says...
>
> > Thicker grass to prevent damage to the pasture by the steers, perennial
> > crops, like nuts, replacing grains, increasing production by reducing
> > size and increasing diversity, working smart instead of working hard,
>
> Sounds like Permaculture.
It is permaculture.
Most of our associates here are trending to permaculture as are we.
Wherever and whenever I can, I promote the idea.
Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Now I have started to wonder how herd management might be conducted so
> it grows topsoil instead of depleting it. Buffalo herds were a part
> of the North American grasslands and soil building in grasslands was
> discussed. Current herding methods deplete soil - How to change that
> so they build soil?
> I recall the soil being pretty good in the small farm oriented
> dairyland where most of my relatives lived when I was a kid. Small
> herds of dairy cattle, crop rotation including legumes, some farms
> growing feed for the farms with the bigger herds. I wonder how such
> a model can be mapped to beef herding. What comes to my mind is -
> grass fed beef rather than lot fed beef, mixed with a smaller heard
> strategy where the feed is closer to local than it is with modern
> large beef cattle herds.
Most beef cattle in Australia are raised on grass although finishing them in
lots is reasonably common. Like all farming it's hard work but it isn't
impossible. Somehow they manage to do it economically so that our export
beef competes so well on the USA market that Uncle Sam raises tarriff
barriers against it. So much for friends and allies. The big ag lobby has
much to answer for.
This industry does use synthetic fertiliser (Oz farmers just looove
superphosphate) but there is some movement towards more sustainable systems.
One reason super is entrenched is - guess what - government subsidy. For
years the 'superphosphate bounty' made it easy not to think, just put on
more super. Sure Oz has phosphate deficient soils in many areas. However
over the years millions of tons of super has been applied, where has it
gone? Probably growing water plants and algae in the rivers. It isn't in
the soil or if it is it isn't available because in many cases they have to
keep applying it.
David
David Hare-Scott wrote:
> songbird wrote:
>> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>>> songbird wrote:
>>>> FarmI wrote:
>>>>> Billy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, in this case, it would be prairie grass (reflecting
>>>>>> Salatin's pasture),
>>>>>
>>>>> What sort of species are you talking about when you say 'prairie
>>>>> grass'? The reason why I ask is that the You-tube clips of
>>>>> Salatin's place doesn't look like anything I'd call a 'prairie'. He
>>>>> looks like he's got a farm on quite rich land in a well
>>>>> protected area. 'Prairies' to me suggest very open and exposed
>>>>> locations and the grasses there would, TMWOT, be much tougher and
>>>>> less nutritious than in good pasture land. I might be talking
>>>>> through my hat 'cos I haven't got a clue about US farms, but
>>>>> that's what I'd expect here in Oz if we were looking at farms of
>>>>> differing capacities.
>>>>
>>>> right, anyone talking about grassland production in
>>>> the eastern seaboard of the USA being equivalent
>>>> to what happens on the prairies is full of it. the time
>>>> scale difference isn't minor and probably heavily
>>>> depends upon the average annual rainfall.
>>>>
>>>> the soil of the prairies was probably produced over
>>>> the period of time after the last ice-age. it isn't that
>>>> thick. if it could accumulate at a rate of an inch a
>>>> year it would be much deeper...
>>>>
>>>> ok, so let's return to the eastern seaboard and
>>>> wonder why the topsoil in unmolested places isn't
>>>> deeper? if it can be so productive why isn't it?
>>>> because it is woodland and not grassland and
>>>> unmanaged woodlands cycle carbon but do not
>>>> sequester once it's reached maturity. very little
>>>> is sequestered and that would be because of fires
>>>> that char and thus turn the carbon into a form not
>>>> easily consumed...
>>>>
>>>> if trees and forests were so good for carbon
>>>> gathering and keeping the soils of the Amazon would
>>>> be deep and fertile, but they are not unless you
>>>> find the places that were altered by the natives in
>>>> prehistorical times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tropical rainforest is often on leached soil where most of the
>>> nutrients are actually in the trees.
>>
>> right, why is that though? you'd
>> figure that if it was truely good for
>> the ecosystem to have deep soil
>> that it would have figured that out
>> by now (millions of years of selective
>> pressure).
>>
> Different ecosystems work in different ways. In the case of tropical
> forests the very high rainfall leaches the soil and the biota has adapted to
> that reality.
sure, but i'm thinking that what
has happened is something else
(more on this below)...
...
>>> You are right that it is not a panacea but wrong in saying we cannot
>>> build soil or sequester carbon by altering land use.
>>
>> yeah, i mispoke somewhat there, but what i meant
>> was that the need for carbon storage is now more than
>> what is going to be achieved using either of those two
>> methods. building soil would help out all around, i won't
>> argue against that.
>>
>> my wondering about topsoil is that if it is so good
>> for overall life then you'd think that by this time (after
>> millions of years) it would be selected for and there
>> would be much more of it than there is instead of
>> what we do find. so my curiousity is engaged on
>> the topic of the disappearing topsoil.
>>
> Two reasons. One: that there are environments where building and
> maintaining topsoil is too hard (eg tropical rainforest) so the adaptive
> pathway has gone in other directions. Two: humans have been making topsoil
> disappear since we started agriculture. We now live in an age where so much
> is transmitted culturally instead of genetically you could call it the
> post-Darwinian era. This is gross simplification of course because natural
> selection still takes place as it always has but now many factors interfere
> with it.
i disagree to the first one, we have the example
already of topsoil retention in some areas that
have had something done to them already (terra
preta), so in effect it is possible to have soils
that hold up against tropical rainforest conditions.
the deeper question is why hasn't nature in
thousands-to-millions of years figured that out
for itself? that is the thing i was digging at
earlier with my previous question.
the second part i do agree with.
returning to the first part though is where it
makes the most sense to look into further. i.e.
the fact that given sufficient moisture any area
goes "up" towards the source of energy instead of
investing in the dirt.
that is one thing i think that humans have come
about to deal with, the fact that plants/animals/
other life forms cannot get any further towards
the source of energy as things currently stand.
the other problem of having all of the life-eggs
in one basket (this planet/this solar system) is
a proven strategy for failure longer term and i
think we're "here" and have come about to deal
with that too. we are the great innoculators.
watch out universe. here we come! soon i sure
hope.
><ascends soapbox>
> Typically our cultures cannot deal with issues like topsoil because they
> take generations to see change. When motivation is dominated by the desire
> to eat today, to make a profit next month and to be elected again in 3 years
> time how can you spare any thought for problems that have taken thousands of
> years to develop and will take hundreds to fix?
there are some people with longer range vision who
can do micro-pocket type stuff. having a game-preserve
and having natural areas at least gives a chance that
all will not be lost. the fear of the results of
poaching and other degradation due to mass starvation
would always be there as i'm quite sure when push
does come to shove that the wild areas will start to
be sacrificed. the only salvation really is that
much of life is pretty tenacious and likely to survive
here or there in small pockets and there will always
be conservationists who will do their part to keep
some diversity going. the great extinction now
underway is unlikely to reverse any time soon. it
will be a wave we have to ride and the other side is
far away and likely hundreds of years in the future.
> The way things are heading nothing will be done on a large scale until over
> population, over consumption, resource limits and climate change form the
> perfect storm. People will then cry out to leaders saying "why didn't you
> do anything about it?" The majority of leaders will say "elect me again and
> I will fix it next year", the few honest ones will say "because you didn't
> want me to" and they will be the first trampled by the hungry mob.
><descends soapbox>
heh, yeah, the visionaries find that public policy
and the elected life are too eroding to their own
values to maintain integrity for long.
in any mass elected government you don't get the
best governors, you get the best mass media manipulators.
my own answer to this is to randomly select all
gov't workers (and then after they are in office
and serving they can be re-elected as a vote of
confidence every four years). this would save a
lot of empty campaign rhetoric and eliminate the
corporate and lobbyists buying influence. sure,
we'd end up with bad representatives but they can
be voted out and the random selection process
would pick the next person.
if i didn't have to run for office and raise
money to get elected and do all the wasted BS
it takes to get elected i think it would be fun
to actually be in office and try to deal with
problems.
if only i were king, :)
songbird
> Salatin does not claim this level of productivity because there is 450ac
> of woods as well as the 100ac of pasture. The woods make a sizeable
> contribution to the farm, it produces much pig feed and biomass that is
> used for a variety of purposes and assists in other ways. So to be more
> accurate the above production is from 550ac.
> I would be interested to know what can be done by conventional means. The
> comparison would be very difficult to make fair I think because the
> conventional system uses many external inputs and would have trouble
> matching that diversity of outputs. I suspect that just measured in
> calories per acre the intensive monoculture might win. The whole point of
> this is that you can only do that for a limited amount of time with many
> inputs and many unwanted side effects. Not to mention that man does not
> live by bread (or high fructose corn syrup) alone.
Fair comment David, but then there is a much higher cost to the quality of
life for the animals? I'm sure that you, like me, have seen intensive
operations such a feed lots and caged chooks.
I grew up on a poultry farm and my mother refused to have any cages on the
place with the exception of a row of 10 where she used to put birds that
were off colour and needed to be taken away from the bullying tactics of the
rest of the flock. In the 50s and 60s when other poultry farmers were
moving to cages and proud of it, we were free ranging. We once had a city
person come back to us and complain about the eggs they bought off us.
According to them, the eggs were 'off' and had to be thrown out because they
had 'very yellow yolks'.
XML site map
> crops, like nuts, replacing grains, increasing production by reducing
> size and increasing diversity, working smart instead of working hard,