New garden tools.

Page 2 of 2  
In article
(snippety snip)

As I expected, you are a slow learner, but I know you don't want to be ignorant all your life, so here's some more to choke on. It might help if you take notes ;O)
The Fatal Harvest Reader by Andrew Kimbrell (Editor) (Amazon.com product link shortened) />/ ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid20837838&sr=1-1
pgs 19 - 23
Smaller farms rarely can compete with this "monoculture" single-crop yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as "intercropping.' Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have empty "weed" spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting. They are also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with the resulting manure performing the important function of replenishing soil fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop ‹ corn, for example‹may be lower, the total output per unit area for small farms, often composed of more than a dozen crops and numerous animal products, is virtually always higher than that of larger farms. Clearly, if we are to compare accurately the productivity of small and large farms, we should use total agricultural output, balanced against total farm inputs and "externalities,''' rather than single-crop yield as our measurement principle. Total output is defined as the sum of everything a small farmer produces ‹ various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products ‹ and is the real benchmark of 'efficiency in farming. Moreover, productivity measurements should also take into account total input costs, including large-machinery and chemical use, which often are left out of the equation in the yield efficiency claims. Perhaps most important, however, is the inclusion of the cost of externalities such as environmental and human health impacts for which industrial scale monocultured farms allow society to pay. Continuing to measure farm efficiency through single-crop "yield" in agricultural economics represents an unacceptable bias against diversification and reflects the bizarre conviction that producing one food crop on a large scale is more important than producing many crops (and higher productivity) on a small scale. Once, the flawed yield measurement system is discarded, the "bigger is better" myth is shattered. As summarized by the food policy expert Peter Rosset, "Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This is now widely recognized by agricultural economists across the political spectrum, as the "inverse relationship between farm size and output."' He notes that even the World Bank now advocates redistributing land to small farmers in the third world as a step toward increasing overall agricultural productivity. -----
The Fatal Harvest Reader
ARTIFICIAL FERTILITY by Jason McKenny p.121 - 129
THE BREAKDOWN OF A SYSTEM We now know that the massive use of synthetic fertilizers to create artificial fertility has had a cascade of adverse effects on natural soil fertility and the entire soil system. Fertilizer application begins the destruction of soil biodiversity by diminishing the role of nitrogen-fixing bacteria and amplifying the role of everything that feeds on nitrogen. These feeders then speed up the decomposition of organic matter and humus. As organic matter decreases, the physical structure of soils changes. With less pore space and loss of their sponge-like qualities, soils are less efficient at retaining moisture and air. More irrigation is needed. Water leaches through soils, draining away nutrients that no longer have an effective substrate on which to cling. With less available oxygen the growth of soil microbiology slows, and the intricate ecosystem of biological exchanges breaks down. Acidity rises and further breaks down organic matter. As soil microbes decrease in volume and diversity, they less are less able to physically hold soils together in groups called aggregates. Water begins to erode these soils away. Less topsoil means less volume and biodiversity to buffer
126 McKENNEY against these changes. More soils wash away. Meanwhile, all of these events have a cumulative effect of reducing the amount of nutrients available to plants. Industrial farmers address these observed deficiencies by adding more fertilizer. Such a scenario is known as a negative feedback loop; a more blunt comparison is substance abuse. The adverse effects of fertilizer use do not stop at the farm gate. All plant-usable forms of nitrogen are very soluble in water. This is why they are so transient and why they eventually end up in our watersheds. WATER AND AIR POLLUTION Every summer, rains carry eroded soils and fertilizer runoff out of Midwestern fields draining 1.2 million square miles of watershed into the Mississippi River, down to the Gulf of Mexico. For several years now, researchers have monitored and studied the by-product of this grand scale pollution. A huge dead zone, at times encompassing the whole water column, forms off the coast of the delta estuary. The only marine life able to survive in this nitrogen-choked, oxygen-depleted expanse are certain forms of algae. It is a twisted irony that the oil pumped from the bottom of the gulf is eventually returning energetically as runoff that pollutes the marine ecosystem. The estuaries of the Chesapeake, Massachusetts, North Carolina, San Francisco Bay, and nuinerous others all regularly experience the ecological destruction this runoff brings. Runoff of soils and synthetic chemicals makes agriculture the largest non-point source of water pollution in the country. It is estimated that only 18 percent of all the nitrogen compounds applied to fields in the United States is actually absorbed in plant tissues. This means that we are inadvertentiv fertilizing our waters on a gigantic scale. When this runoff reaches waterways, it promotes robust growth in algae and other waterbome plants, a process known as eutrophication in fresh waters and algal bloom in oceanic systems. This unbalanced growth depletes the level of oxygen dissolved into waters. Aquatic life of all varieties is literally asphyxiated by the transformation. The additional algae blocks the transmittance of light energy to depth, creating a less biodiverse water column. Over time this addition of nitrogen changes the whole structure and function of water
ARTIFICIAL FERTILITY » 127 ecosystems. Less aerobically dependent organisms prevail, which compromises the productivity of fisheries. Many of these organisms produce toxic materials as a by-product of their metabolism. Toxic "red tides" and the resulting fish kills and beach closures are brought on by excessive nitrogen levels. Pathogenic organisms such as Pfieste-ria and Pseudo-Nitzschia also proliferate in these polluted waters. Numerous farming communities in the United States have experienced nitrogen pollution in their aquifers and drinking supplies. When ingested by humans, nitrogen compounds are converted to a nitrite form that combines with hemoglobin in our blood. This changes the structure and reduces the oxygen-holding capacity of blood, which creates a dangerous condition known as methemoglobinemia. Various communities throughout the midwestem United States have suffered from outbreaks of this condition, which is particularly acute in children. A large quantity of the nitrogen compounds applied to fields volatizes into gaseous nitrous oxides, which escape into the atmosphere. These are greenhouse gases with far greater potency than simple carbon dioxide. Elevated levels of these gases have been directly linked to stratospheric ozone depletion, acid deposition, and ground-level ozone pollution. In this way, our fertilizer use exacerbates the already untenable problems of global air pollution and climate change. THE DEBT IS DUE All of these adverse effects of fertilizers result from their application. It is equally important to consider the problems associated with the production of fertilizers. The Haber process first made for the direct link of fertility to energy consumption, but this was in a time when fossil fuels were abundant and their widespread use seemed harmless. The production of nitrogenous fertilizers consumes more energy than any other aspect of the agricultural process. It takes the energy from burning 2,200 pounds of coal to produce 5.5 pounds of usable nitrogen. This means that within the industrial model of agriculture, as inputs are compared to outputs, the cost of energy has become increasingly important. Agriculture's relationship to fertility is now directly related to the price of oil.
128 McKENNEY This economic model made some sense throughout a farming period in which we were mining the biological reserves of fertility bound in soil humus. Now it is a crisis of diminishing returns. In 1980 in the United States, the application of a ton of fertilizers resulted in an average yield of 15 to 20 tons of corn. By 1997, this same ton of fertilizer yielded only 5 to 10 tons. Between 1910 and 1983, United States corn yields increased 346 percent while our energy consump- tion for agriculture increased 810 percent. The poor economics of this industrial agriculture began to surface. The biological health of soils has been driven into such an impoverished state at the expense of quick, easy fertility that productivity is now compromised, and fertil- izers are less and less effective. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 1997 declared that Mexico and the United States had ³hit the wall" on wheat yields, with no increases shown in 13 years. Since the late 1980s, worldwide consumption of fertilizers has been in decline. Farmers are using fewer fertilizers because crops are physiologically incapable of absorbing more nutrients. The negative effects of erosion and loss of biological resiliency exceed our ability to offset them with fertilizers. The price of farm commodities is so low that it no longer offsets the cost of fertilizers. We are at full throttle and going nowhere. Economic systems assume unlimited growth capacity. Ecological systems have finite limitations. It would be wise to recognize how the industrial perspective of fertility as a mined resource drives us toward agricul- tural collapse. SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS Certainly the adverse effects of fertilizer use come as no sudden surprise to farmers. Even those who manage the most chemically based agricultural systems recognize the important roles of organic matter, microorganisms, and crop diversity ill fertility maintenance. Unfortunately, under crush- ing financial pressure most farmers are limited in the changes they can afford to make. Some of the greatest reductions in fertilizer use have come from conservation practices and more careful applications. These represent a savings for farmers. Better timing and less indiscriminate applica- ARTIFICIAL FERTILITY € 129 tion of fertilizers reduce the adverse effect on soil biology and the likelihood of environmental pollution. Equally important are conser- vation tillage methods in which ground disturbance is minimized and the decomposition of crop residues is promoted. Less tillage distur- bance gives a greater opportunity for microorganisms to proliferate, and more crop decomposition helps provide habitat and resources for them. More water, nutrients, and soils are retained on the farm. Organic farmers approach the management of fertility biologi- cally rather than chemically. Most organic methods work to enhance soil nutrient cycles by relying upon strategies of crop rotation and cover-cropping to provide nutrient enrichment. Nitrogen-fixing and nutrient-building crops are grown explicitly for the purpose of improving soils, increasing organic matter and soil microbes, preventing erosion, and attracting other beneficial organisms. Soil diversity is maintained with crop plant diversity. Multiple varieties of different crops are grown in successions, which maximize nutrient use by different plant types and minimize pests and pathogens. Additional fertility is pro- vided through organic sources. Naturally based organic fertilizers include composted plant materials, composted manures, fishery by- products, blood and bonemeals, and other materials which decay and release nutrients, participating in rather than destabilizing the nutri- ent cycle. Practiced well, organic methods establish a dynamic yet stable fertility. Costs of outside inputs dwindle, while soil health and overall fertility grows. As an organic farmer myself, I have seen the overwhelmingly posi- tive effects of these methods. In my experience, soils with an enhanced organic metabolism have a greater productive capacity than that offered by synthetic fertilizers. I am told over and over by all my cus- tomers how my vegetables have flavors beyond what they have come to expect. I believe that this is directly related to fertility as a dynamic, interrelated biological process that we have only begun to understand. Plants are far from simple machines with simple needs. To understand them as such is to abuse them and, in turn, to deprive ourselves of the nutrition and taste that we may derive from them.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
(whack)

I'm trying to get this information to you before you go into cognitive collapse. A mind is a terrible thing to lose, but in your case it might be an improvement ;O)
In response to your request, here is another paquet of information to fill that void between your ears. Don't want that dormant organ in there rattling around making noise, do we?
The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid81718588&sr=1-1>
250 The Vegetarian Myth
Remember that pine forest that built one-sixteenth of an inch of soil in fifty years? Cue those angels again: Salatin's rotating mixture of animals on pasture is building one inch of'soil annually.4
Peter Bane did some calculations. He estimates that there are a hundred million agricultural acres in the US similar enough to the Salatins' to count: "about 2/3 of the area east of the Dakotas, roughly from Omaha andTopeka east to the Atlantic and south to the Gulf of Mexico."5 Right now, that land is mostly planted to corn and soy. But returned to permanent cover, it would sequester 2.2 billion tons of carbon every year. Bane writes:
That's equal to present gross US atmospheric releases, not counting the net reduction from the carbon sinks of existing forests and soils ... Without expanding farm acreage or remov- ing any existing forests, and even before undertaking changes in consumer lifestyle, reduction in traffic, and increases in industrial and transport fuel efficiencies, which arc absolutely imperative, the US could become a net carbon sink by chang- ing cultivating practices and marketing on a million farms. In fact, we could create 5 million new jobs in farming if the land were used as efficiently as the Salatins use theirs.6
Understand: agriculture was the beginning of global warm- ing. Ten thousand years of destroying the carbon sinks of perennial polycultures has added almost as much carbon to the atmosphere as industrialization (see Figure 5, opposite), an indictment that you, vegetarians, need to answer. No one has told you this before, but that is what your food‹those oh so eco-peaceful grains and beans‹has done.7 Remember the ghost acres and the ghost slaves? What you're eating in those grains and beans is ghost meat, down to the bare bones of whole species. There is no reconciling civilization and its foods with the needs of our living planet. -----
I forgot to ask, can you read?
If so, do you have any questions about the information that I most humbly have presented to you?
Or do you have no appreciation for the effort that I've made to help a clueless soul, such as yourself?
I'm sure that you'll have some snappy response, like uh-uh. Don't feel bad, some people just aren't literate.
Good luck, and try to get a life.
Now go away, you bother me.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yea , I know, I want to get it once and get it over with. Its hard packed, When i planted carrots . my carrots turned up .
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(whack)

Try planting rye, or buckwheat as early as you can, and lasagna garden around mid - April to May. Should be ready to plant May or mid-May (YMMV).
--
- Billy
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.