Gardening with Nature - How to Grow Your Own Vegetables, Fruit and Flowers by Natural Methods

Leonard Wickenden

• Publisher: Moran Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781447498223
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Horticulture
• Index: Biological Sciences

"Gardening With Nature" is a classic guide to growing fruit, vegetables and flowers with a focus on using mainly natural means. With simple, step-by-step instructions and helpful diagrams, this volume is ideal for the eco-friendly gardeners with little previous experience. Contents include: "Fundamentals", "Preparing and Repairing the Soil", "The Care of Seedlings", "Beginning the Young Plant Through Infancy", "Vegetables – What to Grow", "Vegetables – How to Grow Them", "The Flower Garden – The Lawn", "Small Fruits", "Large Fruits – Reclaiming Old Orchards", "Herbs – How t Grow Them", etc. Many vintage books such as this are increasingly scarce and expensive. It is with this in mind that we are republishing this volume now in an affordable, modern, high-quality edition complete with a specially-commissioned new introduction on the history of gardening.

CHAPTER 1

FUNDAMENTALS

What is Soil?–How Formed, How Destroyed–Restoring Worn–out Soil–Minerals–Use of Rocks–Lime–Nature’s Method of Maintaining Fertility–Soil Analysis

Seated at my desk starting to write this book on how to run an organic garden, I am trying to form a mental picture of you, the reader. My trouble is that you keep changing. First I see you as someone like myself, living in the country with a flower, fruit and vegetable garden about an acre in extent and with plenty of room to expand if you wish to do so. Then you suddenly become a town-dweller or a suburbanite with a garden 25 ft. × 100 ft., anxious to produce in the plot at the back of your house such a mass of blooms that your neighbours will come to see and to marvel. Next, I am disconcerted to find that you are not interested in flowers; what you want is fresh produce that will bring food to your table and health to your family. I am not even sure of your sex and, as for your age, you may be young, middle-aged or—no, not old; no gardener is ever really old; just mature.

Regardless of who you are, male or female, tall or short, lean or plump, homely or handsome, owner of a small patch or of unlimited acres, I want, in this book, to share with you what I have learnt in many years of gardening and in a dozen years of organic gardening. So that all may get equal shares, it seems I must keep as close as possible to fundamentals that apply to all gardens, regardless of their size or location. The primary fundamental is, obviously, the soil. That is true of every garden, no matter what method of culture may be used—unless we except hydroponic installations which are not real gardens at all but chemical laboratories. It is doubly true of organic gardens, for, in them, the gardener looks to his soil to give him not only luxuriant growth but also resistance to disease and insect attack. So let us start with the soil.

If a group of gardeners was asked to define soil, I suppose the general definition would be that it is the material in which plants grow; that it covers a great part of the earth’s surface and that plants of all kinds, from the tiniest weed to the giant sequoias, put forth their roots and draw sustenance from it. Very likely, someone would say it was ‘dirt’, but the kindest thing to do in his case would be to pretend that nobody heard what he said; if dirt is matter in the wrong place, no word could be less applicable to soil which, as definitely as anything in this world, is matter in the right place.

It is, however, most desirable that an organic gardener should have much more exact knowledge about his soil than is covered by definitions as general as these. Without such knowledge, he is at a disadvantage in his discussions with proponents of chemical agriculture who will take advantage of his ignorance and proceed to ‘prove’ to him that the fertility of his garden cannot be maintained without the use of commercial fertilizers. The feeding and handling of his soil may also be rather hit-and-miss in character and he will live in a state of uncertainty in the midst of conflicting advice, constantly wondering whether what he is doing is the best for his crops.

The first thing to realize about soil is that it has not been here since the beginning of time and that it is by no means everlasting. It is a built-up material and in some cases eons have been required for the building; but it does not take eons to break it down. Only about a quarter of our farms are more than 100 years old, yet the experts tell us that half our topsoil has already gone. To enable us to restore that loss and to prevent further destruction, it will help to know how the building was done and why it has been so easily and so quickly torn down.

When the world was young, its surface was bare rock, devoid of soil. The first step in the production of soil was the disintegration of the surface of the rocks. This disintegration resulted from a variety of causes, which are frequently lumped together under the one word ‘weathering’. Water played a big part. In freezing, it expanded and broke the rocks; glaciers of immense size and weight moved over the surface of the earth and ground rocks to powder; alternate freezing and thawing split them; flowing water dissolved minerals and carried suspended powder, depositing it when the flow slackened. This pulverized rock was not true soil. Not until life appeared and the primitive plants grew to maturity, died and deposited their remains on the surface did soil have its beginning. As century after century rolled by and animal life appeared in ever-growing volume, the accumulation of organic matter grew also and so the greater part of the land surfaces became covered with soil.

Soil, then, is a mixture of mineral and organic matter. Most of the organic matter remains in the top layer; immediately below this layer is the upper subsoil, below that the lower subsoil, then usually a layer of broken rock and finally bedrock. The roots of plants, in most soils, penetrate far below the topsoil and draw upon the minerals in the subsoil. Even topsoil is, normally, mostly mineral matter. If we except peat and Fen soils, any soil which contains 10 per cent of organic matter on a dry basis is unusually rich; plenty of productive farm and garden soils contain no more than 3 or 4 per cent. These figures are worth remembering, because this low percentage of organic matter in normal soils necessarily means that the percentage of mineral matter is correspondingly high. It is exceptional soil that is low in mineral matter.

On cultivated land, organic matter is constantly breaking down and being used up. Worn-out soil is that which has lost most of its organic matter; it is still rich in minerals. Indeed, the soil of abandoned farms that dot the more thickly populated parts of America is richer in minerals, generally speaking, than that of farms which are still producing bumper crops. When crops are taken, season after season, from fertile soil with an original composition of, let us say, 5 per cent organic matter and 95 per cent mineral matter, the organic content will be steadily depleted until it reaches, perhaps, 1 per cent. The mineral content will then be 99 per cent. Ask yourself how such soil can be benefited by the addition of mineral fertilizers like superphosphate or muriate of potash. One might as well feed sand to the Sahara Desert.

There is one sure way and one only to restore a worn-out soil: raise its organic content. There is one sure way and one only to conserve the fertility of a rich soil: maintain its organic content. These facts are inescapable and all the arguments of all the professors in the world cannot change them.

A question probably arises in your mind: is the 99 per cent of mineral matter in a worn-out soil any good or is it so much sand? Obviously, the question is of prime importance. If the phosphates and the potash and the long line of minor and trace elements disappear as rapidly as the organic matter, then it is clear that merely restoring the organic content will not replace the lost minerals. Let us look into the matter.

First of all, it is important to realize that it is difficult to find material which is wholly organic and also suitable for adding to the soil. All naturally occurring organic matter contains some mineral matter. Anyone who has ever sat before an open fire and watched the ashes accumulate has no difficulty in realizing that. Ashes, of course, are the mineral matter in wood and coal and are incombustible. Similarly, manure, compost, fallen leaves, straw and all vegetable and animal wastes contain minerals which are, necessarily, those that are needed for animal and vegetable life. Therefore, when restoring the organic content of your soil you are simultaneously adding mineral matter also.

That, however, is of minor importance compared with the fact that the subsoil is a mine of vast supplies of a great variety of minerals. Remember how this subsoil was formed. It was built of pulverized rocks, some of which were brought from distant points by moving glaciers or flowing rivers. Countless analyses of this mixture of rocks have shown that it is very far from being pure sand or clay. The United States Department of Agriculture has collected soils from all parts of the United States and has published representative analyses in the Atlas of American Agriculture. They show the presence of phosphates, potash, calcium, iron, aluminium, manganese, magnesium, sodium, sulphur and titanium. More recently, analyses of rocks have been made at the University of Missouri under the direction of Dr. W. D. Keller and similar findings have been reported, with zirconium, barium, fluorine and other elements added to the list.

Dr. Keller, however, tells us that continued farming is rapidly depleting our potash reserves and he quotes figures. He tells us that in the year 1944 we took out of our soil in corn (grain) 454,880 tons of potash.¹ He makes it clear that he views this fact with alarm and at first thought it does tend to produce feelings of panic. Four hundred, fifty-five thousand tons is a lot of potash, no matter how you look at it, and one’s reaction is to conclude that in a few years there will not be any potash left in our soils. Let us, however, do a little figuring.

That corn was grown on 97,078,000 acres, so that the amount of potash removed per acre was under 10 lb. Going back to the analyses made by the U.S.D.A., we find that (if we exclude those soils which were practically pure sand) the percentage of potash ranged from about 1 per cent to about 3 per cent. Let’s take the lower figure. Let us also assume that the roots of corn penetrate to a depth of 5 ft.—surely a conservative figure. An acre of soil, 5 ft. deep, will weigh about 20,000,000 lb. Using our figure of 1 per cent, it will contain 200,000 lb. of potash. Even if we make the absurd assumption that we never return anything to the soil, we would still, theoretically, have enough potash to keep the corn crop supplied for 20,000 years. So, while 450,000 tons look like a lot of potash, it is equally true that 20,000 years look like a lot of time.

However, even a billionaire, if he is thrifty, does not continually draw on his capital, so by all means let us maintain the level of potash and other minerals in our soil; if the organic matter that we use does not provide sufficient, let us add pulverized rocks such as limestone, phosphate rock, granite, greensand and so forth. Let us bear in mind, however, that an average yearly dressing of as little as 2 tons per acre of manure or compost would provide more than the 10 lb. of potash needed for replacement. Other crops, of course, may remove somewhat more potash than does corn but in no case sufficient to change the situation materially.

The situation with phosphorus is a little different. In most soils, the phosphorus content is appreciably lower than that of potash; over against this, the amount of phosphorus that crops take from the soil is also appreciably lower. It is, however, a reasonable assumption that your garden soil will be more likely to be low in phosphorus than in potash; since manures also have a relatively low phosphorus content it may be to your advantage to give your soil a dressing of pulverized phosphate rock. Such dressings are frequently given by gardeners and farmers employing organic methods and the use of potash minerals such as greensand¹ or granite meal¹ is almost as common. Such materials have none of the disadvantages of superphosphate or muriate of potash. They are but slightly soluble and the minerals they contain are gradually released to plants by the action of acids resulting from the breakdown of organic matter; in other words, the process is a perfectly natural one exactly similar to the release of minerals from the pulverized rock of which the soil is so largely composed.

I cannot leave this subject, however, without admitting that a distinguished advocate of natural methods maintains that the store of minerals in any normal soil is so great that any further addition is superfluous provided conditions are created which make it possible for crops to draw upon this immense supply. I refer to Edward H. Faulkner, author of Plowman’s Folly. Writing in The Land News he states:

‘The professional agriculturists . . . can still prove that what is actually happening as a matter of course, right here on my farm now, would not be possible. The real truth is that when conditions for life have been righted life proceeds spontaneously. . . . All I have done is to mix in by modern methods the single ingredient nature requires in order to perform the complex changes which must occur before the soil becomes productive again. The savants are correct in assuming that the transformation is a complicated matter. They are just as incorrect in assuming that Man himself can do anything about that transformation beyond the simple surface incorporation of abundance of organic matter such as has been done here by my tractor.’¹ On the other hand, there are organic farmers, just as sincere as Mr. Faulkner, who claim to have improved their soil and their crops by using ground rocks. So the question seems to me to be still open. My own experience tends to make me join Mr. Faulkner’s side of the debate. I have experimented with both phosphate rock and granite meal in my garden. If they made any difference to the fertility of my soil it was not easily apparent; in View of the vast supplies of minerals in the soil and subsoil, there does not seem to be much reason why they should have done so. If an acre of land contains upwards of 200,000 lb. of potash, is it likely that 200 lb. (which would be all that a generous dressing of pulverized granite would supply) would make much difference?

Yet we cannot dismiss the evidence on the other side as worthless and even Mr. Faulkner must surely admit that, as long as we burn our rubbish and run our sewage into the rivers and oceans, a process of soil depletion is occurring, even though it be an extremely slow one. If we do as Mr. Faulkner advocates and incorporate in our soil an abundance of organic matter, perhaps evidence of depletion will not be perceptible for 10,000 years, so the problem can scarcely be considered pressing. None the less, it exists and there is something to be said for maintaining the level of potash, phosphorus and other minerals even if only for the sake of our descendants who will be alive in the year A.D. 11,956.

In the meantime, it will not be a costly matter for you to do a little experimenting yourself and the information you obtain will add that much to the world’s knowledge. If that is not reward enough, there is always the chance that you will obtain improved crops.

When it comes to lime, I firmly believe in its use in the form of ground limestone and I prefer dolomite limestone because it contains a good deal of magnesia as well as calcium. I like it and use it because it has the valuable property of correcting acidity—a matter of importance in our eastern states where soil tends to be acid. As will appear later, limestone is a regular ingredient of our compost. In Britain you need a quick-acting lime, and on a small scale, ground chalk or ordinary slaked lime (garden lime, which is calcium hydroxide) is both better and easier to buy. In the heap the carbonic acid from bacterial action turns the garden lime to calcium carbonate, which is chalk, so you can use either.

All that has been said above concerns what I have called ‘normal’ soils and what are commonly referred to as ‘mineral’ soils. Nearly all soils, in this country and in other parts of the world, belong in this category, but there exist in some places peat and Fen soils. A ‘peat’ is composed of vegetation which collects on the surface and cannot decay, usually because the summer is too short to give it time, so...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Introduction
• Preface: How to Use this Book
• 1. Fundamentals
• 2. Preparing and Repairing the Soil
• 3. Cultivating the Soil
• 4. The Care of Seedlings
• 5. Bringing the Young Plant Through Infancy
• 6. Vegetables—What to Grow
• 7. Vegetables—How to Grow Them
• 8. The Flower Garden—The Lawn
• 9. Small Fruits
• 10. Large Fruits. Reclaiming Old Orchards
• 11. Herbs—How to Grow Them—How to Store and Use Them
• 12. Hedges
• 13. The Problem of Diseases and Pests
• 14. Allies in the Insect War
• 15. Summer Crops for the Winter Kitchen
• 16. Home Grown Seeds
• 17. Attracting Birds
• 18. The Chicken House
• 19. Garden Tools
• 20. Twenty Questions
• 21. Why?
• Appendix. The Trace Element Enigma
• Gardener’s Glossary
• Index