population in an ecosystem that is otherwise species-poor and functionally simplified.
Analogy: Think of it like a field of wheat or maize — highly productive, often full of earthworms, but not considered a healthy ecosystem in terms of biodiversity or resilience.

So: earthworms indicate soil fertility and good conditions for decomposition, but not overall ecosystem health.

Question Four

So a truly healthy soil may not have many earthworms. If so, what is a true test, or tests, to determine soil health?

Excellent question 👌 — you’ve nailed a really important point: a truly healthy soil doesn’t necessarily have lots of earthworms.

For example:

Upland heath, moorland, or ancient woodland soils often have few or no earthworms, yet they are ecologically rich and functioning exactly as they should.
Earthworms prefer neutral-to-alkaline, fertile soils. Acidic, sandy, or organic-rich soils (peat, heathland, podsols) can be “healthy” in their natural state without worms.

So, what’s a better test of soil health? It depends on what you mean by health: agricultural productivity or ecological integrity. A good assessment usually combines several measures:

True Tests of Soil Health

Biological Indicators
• Microbial diversity and activity (measured via respiration, DNA sequencing, or enzyme activity)
• Presence of fungi, especially mycorrhizal associations
• Invertebrate diversity (not just worm counts)
Chemical Indicators
• Soil pH (suited to the ecosystem type)
• Balanced nutrient levels (not too much nitrogen or phosphorus)
• Absence of chemical residues (herbicides, heavy metals, pollutants)
Physical Indicators
• Soil structure (crumbly, well-aggregated, not compacted)
• Water infiltration and retention (doesn’t flood or dry out too quickly)
• Organic matter content (supports fertility and resilience)
Ecological Context
• Is the soil supporting the right plant and animal community for that habitat?
• For example: peat soils should be wet, acidic, and moss-rich; limestone grasslands thin and species-rich; lowland meadows fertile but balanced.

Question Five

Does the presence of earthworms indicate a healthy soil?
(Same question as question one but asked after the above discussion)

Not necessarily — it depends on the context.

When earthworms can indicate healthy soil

In farmland, gardens, and neutral-to-alkaline grasslands, lots of earthworms often signal:
Good organic matter
Active nutrient cycling
Decent soil structure and aeration
In these systems, worms are usually a positive indicator of soil fertility and biological activity.

When earthworms don’t indicate health

In naturally acidic or nutrient-poor soils (peat bogs, heathlands, conifer woodlands, some ancient woodlands), earthworms may be absent — yet those soils are perfectly healthy for their ecosystem.
In North America, introduced European earthworms have disrupted native forest floors, stripping leaf litter too quickly and harming native plants and fungi. There, earthworms can actually signal ecological disturbance.
High worm numbers can also appear in intensively managed, nitrogen-enriched pastures: productive, but not necessarily ecologically healthy.

Bottom line

Earthworm presence = healthy soil function in fertile, neutral systems.
Earthworm absence ≠ unhealthy soil if the habitat is naturally acidic, low-nutrient, or worm-free.
The best assessment of soil health comes from multiple indicators: structure, organic matter, water infiltration, pH, and biodiversity — not worms alone.

Question Six

Does the presence of earthworms indicate a healthy soil?
(Identical question asked by a friend on a different computer after I had asked question 5 – to see if AI had learned)

Yes, the presence of earthworms strongly indicates healthy soil because they are sensitive to soil disturbances and their activity, such as burrowing and consuming organic matter, improves soil structure, drainage, aeration, nutrient cycling, and overall soil fertility. A healthy and diverse earthworm population reflects a balanced soil environment with sufficient organic material, adequate moisture, and minimal compaction or chemical pollution.

After these questions I asked AI to produce a more detailed toolkit on how one might better analyse soil – and and piece of land – to give a more accurate assessment of soil and ecological health.

Practical Soil Health Field Toolkit

1. Soil Structure & Compaction
• Spade Test – Dig a spade’s depth, lift out a block of soil. Look for:
• Crumbly, aggregated structure = good.
• Dense, smeared, layered = compaction.
• Penetrometer / DIY stick test – Push a metal rod or stick into the ground. Resistance at shallow depth = compaction.

2. Water Infiltration
• Simple ring test – Push a tin can (both ends removed) 5 cm into the soil, pour in 1 cup water, and time how long it takes to soak in.
• Fast = good drainage.
• Very slow = compaction, poor porosity.

3. Soil Organic Matter
• Colour & feel – Darker soils generally have more organic matter. Rub between fingers: friable and spongy = higher organic content.
• DIY “burn test” (with care) – Heat a dry soil sample in a metal spoon. Organic matter will smoke and leave lighter ash.

4. Soil Life
• Earthworm count (useful in fertile soils) – Dig a 20 x 20 cm block, hand-sort and count worms.
• Other invertebrates – Look for beetles, ants, springtails, millipedes. Their presence shows habitat variety.
• Root inspection – Gently wash roots. Fine root hairs and fungal threads = healthy soil biota.

5. Soil Smell
• Healthy soil has a “rich, earthy” smell (from actinomycetes). Sour or chemical odours may suggest poor health or contamination.

6. pH Test
• Use a cheap garden soil pH kit or strips.
• Neutral to slightly acidic (pH 5.5–7) suits grasslands.
• More acidic (pH 4–5) can be normal for heath or peat.
• The key: is pH consistent with the habitat type?

7. Biodiversity Above Ground
• Look at what the soil supports. A healthy soil will usually correspond with:
• Diverse plants (unless it’s naturally low-diversity like bog/heath).
• Pollinators, birds, and other wildlife using the habitat.

Summary

Healthy soil = good structure, organic matter, infiltration, biological activity, and appropriate chemistry for its ecosystem.

Earthworms may or may not be present depending on habitat type.

++=+++++=+++++=+++=+++++++++++=

Once the toolkit was formed I then generated AI tables and graphs to indicate the ecological health of various land uses and managements approaches. These are based around a very small pilot project, but the answers are interesting, and differ dramatically from conventional teaching and policy drivers. A more comprehensive study would be fascinating…

Soil / Habitat Type	Plant Diversity	Soil Life	Associated Fauna	Overall Biodiversity Value
Nitrogen-enriched silage pasture	Very low	Worms abundant, microbes simplified	Low insects, low birds	Low
Improved grazing pasture	Low	Worms abundant, microbes simplified	Some invertebrates, some birds	Low–Moderate
Unimproved pasture	Moderate–High	Balanced worms, richer fungi	Good insect and bird life	High
Organic hay meadow	High	Rich soil food web	Excellent for pollinators & birds	Very High
Organic wood pasture	High	Diverse fungi, invertebrates	High insect, bird, and mammal richness	Very High
Conifer plantation (1st rotation, 25 yrs, unthinned)	Very low (closed canopy, acidic)	Low worms, fungi dominated by mycorrhizae	Sparse fauna, few specialists	Very Low
Conifer plantation (2nd rotation, 40 yrs, thinned)	Low–Moderate (light gaps allow some flora)	Slightly improved soil life	Some bird and invertebrate recovery	Moderate (but below semi-natural)
Mixed native ancient woodland	Very high	Complex soil web	Rich insects, birds, mammals	Exceptional