In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Dan L wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Steve Peek" wrote:

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
...


I always thought that what was local was best and cheaper. I swear
by
wood chips. Marton NJ 20 miles away gave me green sand and I
purchased
granite dust in the day. Other things brought in was various
manures if
I cleaned it up the coop or stall.
Green manures are a given sort of like roots trying to help the
soil.
Dried blood and bone meal too. (Prions) I've also composted
barber hair and sea weed along with fish and game innards.

Question ....are some amendments deleterious more than others?

Peat got me questioning thinking.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

I only use Alaskan fish emulsion due to the mercury issue. I wear a
mask
when using blood or bone meal and dried manures because of disease
issues.

Another approach is to only use "organic" fish emulsion.
Besides Mercury, fish may contain Selenium, DDT, PCBs, Dioxins,
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are used widely as flame retardants.
All bad stuff.

Selenium is bad?
I thought that was a needed mineral for the body.


Selenium is a trace element required by some plants and animals, it is also
used in dandruff shampoo. It isn't very toxic. Mercury, PCBs and Dioxin
are another matter.

My bad. Selenium is a toxic pollutant for fish and water fowl.


The principle is sound though that you need to to read the fine print
regarding minor components of soil amendments, especially regarding
long-lived and cumulative toxins.

David
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Dan L wrote:
Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?

Depends on the makeup of the soil already there.

My soil is mostly sand, some silt, negligible clay, and zero organic
matter. I don't need to add any more sand. I do need organic matter
by the truckload.

Una

In article , (Una) wrote:

Dan L wrote:
Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?

Depends on the makeup of the soil already there.

My soil is mostly sand, some silt, negligible clay, and zero organic
matter. I don't need to add any more sand. I do need organic matter
by the truckload.

Una

Some peoples waste is another' s gold. I had to travel for wood chips
40 years ago. Today KC tree service delivers wish I could say the same
for manures. I no longer have access to a pickup truck. But with three
plies two cold and one hot our soil loaded with earth worms is pretty
good. I'd guess the rock amendments for 1965 are still breaking down.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Why add sand?
I thought sand + clay = concrete.
I believe organic material alone will help modify the soil.

Sand + clay will lead to harder soil.
Sand + clay + organic material (rye, buckwheat) will lead to more
workable soil. Organic material must be renewed to maintain soil
fertility.

Hmmm...
Will you need more organic material with the sand?
More than what?

Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?
Yes.

So I can improve more soil by adding sand and stretching out my
organic
material?

The best garden soil is 30% - 40% sand, 30% - 40% silt, and 20% - 30%
clay. Amend as necessary to approach these numbers. The above should
constitute 90% - 95% of the soil. The other 10% - 5% should be organic

material.

Cool, I buy about four hundred pounds of sand for weight for my two
wheel pickup truck for winter driving. I use to put the sand down the
cracks in the clay soil just to get rid of it in the spring. So I though
I was just getting rid of it and now I was probably helping the soil. I
will now mix the sand with my compost before I put it down in the
spring.

In the past I always thought it was bad to add sand to clay. But now if
I add compost with it, it will even better. Cool.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Why add sand?
I thought sand + clay = concrete.
I believe organic material alone will help modify the soil.

Sand + clay will lead to harder soil.
Sand + clay + organic material (rye, buckwheat) will lead to more
workable soil. Organic material must be renewed to maintain soil
fertility.

Hmmm...
Will you need more organic material with the sand?
More than what?

Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?
Yes.

So I can improve more soil by adding sand and stretching out my
organic
material?

The best garden soil is 30% - 40% sand, 30% - 40% silt, and 20% - 30%
clay. Amend as necessary to approach these numbers. The above should
constitute 90% - 95% of the soil. The other 10% - 5% should be organic

material.

Cool, I buy about four hundred pounds of sand for weight for my two
wheel pickup truck for winter driving. I use to put the sand down the
cracks in the clay soil just to get rid of it in the spring. So I though
I was just getting rid of it and now I was probably helping the soil. I
will now mix the sand with my compost before I put it down in the
spring.

In the past I always thought it was bad to add sand to clay. But now if
I add compost with it, it will even better. Cool.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Una wrote:

In places with high salt content in the soil already, soil amendments that
are high in salts can be bad news.

I take it salt in soil is a sign of poor drainage and/or insufficient
rainfall. When Rome finally took out Carthage they plowed salt into the
soil. Carthage never came back from that and the place is still desert
today, but the soil is no longer salty. Even in a desert there's been
enough rain and drainage to leach it all away centuries ago.

One of the long term problems with pumping well water and other
irrigation for crops is it tends to build minerals in the soil faster
than natural drainage. The soil moves towards desert over a period of
centuries. There are vast deserts in the world that were once lush
agricultural lands. The desert of Iraq was one of the birthplaces of
agriculture and there was a History Channel show this week on a Sahara
site that was once a grain farming community.

Una wrote:
In places with high salt content in the soil already, soil amendments
that are high in salts can be bad news.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
I take it salt in soil is a sign of poor drainage and/or insufficient
rainfall.

In some places the salt is of geological origin: former seabeds. The
groundwater in some parts of the world is so heavily laden with salts
*from within the ground* that it is not drinkable and very few species
of plants can survive either. It takes a *lot* of rainfall to remove
so much salt.

One cause of desertification is centuries of extraction of organic
matter, and soil nitrogen, by humans. Intense agriculture does that,
where biomass is produced in one place and consumed somewhere else.

Una

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Una wrote:

In places with high salt content in the soil already, soil
amendments that are high in salts can be bad news.

I take it salt in soil is a sign of poor drainage and/or insufficient
rainfall.

Not necessarily, it is a complex issue with more than one cause, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_salination

When Rome finally took out Carthage they plowed salt into
the soil. Carthage never came back from that and the place is still
desert today, but the soil is no longer salty. Even in a desert
there's been enough rain and drainage to leach it all away centuries
ago.


Yes rainfall will tend to remove salt just as it leaches all soluble salts
over time. It isn't clear to me if the proverbial application of salt by
Rome resulted in the desert, I suspect there is more to it than that.

One of the long term problems with pumping well water and other
irrigation for crops is it tends to build minerals in the soil faster
than natural drainage.

That can happen but it is not the only way that soil damage can be caused.
Irrigation water can raise the water table so that salty water that was
safely buried comes up to interfere with plant growth

The soil moves towards desert over a period of
centuries. There are vast deserts in the world that were once lush
agricultural lands. The desert of Iraq was one of the birthplaces of
agriculture and there was a History Channel show this week on a Sahara
site that was once a grain farming community.

I wouldn't assume that all that was all due to salinity, over grazing and
other mismanagement contributed. It is much easier to damage soil and allow
deserts to encroach than the reverse.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

I seem to recall that there have been some climate change effects in the
fertile crescent too (over millenia not the last century) but I cannot find
the reference to it.

David

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Una wrote:

In places with high salt content in the soil already, soil
amendments that are high in salts can be bad news.

I take it salt in soil is a sign of poor drainage and/or insufficient
rainfall.

Not necessarily, it is a complex issue with more than one cause, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_salination

When Rome finally took out Carthage they plowed salt into
the soil. Carthage never came back from that and the place is still
desert today, but the soil is no longer salty. Even in a desert
there's been enough rain and drainage to leach it all away centuries
ago.


Yes rainfall will tend to remove salt just as it leaches all soluble salts
over time. It isn't clear to me if the proverbial application of salt by
Rome resulted in the desert, I suspect there is more to it than that.

I thought that the forests of north Africa met the same fate as the
forests of Britain (cut to make ships), however I don't seem to find a
supporting cite for that opinion.

One of the long term problems with pumping well water and other
irrigation for crops is it tends to build minerals in the soil faster
than natural drainage.

That can happen but it is not the only way that soil damage can be caused.
Irrigation water can raise the water table so that salty water that was
safely buried comes up to interfere with plant growth

The soil moves towards desert over a period of
centuries. There are vast deserts in the world that were once lush
agricultural lands. The desert of Iraq was one of the birthplaces of
agriculture and there was a History Channel show this week on a Sahara
site that was once a grain farming community.

I wouldn't assume that all that was all due to salinity, over grazing and
other mismanagement contributed. It is much easier to damage soil and allow
deserts to encroach than the reverse.
I think you'll find that the raising of the salt level in the land
between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers via irrigation is the
accepted mechanism for the collapse of agriculture there.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

I seem to recall that there have been some climate change effects in the
fertile crescent too (over millenia not the last century) but I cannot find
the reference to it.

David
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article , Ross@home
wrote:

Interesting question. I'll have to think about it some more.


In other words, as they say in the real estate business, it all boils
down to location, location, location.
Here in my location, Southern Ontario, Canada, in spring, every garden
center, hardware store, big box store or roadside stand has bales of
sphagnum peat moss for sale. Usual size is 3.8 cu. ft. and the bales
are compacted making them relatively heavy and hard as a brick. Price
averages CND$8.00/bale. End of season on sale prices can be as much as
50% off.
According to the International Peat Conference, Canada has an
estimated 272 million acres of peatland, second only to the former
USSR (371 million acres).
Australia & Oceania combined have less than 2.5 million acres.

Therefore, in reply to your post where you stated:

Quote
I'm stunned that any gardener these days would recommend, approve or
in any way encourage the use of either spagnum or peat. The use of
these in any garden where the gardener has even any mild concern for
the environment is a total no-no.
Coconut fibre is OK and is a very good replacement.
End Quote

I, and many of my fellow gardeners have very much more than a mild
concern for the environment and, if we lived in Oz, where sphagnum
peat moss is basically an "endangered species", we would probably
agree with you.
However, it is unfair to belittle gardeners in another area where it
is a renewable, economical, readily available and excellent soil
amendment.
Without the slightest twinge of conscience, I will eschew coconut
fibre and continue to use sphagnum peat moss, along with material from
our own compost pile(s) on the gardens.

Ross.
Southern Ontario, Canada.
AgCanada Zone 5b
43º 17' 26.75" North
80º 13' 29.46" West

If you look at the first citation that FarmI gave
http://www.imcg.net/docum/brisbane.htm
you'll see that it was sponsored in part by:
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
and North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada),
2 groups which must be familiar with Canadian resources, yet still call
for conservation.

:-))) Indeed. At least someone bothered to read my cites.

So if peat is plentiful, and renewable, why not use it? You will have
noticed that peat bogs are wetlands, and I think that it is in the
functioning of wetlands that you will find your answer.

Wetlands:
1) purify water,

2) offer habitat to support biodiversity,

3) in relation to the above, provide sustainable food to local
communities,

4) function as a carbon sink by sequestering atmospheric CO2. The carbon
stored in peat represents one quarter of the World's soil carbon pool

The fact that peat deposits are large and renewable doesn't alter that
their diminution adversely affects the above 4 points.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

"Dan L" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Why add sand?
I thought sand + clay = concrete.
I believe organic material alone will help modify the soil.

Sand + clay will lead to harder soil.
Sand + clay + organic material (rye, buckwheat) will lead to more
workable soil. Organic material must be renewed to maintain soil
fertility.

Hmmm...
Will you need more organic material with the sand?

Both clay and sand need organic matter, but sand needs far more organic
matter than clay because it naturally has less nutrients.

Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?

I'd say that and for the following reason:
Clay soil is made of extremely fine particles and it is the lack of big
particles that makes clay so hard to work but those fine particles hold
nutrients well. Sand is made of big particles and it is the lack of fine
particles that makes sand so freedraining and so nutrient free.

The opposite of clay soil is sand. Add sand to clay and you improve the
clay, add clay to sand and you improve the clay.

So I can improve more soil by adding sand and stretching out my organic
material?

Yes. Try it. A friend and I both fell on this idea when my friend was at
the local rural/landscaping supplier and bemoaning the fact that her soil
was so clayey. On and on she moaned and our extremely laconic business
owner just finally drawled 'have you ever thought of adding sand' and walked
off. It makes sense if you think about it for a second.

Ross@home wrote in message
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:26:36 +1100, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"Bill who putters" wrote in message
...


I always thought that what was local was best and cheaper. I swear by
wood chips. Marton NJ 20 miles away gave me green sand and I purchased
granite dust in the day. Other things brought in was various manures if

I cleaned it up the coop or stall.
Green manures are a given sort of like roots trying to help the soil.
Dried blood and bone meal too. (Prions) I've also composted barber
hair and sea weed along with fish and game innards.

Question ....are some amendments deleterious more than others?

Peat got me questioning thinking.

It's a question most gardeners I know grapple with Bill. I live in the
country and the garden on this farm has been made on the side of a stoney
slope. Farmers don't put their houses on good soil, they put it on the
shitty stuff because income comes from the good soil.

The unimproved soil was appalling - dunno how to describe it but it's the
colour of the poo a calf with the scours produces - yellow, unhealthy
looking stuff - it's full of small rocks quartz and shale/mudstone.

Everything I need for the garden except animal poop has to be brought in,
but to get some of the animal poop eg, the chook poop, I need food for the
chooks to be brought in. I have to hunt the plops the cattle leave all
over
the paddocks.

I recycle and return to the soil as much as I can but all rose prunings go
to the tip and in spring when I'm overwhelmed with giant weeds, some of
those go to the tip too as I can't get to them before they get seed heads
and I can never make and turn a hot compost. My compost tends to be more
weed piles that rot over time. I'm better at tumble compost bins. Dead
chhoks get buried in the bottom of these weed piles.

I've found straw bales work as a good soil improver for me and also
sawdust.
The sort of quatities of peat that you Nth Americans write about using has
never, ever been possible here in Oz. The most we could even buy would be
a
small pack that could be used to line hanging baskets with so we've never
had the chance to use it to add to beds to 'lighten' the soil. In fact I
can't even imagine why you'd use it to 'lighten' the soil. I add sand and
rotted stuff from the bottom of my weed piles or rotted hay bales to break
up my clayey soil. That and turning in old dead stuff dropped on the
surface from weeding.

Interesting question. I'll have to think about it some more.


In other words, as they say in the real estate business, it all boils
down to location, location, location.
Here in my location, Southern Ontario, Canada, in spring, every garden
center, hardware store, big box store or roadside stand has bales of
sphagnum peat moss for sale. Usual size is 3.8 cu. ft. and the bales
are compacted making them relatively heavy and hard as a brick. Price
averages CND$8.00/bale. End of season on sale prices can be as much as
50% off.

Well of course it's there and for sale and even goes on special! There's
bucks to be made and people who'll buy.

According to the International Peat Conference, Canada has an
estimated 272 million acres of peatland, second only to the former
USSR (371 million acres).
Australia & Oceania combined have less than 2.5 million acres.

Therefore, in reply to your post where you stated:

Quote
I'm stunned that any gardener these days would recommend, approve or
in any way encourage the use of either spagnum or peat. The use of
these in any garden where the gardener has even any mild concern for
the environment is a total no-no.
Coconut fibre is OK and is a very good replacement.
End Quote

I, and many of my fellow gardeners have very much more than a mild
concern for the environment and, if we lived in Oz, where sphagnum
peat moss is basically an "endangered species", we would probably
agree with you.
However, it is unfair to belittle gardeners in another area where it
is a renewable, economical, readily available and excellent soil
amendment.

You didn't read the cites did you?

Without the slightest twinge of conscience, I will eschew coconut
fibre and continue to use sphagnum peat moss, along with material from
our own compost pile(s) on the gardens.

You will of course do as you choose, but horses and water come to mind.

"Dan L" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

It's a question most gardeners I know grapple with Bill. I live in
the
country and the garden on this farm has been made on the side of a
stoney
slope. Farmers don't put their houses on good soil, they put it on
the
shitty stuff because income comes from the good soil.

The unimproved soil was appalling - dunno how to describe it but it's
the
colour of the poo a calf with the scours produces - yellow, unhealthy
looking stuff - it's full of small rocks quartz and shale/mudstone.

Everything I need for the garden except animal poop has to be brought
in,
but to get some of the animal poop eg, the chook poop, I need food for
the
chooks to be brought in. I have to hunt the plops the cattle leave
all over
the paddocks.

I recycle and return to the soil as much as I can but all rose
prunings go
to the tip and in spring when I'm overwhelmed with giant weeds, some
of
those go to the tip too as I can't get to them before they get seed
heads
and I can never make and turn a hot compost. My compost tends to be
more
weed piles that rot over time. I'm better at tumble compost bins.
Dead
chhoks get buried in the bottom of these weed piles.

Why can't you make a hot compost pile?
Sounds like you have a farm. If you have a tractor with a front loader,
you can easily turn a large hot compost open pile.

Our tractor doesn't have a front end loader - it has pallet prongs. And I'm
too old and feeble to turn it by hand. I've decided not to sweat the small
stuff. My piles eventutally rot and forms a decent looking humus so I use
what i do get.

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Dan L" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Why add sand?
I thought sand + clay = concrete.
I believe organic material alone will help modify the soil.

Sand + clay will lead to harder soil.
Sand + clay + organic material (rye, buckwheat) will lead to more
workable soil. Organic material must be renewed to maintain soil
fertility.

Hmmm...
Will you need more organic material with the sand?

Both clay and sand need organic matter, but sand needs far more organic
matter than clay because it naturally has less nutrients.

Are you saying sand+organic is better than organic alone as a soil
amendment?

I'd say that and for the following reason:
Clay soil is made of extremely fine particles and it is the lack of big
particles that makes clay so hard to work but those fine particles hold
nutrients well. Sand is made of big particles and it is the lack of fine
particles that makes sand so freedraining and so nutrient free.

The opposite of clay soil is sand. Add sand to clay and you improve the
clay, add clay to sand and you improve the
sand.
clay.

So I can improve more soil by adding sand and stretching out my organic
material?

Yes. Try it. A friend and I both fell on this idea when my friend was at
the local rural/landscaping supplier and bemoaning the fact that her soil
was so clayey. On and on she moaned and our extremely laconic business
owner just finally drawled 'have you ever thought of adding sand' and walked
off. It makes sense if you think about it for a second.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

In article
,
Billy wrote:

I thought that the forests of north Africa met the same fate as the
forests of Britain (cut to make ships), however I don't seem to find a
supporting cite for that opinion.

I was told that much wood was cut to make charcoal. The charcoal was
then used in smelting iron. When I was about five I once saw a pile of
wood smoldering just north of Philadelphia. It was 50 yards high by
about 300 round.

http://www.historyofredding.com/HRforest.htm

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Daniel Moynihan and Dennis Kucinich in 2012 !