RE: Who depleted New England soils?

[Guest guest]

> > ... New England has the most depleted soils in the country due to

> > its use over the longest period of time for one.

>

> Hi Wanita:

> The soil fertility pattern of the United States was determined by

two

> main climatic factors, rain and temperature, according to the soil

> scientist, Albrecht. Rainfall first constructs soil

fertility

> but it also eventually destructs soil fertility. As you go from

east

> to west in the USA, annual rainfall declines across much of the

> country. Thus, as Albrecht explains, the soils in the east were the

> most highly weathered by rainfall, while soils west of where the

> buffalo roamed received too little rainfall for soil construction,

> much less soil destruction. Heat makes matters worse in soil

> destruction, so the south east area of the USA had the worst soil,

> not New England.

> > By the way, the best soils, as Albrecht reports, were where the

bison

> roamed. They were only found in two areas in the eastern US.

> Chi

<><><><><><><><><<<<><>So Kansas had good soil once upon a time, eh?

Or was rainfall too limited here in Kansas? Dennis

[Guest guest]

That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it rains a lot? I am

moving to Oregon and would be curious about that area.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

Heidi, it sounds like you're in Oregon. Do you know what the availability of

raw dairy products, farm fresh eggs and pasture-fed beef is like in the

Portland area? I am really hoping I can find everything as I'm already used

to it!

Elaine

[Guest guest]

At 07:34 AM 9/18/2002 +0800, you wrote:

>That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it rains a lot? I am

>moving to Oregon and would be curious about that area.

>Elaine

The soils here are naturally AWFUL. Glacial area: it's all clay. And the rains

do in fact wash out nutrients at a great rate. We use groundcover plus

fertilizer/compost etc.

However, a lot of the native species just don't care. Berries, for instance,

thrive regardless.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

In read in one place it was because the European farming practices. I read in

another it was because of glaciers, and Europeans actually improved it upon

coming here.

But if it is because of rain, then certainly the vast deforestation the

Europeans have been committing since their arrival doesn't help.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>>In read in one place it was because the European farming practices. I

read in another it was because of glaciers, and Europeans actually improved

it upon coming here.

But if it is because of rain, then certainly the vast deforestation the

Europeans have been committing since their arrival doesn't help.

----->according to wharton in 10,000 years from eden, it's due to both

rainfall and depletion from centuries of intensive use since europeans first

settled the east coast. (he writes that the east has 'thin' topsoil layers

as compared to the west. and that, in 1850, after early settlers exhausted

the soil's fertility in the east, they began travelling west to Al and

Mississippi by the wagonloads in search of fertile soil.) he writes that wwI

navy inducties from *new england* had the highest rate of caries, not those

from texas. new englanders had a 75% *higher* caries rate than texans,

according to wharton - and he cites 'after albrecht, 1975' as the source of

this info. there is no 'after albrecht' in the citations at the end of the

book, but *albrecht* is cited for 1975 " The Albrecht Papers. " this seems to

be in conflict with what chi attributed to albrecht, although both sources

say where the bison roamed is the best soil. wharton (again attributing the

info to 'after albrecht') writes that the richest soils in the U.S. are

along the 98th meridian, Western longitude. (maybe chi can clear this up?)

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Well I live in the Northwest, right smack dab in the middle of Washington

state. It does not rain a lot here in the Yakima Valley, the sun shines a

lot and sagebrush grows on all the hills, lots of irrigated fields and fruit

trees and hops. It's on the eastern side of the Cascade mountains which

seems to have this shadow effect, no one can see us, even those on the

Western side don't seem to know we're here. Just needed to clear that up

about rain in the northwest. Oregon too has a dry side and a wet

side--Portland is wet.

Anyway, about soil health. I'm just starting to learn about agriculture so

am by no means an expert. However, what does seem to be clear is that if

you know what you're doing you can rebuild soil quite nicely--although the

typical chemical fertilizer and pesticide approach won't work. One thing I

am studying is biodynamic agriculture which was recently mentioned here.

Hugh Lovel (who lives and farms in Georgia) the author of " A Biodynamic

Farm " relates a story about when he was just learning and started practicing

on the yard of a home where he was renting. Here are bits and pieces of his

description:

" The back yard was shaded, but with a few spots where the soil was decent.

The front yard had been bulldozed, was steep, with hard-packed clay and

hardly anything living, even an ant. It barely supported a few tufts of

grass and some scraggly bushes...[he describes at length what he did for 2

years]....A December soil test showed the pH was 6.5 and fertility was high

across the board. Earthworms everywhere, and my soil sampling tool was easy

to push into the ground...The waving field of grain on the once barren slope

was utterly no-till, as all I had done was plant, sow, mow, spray BD preps

and spread a little compost, lime, granite and borax. I question if

cultivation could have some as much. What two years previously had been the

poorest yard on Avon street was now the most fertile. "

My take home message has been, you don't have to live with the fertility of

whatever soil you have. Just as with the body, you can take care of it with

respect, give it what it needs (and this will be different in different

places) and it will heal and produce a rich harvest.

--

-----Original Message-----

From: Elaine [mailto:emarshall@...]

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:35 PM

Subject: Re: Who depleted New England soils?

That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it rains a lot? I am

moving to Oregon and would be curious about that area.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

Thats makes sense, because Price hinted that livestock always favoured

pasture that was 'fast growing', which would indicate a higher content of

minerals, and that when they ate that grass, the best butter & cream was

made.

>From: " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Who depleted New England soils?

>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:44:35 -0000

>

>

> > ... New England has the most depleted soils in the country due to

> > its use over the longest period of time for one.

>

>Hi Wanita:

>The soil fertility pattern of the United States was determined by two

>main climatic factors, rain and temperature, according to the soil

>scientist, Albrecht. Rainfall first constructs soil fertility

>but it also eventually destructs soil fertility. As you go from east

>to west in the USA, annual rainfall declines across much of the

>country. Thus, as Albrecht explains, the soils in the east were the

>most highly weathered by rainfall, while soils west of where the

>buffalo roamed received too little rainfall for soil construction,

>much less soil destruction. Heat makes matters worse in soil

>destruction, so the south east area of the USA had the worst soil,

>not New England.

>Albrecht reports how this soil fertility pattern was reflected in the

>health of potential draftees in WWII, at a time when more food was

>still produced and eaten locally. The tooth decay rate of potentail

>draftees of and the rate of acceptance of draftees into the army were

>consistent with this soil fertility pattern of the USA. More

>potential draftees were suitable for service in the states with

>higher soil fertility, and the highest rejection rate of 70% was in a

>south eastern state.

>By the way, the best soils, as Albrecht reports, were where the bison

>roamed. They were only found in two areas in the eastern US.

>Chi

>

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Yes, i definately agree, soils can be rebuilt with enough effort. Many

people forget though that Rudolf Steiner says the minerals have to be in the

soil in order for his methods to work. The more organic matter in the soil,

the more 'leach resistant' it will be, regardless of how mush rain there is.

Animal manure is a big factor as well, for bacteria etc, Chris

>From: " Pellicer " <@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: Who depleted New England soils?

>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:50:29 -0700

>

>Well I live in the Northwest, right smack dab in the middle of Washington

>state. It does not rain a lot here in the Yakima Valley, the sun shines a

>lot and sagebrush grows on all the hills, lots of irrigated fields and

>fruit

>trees and hops. It's on the eastern side of the Cascade mountains which

>seems to have this shadow effect, no one can see us, even those on the

>Western side don't seem to know we're here. Just needed to clear that up

>about rain in the northwest. Oregon too has a dry side and a wet

>side--Portland is wet.

>

>Anyway, about soil health. I'm just starting to learn about agriculture so

>am by no means an expert. However, what does seem to be clear is that if

>you know what you're doing you can rebuild soil quite nicely--although the

>typical chemical fertilizer and pesticide approach won't work. One thing I

>am studying is biodynamic agriculture which was recently mentioned here.

>Hugh Lovel (who lives and farms in Georgia) the author of " A Biodynamic

>Farm " relates a story about when he was just learning and started

>practicing

>on the yard of a home where he was renting. Here are bits and pieces of

>his

>description:

> " The back yard was shaded, but with a few spots where the soil was decent.

>The front yard had been bulldozed, was steep, with hard-packed clay and

>hardly anything living, even an ant. It barely supported a few tufts of

>grass and some scraggly bushes...[he describes at length what he did for 2

>years]....A December soil test showed the pH was 6.5 and fertility was high

>across the board. Earthworms everywhere, and my soil sampling tool was easy

>to push into the ground...The waving field of grain on the once barren

>slope

>was utterly no-till, as all I had done was plant, sow, mow, spray BD preps

>and spread a little compost, lime, granite and borax. I question if

>cultivation could have some as much. What two years previously had been the

>poorest yard on Avon street was now the most fertile. "

>

>My take home message has been, you don't have to live with the fertility of

>whatever soil you have. Just as with the body, you can take care of it

>with

>respect, give it what it needs (and this will be different in different

>places) and it will heal and produce a rich harvest.

>

>--

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Elaine [mailto:emarshall@...]

>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:35 PM

>

>Subject: Re: Who depleted New England soils?

>

>

>That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it rains a lot? I am

>moving to Oregon and would be curious about that area.

>Elaine

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

It seems that the key is enough of the right effort. And you're right if

the minerals aren't there they need to be added, I believe that is where

various rock powders can be helpful, but you would need to add a rock powder

which had the minerals that your soil was deficient in, so not a one size

fits all solution. My main point though was that deficient, " sick " soil CAN

be rebuilt and healed, but it does take some work and some knowledge--just

like in people the " magical chemicals " won't do it and can cause more harm

than help.

--

-----Original Message-----

From: Bellanger [mailto:chrisb05@...]

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:17 PM

Subject: RE: Who depleted New England soils?

Yes, i definately agree, soils can be rebuilt with enough effort. Many

people forget though that Rudolf Steiner says the minerals have to be in the

soil in order for his methods to work. The more organic matter in the soil,

the more 'leach resistant' it will be, regardless of how mush rain there is.

Animal manure is a big factor as well, for bacteria etc, Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " dkemnitz2000 " <dkemnitz2000@y...>

wrote:

> <><><><><><<<<><>So Kansas had good soil once upon a time, eh?

> Or was rainfall too limited here in Kansas?

Hi Dennis:

It depends whether you were in the east or west of Kansas. Western

Kansas had sufficient rainfall to construct soil fertility, but not

enough to destruct it. In eastern Kansas, however, the higher

rainfall was sufficient to have started soil destruction. Bison were

found in western Kansas on the sparce grass named after them, but

they were not found on the higher yields of grass per acre in eastern

Kansas where the rainfall was higher.

The changing soil fertility was responsible for different protein

contents in wheat grown across the state. Albrecht reported in the

1940's how the protein content of wheat was declining across the

state, although western Kansas wheat still had a higher protein

content than eastern Kansas wheat. Apparently no one was concerned

then and no one is concerned now.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it

> rains a lot? I am moving to Oregon and would be

> curious about that area.

Hi Elaine:

Albrecht doesn't mention Oregon or northwest soils. However, the

western area of the USA with the best soil received about 30 inches

annual rainfall and the annual evaporation rate was greater than

that. So conditions were poor for soil erosion by water.

With a high rainfall, you could expect soils in Oregon to be

generally poor. Since water with its silt goes downhill, the best

soil fertility would likely be found in valleys. Another factor in

maintaining soil fertility is a continuous source of minerals in

unavailable form in the soil to be slowly broken out into available

form to replace what is lost. The subsoil is important in this

respect.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> But if it is because of rain, then certainly the vast

> deforestation the Europeans have been committing

> since their arrival doesn't help.

Hi Chris:

Albrecht calls forests " nature's last stand against the erosion of

soil fertility " . So when you see a forest, or a place where a forest

once was, you see low soil fertility. Cutting down a forest doesn't,

in itself, lower soil fertility. Taking away the trees you cut down

does lower it somewhat because of some soil minerals in the trees.

Cutting down a forest is not the cause of erosion by water. Low soil

fertility is the cause of erosion by water.

Chi

[Guest guest]

OK I am trying to follow all these messages, but I need a map! complete with a

legend and colors!

Grace,

a Augustine

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger.

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.

I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye.

--anonymous

----- Original Message -----

From: soilfertility

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:54 PM

Subject: Re: Who depleted New England soils?

> <><><><><><<<<><>So Kansas had good soil once upon a time, eh?

> Or was rainfall too limited here in Kansas?

Hi Dennis:

It depends whether you were in the east or west of Kansas. Western

Kansas had sufficient rainfall to construct soil fertility, but not

enough to destruct it. In eastern Kansas, however, the higher

rainfall was sufficient to have started soil destruction. Bison were

found in western Kansas on the sparce grass named after them, but

they were not found on the higher yields of grass per acre in eastern

Kansas where the rainfall was higher.

The changing soil fertility was responsible for different protein

contents in wheat grown across the state. Albrecht reported in the

1940's how the protein content of wheat was declining across the

state, although western Kansas wheat still had a higher protein

content than eastern Kansas wheat. Apparently no one was concerned

then and no one is concerned now.

Chi

[Guest guest]

---Buy the old run down soil for less money cause it takes money and

a lot of time to rebuild it even a little bit. And when you

optimisticly buy to rebuild the soil, planning to live long enough to

reap a harvest, start the project as soon as you can. It does take a

while to get a crop, but the way I figure it, some of my own crop is

much better than none. Dennis

In @y..., " Pellicer " <@H...> wrote:

> It seems that the key is enough of the right effort. And you're

right if

> the minerals aren't there they need to be added, I believe that is

where

> various rock powders can be helpful, but you would need to add a

rock powder<><<><><><><><><><>part of message clipped by

Dennis<><><><>

> --

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Bellanger [mailto:chrisb05@h...]

> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:17 PM

> @y...

> Subject: RE: Who depleted New England soils?

>

>

> Yes, i definately agree, soils can be rebuilt with enough effort.

Many

> people forget though that Rudolf Steiner says the minerals have to

be in the

> soil in order for his methods to work. The more organic matter in

the soil,

> the more 'leach resistant' it will be, regardless of how mush rain

there is.

> Animal manure is a big factor as well, for bacteria etc, Chris

<><><><><<><I agree. Animals are necessary for " proper "

soil " nutrition " . And they are costly too. We bought our first cow

about two years ago and have managed to build somewhat of a compost

pile. But we sure need a barn and more fence mainly to keep her in a

pasture atmosphere.. Dennis

[Guest guest]

I'm really bummed to hear i can't raw cow's milk in Oregon. What about raw

cow butter? I plan on doing some extensive searching when i get there. I was

hoping to buy a share of a dairy cow or something like that. I understand it

can be dangerous to share information online about where to get this stuff.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

>

> > <><><><><><<<<><>So Kansas had good soil once upon a time, eh?

> > Or was rainfall too limited here in Kansas?

>

> Hi Dennis:

> It depends whether you were in the east or west of Kansas. Western

> Kansas had sufficient rainfall to construct soil fertility, but not

> enough to destruct it. In eastern Kansas, however, the higher

> rainfall was sufficient to have started soil destruction. Bison were

> found in western Kansas on the sparce grass named after them, but

> they were not found on the higher yields of grass per acre in eastern

> Kansas where the rainfall was higher.

I find it hard to believe that the native prairie grasses would not maintain

the natural fertility of the soil. I suspect the underlying rock was

different, resulting in different fertility.

> The changing soil fertility was responsible for different protein

> contents in wheat grown across the state. Albrecht reported in the

> 1940's how the protein content of wheat was declining across the

> state, although western Kansas wheat still had a higher protein

> content than eastern Kansas wheat. Apparently no one was concerned

> then and no one is concerned now.

When men started farming the prairie then the fertility began to decline as

soil washed down the rivers and the wheat was trucked elsewhere. Likewise

the forests of New England maintained the fertility of the land as the

nutrients were sequestered in all the plant growth, but when they cut down

the trees and tried to farm the thin soils the fertility declined/washed

away. Same thing happening in the tropics when the forest are cut down. I

think it's fascinating that volcanic rock is full of minerals from the

depths of the earth and is the source of some excellent rock dusts used to

restore fertility. The other thing needed is lots of organic matter - cover

crops, weeds, trees, lots of vegetative growth.

Kris

[Guest guest]

>That is fascinating. What about the Northwest where it rains a lot? I am

>moving to Oregon and would be curious about that area.

>Elaine

Oregon really runs the gamut on rain and types of soil. We have beaches,

mountains, valleys, volcanoes and stuff in between so it depends on what

area you thinking of. You can get raw goat milks but not raw cows milk

(sort of) . Free range eggs and pastured meat is available but a bit

expensive. Of course what a person feels is expensive depends a little on

what your used to paying.

Kathy A

Oregon

[Guest guest]

Hi Elaine,

I just recently moved from Portland, Oregon (to Montana). There is raw dairy

there. Contact the chapter leader as she should be able to help you. There is

also several biodynamic farms to purchase grass fed meat from. You also have

great farmers markets and excellent natural food grocery stores (the one thing I

really miss in Montana!)

I loved Portland...it's a great city. Good luck in your move!

Take care,

Lynn

----- Original Message -----

From: Elaine

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Who depleted New England soils?

I'm really bummed to hear i can't raw cow's milk in Oregon. What about raw

cow butter? I plan on doing some extensive searching when i get there. I was

hoping to buy a share of a dairy cow or something like that. I understand it

can be dangerous to share information online about where to get this stuff.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

thank you Lynn!!!!! I was SO hoping to hear that. I heard the farmer's

market in Beaverton, where we might live, is the best in the west.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

So, in the grand sheme of things, does a forest repair the soil and bring up

leached minerals, eventually giving way to prairie, or is it the reverse? I

saw an intereting documentary once, with david attenborough, where he

described the relationship of a certain fruit bearing tree in borneo (i

think), that was only able to be eaten by local black rhinos. The black

rhinos had a habit of eating the fruit, then travelling out of the forest to

grassland areas, and planting the seeds via their droppings. They went on to

explain that because of the killing of the black rhinos, these particular

trees were likely to become extinct, because the saplings couln't survive

unless given a 'head start' outside the forest. Other similar occuerences

with other animal-plant symbiosis made me think that forests gradually

eplanded over grass lands, but perhaps its the reverse? anyone know?, Chris

>From: " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Who depleted New England soils?

>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:09:16 -0000

>

>

> > But if it is because of rain, then certainly the vast

> > deforestation the Europeans have been committing

> > since their arrival doesn't help.

>

>Hi Chris:

>Albrecht calls forests " nature's last stand against the erosion of

>soil fertility " . So when you see a forest, or a place where a forest

>once was, you see low soil fertility. Cutting down a forest doesn't,

>in itself, lower soil fertility. Taking away the trees you cut down

>does lower it somewhat because of some soil minerals in the trees.

>Cutting down a forest is not the cause of erosion by water. Low soil

>fertility is the cause of erosion by water.

>Chi

>

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

> So, in the grand sheme of things, does a forest repair the soil and bring

up

> leached minerals, eventually giving way to prairie, or is it the reverse?

The forest is the climax vegetation. If the underlying rock is rich with

minerals first grasses and little plants take hold. when they get

established they act as a nursery for the woodier plants and little trees,

if there is enough water for them to grow. then gradually the woods will

take over if conditions are favorable. The minerals are then sequestered in

the leaves and other organic matter that settles on the floor of the forest

every fall, providing nourishment for next years growth even if the soils

may be thin. If you cut down the trees and expose the earth to wind and rain

through plowing and planting row crops you can easily lose the minerals and

the organic matter that holds the minerals in a readily usable form, and

start the descent into meager infertile soils.

Kris

>I

> saw an intereting documentary once, with david attenborough, where he

> described the relationship of a certain fruit bearing tree in borneo (i

> think), that was only able to be eaten by local black rhinos. The black

> rhinos had a habit of eating the fruit, then travelling out of the forest

to

> grassland areas, and planting the seeds via their droppings. They went on

to

> explain that because of the killing of the black rhinos, these particular

> trees were likely to become extinct, because the saplings couln't survive

> unless given a 'head start' outside the forest. Other similar occuerences

> with other animal-plant symbiosis made me think that forests gradually

> eplanded over grass lands, but perhaps its the reverse? anyone know?,

Chris

>

>