No till gardening

[mornings]

Not everything will grow in water practically, so we all need gardens in the soil (surely this is not just a group fish geeks). The below is a bit of my story and a practical way to grow things with a lot less back breaking labor.

About 10 years ago I gave away my tiller and went cold turkey, no-till. (I won't bore with the details of why) Since then, I've cut my physical work in the garden in half (although, in fairness, my management of rotations and fertility take more time and are more critical than before), improved the CEC (cation exchange capacity) from about 10 to 15-19, increased the stable organic matter(humus) almost 50%, all but stopped composting (I now, this is a heresy akin to spitting on motherhood . . .) and generally improved yields

My soil, an extremely well drained, wind blown silt with a natural ph of 4.5. Ridge to p timber land. It is probably the sorriest soil on the planet. Has nothing in it. Everything I take out of it, I have to put into it first.

My beds are 4 feet wide (1.2 M). The beds are naturally raised about 3"(75mm), i.e., they are raised because the soil is naturally fluffed up -- AND NO ONE EVER WALKS IN MY BEDS.

The soil is almost never broken except to dig root crops. Plants are never pulled out but cut off to leave roots in the ground. This minimizes the oxidation of humus/organic matter.

The specifics of what I'm about to tell you will likely work only in a similar temperate clime (35 degrees latitude), but it can probably work anyplace by applying the principle of what I'm doing and adjusting the cover crops. If you live in a cold clime, this is not so necessary as were one has lots of humidity and heat. But it can still save work and improve the soil.

The key to the system is the cover crops. I have 4 schemes/covers -- the first 3 are planted about mid September (mid February on the other side of the world, I think). The last is planted at various times in the summer. The winter covers almost never are repeated year after year.

1) Rye grain (not grass) and hairy vetch. This is planted in advance of what I call summer crops: corn, beans, squash, okra, tomatoes, peppers, etc. Most of these, I plant about mid May (October, down under, I think). Note what looks like straw on the sides of the bed. It is the refuse from the previous crop

The picture below has just been planted. It will be about 6 to 7 feet (2M or so) high by the time I cut it in May(October?). When I cut it, the heads of the rye will be in "dough", kinda soft and milky. the vetch will have beautiful blue flowers on it and it climbs up the rye. I cut it with a hedge cutter, just laying it down. I make furrows or holes in the hay and plant right in it.


This mixture adds lot of organic matter and some nitrogen. It also has a strong allopathic effect on the soil that discourages weeds. So it is a fertilizer, an herbicide, a pesticide* and a soil conditioner.

2) Spring oats and daikon radish. This is planted in advance of earlier crops (planted Feb, march and April/ June,July and August, I think) like brassicas, coles, potatoes . . . It will get up to about knee high or better; dies by Christmas. It protects the soil, leaves a mulch and lots of organic matter in the soil. Just plant right in it.




It is possible to add some crimson clover to this mix (discussed next). With the Crimson, this mix is a fertilizer, an herbicide and a pesticide* and a soil conditioner. But I've found that the crimson is not always dependable as it can get shaded out by the diakon.

3) Crimson clover. This is also planted in advance of spring crops. Although, this is actually and exception where I have already planted garlic with it. This legume is extremely winter hardy, comes out early in spring (the red bloom is really beautiful, good for winter eyes), gets about 6-8" (150-200mm) high and then dies off by early summer. Just stick the plants right in it.


This is primarily a fertilizer, providing a lot of nitrogen just as your plants need it. But, is also an pesticide*.

4) Soy bean. This is planted as a follow-on to heavy feeders that finish early enough -- like brocolli -- to add nitrogen back to the soil. I never let them make beans. Depending what follows, I may just cut it down when it blooms and plant in it, or harvest it as hay (worms love it). It only takes about 30 days. Usually, if one gets as little as a single rain, it will make nice big plants.

*Pesticide. In the spring, spiders (many species) come out of their eggs, open a little parashute and travel hundreds of miles. All this refuse or hay left after the cover crops provide habitat for the spiders. These spiders are more effect pesticide than any chemical you can buy -- and they are free if you just give them a home. They will kill and eat all manner of pests.

The purpose behind the above is to improve the organic matter (improve both moisture and nutrient holding capacity), cut down on weeds, cut down on the natural leaching that occurs with tillage, feed the plants, reduce the pests, rotate the crops, and make the compost right in the ground without all the work of compost.

Now, I have to tell you an omelet cannot be made without breaking a egg, i.e., the soil must be balanced and balanced to some depth beyond the top soil. All these beds have been sub-soiled to a depth of about 3 feet (1M). Lime was added and mixed to that depth.

By balancing, I mean, the cation base saturation must be made up of 60-70% calcium, 10-12% magnesium and 2-4& potassium. If you have these, pay no attention to ph, it means nothing. The deeper you can make these proportions, the better. This balance will give you the optimum moisture holding capacity and the optimum drainage for the particualr type of soil.

My rotations are 6 years in my shorter, 14' (4M) beds and 4 years in my longer 100'(30M) beds. The rotations are fairly conventional. Any garden book can give you ideas. But they are very important ans serve many purposes.

There are a few exceptions to winter covers. I plant carrots, brocoli and garlic in the fall. As noted above I plant the crimson with the garlic. The carrots are the cover crop and broccoli is cut down and covered with black plastic until peas can be planted.

Now you know all my secrets

m

[Dufflight]

I'm not much for digging. But I do like the deep dug beds for trees. Gives them a kick start. If you cut the plants off and leave the roots do you have a problem with the plant wanting to keep growing. And how does leaving the roots work with nematodes etc.

[GaryD]

Hi mornings,

I guess you've read Fukuoka's One Straw Revolution?


Gary

[mornings]

I'm not much for digging. But I do like the deep dug beds for trees. Gives them a kick start. If you cut the plants off and leave the roots do you have a problem with the plant wanting to keep growing. And how does leaving the roots work with nematodes etc.

Duff,

I can't answer your question about nematodes because I've never had that problem -- but I'm sure they are there. In fact, I hardly ever have pest, disease or weed problems. If one has a vibrant soil life, which is created by allowing mother to do her work, by not destroying tilth and soil structure, by not tilling the soil, then most problems in your garden go away or never exist.

Insofar as digging goes, it is not a sin. It is just expedient, a trade off in time. There is nothing that can't be done in time while not breaking the soil. Just takes longer. But since time is often of the essence, I emphasize accomplishing the initial balance required in the soil.

There is a concept that applies to both our bodies on our soil called "biological terrain". Essentially, it says, all the microorganisms, macro organisms and factors are there as they should be -- all of them, including nematodes. It is only our re-arrangement of those factors that upsets the biological terrain. So, our plants or our bodies are either healthy or they are compost. The problems we experience are a result of our making. Whether it is gardening or one's health, it is a matter of getting out of the way, so to speak, of allowing all the forces of nature to do her work -- and understanding, ultimately, that you are one of those forces.

Cutting off plants in a temperate climate usually means the roots will die and rot. If the soil is biological active, nature does what needs to be done. If the soil is chemicaliized (I don't have a better term at the moment), if the organic matter is not present to hold moisture or nutrients, well, that is the problem, not nematodes. Ah, in the tropics, the principle is the same but the terrain is different -- the plants may continue to grow. ya haveta think of something else.

None of what I have done or said is original. I've borrowed from both the bio dynamics people (in my opinion the finest farmers on the face of the planet) and the Permies(in my opinion, the most innovative gardeners on the face of the planet).

And yes, Gary, I read Fukuoka back when I started gardening in Guam about 40 years ago. Where I typically part company with these groups, however, is when they become belief systems with almost religious fervor. . . you know, kinda like some aquaponics people we know (present company excepted).

m

PS I'll post later on cation exchange capacity and base saturation. One can garden without these but one cannot manipulate (expedient) the soil successfully without understanding these.

[bart]

thanks for your thoughts and info I'm a try everything and see what works bloke [currently have raised beads, a wicking bead, a five tank aquaponics set up in a polydome] i have been Reading peramacualtur books and like the concept could you please "dumb it down a bit" in regard to cation exchange cap and base saturation for example i would like to know what to mix together to get good plant growth sometimes these forum can become to scientific for me anyway and possibly others.
many thanks Bart

[mornings]

. . . i would like to know what to mix together to get good plant growth sometimes these forum can become to scientific for me anyway and possibly others.

Bart,

Sorry, I did lay all that cation exchange stuff on a bit thick without much explanation. But it is important, and not all that hard to understand and use. I doubt I need to "dumb down" anything, but I will try to be clear. So, if you don't understand it, it is probably my fault. I'm sure if I can understand it, certainly one with your capacity to experiment and grow can pick it up quickly.

Particles and soup.

Picture a football stadium as a particle of sand. Then, imagine the quarterback or a player as a grain of silt and the football as a grain of clay. Each of these particles has about the same electrical charge. It is these charges that hold soil together and particularly the nutrient between them (the soup). The picture is to give you an idea of the relative charges in different types of soil. Think about how many clay charges that could fit within a sand particle.

Capacity

The base saturation is the soup, the interstices between the particles that hold all of the nutrient. The capacity to hold those charges is the Cation Exchange Capacity(CEC). It should be clear by now that a clay soil can hold magnitudes greater amounts of nutrient that either silt or sand -- because of its greater electrical charge.

Balance

About a century ago, some Russians determined that if about 70% of those charges were offset or attached to calcium, about 12% to magnesium, and about 2-4% potassium (these are called cations), you would have what they called a "balanced" soil, a soil that would be optimum for growing.

Also optimum for holding water. Clay will hold lots of water (whereas silt and sand will hold little). The water in clay, however, won't be very accessible to your plants unless there is the proper proportions of Ca, Mg and K. Interestingly, when each of these types of soils are "balanced", they will hold the optimum amount of moisture, i.e., the amount of water that can be held and accessed by plants. Best holding capacity and best drainage.

From this it should also be clear that a clayey soils requires scads more calcium, magnesium and potassium than either silt or sand. But clayey soils also holds scads more nutrient -- but will only be fully accessible from your plants if they are "balanced".

Miracle ingredient

At this point, if you have sandy soil (or a silty soil like mine), you may feel that you have somehow been shorted. Ah, but there is a way, beyond adding clay to your soil, to improve its nutrient holding capacity (some of you may have already guessed): carbon. But not just any carbon will do. If you add carbon, typically, in the form of stable humus or even well composted organic matter, your soil will hold and deliver more nutrient and more water (most of you probably knew that; you may not have known why, though). The one caveat to adding carbon: you will be increasing the CEC and that means you must proportionally add more cations to re-balance the soil.

The problem with carbon, however, is that if you live in a hot and humid area, that carbon can literally burn up if it is regularly exposed to the air (as in tillage). If you have a silty or sandy soil, the warning is many fold. If you happen to live in Indiana or Iowa, it is cold and dry enough and there is so much carbon in the soils (they call them "muck" soils), that you probably cannot live long enough to burn it up. For the rest of us, we have to deal with it if we want better soil.

The answer

Now, to answer your question about "what to mix". The first step is to get a soil analysis that includes the CEC and base saturation (In the US, A&L Labs in Memphis TN does an excellent job). The analysis will give you the percentages of cations in the base saturation, and usually a formula if you need to add anything. The next step is to balance your soil accordingly. After that, everything gets better, easier and more natural.

Once you have the soil balanced, then you will find typically you need only add some phosphate (rock or colloidal) every decade or so. They will give you high-medium-low ranges for it. Don't bother with nitrogen -- it varies to much to try to keep track of. Typically, the greater the % of organic matter (particularly, if it is well composted or grown right in the soil like mine), the greater will be the humus and added CEC.

My soil has a natural CEC of about 1.4. Over the years I have been able increase it to 15 to 19. That's really good in my soil.

Just so you don't think this is an ad for some sort of technology, one good thing about all this analysis, after you've done it a time or two, I find that good gardeners can intuit what is needed just by the feel, smell and taste of the soil -- better than any analysis.

Is there any more to know than this? Sure, but not much of it is very important. Just little details around the edges that deal with very specifiic situations.

I hope all this is clear. If not, please tell me where is not. It is important to get your soil balanced. Once that is done, very little is critical, very few problems can't be solved fairly easily afterward. Too, I find that maintaining that balance and doing no till, I have few weeds, few pests and hardly ever any disease.

We and our plants are a biological terrain. What is not healthy is compost. Keep you soil healthy and your plants will be healthy; keep your plants healthy and you will stay healthy.

m

P S If any one is interested, I'll say something about how useless ph is and maybe something about terra preta (If you haven't heard about terra preta, look it up on Google..

[bart]

many thanks for your informative explanation i had read about soil composition sand,clay,organic matter ratios but never understood the chemistry often you just get told add potash or lime ext I am going to see if there is a soil testing lab in Melbourne
regards Bart

[mornings]

Bart,

Your desire to mix the right things in the soil brings to mind one aspect that often leads us down the wrong path: ph.

A true story. Years ago a friend of mine in the tree nursery business had a problem with what he thought was low ph. He went to the state agency and they told him to add muriate of potassium. He did, and he got a decent response. But he keep on adding the potassium year after year, thinking, I guess, he was just feeding his plants. But, it got to the point hardly anything would grow. After several years the ph of the soil was 8.5! So he went back to the state agency. They then told him to add sulfur.

At about the same time there was a private soil consultant visiting and he was asked to take a look at my friend's soil. The consultant got a soil analysis (the kind I've been talking about) and told my friend he needed something on the order of 40 tons of ag lime (ground calcium carbonate) per acre. My friend told the state agency about the recommendation and they suggested the consultant be put in the loony bin.

The consultant was unruffled. He suggested my friend set up three plots: one with sulfur added, a control with nothing added and one with the recommended amount of lime. My friend did so.

In the control plot, everything died within a few months; everything died within about 9 months where the sulfur had been added. In the plot with lime added, the plants prospered and my friend had never seen such a response in his life (he had been a nurseryman for about 40 years) -- nor had any of his neighbors.

What was interesting is that after applying the lime, after the first rain, the ph dropped to 7.2. The following year, it was about 6.9.

The point of all this is if your soil is balanced, ph is not even a consideration.ph can be manipulated up or down in many ways, many of which will not have a salutary effect. Conceptually, we need to understand that ph is a concept, not a nutrient. There are no phs in the soil. There are just nutrients. And, those nutrients are either balanced and sufficient according to the soil type or they are not. Once they are balanced and sufficient, most problems with growing simply go away.

BTW, I learned all of this from some bio-dynamic farmers. I don't buy into all of Rudolf Steiner's theories, but in my opinion, the BD folks are the most competent farmers on the planet. If you know any, you might spend a little time with them.

Now, If I could just find someone who knew how to apply this to growing in water.

m

[arachdog]

Have you ever looked into terra preta morning ? From what I've read it sounds like its got a lot going for it and it would fit perfectly into your no till ethos.

[mornings]

Have you ever looked into terra preta? From what I've read it sounds like its got a lot going for it and it would fit perfectly into your no till ethos.

arachdog,

Glad you asked. Two years ago I talked the Jack Daniels Distillery into giving me a half ton of charcoal. And, I had exactly the same notion about no till and biochar you indicate.

I haven't written about terra preta here as I'm afraid I don't have a lot to report that is very solid. For the moment, too many other variables, I think.

I will continue to analyze my soil every 6 months. The analysis, so far, shows very little in terms of a trend. The best CEC I had achieved before no till was about 10-11. After no till, about 13. Some of my test beds have indeed come to as much as 19. But then, my control beds have come up to 15(?). My soil samples are not really thorough enough to put much credence in a given analysis

I have twelve, 4'x8'x14' beds for my experiment. I applied the charcoal to 12 of them in the spring, keeping two as controls. The first year I did nothing but cover crops, mostly soy beans in the summer and rye/vetch in the winter. I now have all beds in 6 year rotation, growing regular crops..

Even though it remains to be seen more clearly, I still may have accomplished my goal: a higher plateau in CEC that is easier to maintain. But it may take years to know for certain.

I've not had any drought conditions since I put the biochar in but, with or without global warming, drought will return, and I will get an idea how much difference it makes in terms of retained soil moisture.

If I get the better CEC plateau and better moisture retention, I win. After all, I'm a farmer, not a scientist.

Not long ago a fellow who is a soil scientist with the state agriculture service (A Brit of some stripe -- really nice guy) came to my farm as he was interested in my experiment with "vermiponics". We did talk a little about terra preta, although we spent most of the time on nutrients in water. He apparently had looked into terra preta but felt that the benefits of terra preta were highly qualified, that it took a certain kind of biochar, made under certain conditions, applied to a certain kind of soil and environment, to be of much value. But he was pretty tentative, as all the research seems to be. I've meant to follow up, but have not.

My point is, so far, I'm happy with what I've done but I'm afraid there is a lot more hype than solid results, especially on biochar-in-the-soil use in temperate climes. I also find that the majority of proponents for terra preta are not farmers, growers or even agricultural people but environmentalist who simply want to see sequestration of carbon. They get kinda emotional, a little like aquaponics people who are so intent upon growing fish.

m