|
|
Post by Alan on Jul 22, 2009 17:04:11 GMT -5
I don't know about raking from the forrest really, they can be pretty sensitive to the removal of duff, particularly areas of decidious forest where you have an abundance of low growing, mostly medicinal, and increasingly endangered herbs such as golden seal, ginseng, blood root, cohosh and others which need that layer of duff and subsequent humous to grow well.
However, recycling nutrients is vastly important, particularly in terms of composting kitchen wastes, all kitchen wastes, including meats, dairy and other "unadvisable" composts which are thus described only because of the "icky" factor.
More so important even would be composting humanure in my opinion and making use of "triple play" composting as I call it. That is; thermophilic compost fed to worms to create vermicompost which is then amended with nitrogen via the use of aquaculture and or composted manures which make poor worm feedstock such as chicken and turkey manure.
Another much overlooked source of nutrients is found in the bugs which feed off of us and our plants! All we need is a way to process these bugs into a usable form.........Bat Houses are perfect, benificial to the ailing bat population and to us and a little goes a long way. Cheap to build or buy, easy to put up and maintain, every gardener should have one or two of them.
Hope this all makes sense.
-Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Jul 22, 2009 18:02:53 GMT -5
I agree with you completly. save for the raking leaves from forrests. this could in fact be done sustainably, You wouldnt want to clear a whole area for sure, also seeding ALL the various wild plants would not be hard to do at all. In fact is can open the way for new plants as well. In my grandparents land backin ohio, I took truckloads of leaves out for composting, I didnt hurt any plants, and the spots I left bare soil had plants the following year they previously did not.
I can tell you from experience the "healthy forrest initiative" is a joke. They claimed it would lessen hances for fires out here, and they would take the unhealthy trees. Well one of these areas they did this to is close to my land. They took ONLY large trees, the scraps where piled up in massive piles that if a fire come for the next couple DECADEs, will be horrendous. Places where they cut the logs, they have piles of dry debri a couple fee thick. places whre they had the branches are thirty feet high.
the places they did this to look like battle zones. so if we harvested leaves like this youd be right.
If we did it in patches, and only came to eachplace every couple years, and reseeded areas, AND didnt disturb plants already established I dont see an issue.
humanure is a way to replenish the trace minerals from our soils, but with most people today having such a toxic mess in them it might be dangerous. but for those without all the heavy metals and such this should be a important step. the rest I agree with you totally. I dont let ANy plants or food materials of any type leave my yard. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Jul 22, 2009 20:28:53 GMT -5
I can see your point of view for sure, just have to be very selective in the areas where this is done I think, for example, border areas would be good areas to select for sure I believe.
As far as the humanure goes, I definitely think that a strict composting regime using that described in the humanure handbook should resolve many issues, particularly lining the bins with a bio sponge, as well the microbes, pill bugs, and worms do a terrific job of filtering out toxins, another method I am playing with is seeding crops on top of these compost bins after the initial stage of thermophilic heating, this should help remove a great deal of toxicity, of course allowing thermophilic composting to happen to these bins and then allowing them to set for 18 months should be sufficient, but there again transitioning to a lifestyle which would allow for this type of composting completely without worry would be part of the overall movement to self sufficiency, if nothing else the humanure could and probably should be used for crops such as trees and corn.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidintx on Jul 24, 2009 14:58:37 GMT -5
Hi Alan and Silverseeds. I have enjoyed your conversation very much. I am fairly new to this forum and enjoy the different threads and comments from everybody. A good source to learn by. I have a question about a paragraph you stated above. It involves just a little clarification of terms on my part. You said:
"More so important even would be composting humanure in my opinion and making use of "triple play" composting as I call it. That is; thermophilic compost fed to worms to create vermicompost which is then amended with nitrogen via the use of aquaculture and or composted manures which make poor worm feedstock such as chicken and turkey manure."
I understand thermophilic compost to be simply compost made from the process of heating as in a regular compost pile. Now, the ones that I have made have been with the use of horse manure as that is readily available, and most of the carbon source has been leaves that I have picked up from neighborhood alleys. The part about composted manures make poor worm feedstock is what I'm not clear on. You mentioned chicken and turkey manure as examples. Since in my experience I associate a compost pile with leaves and horse manure, and it gets really hot, therefore thermophilic, what do you mean exactly when talking about thermophilic compost? Since redworms like manure I just assumed it was good material for foodstock. What do you have in mind when talking about thermophilic compost to feed your vermis?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Jul 24, 2009 15:14:29 GMT -5
Ahhh, I see where your coming from and glad to have you here! I just wasn't clear enough with what I was saying. Most manures, after thermophilic breakdown to destroy pathogens as well as weed seeds make terrific feedstock for worms and I was trying to imply that some just won't work well, mostly poultry manures which are to high in nitrogen and ammonia which the worms don't appreciate. My idea was to make good thermophilic compost from animal manures (of the mammal persuasion) to feed to the worms and harvest their castings from and then use other poor worm feedstocks like poultry manure that has been composted separately to amend the finished casting product with a higher nitrogen number. Hope that makes sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by davidintx on Jul 24, 2009 17:32:32 GMT -5
It does Alan. That clears it up for me. I just wasn't sure if you were talking only about poultry manures or "hot" animal manures in general, since horse poop is "hot" vs "cold" cow poop. So, I guess horse poop has a higher nitrogen content than cattle, but not too hot for worms. But after the worms compost it, the product would be better by having a higher nitrogen content added from composted poultry manures. As an aside, I wonder what kind of a mix bokashi should have in all this. Add it to the feedstock of the vermis, or add it directly into the soil to be planted, or in the thermophilic compost, or all of the above to experiment with.
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jul 24, 2009 22:12:12 GMT -5
I might be more precise by saying that I confused fertilizers and soil amendments. I do not use any fertilizer that is marketed appart from foliar feeding kelp powder and some alfalfa meal. I get all the manure, wood shavings and organic matter I can get locally. Sorry if I called these ''fertilizers'', in my mind they are, but I realize the point of the discussion was elsewhere. You could be close enough by referring to some soil amendments as fertilizer and v.v. Amendments generally are to alter the soil structure either temporarily or permanently. If they also happen to have certain percentage of plant nutrients, then they are also a fertilizer. What amuses me are those people who claim that they can reap a great harvest year after year without the use of any fertilizer. Any time any bit of plant life is removed from a given portion of soil, nutrients are being removed. If done enough times, that soil will eventually be unable to support any plant life. That's been known for centuries and behind the worldwide slash and burn system of agriculture. There is no soil anywhere on this continent which will remain equally fertile year after year without returning nutrients equal to what are removed. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jul 25, 2009 4:49:20 GMT -5
Martin,
The issue is more if you have to add 'fertilizer', either directly or in the form of soil amendments. Nature has it's own ways of returning fertility to soil, the most well known being nitrogen fixing plants. There are many other mechanisms too. It's the idea of permaculture, that a closed system can be created where no artificial inputs or outputs are necessary, only recycled waste and natural mechanisms. This can be completely sustainable and no soil amendments or fertilizer are necessary.
In order to have such a system you need fertile ground and balanced natural systems in place, and the disposable nature of today's world discourages such practices, but it is completely possible to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Jul 25, 2009 13:05:19 GMT -5
I won't get into this any deeper than to say that, in a convoluted way, you are both saying the same thing. Given a diverse and balanced assortment/selection of plant varieties, and either crop rotation or redistribution of non-crop residue and materials, a piece of land can be, to a limited degree, self sustaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Jul 25, 2009 13:54:08 GMT -5
For a back yard garden, my perspective is atleast long term, cover crops, and leaves from my trees and bushes should be enough. That is once I get the soil fertile to begin with, Im starting with a heavy clay, in which most things do not do well. I compost all scraps and weeds, and plants and weeds, and leaves all of it. Being that leaves essentially are nutrients related to deeper soils it seems to me this could be enough. Some trees dig deeper, nutrients which would never be on the surface otherwise, as I understand it. This is another reason why I like honey locust for my particular conditions. I know it is considered invasive, but few trees thrive, and dig as deep as that here, or grow as fast. Unless any of you can tell me of something I havent heard of yet. My thoughts on micronutrients were, finding a source for a one time heavy application and through humanure, and compsting everything, I would think my soil would retain the rarer nutrients. I buy for myself little bottles of what is distilled out of sea water minus salt. It has a broad range of rarer nutrients, Im thinking at some point I will use this and other sources to put these into my soils.
Anyone see some aspect of the equation I am missing? I want to grow my food as healthy as possible in a closed system, within my property, lines partly to show it can be done sustainably, so anything I am missing let me know. Can cover crops offer other things than nitrogen or tilth?
|
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Jul 25, 2009 21:24:47 GMT -5
For micronutrients from well beneath the surface, alfalfa is a good source. If you can get it to grow on your property, and feed it with compost from the other vegetation you have available, including garden refuse, it would give you micronutrients and a good shot of nitrogen as well as humus. Any of the weeds that have deep taproots would also help in that respect. Just about anything you see thriving in dry conditions likely has a deeper tap root, and will help with at least some micro-minerals. And build up the micro-organisms in the soil as much as you can. They help make all of the minerals available to the plants.
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jul 26, 2009 1:11:27 GMT -5
Plants can only produce and return nitrogen to the soil since it is obtained from the air. There are no plants which are able to manufacture phosphorus and potassium. Every experienced garden is well aware of the results of P and K deficiency. Plants continuing to grow and die in place may return them forever. If any plant is removed, all of the nutrients go with it and can never be replaced by the next generation of plants. Eventually the soil will become totally barren and unable to support any plant life. It's a law of Nature.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Jul 26, 2009 2:24:33 GMT -5
this is what I intend to use the leaves for. and the rest of the compost, only thing to leave the yard at this point, will be used in a humanure system, a year or so from now when I have some other things taken care of. Much of my yard I let the weeds (not sure what plant 90 percent of my weeds are actually) I let it get about 3 feet high before I pull them still well before it makes seed. These are from area that either will remain as is, and a few areas, I will be gardening by next spring if I can get it ready.
Okay so once I amend my soil and everything is good. At this point to keep the cycle sustainable, how much composted leaves,weeds would be enough do you think? a inch a year? 2? Considering I also intend to use peas and beans in rotation, for nitrogen. Its not that I cant get manure, I could get semi trucks of it, If I spent enough time at it, and I will likely use it as well, but I just want to know what anyone else thinks would be a sustainable amount, if the compost is from leaves, pine needles, and weeds, of a few types. Do any of you caution against pine needles from experience? Ive heard people go both ways on that issue. I read once its fully composted its no different than leaves.
grunt yes, the main weed here, has roots a couple feet long if I let it get 3 feet or so. I tried to dig one out before to see how deep it was. more then 2, still was thick at 2 feet deep and had branched out more then I would have thought.
So does anyone have ideas, about what would be a sustainable level of this type of compost, with beans/peas in rotation
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jul 26, 2009 5:12:20 GMT -5
Plants can only produce and return nitrogen to the soil since it is obtained from the air. There are no plants which are able to manufacture phosphorus and potassium. Every experienced garden is well aware of the results of P and K deficiency. Plants continuing to grow and die in place may return them forever. If any plant is removed, all of the nutrients go with it and can never be replaced by the next generation of plants. Eventually the soil will become totally barren and unable to support any plant life. It's a law of Nature. Martin Martin, Dan was right when he said you and I were mostly saying the same thing, and I'm not trying to split hairs with you. It's not my intention to be confrontational. I think though that nature even has mechanisms for returning P and K. For example, insects and higher life will contain P and K, and if they travel from other places can bring it in. Humanure will return it to the ground, if this is made. Many areas have flooding or heavy rains, which can wash nutrients from one place to another. The problem more comes about when you do something too extreme or intensive, and you don't think about your soil's health. I like to call this kind of discussion as gardening with vitamins. It's this idea we all have to pay attention to NPK in our gardens. You know you can eat this way too. You can look at your dinner plate and see vitamin-A in your carrots, calcium in your spinach, protein in your beans and so on -- worry about omega-3 in your oily fish. Increasingly people recognize this isn't necessary. In fact it's much more important to eat a variety of naturally produced foods. It's always possible we can get sick, and this can somehow be related to what we eat. This can sometimes be traced down to missing nutrients. It's not however necessary, or even useful, for most people to intensely focus on the individual nutrients in every food on their dinner plate. This is simply a way food companies get us to buy more processed foods. It's really the same thing with our gardens. If you have good gardening or farming practices, you simply don't need to worry about NPK or anything else. It's not a bad idea to have a basic understanding of how these things work, so you can track down problems as they occur. The idea of NPK however is much more something fertilizer companies use to sell us their products. Once you have the right systems in place, you no longer need to dig your garden, you don't need to amend it with anything, and the soil will improve over time and not degrade. Terra preta is a good example of this. I doubt these people were wrapped up in how much P & K their soil had. |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jul 26, 2009 5:24:14 GMT -5
silverseeds,
I used to garden on clay, and I loved it. It had it's challenges, but it was so fertile and everything grew so well in it.
Besides organic material and nitrogen, some people use cover crops with long tap roots to mine nutrients from deep in the ground. Fava beans, combined with white clover to help combat weeds, was one of my favorite cover crops. The fava beans themselves are fantastic at loosening compacted ground, as well as providing a lot of organic material. They also have long tap roots.
Since perennial plants promote long term health, you can also think about planting things like (nitrogen fixing) trees, or other plants to provide some of the benefits annual cover crops provide.
You can also think of cover crops for doing things like attracting beneficial insects, or providing a home for wildlife if for some reason you find that an advantage.
|
|
