Le Potager du Sloth: Gardening without fatigue more than Bio

[Moindreffor]

and all that with a single must of the left hand
we understand you Didier, especially who manages his mount goes far

[Ahmed]

... who is cleaning Moindrefforwho cleans ...

[Did67]

and all that with a single must of the left hand

But in several days!

Since that day, I sometimes leave my team and without moving my shoulder too much, I can chat again with two hands!

[Did67]

Being forced to redefine priorities while you feared to be bored here is a nice snub at retirement ...

But it is indeed a retirement luxury! As long as I was "in business", I often had little choice (even if, undoubtedly, driven by projects that were always exciting although often complicated, I had to do too much; in any case more. I was asked). There, I pay myself the luxury of saying: "Slowly guys, I am no longer able to keep up the pace, and even if it excites me even more, I refuse to put myself in the red, having understood that I sometimes flirted with the ripe orange! "

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

and all that with a single must of the left hand

But in several days!

Since that day, I sometimes leave my team and without moving my shoulder too much, I can chat again with two hands!

Try to put yourself in bepo it's less tiring than the azerty

If you take a look at it you will soon see the logic far superior to the anarchy of the azerty

[Moindreffor]

... who is cleaning Moindrefforwho cleans ...

I did not want to talk about cleaning Didier, everyone knows that cleaning is not for these gentlemen

[Moindreffor]

Being forced to redefine priorities while you feared to be bored here is a nice snub at retirement ...

But it is indeed a retirement luxury! As long as I was "in business", I often had little choice (even if, undoubtedly, driven by projects that were always exciting although often complicated, I had to do too much; in any case more. I was asked). There, I pay myself the luxury of saying: "Slowly guys, I am no longer able to keep up the pace, and even if it excites me even more, I refuse to put myself in the red, having understood that I sometimes flirted with the ripe orange! "

sometimes we talk about devouring passion, it's not for nothing,
being able to say "NO" or "STOP" has become a real luxury, it's a shame because by always wanting more we get so little, every physicist knows it well, the more you pull on the rope the more the traction force must be important for a very reduced elongation, with the risk of rupture, but who still knows reason to keep

[Did67]

if Didier looks at it I would like him to tell me what he thinks about it [/ quote]

I watched it. That's not the one I saw.

A constructed answer would lead me to write a booklet!

I can summarize as follows: some beautiful intuitions and many approximations in the concepts or notions used. Which, for me, discredits the rest.

Some examples :

a) the richness of a place, its fertility, is linked to nutrients [for me it is a conventional view, very reductive, even if it is not false; this is an important factor, but not the only one; the intensity of biological life, the ability to store water, exposure are other elements; in soil "poor" in P, mycorrhizae find P and the plant does not suffer from it!]

b) how odd it is to call any vegetable food "fruit" [even if we tend to say the "fruit" of one's labor, I will not call a carrot a fruit; if you want to explain clearly, you have to use clear concepts and the right words; otherwise, sooner or later it's bouillabaisse!]

And a confusion between "sugars" (carbohydrates): cellulose, like starch, is a sugar (a long chain of molecules of glucose in a certain chemical form - which differentiates from starch); lignin is not a "sugar" (carbohydrate) at all, it is a polyphenol (a macromolecule or polymer, the precursor of which is phenylalanine, a amino acid !!!); he puts it in the same bag ...

c) I have developed somewhere my way of understanding the notion of humus - if anyone will search and paste it below; we have here a good example of how by putting the word to all the sauces and by navigating between all the senses (the humus of the pedologists, of which the "mull" evoked at one time; the humus of the agronomists, which has colloidal properties , evoked to others and the happy comes and goes between all that; no, there is no rapid mineralization of humus in the agronomic sense; there are more or less decomposed organic matter, which mineralizes quickly - evoked as primary mineralization which has nothing to do with humification; and there is a small part of the organic matter, instead of being mineralized, which will serve as a basis for the synthesis of molecules called "humic substances ", including gray humic acids, fulvic acids, brown humic acids, and humin; all humification does not lead to humin, which is indeed a somewhat blocked form of humic substances, not very interesting ...

In short, even if the whole is not appalling, it is a bouillabaisse where an agronomist does not find his vegetables!

d) organic matter and humic substances are not "digested by plants"; plants, via rhizosphere and mycorrhizae, maintain the mineralization of these substances, on which they actually feed; this mineralization is 1 to 2% per year, possibly 3 or 4 in intensive systems with irrigation and tillage in hot regions ...

Even if some organic molecules also pass from living organisms and mycorrhizae to plants, generally as "messengers" (polypeptides in particular).

(e) green manures, with little fiber, produce very little humus (in the agronomic sense, and it is not a humus, in the pedological sense either); it is above all a fresh and aqueous organic matter, which will mineralize very quickly, in the weeks / months which follow ...

For me, its role is twofold: to trap nitrates (and avoid their leaching) and feed the cohort of living organisms of the soil by rhizodeposition (the excretion of sugars), while producing on the spot part of the biomass necessary for good system operation.

f) the passage over the deserts and the equator is very approximate and there, we can say, to; check on a globe; the tropics generate deserts across the globe, in the northern and southern hemispheres; the equator throughout the globe is synonymous with humid vegetation; but the cause is not the plants, even if it contributes to it; the cause is the large global movements of the air, with at the level of the tropics, convergences of humid masses which "go up" and then it rains; and then there is abundant vegetation; in the tropics, it is the reverse, the cold air descends, heats up, dries up and dries up the earth; not enough water therefore very little biomass; the reversal of the truth that he is doing there is ubiquitous; f even when man massacres the equatorial forest, the climate remains humid ...


We could also discuss the passage concerning anaerobic digestion digestates. But that interests us little. Just to let you know: a digester works with strict anaerobic bacteria, which die very quickly in the presence of oxygen; I don't think that a spreading of digestates "seeds" the soil with these bacteria, which will die almost instantly. I do not know the passage of Bourguignon where it underlines the dangerousness of the spraying. I can only imagine one thing: the criticism, justified, of the spraying carried out in waterlogged soils, in conditions of appalling settlements, as practiced by some German stations. There, yes, it is a disaster. But not intrinsically because of the digestates. Because of the appalling conditions and the absence of very restrictive regulations (in France, spreading is regulated; the Obernai Agricultural College station has a storage capacity of 6 months, to be able to do it at the right time, excluding asphyxiation soil). But I don't know what Bourguignon said about it.

[Julienmos]

for Didier:

I asked a small question, but not important (compost) so let's move on.

but above all, it would be really good if you could give us your opinion on K Schreiber's video by JP Bord (plants grow alone)...
I looked at it, but with KS it's always the same: hang on to pick!

you at least, you know how to explain, you are rigorous, clear and precise, and you do not neglect the details.

In this video there are a number of "surprising" things I find ... and hard to believe ... or (very likely) I don't quite understand.

[Julienmos]

c) I developed somewhere my way of understanding the notion of humus - if someone wants to look well and paste it below ; we have here a good example of how by putting the word to all the sauces and by navigating between all the senses (the humus of the pedologists, of which the "mull" evoked at one time; the humus of the agronomists, which has colloidal properties , evoked to others and the happy comes and goes between all that; no, there is no rapid mineralization of humus in the agronomic sense; there are more or less decomposed organic matter, which mineralizes quickly - evoked as primary mineralization which has nothing to do with humification; and there is a small part of the organic matter, instead of being mineralized, which will serve as a basis for the synthesis of molecules called "humic substances ", including gray humic acids, fulvic acids, brown humic acids, and humin; all humification does not lead to humin, which is indeed a somewhat blocked form of humic substances, not very interesting ...

this passage eg (but there are other posts on it)

"Always the same confusion, giving the same delusions, around the term humus!

a) soil scientists' humus is a "horizon" (a layer of soil) in unworked soils; organic matter accumulates there and begins to decompose; natural phenomena then lead to mixtures, entrainments of elements towards the lower layers which are "horizons" of accumulation ...

In this sense, there is no real "humus" in a cultivated area.

http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitst ... sequence = 1 [see p 8 and following pdf].

We can, by analogy, consider that the layer of hay and the first cm of loose soil where the bulk of the debris overwashes are "anthropogenic humus". Measuring thickness does not make sense.

b) agronomists' humus, which are macro-molecules with particular properties - colloidal, dark, adsorption ... -; there are different kinds of humus (which I call "humic substances": gray humic acids, brown humic acids, fulvic acids, humus ... These substances are distinguished by different physico-chemical characteristics (solubility in various solvents, density , molecular mass, chemical composition - phenolic nuclei, etc ... In short, each has its "humus" which results from the synthesis made by soil organisms with the "debris" resulting from the decomposition of organic matter, mainly cellulose and lignin , which contain the phenolic nuclei that are difficult to destroy ...

These substances color the floors dark.

The "properties" attributed to humus are in fact those of humic substances: adsorption, water retention, stabilization of biological life, flocculation in the presence of Ca ++, buffering capacity, etc.

They represent less than 2 to 3% of a soil. And there is always a balance between the synthesis of humic substances by soil organisms and destruction by others ... These substances mix with the clays to form a kind of "amalgam", the "argilo- complex. humic "(which we always draw as a circle, but which obviously is not round). These humic substances do not accumulate. And do not be measured in cm, nor will we measure in cm the dye that soaks for example a leather that we wear.

Let say. These are people who rave about words whose meaning he does not understand. There are unfortunately many, including a few organic "popes".

The ignorance and the resulting bouillabaisse is that the term humus is incorrectly applied to "organic matter more or less decomposed or more or less decomposing" (without precise characteristics). However, this does not correspond to either definition. Everyone will hand out their handful of decomposing organic material and tell you "smells like humus" [when it is the smell of geosmin, a particular bine molecule synthesized by soil bacteria ( improperly still called actinomycetes, which suggests that they are fungi when they have been reclassified in bacteria - filamentous, hence the confusion - and that they are now sometimes called actinobacteria)]. "