Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Mike <mike.lists@mlxvi.org>]

Dieter - here is what I have understood from reading the essay on the site:

>>With 18 to 24 inches, the Keyline subsoilers go deep into the subsoil, it is hard to imagine that grass roots go as deep as that.

The method that I am familiar with only goes about 3 inches into the subsoil (which gets deeper each time). I have several books here that show that if the conditions are right then roots will go further. As to whether common pasture grass roots will go down that far I am unsure. Maybe the pasture they are talking about has other species in it. Mixed pasture would have some deep rooting plants, surely.

>>Also, in relation to the Carbon Farmers claims, is the improved growth really due to the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere? Or is it due to the aeration of the permanent humus in the subsoil?

Improved growth is a result of increased fertility in the topsoil. The sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere is a result of the increased organic matter that contributes to the increased fertility. From what I understand it is a self reinforcing system, aided by the decompaction of the subsoil allowing the roots to penetrate and die thereby starting the whole cycle.

>>Claiming carbon credits for CO2 sequestration while in reality burning the carbon accumulated in the permanent humus decades ago can hardly be right. 

There was no humus in the subsoil to begin with. The whole process is predicated upon increasing the organic matter in the soil - not improving growth per se. It just so happens you get both. I imagine that to claim the credits you would have to demonstrate that you did indeed sequestrate the claimed amount  of CO2 by soil testing before and after. The chisel plough used by Yeomans was designed specifically to disturb the humus containing soil  as little as possible.  An impossible task I am sure, to disturb it not-at-all.
 
>>And how do the Carbon Farmers account for the fuel you need to subsoil grazing land with very powerful machines, an external input normally not required for grazing land.

This is covered in the essay on the site. The site compares the carbon created to the carbon sequestrated and finds the ratio extremely favourable. In addition it compares the alternative of fertilising with fossil fuel based, well, fertilisers. A couple of litres versus a tonne or more per acre. If you had a carbon tax on the fuel then the accounting would be automatic.

>>Well, I suppose if they fail to make any money with their carbon credit scheme, they can always try and charge their cattle farmers for the methane emissions of their stock.

Shhhh. Keep that one quiet. They tried to do that here in New Zealand just a little while ago. It was known here as the fart tax. It was defeated - as it should have been - but it was touch and go here for a while.

IMHO, the whole carbon credit thing is a load of, well, completely digested surplus plant matter. Surely the increased fertility for its own sake is a good enough reason to do this. An essay that cuts to the heart of the matter is here:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/233

It tackles far more than the carbon trading scheme - so be prepared.

Mike

Dieter Brand wrote:

Mike,

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Still, there are a number of questions that remain at least

in my mind.  With 18 to 24 inches, the Keyline subsoilers go deep into the subsoil,

it is hard to imagine that grass roots go as deep as that.  Also, in relation to the Carbon Farmers claims, is the improved growth really due to the sequestration of CO2 from the

atmosphere? Or is it due to the aeration of the permanent humus in the subsoil?

Claiming carbon credits for CO2 sequestration while in reality burning the carbon

accumulated in the permanent humus decades ago can hardly be right. 

And how do the Carbon Farmers account for the fuel you need to subsoil grazing

land with very powerful machines, an external input normally not required for grazing

land.  Well, I suppose if they fail to make any money with their carbon credit scheme,

they can always try and charge their cattle farmers for the methane emissions of their

stock.  I better stop, or I will get into a really black mood.

 

Cheers, Dieter

Mike <mike.lists@mlxvi.org> wrote:

By opening up the subsoil, just beneath the topsoil each time, to air and water Yeoman claims (and this is supported by a person I spoke to who has experience with this) that the roots of the pasture plants will reach down and fill the gaps as they are let to grow tall. By hard grazing (or mowing) the plants no longer need all of the roots and so the deeper roots die off. Hey presto, new organic matter under the existing topsoil.

Rinse and repeat.

It is important to note that only a small increment is performed each time.

I will admit that some of Allan Yeoman's ideas are a bit weird to me, but this one idea of his father's seems to be well accepted in some circles.

Mike

Dieter Brand wrote:

D´Coda,

 

The statements on this site are misleading. Probably not without intent.

There is no way of creating 3 to 6 inches of topsoil in a year, especially not

on grazing land. What is originally meant is that you use a subsoiler (a plough

that opens up the subsoil without turning the soil) such as the Keyline Subsoiler

manufactured by the Yeomans brother in Australia to rip open your soil to a

depth of 18 to 24 inches, and that if you repeat this twice a year for a duration

of 3 years this will somehow transform the top 18 inches of your soil into

topsoil, hence 6 inches in a year. The term topsoil is not very precise and

can be used to mean pretty much anything to want it to. However, what is

clear is that the above method does not create any new topsoil, black dirt like

compost or even humus, which can only be achieved by new organic matter.

 

Subsoilers are normally used for opening up compacted subsoil after

years of shallow cultivation. The Yeomans on the other hand target their

products at grazing land. I don’t know why this should be compacted in the

first place, but farmers are reported to be satisfied with the system.

 

Regarding your second point, there is nothing that will reduce CO2 in the

atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. I would favour tax breaks for farmer

converting to organic no-till using cover crops and for landowners to pay for

for reforestation or to simply leave their land with whatever native vegetation

it happens to have. I certainly would not trust assorted commercial parties

and whiz kids with get rich business quick business ideas. They say they

want to set up a non-profit organisation, I take this to mean that there are

no profits left after varies parties have skimmed off their part.

 

Regards, Dieter

D'Coda <dcoda@ozarkseedexchange.com> wrote:

Check out http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/

Two claims made here:
1. That there are records of creating 3-6 inches of topsoil in a year -
using Yeomans sub-plowers and Savory style intensive grazing.
2. That a huge proportion of the excess of carbon in the atmosphere is soil
and that by simply adding "1.6% organic matter to the world's ag. soils, we
could reduce C02 to pre-industrial levels"

Here's a clip from an upcoming TV show about this:
http://www2.vpt.org/abecollins.mov

Since I can't check this out myself, I hope you all will and make your
comments....is all this for real, what do you think? (And if anyone would be
so kind as to post some "how to" type info here, much appreciated.)

D'Coda
www.ozarkseedexchanage.com
(not online, email replies take 2-6 weeks)

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

   _______________________________________________  Livingontheland mailing list  Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland   
 

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland