Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

local fire burglars?

Those who set fires, either because they think it improves their pasture
(it doesn't) or for fun, or both.

Why do you say it doesn't improve pastures? From observation, I'd say it
probably did improve pastures even if just because it cleans out things
like
tussocks and other weeds etc and doesn't add anything.

every bit of carbon lost to the air in
burning is that much less available to be
turned into humus.

Photosynthesis uses atmospheric carbon to create biomass.

yes, that's my point, your field gained carbon
via photosynthesis and some of that was in the dry
grasses and stalks. burning it releases that carbon
back to the atmosphere. slashing it and leaving it
as mulch will also release some of it back to the
atmosphere, but the rate is much reduced and spread
out and the slash has a much better chance of being
recycled by the worms/fungi than lost to the air.


A lot of Photosynthetic action takes place in pastures that will not readily
burn.

sure, some of it is transported to the roots and
soil community. it depends upon how dry the pasture
is when burned and how deeply various fragments
are buried.


Dry standing pasture which don't have lots of lush green active
photosynthesising plants burns very well, lush new growth doesn't.

all true. my point was aimed at those who
burn dry materials thinking that it improves
the soil. it may give a sudden flush of growth
from some of the released nutrients, but
whatever goes into the air is lost and has to
be regained by further photosynthesis. if
slashed and left that carbon is not lost but
largely retained and recycled or turned into
humus (over the long haul).


songbird