In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who
still do things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before
the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They
overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover
their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.

Actually burning is quite beneficial to the soil because it adds (if I
recall correctly) phoshorus to the soil (although it may be another,
or even a number of other nutrients). Australian Aboriginals and
many other native peoples did it as a 'farming' technique as after
the burning, grass grew strongly and brought in grazing animals that
they then killed for food. It's not a good technique though in fire
prone areas and quite antisocial these days because of pollution.

Burning only adds phosphorus to the soil if it is present in what you
burn.

Well as I mentioned, I don't recall what it sis that is added so perhaps it
wasn't phosphorus.

This is the basis of slash and burn agriculture where the nutrients in
trees are released allowing a crop to grow in the ashes. In Oz which
tends to have phosphorus impoverished soil the P is held mainly in the
trees, burning the forest releases this. So our white forebears used fire
to clear forest and increase fertility at the same time but then found
that the great crops they got in the first year or two couldn't be
sustained. S&B only works if you have plenty of forest to move on to when
the current patch becomes exhausted, which was fine for the aboriginals
who lived at a low population density and were ready to move as required.

But you mentioned your grazier neighbours who were burning pasture. That is
not slash and burn agriculture.

Burning pasture doesn't achieve anything like that, you are much better
slashing with a mulcher which retains nutrients and carbon in the soil.
The perpetrators are seduced by the apparent reduction of weeds and the
nice flush of new growth you can get if there is rain afterwards but in
the long run it's a loser as volatile nitrogen compounds are lost and so
is soil carbon.

Of course it's a loser in the long run, but as I said, it does add
nutrients. Anyone who does it annually is a total nong and anyone who does
do it, but doesn't ensure they do a low heat burn
is also a nong.

It would add potassium, as does wood ashes, but as mentioned, S&B is a
quick fix, and isn't sustainable. You may get some charcoal, but there
are better ways to do it.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party