I agree with Hidden that "nostalgia isn't what it used to be", that we humans
had to flirt with the chemicals before enlightement, but I would like to
comment on a few statements made:
>Secondly, AFAIK, fish was not widely used for fertilizer in European culture,
as evidenced by the fact that the Pre-American Tribespeople -taught- it to the
settlers.
I am not sure the conclusion drawn that European farmers did not know to use
fish to fertilize because the Native Americans taught them so is valid. I
believe the first immigrants were townspeople who probably were woefully
ignorant about a lot of survival skills. Additionally a great portion of Europe
is landlocked, so using fish to throw into the dirt would have been terribly
wasteful.
>There was little need for it for anything other than corn, and even corn grew
well in the denuded forest floor.
And I'm not so sure the forest floor is an especially furtile soil. Amazonian
land, when cleared for grazing, is good for only a few years before it is
depleted. As you mentioned, flood plain is a far more likely spot for
cultivation.
As an aside, Alexander the Great (or was it Hannibal?) insisted the grain used
for bread for his troops come only from particular areas because he knew it
contained more nutrients and nourished the men better. The Nile valley was
spectacularly rich before the Aswan dam was built.
>slow growth happens in poor soil without fertilizer, but I have searched long
and hard to find methods like yours documented as being in practice more than
100 years ago. Mostly they just grew what didn't die. Even crop rotation,
perhaps the first of scientific "Organic" agricultural methods, is only 200
years or so old.
Then again the "honey pots" of China have been in use for thousands of years.