Homestead mailing list

[Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>]

It's hilarious how the asterisks start up when the going gets rough.

Lynda wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Jones" <billj AT harborside.com>
>
>  
>
> > It's a fascinating notion, that agriculture carries on just as well
> > without water as with.
> >    
>
> ***No, Bill, it isn't a "notion" that "agriculture" carries on as well 
> without water as with.  That is called reframing and even grammar school 
> debate club kids know better than to try that tactic. 
OK, it's a lie, not a notion.

L, you're about reframing the other debater.  Vive la difference!

> It is a *fact* that 
> if you plant the right PASTURE grasses you will have good pasture with 
> little water to no water for two to three months of the summer.
>  
I always chuckle at the "Dryland Pasture Mix" in the catalog.

>  
>
> > My buddy has a book on Coos County soils.
> >    
>
> ***Again with the books.  Try real life.
>  
Behold, Lynda, master of the Peaceful Valley Farm Supply catalog, but no 
actual research.

The government's research money was wasted on nonsense?  Say it's not 
so!  Maybe they're just lying to spite you.

> As I
>  
>
> > recall it has fascinating tables indicating the number of "animal units"
> > that can be produced on pasture from each soil type, in both irrigated
> > and unirrigated conditions.  I remember a factor of 3 difference between
> > the irrigated and unirrigated, in general.  Would you like more specific
> > numbers?  I can look it up if you like.
> >
> >    
> ***You weren't talking about artificial means such as irrigation.  And it 
> isn't soil type, it is a combination of soil (type, quality, quantity) to 
> rainfall (annual, seasonal) to climate (humidity, fog, degree and intensity 
> of heat) with the RIGHT type of pasture mix grasses plus the animal(s) 
> (type, age, number) to be grazed.  Any first year aggie student knows that!
>
>  
Big deal.  With an underground water flow, it might as well be irrigated.

> > So what you're talking about is just a matter of degrees.  On my very
> > tiny place, the same productivity would not be possible if the same
> > conditions prevailed as at the neighbors' higher, drier places.
> >
> >    
> ***It is still about type of grasses and ROTATION of pasture!
>
>  
What would the weekly rainfall, or the length of the period without it, 
and the temperature range have to be, to reach the point where no grass 
plants are actively growing?  Obviously there is such a level, at which 
point it's "about" the water situation.  There might be some more 
drought-tolerant grasses, but each will still have its threshold.

There will never be any rotation of pasture here, because there's only a 
small area.  But it's no problem so far.

> > Yes, that land in the photo warehouses steers, but it fascinates me to
> > think you know what they're all fed.  And of course, it's all
> > meaningless without some number of animal units per acre specified.
> >
> >    
> ***Ah, what photo?  The only link I sent was of alpine lakes.  AND, having 
> known most of the ranchers in four counties, I know what they fed.  As to 
> the number of "animal units," refer to the paragraph above.
>  
The lovely hills of Livermore, my link.

>  
>
> > The grass on the higher spots simply hasn't grown any since July here.
> >
> >    
> ***Then you've got the wrong grasses planted for your soil type and annual 
> rainfall!
>
>  
What a fantasy you've got from that book learnin'.  In your case it's a 
catalog with pictures.  They all talk about the annual rainfall too.  
What difference does it make *how fast* it rained last winter.

You're a joke.

> > I've never seen grass grow without water.  We could have had that for a
> > lawn in S. California?
> >
> >    
> ***Geez Louise, make up your mind.  Now you're talking apples and oranges. 
> Hell, you aren't even talking apples and oranges, you're talking apples and 
> sausages!
>
> Plus, again, you seem to forget to whom you type!  Lawns, unlike "dry" 
> pastures are generally watered.  It is the nature of the beast.  HOWEVER, 
> any first year hortoculture or landscaping student knows that there are 
> grasses for lawns that do quite nicely on as little as 1/2" of water a week 
> which is something that is quite possible in So. Cal!
If only our pasture could get a quarter of that!

> Just a hint, anyone with a tiny little itty bitty molecule of sense who 
> lives in So. Cal and who wants to have a nice yard would be well versed in 
> xeroscaping AND then they wouldn't be so inclined to piss and moan and whine 
> about their grass!
>
>  
Which problem did I claim I had?  1/100 of my land is on high ground and 
resembles the same brown hills that form an almost unbroken band from 
here to Bakersfield.  The rest is a delight and a joy to own.  Somehow 
you're unable to have a conversation in the abstract about what people 
do when their moisture level is too low to support vigorous grass 
growth, in accordance with the thread, remember, Trashland Treasure.  
Whether my land or yours qualifies as such is not the question.

One minute you're telling me that me place is "bad" (?) because it's 
planted in the wrong grasses.  The previous one you were saying that 
maybe it's "bad" (?) because of how those awful anglos have just nuked 
Oregon.  All the pissing and moaning and whining about _my_ land came 
out of _your_ mouth.

What a sick unit unit you are.  Are you concerned for your property 
value or something?

Bill
S. Oregon coast