Did67 wrote:Immediately two important details.
I got down to the task of envisioning a slightly different path for vegetable gardens (it's in the titles of my two books). A way of not wasting biomass energy by composting, [...]
Thank you for your answers.
Thus, there is at least 3m² of meadow per m² of garden, which is far from negligible. This for a yield per m² of vegetable garden of the same order as the cutlure, good.
Is hay in great thickness every necessary necessary over time? It makes it possible to increase the carbon rate each year, in any case, you say. it seems that we do not have to lower the doses each year: there is no reduction in the use of meadow surface to be expected in the long term.
You also speak of spontaneous grass which brings their energy. I had a garden with a thick layer of chickweed. The mourron comes on a well balanced land. It is easy to remove and makes a good salad.
But from what I understand, it won't be thick enough. Plants of several m² must be combined on one m².
I was certainly not talking about going back to the middle ages. I mentioned that, as far as I understood, a depletion of soils ended in lower yields, no need for industrial means to make an ecological shipwreck therefore, and I do not know what it is about a system based on mowing grassland.
Indeed, in the course of European agricultural history, the cultivation of legumes has overcome the problem. (Industrial fertilizers came even later to go even higher by surface rendering)
But therefore, you are not proposing to found a nourishing system, hay would be limited to vegetable gardens, this question of sustainability in the event of generalization arises less.
I have noted from your book that what comes out of the mines alters in the long term, notably the irreversible accumulation of copper in the ground (but also many other metals). to what you indicate there, what has been taken out of the mines and dispersed also conversely has a beneficial effect for the growth of plants when it comes to nutrients.