Double the nutrients in your pasture.
 

It's taken 500 years to learn what the Native Americans already knew.

I was watching a agriculture show over the weekend and they was talking about the good effects burn control has over land. When you burn the dead grass off pastures, or leaves in the forrest, it creates room for new growth to sprout up and this new growth has almost twice the amount of nutrients in it. They recommend to burn yearly if you can or at least every other year.

They've been studying how the native americans use to do things before the invasion of European settlers and they've discovered the Native Americans purty much had it all figured out. They done massive burnings all over the country and this is believed why wild game was so abundant everywhere when the Europeans and spainards first arrived.

So if you don't practice burn control already, you might think about it.

It is a pretty big practice throughout the great plains but once you get outside the "grass lands" burning doesn't seem to be as accepted. The absence of fire is the main cause of the horrible infestation of Eastern Red Cedar hurting TX,OKand KS.

I would think you would know that weve had a burn ban here for most of the year, and its still on. I finally got my brush pile burnt after they lifted it for 2 days.

I wouldn't mind trying it....but not sure it would be allowed here either. Though my soil is so sandy, I think any plant matter left on would do it good too. Why/how does burning double the nutrients?

There is a lot of talk about this recently. At the core of the positive, charcoal stays intact in the soil much longer than mulch or decaying organic matter, and it not only aerates the soil but grabs and holds many of the nutrients, just like the charcoal in a charcoal water filter will grab the stuff in your water that you don't want to drink.

According to many sources, the burning that the Indians did was continent wide, and the supposed "old growth" forests of New England were not, but were managed woodland.

Many people have "uncontrolled" burns in the Spring when they are burning their trash pile and some hot embers fly into the dead grass. I doubt the Indians had much control of what burnt, they probably just lit the dead stuff on fire with the wind blowing away from their encampment and watched the flames go.

There was a neighbor out by my wife's parents that almost yearly had a brush fire or field fire in the Spring - and not on purpose of course. They always seemed to decide to burn their trash on a windy, dry day in the Spring and low and behold their woods or fields would be on fire later and they would have to call the fire department. Apparently they never figured out what "caused" those woods or fields fires. :rolleyes:

That's the only problem with burning - the fire can easily get away from you.

Well, 500 years and our native indians still don't know how to control their fires when they do their ritual "spring cleanse" Every year at least one fire gets out of control and spreads out of the reserve.
There has been fires for the last 30 -40 years or so that smolder underground in peatmoss in the winter and surface again when the ground dries.
The only thing the fires do good for around here is blueberries and wild mushrooms.

They are still trying to figure this out in places like California and Florida. The more you stop the smaller annual brushfires, the bigger and badder they become. One of my old Scout Masters worked for the Florida Fish & Game Commission. The Florida sand pine won't open its cone to release the seeds unless it hits 500* F. IOW it needs fire to reproduce. The fewer tall pines you have, the denser the underbrush gets and - poof. You have a REAL fire on your hands. 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.

Here are some pictures of prairie fires. This is a yearly event in this area. It controls weeds and weed trees. It is very easy to tell which pastures are not burned. They become full of cedar trees.

After a burn in the spring, the ground is black, then, after a few days it is a bright emerald green. All of the old dry grass and weeds are gone, and the new grass grows fast and lush. It is so pretty and even prettier if there is a herd of cattle grazing on it.

http://library.duke.edu/exhibits/lar...oto-index.html

People are trying to stop the prairie burns because of the smoke.

My granddaddy burned every year. He rotated his pastures so that each one was burned every couple of years or so. He had some of the most gorgeous and lush pastures in the county. We have burned here when we could, but seems like whenever they lift the burn ban the wind is blowing too hard. So it has been a couple years since we burned a field. It does work wonders though. Blessings, Kat

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

I can see burning to clean up a pasture area but I dont' see that it will double the nutrients. Any sources on that? How is it any different than mowing?

In the U.P. field burning is listed as an acceptable agricultural practice, in the Right to Farm Act. We normally only get one cutting of hay and there is plenty of re-growth from August to the first killing frost in October. Timothy, Clovers and Trefoil reseed themselves during this time.

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

The downside is that it destroys any decaying plant material that would aid soil quality. The ash often runs off with the first big rain.

But there is no dead stuff in the hay.

There are many interesting ways the natives subsisted. It was a great advantage that they lived in population densities of 500 square miles per person.

Most environmentalists would be shocked to see what they do to birch trees to make a canoe. Around here they burned vast areas of wetlands to encourage the wild blueberries.

Most natives traveled/migrated great distances. They often had virgin soil to grow crops on. Around here, large quantities of fish were used as fertilizer.

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......

Might be interesting to burn a small test plot in the middle of your field for a few years and just see if there is any difference...

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

There was an article a while back in Mother Earth News about biochar and the benefits of burning. Burning makes some of the nutrients more available to the plants. I just gave away all my MEN mags, so I can't go look up the issue, but I'm sure if you do some real research you will find plenty of into that confirms that burning off a field will improve fertility for a while.

I just burned my garden off the day before yesterday. There were some weeds that I was having trouble getting rid of and I think the burn did the job. So hopefully when I turn it under in the spring I will have a better garden.

I read a book a few years ago about the Americas before Columbus and this was covered. According to the book, land and the environment had been carefully altered, used and shaped for thousands of years before Spanish settlers arrived here. It wasn't the pristine, untouched 100% virgin land depicted in history books.

It was interesting to read about a soil technique used by South American people who were living in the dense tropical forests with very poor soil. They actually altered the soil and were able to grow large amounts of crops to support large populations. If I remember correctly, it was some sort of cultivation done with composting.

lisa's garden

With the turn over of the garden soil in the Spring are you not giving all the suppressed undesirable seed a chance to germinate?

If you want to read about improvement in soil google terra preta. Those folks had a good thing going for them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You must read the same journals I do...

:happy:

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

I have nothing against indians. 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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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