Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

I have no disagreement about leaving hay out in the weather, so I'm puzzled
why you waste space explaining what everybody knows.  I don't know where
you're getting your theories about cattle feed, but it's not from
cattlemen.  No breed of cattle can live on stubble, much less thrive. That
term nutrient flow is not of much practical use to growers, though the
ivory tower academics seem to enjoy it. In contrast, good soil management
is something concrete and specific we can deal with directly. Humus levels
determine moisture absorption and resistance to nutrient leaching. You can
test humus levels but there's no way to go out in the field and test for
nutrient flow. It's an abstract concept. Of course I agree about the harm
of synthetic fertilizer, but I can't agree that it will show good results
for a while. Generally it will spark weak growth and size at the expense of
flavor and pest and disease resistance.

>Given half a chance, soils will, with time, will rebuild them selves, with

>no help from us, so saying that we have to use cover crops and green
>manures, is a mistake.    The only thing that green manures and cover
>crops
>do is speed up an already natural process, doing in 1 or 2 seasons, that
>might otherwise take 2 or 3 years - more in extreme cases.

Well, that's a new one on me. I've never heard anyone claim cover crops or
green manuring is a mistake because soil will just rebuild itself anyway in
2 or 3 years or more. Everybody from USDA to Rodale have urged cover crops
for decades.

You keep insisting a crop can be used for both food and fuel. Sure it can.
But you miss the most obvious point. Whatever part of the crop is used for
fuel is not available for returning to the soil, and the waste byproduct is
not as nutritious for the soil as the whole crop would be, and it is not
available for food either. What part of this don't you get?  You can grow
ethanol crops if you want to, but I will point out the obvious.

And please spare us the dictionary definitions. We're not stupid.

>It the elements that come directly from the soil, that we have to replace,

>and I can't think of a single one, that is directly used in making energy,

>since the only ones that are needed for energy are mixtures of carbon,
>hydrogen, and oxygen.
>
>If you can think of something that is taken directly from the soil and can

>not be resupplied one way or the other from the atmosphere, please feel
>free to let me know what it is, and how it is lost in the process.

Is that some back door way to push ethanol again? You implying that
converting crops to ethanol only takes away carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen,
so there's no loss to the soil when the waste is returned because C,H, & O2
are free from the atmosphere anyway? THINK. How do you get that C,H, & O2
back into the soil?  You can't. The C,H, & O2 from that crop are lost to
the soil forever. To replace it you have to grow another crop and return it
ALL to the soil. This nonsense about ethanol not taking anything away from
the soil is really tiresome.

Think I'm too blunt? You haven't seen blunt. This is about living on the
land. It is not a free forum to help the ethanol lobby rob more American
farm land.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net
listowner

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 7/31/2006 at 4:50 PM Greg and April wrote:

>I have to disagree.
>
>Nutrient loss is bad in situations where when they exposed to rain and
sun.
>
>Under these conditions it breaks down and oxidizes into forms that are not

>directly useable ( hay that has turned brown due to sun and rain is not
>better than so much straw ), but, be broken down by other means - al la
>compost pile.    Nitrogen gasses off as it is oxidized by exposure to sun.
>
>This can be shown in the nutritional differences between hay and straw.
>By it's self, hay has reasonably high levels of nitrogen, bound up in the
>form of proteins, and has just about the right levels of nitrogen and
>carbon
>to compost by it's self ( ever wonder why hay will start rotting fast if
>kept wet ).
>
>Straw on the other hand has little to no protein, but, it has a high level

>of wood sugars, that take time to break down.
>
>You leave hay out in the sun long enough, and the majority of the nitrogen

>is lost within several weeks, leaving nothing better than a straw
>equivalent, allot of almost use less carbon - until it degrades.    Now I
>say almost useless, as there are many things that straw is useful for
>other
>than as a mulch, but, it will never be as go as good as a hay, since straw

>is primarily carbon.
>
>
>To an extent, you are right about cattle feeding on stubble, but, that is
>dependant on many factors.    Stubble is good as a maintaince diet, in the

>winter, since the digestion process of cattle actually generates allot of
>heat, when dealing with high carbon foods such as stubble and straw.
>
>One of the many factors mentioned above that determines on if cattle can
>fatten on stubble, is breed type.    Old fashion breeds are more likely to

>put on weight with poor forage like stubble, than modern breeds.
>
>Another factor, is a matter of how good a job is done during harvest.
>Equipment in poor condition, or improper use of the equipment, can result
>in
>allot of material / food that is wasted.    I used to live on the edge of
>a
>farmers field, and it was not unusual to see some ears of corn, that would

>still have half the corn left on them.    Indeed in area where corn and
>soybeans are alternated on the same field, farmers buy, herbicides and
>special applicators, to kill the corn, in fields of soybeans that grew
>corn
>the year before.    Talk about wasted energy and food.
>
>
>But how do I quantify flow of nutrients?
>
>Over the long term.
>
>If after 5 years the soil is healthier, and has more hummus and the other
>good things, it has a positive nutrient flow.
>
>If after 5 years the soil is no different, then it has a neutral flow.
>
>If after 5 years the soil is sicker, less hummus, and the other things it
>needs, it has a negative nutrient flow.
>
>One year or season doesn't mean squat, since it is so easy to skew results

>due to unusual conditions or one time factors.    Commercial fertilizer (
>one time factor ) are a case in point.    It's like candy to plants, they
>will take it up and show good results for a while, but, sooner or later
>that
>burst of energy is going to give way and there had better be something to
>support growth or eventually something is going to give away and problems
>are going to happen.    You can't keep going back and adding a short term
>solution without paying a price somewhere else.
>
>
>I never said that continuous cash crops and a single fallow was
>sustainable.
>Given half a chance, soils will, with time, will rebuild them selves, with

>no help from us, so saying that we have to use cover crops and green
>manures, is a mistake.    The only thing that green manures and cover
>crops
>do is speed up an already natural process, doing in 1 or 2 seasons, that
>might otherwise take 2 or 3 years - more in extreme cases.
>
>
>
>Just because a crop is grown, does not mean it has to be used for just
>food,
>or just fuel, or for structure materials or for just fodder or just a
>cover
>crop.    I have explained before how crops can be used for both fuel and
>food.    Eat an avocado then press the pit for oil.    Once a banana
>fruits,
>the main stem dies- so why not burn it, or use it to build part of a wall?

>Cherry pits from cherry operations get thrown away, why not burn them
>instead.    The list goes on of things that are tossed away that could be
>used for other purposes.
>
>
>Nutrient flow has many paths - some long, some short.    Now when I say
>nutrient flow, I'm not just talking about the chemicals that plants use,
>but, all those things that turns dirt into soil.
>
>
>>> In the end, the negatives and positives have to balance out to a
>>>neutral or positive nutrient flow to the fields to qualify as
>sustainable.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, never heard that claim made before, haven't seen anything to
>> support
>> it.
>
>Let's think about it for a second.
>
>In it's simplest form, to sustain something means to support it.
>
>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sustain
>
>Main Entry: 1sus·tain
>Pronunciation: s&-'stAn
>Function: transitive verb
>Etymology: Middle English sustenen, from Anglo-French sustein-, stem of
>sustenir, from Latin sustinEre to hold up, sustain, from sub-, sus- up +
>tenEre to hold -- more at SUB-, THIN
>1 : to give support or relief to
>2 : to supply with sustenance : NOURISH
>3 : KEEP UP, PROLONG
>4 : to support the weight of : PROP; also : to carry or withstand (a
>weight
>or pressure)
>5 : to buoy up <sustained by hope>
>6 a : to bear up under b : SUFFER, UNDERGO <sustained heavy losses>
>7 a : to support as true, legal, or just b : to allow or admit as valid
><the
>court sustained the motion>
>8 : to support by adequate proof : CONFIRM <testimony that sustains our
>contention>
>
>Now sustainable agraculture, goes both ways the farmer support the soil,
>so
>the soil will support the farmer.
>
>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sustainable
>
>Main Entry: sus·tain·able
>Pronunciation: s&-'stA-n&-b&l
>Function: adjective
>1 : capable of being sustained
>2 a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource

>so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged <sustainable
>techniques> <sustainable agriculture> b : of or relating to a lifestyle
>involving the use of sustainable methods <sustainable society>
>
>
>It's agriculture practice that can support it's self.
>
>Now, if the nutrient flow is positive, in agriculture, then more nutrients

>goes into the ground than comes out.    The soil is building.    This make

>the practice sustainable.
>
>If the nutrient flow is neutral, there is no soil build up, but, what soil

>there is, is not being used up / diminishing either.
>In this case, you probably will be limited in the types of crops you can
>grow, since crop will take away nutrients as fast as they are built up.
>Since this too can be continued indefinitely, it too would be considered
>sustainable.    Once good soil is established, one only has to maintain
>it,
>to keep it in good shape.
>
>If the nutrient flow is negative, then you are loosing good soil faster
>than
>you are building it up, it can not be sustained since the soil becomes
>poorer and poorer.
>
>Nutrients ebb and flow with the seasons, but, as long as the average to
>the
>soil, is neutral or better yet, positive, the soil does not degrade, and
>so
>the process is sustainable.
>
>
>If I harvest wood from a woodlot, in a sustainable manor, that means that
>I
>can do it without long term harm, so what does it matter if that wood is
>used to build a house, burn in a fireplace, or turned into  alcohol to
>burn
>in my tractor/truck so I can recover the wood to use in the first place?
>
>The same thing goes for any crops in the field.    As long as the total
>nutrients FROM the field are equal to or less than the total TO the field,

>it shouldn't matter what is done with the crops, because, it is
>sustainable.
>
>If I grow a crop, that needs 3 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and 2 ton
>of
>N, 1 ton of P and 1 ton of K, and it causes 2 tons of CO2 to harvest and
>process and I can return the P&K and 1/2 ton of N to the soil by way of
>animals, then grow a different crop that recovers 1 1/2 tons of N from the

>atmosphere, and puts it in the soil.    The process is sustainable, no
>matter how long the nutrient pathway maybe.
>
>Grow a crop of grain, and put some of it aside for bad years, and the
>nutrients are not lost, they are just locked up for a number of months or
>years, yet the nutrient pathway may take a number of years from start to
>finish.    It does not matter if the nutrient pathway takes a number of
>years in some cases, as long as end result is a positive or neutral flow
>of
>nutrients to the soils, the soil will get no worse.
>
>My whole point is unless we are improving poor soil, we don't have to keep

>putting more into it than we take out, for it to be sustainable, since
>crops
>are mostly those elements that can be recovered from the atmosphere, like
>CO2, water, and to an extent N.
>
>It the elements that come directly from the soil, that we have to replace,

>and I can't think of a single one, that is directly used in making energy,

>since the only ones that are needed for energy are mixtures of carbon,
>hydrogen, and oxygen.
>
>If you can think of something that is taken directly from the soil and can

>not be resupplied one way or the other from the atmosphere, please feel
>free
>to let me know what it is, and how it is lost in the process.
>
>Greg H.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland