Conservation agriculture

[perseus]

[...]

And indeed, one day, I wrote it somewhere about Portugal, the further south you go, the more relevant an agroforestry with "the right density of trees" is.

[...]

Hello,

In terms of grape production, in the Mediterranean arc, the vine has long been cultivated in Hautain (let's not forget that it is a liana) to wind up on trees, we speak of "d 'enforcado' in Portugal. Today there are some vineyards with a pergola cultivation method and food crops at the foot. This is the case in Madeira on certain terraces.
With the famous Mediterranean trilogy (wheat, vine, olives), there were recurring associations between these cultures.
We could also mention, I think, the case of Coltura promiscua in Italy.
[Url] https://www.persee.fr/doc/bagf_0004-532 ... 5_278_7578

@+
[/ Url]

[Did67]

Gaps! (For an agronomist). I did not know these systems.

But indeed, they corroborate what I was saying - the further south you go, the more "share" the light, and "lessen" the effects of its excesses is relevant.

In the far south, I have traveled a bit, daydreaming in the oases of southern Algeria (Gardaïa, Timimoun, In Salah ...) and there, culture on at least three levels, when there is a source of water (which is then the most precious thing), is essential. It is an absolutely amazing form of agroforestry based on palm trees ...

So again, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying watch out for "unique models" ...

And in particular, the further north one goes, the less relevant "stacking" becomes for light sharing reasons. Whereas water, we have it! (normally !!!!).

[Moindreffor]

basically our elders were doing agroforestry without knowing it like Monsieur Jourdain
the progress of science makes it possible to understand why a system used at the beginning in an empirical way really works (good to understand better, we do not know everything yet)
as Didier explains to us why the use of hay is so beneficial, while Ruth has done this empirically with real success, the whole thing now is to move the lines, the most difficult being to remove the blinders from some

[izentrop]

At the level of grape production, in the Mediterranean arc, the vine has long been cultivated in Hautain (let's not forget that it is a liana) to be wound on trees,

Like here

The cost of harvesting deters from returning to this method, but pruning weakens the vine, is what says the specialist and researcher Marceau Bourdarias who comes next.

A new 10:30 am video on the day yesterday with more speakers who bring interesting elements on the "4 per thousand" and the MSV

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Gaps! (For an agronomist). I did not know these systems.

But indeed, they corroborate what I was saying - the further south you go, the more "share" the light, and "lessen" the effects of its excesses is relevant.

In the far south, I have traveled a bit, daydreaming in the oases of southern Algeria (Gardaïa, Timimoun, In Salah ...) and there, culture on at least three levels, when there is a source of water (which is then the most precious thing), is essential. It is an absolutely amazing form of agroforestry based on palm trees ...

So again, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying watch out for "unique models" ...

And in particular, the further north one goes, the less relevant "stacking" becomes for light sharing reasons. Whereas water, we have it! (normally !!!!).

The evolution of agricultural techniques (and diktats) has led to a forced separation of crops: for "bad" reasons, yields, maintenance, mechanization, various and varied treatments ...

It became difficult to treat the vines in the middle of olive trees and vice versa ...


That said, in the vegetable gardens, we also mix quite a bit of layering by making the "low clods" like radishes and salads coexist with lianas and tomatoes (among others) over 2m high.

[Did67]

basically our elders were doing agroforestry without knowing it like Mr. Jourdain ...

And we have been making cheeses or yogurts for a long time before the discovery of lactobacillus, alcohols (with everything and anything around the world) before knowing that there are yeasts ...

Now, be careful not to fall into the "it was better before" or "you just have to look at what the elders were doing!" Because they did, bullshit. Would only be plowing, for what interests me.

And if they did not use pesticides, it is because we had not "invented" them. Look at the use that has been made of arsenic powders against Colorado beetles, or nicotine against insects ...

I was recently at the École du Breuil (famous school of Agriculture at the edge of the Bois de Vincennes) and I was shown glass plates, ancestors of our dias (themselves ancestors of our powerpoints!) where the technicians were doing (a priori in the inter-war period) soil working tests with ... dynamite!

I have already quoted the passage from the famous agricultural book of the 30s, I believe, where there was a chapter on "radioactive fertilizers" !!!

Our ancestors did beautiful things, sometimes without knowing. And monumental bullshit, usually without knowing.

[Moindreffor]

That said, in the vegetable gardens, we also mix quite a bit of layering by making the "low clods" like radishes and salads coexist with lianas and tomatoes (among others) over 2m high.

yes we should also think about it, the oar beans could be used as a shade for salads, for example

[Julienmos]

like, weird, by quickly hovering over the beginning of this video

I come across the intervention of the lady, who towards 45:

pretty much says this

humic substances are artefacts ...
organic mat stable in soils, they are not humic substances "

further on, she says some interesting things, supported by graphics ...

eg: "reducing tillage only has the effect of concentrating the OM on the surface"

"if we want to store carbon efficiently, we must store by the root" etc.

[Moindreffor]

basically our elders were doing agroforestry without knowing it like Mr. Jourdain ...

And we have been making cheeses or yogurts for a long time before the discovery of lactobacillus, alcohols (with everything and anything around the world) before knowing that there are yeasts ...

Now, be careful not to fall into the "it was better before" or "you just have to look at what the elders were doing!" Because they did, bullshit. Would only be plowing, for what interests me.

And if they did not use pesticides, it is because we had not "invented" them. Look at the use that has been made of arsenic powders against Colorado beetles, or nicotine against insects ...

I was recently at the École du Breuil (famous school of Agriculture at the edge of the Bois de Vincennes) and I was shown glass plates, ancestors of our dias (themselves ancestors of our powerpoints!) where the technicians were doing (a priori in the inter-war period) soil working tests with ... dynamite!

I have already quoted the passage from the famous agricultural book of the 30s, I believe, where there was a chapter on "radioactive fertilizers" !!!

Our ancestors did beautiful things, sometimes without knowing. And monumental bullshit, usually without knowing.

I think the beginning of the industrial era was, the beginning of everything is possible and we have to mass produce, so we have to try everything and when I say everything it's everything and especially anything
the beginning of this period is also the beginning of the desire for industrial enrichment, the first world war was an accelerator of the good as bullshit

[Did67]

humic substances are artefacts ...
organic mat stable in soils, they are not humic substances "

I only listened to the passage in question ... This lady is a teacher at AgroParisTech (formerly INA Paris-Grigon, the elite school of "agros") and researcher at INRA-Versailles [see: http://siafee.agroparistech.fr/chenu-claire]

This would have deserved explanations, but it was not a priori the "command" ...

I am not sure that the subject is not a little too focused on an idea ...

Let's go anyway, without a net:

a) there are different humic substances, assimilated to large molecules (of the "polymer" type), which can be distinguished by their solubility in different solvents; these substances are characterized by different shades (yellow, brown, brown, black ...).

b) I don't think she disputes the existence of these humic substances; I don't think that's the meaning that should be given to his enigmatic "humic substances, it's an artefact ..." ...

c) on its slide, the term "neoformation of humic substances" is crossed out; this term refers to one of the theories explaining the formation of humic substances

d) I wrote it in my book, and one or the other time here: we still do not have a credible theory on the formation of these substances; one of the theories was that of "neoformation"; basically, microorganisms dismantle organic matter and "manufacture" from scratch, in a way, these complex molecules ...

I don't have the information [the majority of books, including "living soil," which is an 800-page bible, still cite this theory] that this theory would be invalidated. But this is not shocking or surprising, as we could not see (can we see?) Not very clear ...

e) therefore, subject to all reservations, I interpret its "artefact" as meaning that currently, humic substances come from a "reorganization" of certain fibrous molecules, an artefact meaning a little "residues", or "waste" ...

The rest of what I saw is very good framing. No complaints.

We generally find the way of seeing that I have described several times:

- "labile" compartment; materials that break down quickly (soluble, green, protein); which are food for microorganisms, and therefore "source of biodiversity"; these organisms, while feeding, produce glues, which participate in the structuring (creation of a good structure, which I call aggradation); by primary mineralization, nutrients are obtained ...

- the stable compartment; materials very slow to decompose; therefore not very nutritious, therefore little "stimulation of microbial life" (5Salducci), therefore little "biodiversity" (here) but it is roughly the same thing; on the other hand, these macromolecules have lots of positive effects (generally attributed to humus - in the sense of agronomists - therefore "humic substances" that it lists: water retention, retention of mineral elements, stabilization of the structure of the share, amalgamate clays, etc ...

I have already drawn your attention several times to the fact that it is not just humic substances. There are glomalins (which are polysaccharides - therefore "sugars"). Other glues are glycoproteins (therefore associations between carbohydrates and proteins).

For that, I do not think that it questions the humic substances, even if the words are ambiguous.

And don't put more emphasis on the fact that it would be sugars - I think if she says so, she has research results on it, or knowledge of results. It may be a scientific fact. Imagine that glucose molecules are stashed at the bottom of clay sheets, where no one catches them, not even microorganisms. Suddenly, thus "sequestered", they become "eternal". For science it is important. In practice, I do not see the practical consequence, since it is sequestered. So in a cabin. So no effect.

Beware of the postures of scientists, who can "study" the color of the chafer's whiskers ... And find in Vanuatu a chafer with gray whiskers! So what ????

UNDER ALL RESERVATIONS.

If our "source" VetusLignum goes through this, maybe he has some info that I don't have ???