Instead of calling this new method the ConcreteBlock method let us call
it
by its more appropriate names -- MowingFarming. Or call it Renewable
Farming since never any herbicide or fertilizer is bought and used.
The ConcreteBlock are really not needed to do Mowing farming or to do
this RenewableFarming because if one is careful enough they can mow
between rows of a crop without ever mowing and damaging the crop and
can weed and shear without ever using any concreteblock.

The ConcreteBlock in RenewableFarming is meant to aid and assist the
farmer
when he mows the weeds/grasses that will make the fertilizer. The
Concrete
Block make it easier to farm so that the farmer can more easily mow,
weed,
plant etc etc.

And for poor countries that cannot afford concreteblock for its farmers,

they need not have any in order to farm this method. They just have to
be more careful.

The essence of RenewableFarming is to space the crop so that the weeds
and
grasses between the crop is mowed and this mowed clippings become the
fertilizer of the crop. Thus in one stroke is eliminated the need to
apply
a herbicide and the need to apply fertilizer in the PetrolBased Farm
method.
And since herbicide and fertilizer is never needed, there is no need for
the
tractor or any heavy equipment. We eliminate all petrol using machinery.

In fact, the cost of a excellent Honda lawnmower that does run on petrol

is cheaper in taking care of a acre of land in mowing during the summer
than
the cost of herbicide and fertilizer and the application thereof.

The reason for this post is that the essence of this new way of farming
is not
to be framed around the ConcreteBlock but rather the essence of this new

way is that we eliminate herbicide and fertilizer in farming by the
practice of
mowing the weeds and grasses between crop rows. In Renewable Farming
we never need to apply herbicide or fertilizer to our farm fields.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I have some Scott's brand lawn fertilizer. I like it because it is slow
release
nitrogen in granular form and I like it because I can walk around wearing
gloves and pitch the granular fertilizer.
I do not remember what the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium numbers are for
this Scott's brand fertilizer. Probably 10 nitrogen. Will find out today.

What I do need to know is what equivalency there is between a sack of
Scott's
fertilizer to that of weed/grass mower clippings? Are they equivalent by
weight
as per the nitrogen? I need to know how wide a row spacing needs to be in
order
to mow the grass/weeds and to properly fertilize the crop row throughout
the
summer.

I do know that corn requires more mowed clippings as fertilizer than does
soybeans. But I need quantitive data as to the fertilizer content of mowed
clippings. And I would not be surprized at all to find that no scientist to
date
has done the work of finding out what that equivalency is. Not suprized
because
the 20th century farming with its huge emphasis on petrol and chemicals for

farming that data as to simply using weeds as fertilizer would be
suppressed
data and research and information.

When farming uses tons and tons and tons of herbicide, and someone
comes along and says, hey, that is silly when all you need to do is mow
between rows and you have your weed and fertilizer problem solved in
one stroke.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The fertilizer I use is 32 Nitrogen, 3 phosphate, 10 potassium and 5 sulfur of

a Scotts brand lawn fertilizer. I like it because I can handle it so easily to
put
onto my trees and shrubs and because it is slow release. Evergreens and fruit
trees love it.

Now I wonder whether grass/weed clippings in mowing during the summertime
can equal any of that 32,3,10,5? I suppose the 32 and 3 and 10 can be matched
by a weight of grass/weed clippings? Given 1 gram of the 32 nitrogen Scotts
fertilizer than perhaps 10 grams of grass/weed clippings equals one to the
other
as far as nitrogen?

I would need a detailed research for the Equivalency of commercial fertilizer
to
mowed clippings.

And also another detailed research as to whether a legume mowing (have legume
in rows between the crop) provides not only nitrogen fertilizer for the crop
but
that the clippings of the legume are sold as feed. So that the crop field has
two
crops simultaneously. It has the corn and it has the alfalfa which is kept
mowed
and sold as feed and the corn utilizes the nitrogen fixing of the alfalfa
roots. Clover maybe better than alfalfa in that it does not take up as much
water from
the corn crop.

We might find out that grass and weed strips to be mowed for fertilizer is not

the optimum but rather a legume strip so that the legume root system does the
fertilizing and the clippings can be sold as an extra cash crop. Gee, the
University
Aggie schools across the USA have really been a Rip Van Winkle asleep for the
20th century but then again, the 20th century was the mass-waste of petrol
where
people in science and government thought that fusion would save our future.
None of them ever had the thought that perhaps commercial fusion will never
exist and that when the oil reserves are depleted -- (as Bugs Bunny would
say--
that's all folks).

I am surprized that no-one has really done the research as to combining
herbicide
and fertilizer into one step in the Renewable Mowing Farm Method. But then
again all eyes were trained on the bare dirt ground with applying herbicides
and
applying fertilizer during the 20th century. Anyone suggesting that Mowing
Farming was better would have been run over by a tractor.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies