Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

David,

 

You said it! “Nature has done it for eons.” We humans haven’t done

it even once, yet we think that we always know best how nature ought

to do its thing. The result is the sorry state of affaires we are in today.

But we keep on making the same mistake, people come up with

one clever idea after the other about how we can trick nature into

doing all kinds of things. There is always the next quick-fix to sort

out all the mistakes of the past. The bill for that will invariably have to

be paid some time in the future.

 

Regarding the issue at hand, I have nothing against subsoiling or Keyline.

I believe you if you tell me that your soil looks good, your grass is green

and your cows are happy. But looking good doesn’t tell us anything about

the quality of the humus produced. And the greenness of the grass is not yet

an indicator for the additional amount of CO2 sequestered, especially if

it isn’t offset against the additional amount of fuel consumed and the

amount of methane emitted.

 

Even if we admit that Keyline is the greatest thing that ever happened

to grassland, we are not going to convert the entire globe to grazing land

and start eating big chunks of beef for breakfast, lunch and dinner. There

are many places were this is simply not possible and not even desirable.

Agriculture has to improve soil fertility and make its contribution towards

reducing greenhouse gas emissions by converting to no-till and using cover

crops, fewer passes with fuel-gobbling monsters, less synthetic fertilizer and

techniques for avoiding methane emissions.

 

A one-sided preference for grassland and arguing against the merit of forests

is certainly not helpful. Looking at the fragility of the environmental envelop

in Australia or at the dust bowl in the US, and comparing these to soils in

Northern and Central Europe, which even after generations of deep ploughing

are holding up much better, suggests that the quality of the long term humus

produced by forests is of a different quality than that produced by grassland.

There is a place for both, but I think cattle farmers may also want to think

about the introduction of agroforestry trees into their landscape.

 

As to me, I don’t have to wait for eons to obtain results. By letting

nature have its share of native woody perennials and trees, I can

observe a difference in soil and vegetation every year. And regarding

CO2 sequestration, I have continuous cover for 12 months a year

even without being paid for it. There is nothing more anyone could

achieve. On this soil and in this climate, grassland goes dry for 6 months

a year. My neighbour feeds his cows cabbages and all kinds of stuff

because his 50 hectares (over 120 acres) of land aren’t enough for

sustaining 11 cows. I don’t know why he bothers, perhaps he loves

his cows, or perhaps the subsidies make it worthwhile, I don’t know.

Anyway, some of my grassland is still green when his fields have gone

dry for months.

 

I discovered by chance the importance of combining green annuals

with woody perennials. One of my fields, ploughed for wheat

production by the previous owner until about 12 years ago had

become completely overgrown by brambles, bushes and trees.

Clearing this field, I just cut everything (except for the trees)

and left the residues on the surface while all the roots remain

in the soil which was not disturbed. Grass and weeds now

dominate, but the brambles and bushes are still growing back.

This may be the only field in the whole region where grass stays

green for 12 months a year without irrigation. My neighbour,

who has a field with exactly the some soil on his side, ploughed

his grazing land every year under the mistaken impression that

ploughing increases fertility. His grass looks bad even during

the rainy season and goes completely dry in summer. I noticed

though, that he didn’t plough last year, he didn’t say a thing,

he just didn’t plough. Perhaps he had a look across the fence.

 

Dieter

David Inglis <mhcsa@verizon.net> wrote:

Dieter,

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my post.

And I don’t know in which way the Keyline

marketing is involved with the Carbon Farmers scheme.

I don’t know either and I don’t have time to find out but it does not effect my estimation of the arguments anyway.

I was just

curious about the effect of subsoiling on the permanent humus in this layer.

Quite rightly because, in my experience in the absence of  a growing greenmanure or pasture Keyline subsoiling presents a real danger of releasing that OM for a net loss. Also one then embarks on the usual cycle of increased resource usage for diminishing returns, [see below]. I am not against the use of material resources but I am against uses that are addictive and ultimately counterproductive.

The Carbon Farmers site even has a page (which

I didn’t read) with selected quotes to argue against reforestation.

A.Yeoman does too[in Priority One].

This seems to be indicative of a narrow commercial focus rather than

a broad environmental concern. I have nothing against making money,

but we have to be honest about it.

It may, but if the solution does not involve making some money I doubt it will be adopted on a large enough scale to have a global impact even if mandated by government. Also I believe that A.Yeomans claims that Grassland sequesters more CO2 than forest. The fact that that grass can be turned into profit is a bonus, not the primary motivation.

Anyway, both seem to emphasize grass land as the best way for soil-improvement and

CO2 sequestration.

Subsoiling [with Keyline] in grassland is optimal because:

Roots are poised to take advantage of  newly opened substrata.    

Top growth and root growth can be ‘pulsed’ and controlled, and at a profit, initiating the process of soil formation. On bare ground the plough will hasten the demise of the soil as you suspect.

A mixed ‘sward’ will always have some component that will respond to the circumstances be it climatic, grazing or soil management induced or other. I have observed that soil development occurs best when it is uninterrupted and that if it is interrupted the reintroduction of the missing element [typically Warmth/coolth, moisture, light and to some extent fertility ] does not initiate the soil building immediately. In a short season climate like mine [NE USA] that can mean soil building conditions of only 1 month in 12.

Large quantities of water can be absorbed by the soil without surface erosion.

In my case (semi-arid

climate and clay soil), I found that the best way to improve the soil

is to feed it a varied diet consisting of green annuals together with

woody perennials (including brambles, shrubs, bushes and trees),

and let the roots do the subsoiling.

This is the natural way that has been done for eons. But we don’t have eons. At the very least we need some approach that in a very short period of time reverses the declines of the soil OM over the past couple of centuries and if land stewards hope to contribute to absorbing the CO2 from sources other  than Ag. Something far more radical than that will be required.

I commend you for what you are doing. Yeomans point is that the results of what you are doing can be greatly accelerated by the judicious use of simple but thoughtfully applied Human technology. It amazes me how controversial that idea is in some circles that purport to be ‘protecting the earth’.

Just thoughts.

David

_______________________________________________
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.