"Terryc" <newsthreespam-spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47fecd4d$0$18353$c30e37c6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charlie wrote:
>....Snip....
I concur with the idea that char or charcoal probably have no real effect
at
all on nutrient supply and if any only a minor part. Charcoal is a good
substance to grab nasties hence why it is used in water filters but have
to
be changed regularly too work correctly.
The idea that floodplains were extremely rich and that charcoal or char
was
found would not be the reason for the fertility. A true floodplain is
enriched by flooding, nutrient and silt movement along a watercourse. Also
surrounding hills that are covered in trees will have a nutrient flow all
of
their own. This is due to the mulching effect of leaves, weeds and
gr*****.
Also the areas are natural systems where birds, insects, microfauna and
animals add to nutrient buildup. Rains will carry this down to the flood
plains. Also water tables will be recharged with fresh water along the
way.
Problem is most farms used the flood plains as their production area. They
have drained them and caused problems with erosion. Here in Australia
farmers were encouraged to clear the land before claiming it as their own.
The hills that were treed lost the soil they had built up and are now down
to bedrock or very rocky. Salinity is another big issue that has arisen.
The indigenous folk being hunters and gathers burnt vast tracks of land.
Char and charcoal would have been in the floodplains as well. This has
only
encouraged plants that survive here to need fire to regenerate.
My thoughts are keep the ground covered by gr*****, shrubs, trees and
mulches. Also incor****ate animals, worms, birds and insects then your soil
health will be the best and improve with each year. Adding charcoal and or
char wouldn't be needed because the plants will be storing carbon.
|
