On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:46:06 -0400, Noydb
wrote:

His feritlizer recommendations are based on having crappy soil. Starting
from zero makes it easy to calculate the numbers. However, I see very
little note of the trace elements a soil needs or the bacteria to make it
all available to the roots. I could find no mention of pH as an agent in
nutrient availability.

I don't think this is entirely a valid criticism, as the
website puts a lot of stress on micro-nutrients (as does the
mailing list, so far). They sell a (reasonably priced)
micro-nutrient supplement. I'm interested in this, because
I've never known what micronutrients a soil might need and I
don't want to go mixing up a lot of different - possibly
difficult to obtain - substances.


The sites of his test gardens provide abundant quantities of organic
material. Soils such as that respond incredibly well the first couple of
years they recieve supplemental fertilizers ... that's what happened in the
US midweat in the early decades of the past century.

I haven't yet seen anything on the site or mailing list that
advises against use of organic materials - did I miss it?

However, I definitely agree that organic materials are
absolutely invaluable and will often be cheaper. Not always
though.

Then come the dustbowls.

sarcasm But who cares ... 'they' live in Ecuador and are 'only peasants
anyways'. /sarcasm

I think this particular criticism is unfair, as this outfit
is evidently working extensively in places such as
Madagascar, helping people there improve their lives through
gardening - assuming the website (with a lot of convincing
photos) is true, and I am assuming that.


I'd like to see documented yields in that soil over a 5 year period as the
existing organic material is depleted and I'd also like to see documented
costs of production per unit of yield over that same time frame.

I note that Mettleider is recommending bed widths of 18 inches and path
widths of over twice that. Thus, less than 1/3 of his soil is actually
under cultivation ... the rest is wasted on paths. This is an exceptionally
poor use of resources or, as he would say "inefficient'.

It wouldn't be all that inefficient in my garden. I have
two gardening choices and only two:

1. have wide enough paths to enable me to sit down on
something to garden (I use a 'rolling garden seat' I bought
from Lee Valley tools) - and not to have to leap up every
few minutes, at that - (I have a lot of joint pain,
including but not limited to degenerative disc disease in my
spine.)

2. not garden at all

I'm also not a very large or tall person, so about 24" is
the extent of my comfortable reach.

If we move - as appears probable - to an acre of land, I
will not care HOW much space my garden takes up: space will
be the resource I have in the most abundant supply. This
isn't true for many people of course.

But at least for me, it will probably be true. Even here -
with property of a little less than 1/2 acre - space for
our garden is quite adequate.

In my own garden,
slightly less than 1/2 is in paths and I could have improved on that except
that I wanted to leave room for a wheelchair in the future, should need
ever arise.

That's interesting: what width beds and paths do you have?

Thus, without a single degree or prestigious financial grant,
my garden starts out 18% more efficient than his. And, with 4' of loose,
biologically active, water and nutrient retentive soil beneath the plants,
I never give that advantage back.

I hereby declare a quack alert.

I'm reserving judgment until I know more about it.

At present, I think it's probable that I will gain some
useful knowledge, especially in the area of micronutrients
(which they stress, contrary to your post) and in watering
techniques (which I know little about).

Pat