Re: [compost_tea] Re: Watering (orchard mulch)

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:39:51 EST

In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:41:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dchall8_at_texas.net writes:
That sounds like good mulch to me. In the Texas Hill Country they
are overrun with a juniper they call cedar. When the cedar tree is
completely chipped into a single pile, it makes an incredible mulch
that can support growth without further amendment.
Whoa! Guys! Think about what you are saying! Not as simple as you want to
make this sound.

Biology is critically important to understand. You don't just chip up cedar
and throw it under the trees. The biology has to deal with the cedar tannins
and phenols first, or you'll have some dead trees.

You have to know about the soil you are putting that amendment onto and you
have to properly condition the cedar chips first. I've had quite a few
clients come to me for help because their trees are dying after listening to advice
like this that made the process sound so simple.

You have to understand biological processes, or you will have dead plants.
You might get away with an occassional bono-ism, but your luck will run out.
 

The point with toxic chemicals is that you can put things into "intensive
care" and have plants LOOK ok. But the quality of the food is not ok. The
damage to the landscape is beyond measure. The damage to soil-holding capacity of
both water and nutrients is incredibly high.

Can we keep you alive by putting you in a hospital bed and pumping chemicals
into your body? Sure. But it is ultimately not economic, nor does that
hospital-bed-bound person have a quality life. Their "productivity" is minimal, as
best.

Same with your lawn. Plants in purely chemical support systems can be kept
alive, but at what cost? The nutrition is not there. Your lawn may look
green, that turf may pretty, but if you play on it, you are killing yourself. If
you let your children play there, they will likely suffer for it. Breathing
problems, allergies, skin cancer, or worse. Your pets won't live a normal
life-span.

We've played games with petrochemicals for the last 50 years, but look at the
costs. Inorganic fertilizer has increased by 10-fold in the last two to
three years. Pesticides are being pulled off the market right and left because
they kill people, not just soil organisms. We are on the threshold of the whole
toxic chemical approach crashing about our ears, because the cost is too
great, once the full cost is assessed.

Without constant work and effort, you can't sustain plant growth using toxic
chemicals. You can artifically support a plant for a limited period of time.
But it gets more and more expensive to do all the time. Diseases get
nastier, plant quality gets worse.

If you get the biology right, the maintenance is in a single addition of
compost each year on your lawn, and turf. The transition can take a bit of time,
as the toxics have to be cleaned up.

Soil structure? Sure, you can chemcially force soil structure, but you have
to constantly fight to maintain it. Every watering, you have to add something
into the water. And where does that chemcial go? Your drinking water. And
you now have to pay money to clean it from your drinking water.

Check the price of bottled water in Phoenix. Is it more per gallon of water
than you pay for gasoline yet? It is in Oregon.

It is easy to make compost, if you understand the needed biology, and how to
make sure it's there when you need it.

Toxics, or life? Nuke 'em, or enhance the beneficials?

Which approach to life do you want to take? Nobody is making you choose
life. It's your choice.

I won't argue that you can do things with chemicals, and we can keep plants
alive using that approach. But the cost is too great. Add ALL the costs to
the picture.

Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa







Received on Tue Nov 09 2004 - 13:53:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:35 EST