Without the science, agriculture floundered along doing rather well using
natures accomodating systems. Does nature average out the errors well
enough to let us work the system in simple approximations ? Ok so long as
we don't introduce overload of chemicals/ poisons etc?
Bingo fellas!
We've been 3 years changing our system - still got a
long way to go - but here is the first and most noticeable 'difference'
We moved off the normal acid fertiliser ' mon ammonium phosphate at very
moderate rates as a starter down the tube', to a non acid, blended,
broadcast applied product, I think its a di calcic phosphate and has bio
composted lime sulphur, trace minerals added, we used a little lime,a little
paramagnetic rock (quarry fines not dust), a small quantity of humate all
radionically matched to our soil samples - we put some bio brew on the
stubbles - and again with our (reduced rate) herbicides - sounds complicated
but the cost was comparable with our conventional program.
What stuck out was on a paddock with soil types from gray sandy
loam through red to brown clay loam was the much more even yield across the
paddock - its one of the things that I have come to expect and look for as a
sign that we are starting to make a little progress - this completely in the
face of the boffins who are desperately flogging variable rate technology on
broadacre tillage and harvesting gear.
So yes I think nature does average out the errors, if we will
allow it, and maybe help a little.
Cheers all
Lloyd Charles
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
.
Received on Fri Nov 29 2002 - 20:59:20 EST