> I'd be interested in learning what
> it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ
> - in the soil - as against ahead of time.
> Evidence from the literature?
I've successfully resisted the impulse to do an Agricola search, but I
took a fair amount of soil science as a student, and have been in touch
with "conventional" agricultural science for some time. The
"conventional" wisdom is that rough organic matter is too valuable to
consume in a pile, generally speaking. It is better placed (or left)
in, or even better ON the soil, to protect it from rain and sunlight,
and provide improved structure and microbiological activity.
The exceptions fall into two categories: 1) logistical, 2) pathological.
An example of logistical exception is the production of too much biomass
for a production system to handle, such as in grass seed production.
The straw MUST be removed (to allow sustained seed production), and in a
practical sense, it can either be burned, composted or fed.
An example of a pathological exception is the composting of sugar beet
tare waste (diseased beets and soil from who-knows-what farm).
Composting in sufficiently large piles, generates plenty of heat to
destroy nematodes and diseases. The tare waste can then be spread
The conventional wisdom, dictated mainly be economics, is to leave as
much in the field as possible, and this goes for manure too.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command