Double the nutrients in your pasture.

Molly Mckee · #21 01/10/12, 10:55 AM

Burning here can get you a thousand dollar fine--plus the cost of putting out the fire. You start a fire that gets out of control and you could lose everything you have as well as anything you could have in the future. A western wildfire is something you do not want to start. Check the local laws before you start any fire.

You might think about any neighbors before you light a fire as well. While burning in WA has been illegal for over 30 years, ID grass farmers burn their grass fields. If you have ever been caught it one of these fires and you have any type of breathing problems, it is like try to breath with your head in a 5 gallon bucket of water. Several people have died in the last 10 years or so because they have a preexisting condition and are caught in the smoke from grass burning. Any benefits of burning are not worth the problems caused by
burning in the dryer west. If you don't like the brush that is growing in your pasture, get a goat or mow.

haypoint · #22 01/10/12, 11:01 AM

I think I remember an article about adding charcoal to soil. Perhaps the slash and burn of the rain forests is a model we can all aspire to.

The natives around here migrated south to Grand Haven, Grand Rapids and Chicago (roughly translated, Skunk River). They'd come north and garden near Petoskey and fish around St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie. They traveled light, never figured out iron. They never hunted or fished for more than a few days worth of food. as a result, starvation was the main cause of death. So, with starvation close at hand and violent tribes murdering each other the life span, pre-white man, was under 35 years of age.

While most have assimilated, there remains a tendencency to not "put up" for the future. For some, once they are paid, there is no sense of urgency to return to employment. This cultural difference is often seen by whites to be a streak of lazyness.

There is a vast swamp near me that the local nativies would set afire each spring. It kept brush down and the wild blueberries thrived. But there have not been any fires there in 30 years. Homes have been built near that area. A fire today would be a horrific blaze.

haypoint · #23 01/10/12, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micheal

Around here it's not standard practice to burn off fields..... in fact it's against the law. Although it's one law they only enforce if the fire dept is called out, then the land owner could be charged with arson or at least charged and fined for having an uncontrolled fire......

That was the reason farmers made sure this practice was included in the list of normal accepted farm practices.
Farmers are still responsable if a fire getss out of control. Generally, if the fire jumps a fence line it just burns someone else's hay field.

Hollowdweller · #24 01/10/12, 11:11 AM

So how exactly does the burning help nutrients? Does the alkaline ash help sweeten the land or something?

I'd think if it was very hot that it would burn up the organic matter and lead to erosion on anything but totally flat land.

Around here a lot of people burn off banks and steep places so they don't have to mow or weed eat them but then often I notice those very places after prolonged rains slide because the fire has killed the plants holding the soil on the hill.

Allen W · #25 01/10/12, 11:23 AM

Go back and read the op again people. It doesn't say it increases the nutrients in the ground it says the new plant growth has almost twice the nutrients of the old growth.

The prairie here was shaped by fire and can still be shaped by fire. I plan on participating in the act in a couple of months. Doing some prep work now.

**highlands** · #26 01/10/12, 01:19 PM

Careful about putting our native american ancestors on too high a pedestal. These were the same people who drove horses to extinction in the Americas long ago, drove huge herds of bison off cliff just to eat small amounts and were generally pretty destructive of nature. In all the political correctness it tends to get forgotten that they weren't saints.

haypoint · #27 01/10/12, 03:03 PM

Burning releases the potash in the plant ash. Just as wood ash sweetens the ph level of soil, so does this ash.
Trading the organic matter for potash and lime in a form that can be quickly lost through rain.

farmerDale · #28 01/10/12, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highlands

Careful about putting our native american ancestors on too high a pedestal. These were the same people who drove horses to extinction in the Americas long ago, drove huge herds of bison off cliff just to eat small amounts and were generally pretty destructive of nature. In all the political correctness it tends to get forgotten that they weren't saints.

You must read the same journals I do...

Oldcountryboy · #29 01/10/12, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manawar

The difference is the Indians didn't have to deal with dense, permanent human populations. The more people you have, the more resistance to controlled burns, until finally Mother Nature has it Her way.
Oh well, live and learn.

That's the problem these days. I'd love to burn the forrest off behind my house due to the amount of underbrush and fallen limbs that have taken over, but on the edges of the forrest is many homes. I'd hate to be responsible for burning someones home down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Blazes

Contact your local AG extension and Volunteer fire dept. Both can help slash burn your property, sometimes for free or for a small donation. Fire depts use it as a training day, around here anyway. We used to burn our hay fields every 3 years, however I dont recall buring off the pastures

Same here. However, my place is so small I usually burn mine off in little plots at a time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

In the spring, fields are burned, getting rid of all dead plant material. The ash is high in potash, a vital nutrient.
.

Callie, heres the answer to your question. Exactly what they mentioned on the show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

It will not doube the nutrients. There is no physical way. And secondly, if anyone cared to actualy read some history of what the natives lived like before white settlement, they would be surprised to find that the white men found prairie natives wandering aimlessly, haf starving most of the time. They would burn aimessly, with no scientific reason, it was a spiritual thing generally, meant to "cleanse" the land, or simply fires that "got away". and then they would wonder where the bison went, and stumble around in a stupor looking for their next meal.

It was not the romantic notion most are led to believe. Pick up a journal by some of the early explorers. The natives strugged constanty to survive, and were frequenty starving. Some made the mistake to depend on the natives who they thought knew this land, and nearly died of starvation. There are also several theories that the bison actually became more numerous after white folks arrived as it appears that coincidentally climate shifted at this time to a moister climate overall, and with less drought, bison numbers exploded. But that is another topic for another day!

Back to burning... The reason burnt areas "look" more lush and green, is that they are warmer earlier in the spring, and there is not Nitrogen tieup by decomposing residue. So it appears they are healthier, greener. but long term burning is hell on soil organic matter, so in the longer term, you are making your soil worse. You are also opening it up for erosion. And doubling of nutrients? Where are these nutrients coming from pray tell? Thin air? Ash? The flames themselves? When you burn, the nitrogen is Poof! The phosphate and potassium are left behind in the ash, which most blows off the land before it can be reincorperated by rains.

Green and lush, sure, but the soil is then being mined, and the reasons are certainly not due to double the nutrients, but due to a lack of nitrogen tie-up, a warmer start, less physical restriction to the grass, and of course, in the absence of dead residue from previous years, and on bare soil, grass always "looks" greener and healthier, just because all that is there is green grass, not grass mixed with residue.

My 2 pennies I never picked up.

And just my opinion, giver!

Dale

Oh my, sounds like someone has it in for the injuns! Still having shootouts up there in Canada, Dale?

You did mention one thing the show mentioned. The chard grass does absorb sun heat and warms up the ground making the new grass to sprout faster

Quote:

Originally Posted by highlands

Careful about putting our native american ancestors on too high a pedestal. These were the same people who drove horses to extinction in the Americas long ago, drove huge herds of bison off cliff just to eat small amounts and were generally pretty destructive of nature. In all the political correctness it tends to get forgotten that they weren't saints.

Yep, just about like every race on earth has done in their own place of resident. And nothing hasn't changed much has it?

Oldcountryboy · #30 01/10/12, 07:55 PM

Hey everyone. I'm only trying to repeat what I heard or think I heard on a agriculture show that comes on every Sunday afternoon here in my neck of the woods. I'm just passing this along to those people that might find it interesting and may want to try to use the method on their homestead.

As for the nutrient level. They mentioned the nutrient level being 7 to 9 percent on sprouts coming up on unburned pastures, while burned pastures was showing measurements of 14 to 17 percent. How they figure all that stuff out is beyond my intelligence.

farmerDale · #31 01/10/12, 07:56 PM

I have nothing against indians. I have issues with befouled history though.

Oldcountryboy · #32 01/10/12, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

I have issues with befouled history though.

Wow, you must really lose a lot of sleep when you think about all the altered history lessons of the early european settlers that was taught to everyone in public schools. Uh, like General George Washington crossed the Delaware river while standing on the front of a V-hull boat, when the real history was that he crossed the river on a flat barge and probably didn't stand up at all until it was time to get off.

I could go on and on about befouled early european settler history we've had to learn but I don't want you to lose anymore sleep. Don't want you to die of sleep apnea!

farmerDale · #33 01/10/12, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldcountryboy

Wow, you must really lose a lot of sleep when you think about all the altered history lessons of the early european settlers that was taught to everyone in public schools. Uh, like General George Washington crossed the Delaware river while standing on the front of a V-hull boat, when the real history was that he crossed the river on a flat barge and probably didn't stand up at all until it was time to get off.

I could go on and on about befouled early european settler history we've had to learn but I don't want you to lose anymore sleep. Don't want you to die of sleep apnea!

Bless your heart, I don't want to die in my sleep either.

texican · #34 01/10/12, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldcountryboy

Wow, you must really lose a lot of sleep when you think about all the altered history lessons of the early european settlers that was taught to everyone in public schools. Uh, like General George Washington crossed the Delaware river while standing on the front of a V-hull boat, when the real history was that he crossed the river on a flat barge and probably didn't stand up at all until it was time to get off.

I could go on and on about befouled early european settler history we've had to learn but I don't want you to lose anymore sleep. Don't want you to die of sleep apnea!

I thought he crossed in a Bassmaster deluxe with a 90hp Mercury outboard....

Seriously, what brought that up? Do believe he was simply clarifying that American Natives weren't saints, and did whatever they could to survive.

Imho, they weren't burning the land to make it 'better'... they were burning to make game easier to hunt...

As I have two lines of Native American bloodlines (GGGrandma's) I can say it...

American history? I think it behooves everyone to study it in depth and detail, reading as many original sources as possible. I came 'this close' to getting a MA in history.

Ed Norman · #35 01/10/12, 10:55 PM

With a little study, people would find that the natives were regular people who did the best they could with what they had. Also, with every one of them building fires every day, some are gonna get away from them and burn. With a good south wind, they could burn from OK to Canada pretty easy. There are old references to the prairie grasses being up to the horse's withers, I imagine they would get real tired of walking around in that every day.

We burn our pastures every few years. Many ranches here burn them almost every year. They also burn all the irrigation canals. A courtesy call to the sheriff before you light up is always appreciated by them.

partndn · #36 01/10/12, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

It will not doube the nutrients. There is no physical way. And secondly, if anyone cared to actualy read some history of what the natives lived like before white settlement, they would be surprised to find that the white men found prairie natives wandering aimlessly, haf starving most of the time. They would burn aimessly, with no scientific reason, it was a spiritual thing generally, meant to "cleanse" the land, or simply fires that "got away". and then they would wonder where the bison went, and stumble around in a stupor looking for their next meal.

It was not the romantic notion most are led to believe. Pick up a journal by some of the early explorers. The natives strugged constanty to survive, and were frequenty starving. Some made the mistake to depend on the natives who they thought knew this land, and nearly died of starvation. There are also several theories that the bison actually became more numerous after white folks arrived as it appears that coincidentally climate shifted at this time to a moister climate overall, and with less drought, bison numbers exploded. But that is another topic for another day!
....shortened quote
My 2 pennies I never picked up.
And just my opinion, giver!

Dale

That there is a whole lot more than "clarifying they were not saints."

It's okay to disagree with some of the popular historic interpretations. I'm sure many are quite embelished and flat out incorrect. But disagreeing doesn't make you right, especially when that opinion is based on some guys' (explorer's journals?) interpretations who likely had minimal communication tools with the different language, an entirely different cultural and spiritual background, etc.

rambler · #37 01/11/12, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

Bless your heart, I don't want to die in my sleep either.

And here I thought a person had to be over 500 miles south of me to get the conotation of that phrase right - you did well eh?

Thanks for the laugh.

Burning the grass/weeds off will quick-release some of the nutirients to allow good grass growth the following year, but it short-changes the soil a bit in that now those nutrients won't be added to the soil slowly. As well a little bit of the nutrients fly away with the smoke, and it opens up the ground to erosion for a while.

So, like anything, can be some pluses and minuses. Burning can have some benefits, if you watch out for the negatives as well.

--->Paul

farmerDale · #38 01/11/12, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partndn

That there is a whole lot more than "clarifying they were not saints."

It's okay to disagree with some of the popular historic interpretations. I'm sure many are quite embelished and flat out incorrect. But disagreeing doesn't make you right, especially when that opinion is based on some guys' (explorer's journals?) interpretations who likely had minimal communication tools with the different language, an entirely different cultural and spiritual background, etc.

Have you read about Henry Kelsey, the discoverer of the Canadian prairies in 1690? or read his journals? What about Palliser? Kelsey was the First contact with the western natives in Canada. He knew several languages and depended on his friends the stone indians to guide him. Unfortunately for 200 or more miles, he saw nothing for wildife, and had to eat 4 pigeons, grass, and bark to get by until they finally came upon some large "beasts".

I am simply stating what these gentlemen saw when they arrived on the prairies: Half starving, nearly dead indians, who wandered aimlessly, hoping to come upon prey, which it appears was far less abundant than it was in the 1800's.

Sorry if this offends some peoples sensibilities, but these prairie natives did not farm, they did not build permanent shelters, they wandered. They were different than their eastern and western counterparts who farmed, built frame homes, and didn't wander to the same extent.

farmerDale · #39 01/11/12, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncocasey

Old country boy I'm with you on this one. Seems like old Dale and Texican have issues with native Americans. I'm all about the off the grid thing but these two knot heads need to come out from under their rock and follow the trail back to town. wandering aimlessly and half starved give me a break.

I'm not that old, really, 35. And I have zero issues with indians. I have worked with them, for them, and they for me, I go to church with them, deal with them, and many are a good people.

Read my above post regarding these journals. They wandered aimlessly and were usually half starved. Had they not been, they would have had a formidable population, and a higher technology than they were able to aquire. They had no choice in ancient times: they had to concentrate so hard for survival, that they were cheated out of some of the finer things in life, not due to anything but the fact they lived in one of the most inhospitable regions in the world.

But because they were usually very short on food, they had very low population growth, very low life expectancy, etc.

One more thing the early explorers found when they were surveying the plains area, is that several, not all, of the tribes were constantly looking for war, in order to expand their ranges. Scalping and scalps were trophies to the young braves, and were worn in adornment as a badge of honor.

Just some interesting side facts. In fact, Kelsey was sent not to explore, but to promote peace between the blackfoot tribes and the cree tribes, so that they would be amenable to trade with, not to mention to save his friends lives from being wasted on war. Because to Kelsey, for two years, these natives were all he had, his family. He came ALONE. I can not imagine that life!

Talk about living off the grid!

I apologize for offending your sensibilities with facts as well, broncocasey, but would recommend any of these journals as excellent reading. Absolutely fascinating.

Dale

broncocasey · #40 01/11/12, 12:44 AM

Dale you can probably find several instances of Europeans wandering aimlessly and half starved and disease ridden but i don't understand what it has to do with burning pastures to improve the nutrients. May I recommend adding Wed. church service to you're Sun. service. lol