Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

There was a book titled "The $64 Tomato". You can spend so much on a garden
that the original idea of saving on food costs is down the proverbial
toilet. And you can make it too much work to be worth the trouble in the
first place. Typical garden layout is the problem. Planting in rows leaves
too much empty space to grow weeds, and too much ground to water. Permanent
beds can grow twice as many plants as single rows; you walk on the aisles,
not between plants, so they're all equidistant from each other. Do the
math. Leaving it unmulched also means more weeds and more watering. Read:
more expense, more work. Tilling in all sorts of expensive soil
conditioners and fertilizers (organic or not) means machinery, fuel, fumes,
and trips to garden stores for bags of this and that. And expense. A few
loads of aged manure from nearby farms or stables or chicken operations
takes some effort but it's cheap. Dig in decomposed organic matter from
most any source. It'll buffer pH swings and add micronutrients as well as
conditioning your soil structure for better drainage and moisture
retention. The beauty of soil building is you get it done this year and
don't have to repeat the process next time or ever. You just add more
compost of some sort to the surface to start each season and keep it
mulched. A lot of us have months without rain and water bills. The big keys
to cutting costs are  bed layout, soil organic matter, and mulch. 

Except for the cost of rabbit fencing, we're setting up forty framed beds
on a shoestring this year. We're getting pickup loads of aged manure from
nearby farms, and spoiled hay, and wood chips from the county for mulch.
I'm digging in small amounts of greensand and alfalfa meal, but the cost is
minimal since it's a one time thing in bulk. Cull and salvage boards frame
the beds to hold the mulch in place in wind. All in all the cost is a
fraction of what a good tiller would cost, and next year the cost will be
almost zero and no-till will mean much less work for next year. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

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

On 3/11/2007 at 7:37 AM E. E. Mitchamore Jr wrote:

>EXCELLENT POINT.  This is an "Attaboy" for you.  For some reason it's
>hard for Americans to think that way.  Sometimes very low cost (cash,
>labor, effect on environment), can justify a lower yield.
>
>E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
>www.hillcountrynatives.biz
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: TradingPostPaul 
>  To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org 
>  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:23 AM
>  Subject: [Livingontheland] Yield vs output/ was nutrition
>
>
>
>  Reply to Ken's post. 
>  Looking at # 8. Manage crops for highest profit per acre;  not the
>highest
>  yield per acre.
>
>  We've been bamboozled by industrial agribusiness over the word "yield".
>  Total output is what counts, and total profit which is gross minus
>  expenses. 
>