Joan Perez

I was not exactly refering to that part of the well, but congratulations, they did really a good job. We have another well that is dry most of the year that needs a maintenance job like this.

Interesting, we have an old well, done the old fashioned way (hand dug and with some kind of flat bricks- tiles on the wall) I wonder if somebody has deepened before on a dry year this kind of wall, how they've takled the masonry on the new lower part of the wall (the new bricks adhering to the old upoer ones an fitting to the new bottom.

Buff. In not all the countries it's so easy to own/find a firearm, here in Catalonia (Spain at the moment) is imposible to find a firearm on a pawn shop. I don't have a gun license, but licenses are hard to get, shotgun is the easiest (you can own a 12 caliber shotgun much easier than a 22 rifle, but you still need to do a psychological exam and justify that you own a hunting license, and have an interview with the police)... A handgun is almost imposible, you have to be a member of the police or have your life treatened in order to be able to legally own a handgun. That's the reason that I was asking for those calibers. I was wondering the 20 shotgun with birdshot... If the moment arrive, maybe I give it a try before with a piece of meat with bones, and I feed it to the dogs. Many thanks for he answer, though.

Bryant RedHawk wrote:Using even a 22 mag can send skull fragments into the meat of the hog thus ruining the shoulders and other parts. A 22 Long Rifle is all that is needed.

Larger calibers will push many bone fragments into the hogs shoulders and chest areas, making a mess of your carcass.

The only time to use larger than a 22 LR is if you are hunting wild, feral hogs. In which case you want to drop them fast because a wounded hog is quite dangerous.

Redhawk

Thanks, I was asking those calibers because it is what I can borrow from my family.

What about something larger like a 20 or 12 gauge shotgun or a 243 win; too much damage? we don't have a pig yet .

At the moment I don't have chickens, but I do have a plan to have a flock in the future. I wonder if there is any breed of chicken that have been developed only by the taste.

If I put 10 different breeds in a tractor or a paddock and I feed them the same, they will develope different tastes at harvesting time? I mean I can distinguish the taste of a duck to a chicken or a quail to a partridge. Independent of size or if one meat is leaner than the other... If so, which is the best breed, just for taste?

They have already some natural mountains in the northeast and I don't think they are getting enough water catchment.

I think they would bé far better building desalinization plans powered by solar energy.

Mike Gaughan wrote:I've read Solomon's The Intelligent Gardener and found it to be generally scientifically valid, at least as far as the basic topic of cation exchange. His formulas for mineral additions are strongly based on Albrecht's theories, and are also in-line with Michael Astera's recommendations. For an excellent overview of soil remineralization, check out Astera's article at http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010178.better.than.organic.pdf.

I implemented Soloman's concept in my garden this year, beginning with a soil test from Logan Labs. I worked through the formulas for each nutrient and came up with a prescription for my soils. Some materials such as lime were available at my local garden center. I ordered other materials, such as copper sulfate and zinc sulfate, from Alpha Chemicals http://alphachemicals.com/home. I tilled them into garden this spring. I can't really say I noticed any difference in plant growth as compared to previous years; however, we had a trying spring/early summer here in central CT. The season started with an extended cold, dry spring, then a mid-spring heat wave, followed by intense heat waves in July. August (so far) has seen seasonal temperatures and excellent growth. I have noticed that some of the veggies have been especially tasty, including the broccoli and tomatoes. I don't know this is the result of the additional of minerals or the plant varieties. It is difficult to put my finger on whether the performance of the plants is the result of re-mineralization or other factors such as weather or variety.

My big issue with the Soloman method is that the refined mineral salts he recommends, such as copper sulfate, are soluble in water. A tablespoon of copper sulfate will dissolve in a glass of water just like regular table salt. So, if I were to apply copper sulfate powder to my soil and then some big rains came through, the material would, worst case, leach right out of the root zone of the soil. Soloman would argue that the cation exchange capacity of the soil would trap the copper sulfate and prevent leaching. In fact, Soloman's prescriptions are such that you only add the quantity of minerals that can be trapped by your soil. I hope it works! Another approach, such as that espoused by Eliot Coleman, is to add rock dusts (finely ground rock, as opposed to refined salts) that are insoluble in water but release their minerals through biological processes. The theory here is that rock powders will slowly break down over time, providing a long-lasting source of minerals. The Soloman method seems more short term.

The trick with the Coleman method is finding natural rock powders that contain minerals in the right proportions needed by your soil. For example, greensand (recommended by Coleman) contains a lot of potassium and micronutrients (good) but also has a high percentage of magnesium. My soil test says my soil is already too high in magnesium, so adding greensand would throw the soil out of whack with regards to the very important calcium:magnesium ratio. With the Soloman method, you can tailor your mineral additions so you get just the right amounts of calcium, potassium, phosphorous, sulfur, mangesium, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, and sodium.

My plan for next year is to add biochar and bentonite clay to my compost pile to drastically increase the cation exchange capacity. I will then add the minerals to the compost, let it sit for a while, then add the whole mix to the garden. I hope this approach will minimize leaching of the relatively expensive mineral powers and provide the greatest benefit to my plants.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading!

Really interesting that somebody here is trying the Solomon's/Albrecht methods. What kind of soil do you have? Sandy, Clayey? What's the size of the garden you're experimenting with?

I'll be following up your experiences.

Mike Gaughan wrote:To the original poster, your comparison of Solomon and Savory is interesting...Savory is lobbying that controlled grazing with cattle is the key to revegetation of the deserts and controlling climate change (Google his now famous TED Talk). On the other hand, Solomon argues (in The Intelligent Gardener, I believe) that soil improvement through controlled grazing is a myth. This is a topic where Soloman may be out of his league. His knowledge of gardening and basic soil chemistry is very strong, but his opinions on grazing do not appear to be in line with other sources I've read. Of course, some of those other sources include Joel Salatin, who is trying to sell books on rotational grazing. And Solomon is trying to sell books on gardening. Both Solomon and Salatin, however, do seem to possess altruistic motives to improve the world through better agriculture. But from my standpoint, where is that fuzzy line between science and marketing?

Good topic, Daniel. Thanks for bringing this up!

I've read the Intelligent gardener and althought I enjoyed as well, I didn't agree with Solomon's opinion on grazing. Which he went so far to say that grazing could contribute to the deterioration of soil and depletion of minerals. Which I believe that it could happen only in a heavy grazing situation with consequent erosion and in a long term scal. And more, if having a full reminalizated soil is so good for the nutrition value of the vegetables we eat. Then, if we are omnivores; it should be passed to the grasses that our animals eat and on to the nutritional value of the meat that we eat.

Landon Sunrich wrote:So I'm slamming my head over not being able to figure out how to get pictures up / adding potassium (in the form of wood ash and bio char) to my bed when apparently that can be an issue with wood core beds - but I am keeping up on the discussion here. I am looking forward to checking out (literally. from a library) 'The Intelligent Gardener'. Cation Exchange is a concept I am familiar with - but still don't completely understand. Anyway...

My assumption has always been that the wood core filled with split exposed grain wood - in my case the addition of wood chips - would slow and 'catch' minerals being leached. Especially those being added in the form of a soil amendment. Like, if I put on a good dose of blood meal onto loose sand on top of clay, water is going to sweep all of those minerals away - but if there is something for it to soak into - like wood - it should be more or less bound there until accessed by a plant, fungus, whatever. I mean a Huglekulture or any other wood based bed is going to be fairly thick. Mine is at least 3 feet think - so that water has quite a bit of organic mater to work through before it finds a way to run out of the system. I think wood chips are key here though too - I mean it provides a whole lot of surface area and water -saturated with whatever it picks up - is going to be caught and trapped by it.

Is my thinking wrong here?

I think that biochar will not increase a lot the potassium content of the soil. The beauty of the biochar is that thanks to its structure, will increase the cation exchange capacity of the soil, preventing the leaching of those precious minerals and it will be at the same time a good habitat for the beneficial funghi, bacteria and microorganisms.