Re: crop rotation

December 10, 2001

> I was wondering... Someone had mentioned crop rotation as not being

good for the soil. What resources are there for studying this?

(online or book) I would love to do a study on this and find out

more. Thanks

Hi a:

When I stated that crop rotation was not good for soil, I couldn't

remember where the reference was in " The Albrecht Papers " . I finally

found it in Volume II, page 100, " ROTATIONS, THE QUICKEST WAY TO MINE

THE SOIL " . Here is the start:

" How the belief and the implicit faith in crop rotations as a help in

maintaining the soil's productive capacity became so well established

is difficult to understand. It is self-evident from industry that one

cannot produce and ship out a manufactured product regularly without

bringing in raw materials continually. Surely agricultural production

via soil as the factory is no exception. Yet in an extensive

reference work published no later than 1954, there is the following

statement un the heading of 'Maintenance of Soil Productivity " . The

writer says, 'Improved crop rotations are of greater importance than

any single practice...It would be impossible to over-emphasize the

importance of crop rotation to control diseases, maintain fertility,

prevent erosion and maintain soil structure. Each farmer and gardener

must learn which rotations are best for his soil.'

This contention implies that the mere rotation, or a kind of crop

juggling, does good, per se, for the soil. According to the results

from long continued cropping on many experimental station fields,

quite the opposite is the truth. Rotations are the speediest way to

exhaust the soil's productivity. They do not maintain the fertility

of the farmer's soil. He himself must do that in terms of both its

inorganic and organic matters returned for their maintenance as the

supplies that are built into the crops. "

The data which Albrecht then presents came from over 50 years of

studying soil fertility decline at the Missouri Agricultural

Experiment Station comparing, since 1888, rotation of 2,3,4 and 6

years in length with various combinations of crops being rotated with

continuous cropping, again with various crops.

Chi

December 10, 2001

Of course, the conclusions that *just* rotating crops is bad for the

soil are completely obvious. But does anyone (seriously interested in

sustainability) propose that? It seems to me that the argument is

that you get the most out of the land while, perhaps, simultaneously

refreshing it through things like composts, pasturing, and leaving

unused for a while.

Why would anyone deliberately read the argument of the sustainability

people in terms of *just* rotating?

Soren

> > I was wondering... Someone had mentioned crop rotation as not

being

> good for the soil. What resources are there for studying this?

> (online or book) I would love to do a study on this and find out

> more. Thanks

>

> Hi a:

> When I stated that crop rotation was not good for soil, I couldn't

> remember where the reference was in " The Albrecht Papers " . I

finally

> found it in Volume II, page 100, " ROTATIONS, THE QUICKEST WAY TO

MINE

> THE SOIL " . Here is the start:

> " How the belief and the implicit faith in crop rotations as a help

in

> maintaining the soil's productive capacity became so well

established

> is difficult to understand. It is self-evident from industry that

one

> cannot produce and ship out a manufactured product regularly

without

> bringing in raw materials continually. Surely agricultural

production

> via soil as the factory is no exception. Yet in an extensive

> reference work published no later than 1954, there is the following

> statement un the heading of 'Maintenance of Soil Productivity " . The

> writer says, 'Improved crop rotations are of greater importance

than

> any single practice...It would be impossible to over-emphasize the

> importance of crop rotation to control diseases, maintain

fertility,

> prevent erosion and maintain soil structure. Each farmer and

gardener

> must learn which rotations are best for his soil.'

> This contention implies that the mere rotation, or a kind of crop

> juggling, does good, per se, for the soil. According to the results

> from long continued cropping on many experimental station fields,

> quite the opposite is the truth. Rotations are the speediest way to

> exhaust the soil's productivity. They do not maintain the fertility

> of the farmer's soil. He himself must do that in terms of both its

> inorganic and organic matters returned for their maintenance as the

> supplies that are built into the crops. "

> The data which Albrecht then presents came from over 50 years of

> studying soil fertility decline at the Missouri Agricultural

> Experiment Station comparing, since 1888, rotation of 2,3,4 and 6

> years in length with various combinations of crops being rotated

with

> continuous cropping, again with various crops.

> Chi

December 11, 2001

> Of course, the conclusions that *just* rotating crops is bad for

> the soil are completely obvious. But does anyone (seriously

> interested in sustainability) propose that? It seems to me

> that the argument is that you get the most out of the land

> while, perhaps, simultaneously refreshing it through things

> like composts, pasturing, and leaving unused for a while.

> Why would anyone deliberately read the argument of the

> sustainability people in terms of *just* rotating?

Hi Soren:

The issue under discussion was whether crop rotation was better for

the soil than continuous cropping. The issue was not whether farmers

should rotate crops without " refreshing " it.

In my experience, it seems that many organic farmers believe that

crop rotation is better than continuous cropping for the soil. The

evidence from these long term scientific studies shows that crop

rotations mine the soil faster than continuous cropping. Hence, I

guess many organic farmers believe in mining their soil faster as

part of their sustainability program.

Chi

December 11, 2001

> > Of course, the conclusions that *just* rotating crops is bad for

> > the soil are completely obvious. But does anyone (seriously

> > interested in sustainability) propose that? It seems to me

> > that the argument is that you get the most out of the land

> > while, perhaps, simultaneously refreshing it through things

> > like composts, pasturing, and leaving unused for a while.

> > Why would anyone deliberately read the argument of the

> > sustainability people in terms of *just* rotating?

>

> Hi Soren:

> The issue under discussion was whether crop rotation was better for

> the soil than continuous cropping. The issue was not whether

farmers

> should rotate crops without " refreshing " it.

> In my experience, it seems that many organic farmers believe that

> crop rotation is better than continuous cropping for the soil. The

> evidence from these long term scientific studies shows that crop

> rotations mine the soil faster than continuous cropping. Hence, I

> guess many organic farmers believe in mining their soil faster as

> part of their sustainability program.

I'm sorry. I think this is very strange. Every farmer that I know

that practices rotation understands it as one of a number of

practices used to manage soil fertility. You can certainly study it

in isolation and discuss what it does (and isn't Albrecht's

conclusion obvious?). But that doesn't mean that it describes

anything that anyone actually does.

Therefore, it would seem like the meaningful question is, " in the

context of a set of practices like leaving fallow (and possibly using

for pasture), cover cropping and green manures, using compost, using

manure, other fertilizers (ground stones, various preparations,

etc.), etc. does rotation have a net beneficial effect " .

This is more sensible for a number of reasons. Among them, a lot of

sustainability types understand pest and weed control in terms of

managing certain balances in the soil that are easier to manage via

rotation (precisely because it " mines " (could we pick a less

perjorative term here?) so well).

Talking about rotation being bad for soil fertility without the ways

that it's used seems to me to be telling, at best, a highly

misleading half-truth.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the the world should operate on a

corn-and-soy rotation, but rather that the blanket statement doesn't

seem meaningful because rotation is one of a number of strategies for

managing a number of things.

Soren

December 11, 2001

> I'm sorry. I think this is very strange. Every farmer that I know

> that practices rotation understands it as one of a number of

> practices used to manage soil fertility. You can certainly study it

> in isolation and discuss what it does (and isn't Albrecht's

> conclusion obvious?). But that doesn't mean that it describes

> anything that anyone actually does.

Hi Soren:

Perhaps it would be better to say that every farmer that you know

that practices rotation misunderstands it as one of a number of

practices used to manage soil fertility.

> Therefore, it would seem like the meaningful question is, " in the

> context of a set of practices like leaving fallow (and possibly

> using for pasture), cover cropping and green manures,

> using compost, using manure, other fertilizers (ground stones,

> various preparations, etc.), etc. does rotation have

> a net beneficial effect " .

Yes, it would seem like the meaningful question is, " in the context

of a set of practices like leaving fallow (and possibly using for

pasture), cover cropping and green manures, using compost, using

manure, other fertilizers (ground stones, various preparations,

etc.), etc. does rotation have a net beneficial effect compared to

continuous cropping. "

The answer is no.

> This is more sensible for a number of reasons. Among them, a lot of

> sustainability types understand pest and weed control in terms of

> managing certain balances in the soil that are easier to manage via

> rotation (precisely because it " mines " (could we pick a less

> perjorative term here?) so well).

Instead of calling it mining perhaps we could say growing any crop,

vegetable or animal, in a soil removes minerals or other nutrients

from the soil off the farm and hence depletes the soil of elements of

soil fertility. The question remains the same, however, which lowers

soil fertility faster, crop rotation or continuous cropping?

> Talking about rotation being bad for soil fertility

> without the ways that it's used seems to me to be

> telling, at best, a highly misleading half-truth.

On the contrary, saying that crop rotation is better for the soil

than continuous cropping is a highly misleading untruth.

Chi

December 11, 2001

My argument was (correct me if I'm wrong) (1) that crop rotation is

one of a number of tools that, in aggregate, farmers find to lead to

*sustainable productivity* (note, *not* soil fertility specifically)

from their soil and (2) that looking at crop rotation outside of that

context may be misleading.

Your response asserted that I was wrong without correcting any part

of the argument or the data (however anecdotal) that the argument was

based on.

I don't know how to proceed in this discussion

> > I'm sorry. I think this is very strange. Every farmer that I know

> > that practices rotation understands it as one of a number of

> > practices used to manage soil fertility. You can certainly study

it

> > in isolation and discuss what it does (and isn't Albrecht's

> > conclusion obvious?). But that doesn't mean that it describes

> > anything that anyone actually does.

>

> Hi Soren:

> Perhaps it would be better to say that every farmer that you know

> that practices rotation misunderstands it as one of a number of

> practices used to manage soil fertility.

>

> > Therefore, it would seem like the meaningful question is, " in the

> > context of a set of practices like leaving fallow (and possibly

> > using for pasture), cover cropping and green manures,

> > using compost, using manure, other fertilizers (ground stones,

> > various preparations, etc.), etc. does rotation have

> > a net beneficial effect " .

>

> Yes, it would seem like the meaningful question is, " in the context

> of a set of practices like leaving fallow (and possibly using for

> pasture), cover cropping and green manures, using compost, using

> manure, other fertilizers (ground stones, various preparations,

> etc.), etc. does rotation have a net beneficial effect compared to

> continuous cropping. "

> The answer is no.

>

> > This is more sensible for a number of reasons. Among them, a lot

of

> > sustainability types understand pest and weed control in terms of

> > managing certain balances in the soil that are easier to manage

via

> > rotation (precisely because it " mines " (could we pick a less

> > perjorative term here?) so well).

>

> Instead of calling it mining perhaps we could say growing any crop,

> vegetable or animal, in a soil removes minerals or other nutrients

> from the soil off the farm and hence depletes the soil of elements

of

> soil fertility. The question remains the same, however, which

lowers

> soil fertility faster, crop rotation or continuous cropping?

>

> > Talking about rotation being bad for soil fertility

> > without the ways that it's used seems to me to be

> > telling, at best, a highly misleading half-truth.

>

> On the contrary, saying that crop rotation is better for the soil

> than continuous cropping is a highly misleading untruth.

> Chi

December 11, 2001

> My argument was (correct me if I'm wrong) (1) that crop

> rotation is one of a number of tools that, in aggregate,

> farmers find to lead to *sustainable productivity*

> (note, *not* soil fertility specifically)from their soil and

> (2) that looking at crop rotation outside of that

> context may be misleading.

Hi Soren:

Are you asserting that crop rotation is a better tool than continuous

cropping when the goal is *sustainable productivity*?

If so, then you must believe that a tool than depletes the soil

fertility faster is a wise part of a *sustainable productivity*

program.

If you are using a number of tools to do a job, you might want to

question if all the tools you are using are the most efficient to do

that job. To say one tool you realize is inefficient, but other tools

you use help make up for that, doesn't really seem to make a lot of

sense when you could replace that tool with what you know is a better

tool for the job.

Whatever nutrients reomved from the soil by continuous cropping are

going to be easier to replace than the greater amount removed by crop

rotation.

> Your response asserted that I was wrong without correcting any part

> of the argument or the data (however anecdotal) that the argument

> was based on.

My statement that you were wrong that crop rotation has a net

beneficial effect compared to continuous cropping in the context of a

set of practices that you identified, was based on the evidence I

referenced from Volume II of " The Albrecht Papers " . If you have

evidence that refutes that evidence, please state your reference.

> I don't know how to proceed in this discussion

It was someone else who asked for the reference for the evidence that

crop rotation is harder on soil than continuous cropping. The

question was asked as a result of my bringing up this issue before. I

responded to the request after I was finally able to find my

reference (I don't have all four volumes of " The Albrecht Papers "

memorized).

You chose to join the discussion and disagree with Albrecht's

position as supported by the scientific evidence he presented in his

paper. If you have evidence that Albrecht is wrong, please proceed by

presenting the evidence. Once many people believed the earth was

flat, but that didn't make it flat. Many organic farmers may believe

that crop rotation is better than continuous cropping for a variety

of reasons. But that doesn't make it so.

Chi

December 12, 2001

> It was someone else who asked for the reference for the evidence

that

> crop rotation is harder on soil than continuous cropping. The

> question was asked as a result of my bringing up this issue before.

I

> responded to the request after I was finally able to find my

> reference (I don't have all four volumes of " The Albrecht Papers "

> memorized).

> You chose to join the discussion and disagree with Albrecht's

> position as supported by the scientific evidence he presented in

his

> paper. If you have evidence that Albrecht is wrong, please proceed

by

> presenting the evidence.

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's

completely obvious that crop rotation lowers the total nutrient level

in the soil (modulo the funny cases like nitrogen fixing due to

legumes).

Without some sort of replenishment scheme, just single-cropping is

going to do some really bad stuff too. So the question for managing a

farm is: how does the nutrient replenishment interact with nutrient

extraction?

My problem with the statement " single-cropping is better than

rotation for managing soil fertility " is that neither of them address

the problem. The a replenishment strategy is needed to address the

problem. And then there may be good reasons to do crop rotations.

May. I don't know. My only evidence is that everyone that I've ever

met seems to think that crop rotation of some sort of really good for

them. And that there are a lot of clear problems with single-cropping

(like, for example, erosion problems due to the soil being exposed

when stuff isn't growing in it)

So, you see, I'm agreeing with you and Albrecht, but I'm wondering

how meaningful his conclusion is, in the end.

Soren

December 13, 2001

> You seem to be missing what I'm saying.

> I'm saying that it's completely obvious that crop

> rotation lowers the total nutrient level in the soil

> (modulo the funny cases like nitrogen fixing due to legumes).

Hi Soren:

Nitrogen fixation takes place in the soil without legumes. Legumes do

not fix nitrogen in low soil fertility, instead they grow as if they

were non-legumes. Legumes do not improve soil fertility as they

demand more from the soil than non-legumes.

> Without some sort of replenishment scheme, just

> single-cropping is going to do some really bad stuff too.

> So the question for managing a farm is: how does the nutrient

> replenishment interact with nutrient extraction?

Your question, " how does the nutrient replenishment ineract with

nutrient extraction? " , was not the issue here. The issue was, in

managing soil fertility, which is the better strategy, crop rotaion

or continuous cropping?

> My problem with the statement " single-cropping is better than

> rotation for managing soil fertility " is that neither

> of them address the problem. The a replenishment strategy is

> needed to address the problem. And then there may be good

> reasons to do crop rotations. May. I don't know. My only

> evidence is that everyone that I've ever met seems to think

> that crop rotation of some sort of really good for them.

> And that there are a lot of clear problems with single-cropping

> (like, for example, erosion problems due to the

> soil being exposed when stuff isn't growing in it)

> So, you see, I'm agreeing with you and Albrecht, but I'm wondering

> how meaningful his conclusion is, in the end.

In managing soil fertility each superior choice in soil management

should be supported by evidence. Albrecht showed almost 50 years ago

that there is no evidence to support rotating crops instead of

continuous cropping in managing soil fertility and that, on the

contrary, the evidence shows that continuous cropping is superior to

crop rotation in maintaining soil fertility regardless of what other

strategies are employed.

By the way, in replenishing soil fertility, most farmers are doing a

poor job because overall soil fertility values are declining. Instead

of restoring soil fertility (which also maintains nutritional

values), farmers have been, for a long time, switching crops. Long

before GMOs, farmers have been switching to hybrid crops instead of

restoring soil fertility. Hybrid crops have primarily been designed

to produce high yields, even in lowered soil fertility, with no

regard to declining nutritional values. To grow a hybid organically

is a cruel joke as far as I am concerned. It's like producing " grass

fed " meat or raw milk on low soil fertility.

If everyone you have ever met thinks that crop rotation is good for

some reason, please go and ask one of them for the reasons that they

think crop rotation is better than continuous cropping. Then post the

reasons here.

Perhaps you could explain why soil erosion is only a problem with

continuous cropping and not with crop rotation. If a crop is removed,

soil is exposed regardless of what was grown there the previous year.

Soil erosion in not related to continuous cropping or crop rotation.

The primary cause of soil erosion is low soil fertility. It really is

worth studying Albrecht to see how many things commonly

believed are the opposite of the truth.

Chi

December 13, 2001

Hybrid crops have primarily been designed

to produce high yields, even in lowered soil fertility, with no

regard to declining nutritional values.

Guess I always realized this, but didn't think of this if that makes any

sense...

I have also wondered about the lazy farmer strategy..Letting the animals out to

graze and then they naturally fertilize the ground if this would be enough to

call it good enough for now.

There are also other considerations. We have depleted our soil so much that

there are not enough earthworms doing their job adding to soil fertility. The

bacteria in the soil is off balance and not able to do its job. Then there are

the theories of the moon and the planets and their role on soil fertility. So it

goes from very tiny to very large influences on the soil to keep it fertile. and

I am sure we do not know all the influences on the soil there are to keep it

happy.

I do not know how long it would take to get everything back in the soil again so

it can work naturally again, but I know on a farm it will take over 18 years. Of

course a little garden area may be able to be worked on with lots of TLC and not

take as long as a farm.

Grace,

a Augustine

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger.

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.

I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye.

--anonymous

----- Original Message -----

From: soilfertility

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:47 PM

Subject: Re: crop rotation