____________________Forward Header_____________________
>Subject: Re[2]: composting vs. soil application of organic residues
>Author: A.Harris
>Date: 21/09/98 12:03
>
>Hi Steve
>There are one or two minor historical inaccuracies in the posting from SANET
>archives!!
>I will forward this to SANET to check the truth of my sources!!!
>
>Steiner, as far as I can gather did not compost. Sir Albert Howard did and the
>reason he did was to stabilise the vast amount of "farmyard manure" that was
>generated in agricultural systems that housed horses or cattle for any length of
>time. The fact is that these farmyard wastes are toxic with direct application
>to soil!!!! But a read of Agricultural Testament will quickly show that Sir
>Albert was no dogmatic composter, a recall green manuring of tea and sugar cane
>of but two examples minor compost use. Howard was passionate about the health of
>people which he believed relied on healthy plants and animals which relied on
>healthy soil which relied on the return of organic matter whence it came - sound
>familiar? One of the best practical (British) proponents of Howards methods was
>Newman-Turner in Fertility Farming, Fertility Pastures and Good Herdsmanship.
>
>I think that Pfeiffer was the first of the biodynamicists to put preparations in
>compost (somewhat after Howard introduced the Inodore System of Composting). It
>was a great idea and it does show that all things do change, even the teachings
>of a master!!
>
>In my own small garden I use a combination. Most kitchen waste and young green
>weeds get composted (it is all over in 8 weeks). Mown grass goes on as a thin
>mulch layer most of the year. It conserves moisture and provides nutrients.
>Mostly I add compost as mulch but do put it under beans, peas and tranplants.
>My garden is a little small to use a bullock and I prefer to feed myself and
>drive a push bike to work rather than grow feed for a horse!
>
>Humusly
>Alfred Harris
>
>____________________Reply Separator____________________
>Subject: Re: composting vs. soil application of organic residues
>Author: <steved@ncatark.uark.edu>
>Date: 19/09/98 11:02
>
>Here's another well-written post from the Sanet archives that
>touches on soil applied organic residues versus composting.....
>by Dick Dale in April 1995...... buried in a post on "Soil quality
>and Biodynamics."
>
>
>Steve Diver
>
>============================================
>============================================
>From ddale@cce.cornell.eduThu Apr 6 11:38:26 1995
>Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 05:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Dick Dale <ddale@cce.cornell.edu>
>To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
>Cc: Dick Dale <ddale@cce.cornell.edu>
>Subject: Soil quality and Biodynamics
>
>To watch this discussion evolve from what is involved in soil quality
>to whether or not Biodynamics is a sustainable and beneficial system
>of agriculture has truly been fascinating. The truth is, the things we
>measure when we talk about soil quality are only the tip of an
>enormous iceberg. And the same may be said when we go about designing
>experiments to demonstrate the effects of Biodynamics. I have been
>acquainted with Biodynamics for over twenty years. There is ample
>research to demonstrate that Biodynamics does work in some sense.
>Although most of the research has been done by thos within the B.D.
>movement, that is not sufficient reason to dismiss it. After all, they
>are the ones who have some understanding of it, plus, other
>researchers have not been quick to examine it. However, remember what
>I said about the subtlety of the effects we are talking about, too.
>
>Since Biodynamics is a system of farming, it should be examined
>holistically, by comparing a B.D. farm with a conventional or organic
>farm in the same region. Western Germany before the unification
>studied B.D. farms in this manner and found real differences in
>productivity, use of farm labor, farm income, etc. Ther have aslo been
>shown to be real differences in in the quality of produce grown using
>Biodynamic methods. Using the B.D. preparations or Pfeiffer's compost
>starter has been shown to have reproducible effects on compost. I
>could go on, but I would suggest that anyone who is interested should
>consult either Bio-Dynamic Agriculture by H.H. Koepf, B.D. Pettersson
>and W. Schaumann, or Culture and Horticulture by Wolf Storl.
>
>Which brings me back to the original question, is there a demonstrable
>effect on soil quality with the use of composted manure vs. raw
>manure, something that Ann Clark talked about. She said that it should
>be better to compost organic materials before applying them to the
>soil. You can try this out in your home garden, and I don't think
>there is any question, a compost pile can work a lot better than sheet
>composting. My point is, however, that it was a Biodynamic idea to
>compost farm manure in the first place (at least in recent Western
>circles). The reasoning was that where you have a limited amount of
>animal manure and other organic wastes available to provide nutrients
>to a farm, you should be applying them in a manner that conserves and
>makes the best use of these materials. What a good compost does is
>stabilize the organic matter and make it into long-lasting humus. You
>may lose some nitrogen and some of the gross yield-increasing effects,
>but the soil will benefit more from an application of compost than one
>of fresh manure. There are other benfits of composting as well. To
>B.D. farmers, that question was important, because they were not
>importing feeds and fertilizers from off the farm. They were
>interested in the farm as a functioning organism - sustainable, in
>other words, living and viable.
>
>Dick Dale
>Crop Consultant, Central NY Crop Management Association
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>
>
>
>
>--Boundary_(ID_pPDrSxR/4tJWCJ03VJDIGw)
>Content-type: text/plain; name=RFC822.TXT; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-disposition: attachment; filename=RFC822.TXT
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>Return-Path: <owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu>
>Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu ("port 63381"@shasta.ces.NCSU.edu)
> by mirinz.org.nz (PMDF V5.1-9 #28238)
> with ESMTP id <01J20L9NNOM8000M7D@mirinz.org.nz> for
> a.harris@ccMail.mirinz.org.nz; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:11:04 +1200
>Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1)
> id MAA26758 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197])
> by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26724 for
> <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:03:15 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248])
> by comp.uark.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA16531; Sat,
> 19 Sep 1998 11:03:10 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from 581I.uark.edu ([130.184.41.238])
> by ncatark.uark.edu (8.8.5/SCO5) with SMTP id LAA06467; Sat,
> 19 Sep 1998 11:04:28 -0500 (CDT)
>Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:02:11 +0000
>From: Steve Diver <steved@ncatark.uark.edu>
>Subject: Re: composting vs. soil application of organic residues
>Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
>To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
>Cc: compost@listproc.wsu.edu
>Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu
>Message-id: <199809191604.LAA06467@ncatark.uark.edu>
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
>Precedence: bulk
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <steved@ncatark.uark.edu>
>X-Authentication-warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to
> owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f
--Boundary_(ID_pPDrSxR/4tJWCJ03VJDIGw)--
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".