The Dark Side of No-Till, Lasagna or Sheet mulching w/ paper & cardboard

[mdvaden]

Nothing like a nice Grinch-like garden topic once in a while. Although its true, so that keeps it pretty upbeat and positive.

Last month a thought comes to mind "what happens when paper is not recycled because of no-till gardening?". My answer resided with recyling information, not gardening information. Now, this depends on whether recycling is available near you.

In short, putting cardboard or paper under compost means it's not recycled. Gardeners who do that, cause more trees to be cut down for brand new cardboard. The water use rises by hundreds and thousands of gallons when many gardeners practice sheet mulching.. There is a lot of electricity and oil consumption on top of that.

As I researched this, my suspicions were confirmed, but the numbers were far greater than I had ever expected. Oh - air pollution too.

The Dark Side of Lasagna Gardening (http://www.mdvaden.com/lasagna_gardening.shtml)

Again, it's all a matter of where you live and whether or not your cardboard or paper would provide more benefit for recycling or not.

Yours truly,

The Grinch - LOL

[Smallaxe]

That junk on the ground repels water rather than developing structure that allows it to percolate and retain in a balanced way. We should mimick the forest floor in developing good gardening soils, not throwing garbage around the flower/vegetable beds - no matter how close you live to recycling.

[pt03]

Ya, it seems someone is fishing for hits to their commercial website in order to gain revenue from advertising. This subject has now been posted to at least seven different forums (and twice here!).:dizzy:

[mdvaden]

Ya, it seems someone is fishing for hits to their commercial website in order to gain revenue from advertising. This subject has now been posted to at least seven different forums (and twice here!).:dizzy:

Not too long before posting here, you were are the gardenweb and lawnsite about 4 minutes apart using the same hyperlink to the lasagna gardening article. You also posted your opinion off-topic in more than one place too, so welcome to reality pal. Are you predictable or what ... LOL :)

Anyhow, my pages have value in that most of them cover bases better. Like the safe and toxic woods for birds page. On the topic of wood for perches, bar none, it's the best, according to people around the globe who raise parrots, and have emailed. So you bet I'm going to post these.

And the internet does not run on water.

But on this subject of sheet mulching, I've looked at at least 50 websites for starters, like blogs, and how many of them cover the pollution aspect? Yeah you pt03 .... you sidestepped that one. How many? Zero. Nada. That's when a gap needs to be filled with more information, more debate, more facts.

So now we are back on track here. Sheet mulching has the potential to waste water, waste oil, waste electricity and pollute. Stay on topic next time.

[mdvaden]

That junk on the ground repels water rather than developing structure that allows it to percolate and retain in a balanced way. We should mimick the forest floor in developing good gardening soils, not throwing garbage around the flower/vegetable beds - no matter how close you live to recycling.

I know that paper decays and that living things can be found later, but what you wrote has crossed my mind. Because I see living things under compost that has no garbage too. Ever seen any data for experiments on the exchange of gases before? For certain some kind of a seal is going to exist, but for how long? The closest thing I can think of, is that study was done for trees, that coarse mulch is better for trees than fine mulch, for easy water and air exchange in the soil. Basically, It seems more practical and beneficial to omit paper and cardboard and simply mulch after removing grass or weeds. In most cases, I've found that mulch like barkdust smothers 90% of grass and short weeds anyway, leaving just a few to handweed afterward.

[pt03]

Aw Mario, are you upset?

Debate? He He, that's funny, you've never debated anyone that replied to your posts, you ran away.

Your link has advertising, something forbidden in a lot of forums yet you did/do it anyways. That tells me you lack integrity.

You admitted you posted just to get input for your own website and then used that input on your website in violation of of forum rules. That tells me you lack honesty.

I have to admit though that I am impressed that you can develop a theory, research it and come to absolute firm conclusions in a month. You oughta get in touch with some universities, they could probably use your investigative techniques to solve some of the worlds more pressing problems than whether someone uses cardboard in their garden. :laugh:

Anyways, I have to get back to work, keep spamming.:clapping:

Lloyd:cool2:

[Kiril]

mdvaden,

I happen to agree sheet mulching is stoooopid.

That said, your article is making some pretty wild assumptions (the biggest ones being the products used would actually be recycled along with your comments on drainage and compaction). In addition to that, the complete lack of references to support your assertions pretty much makes it nothing more than an opinion piece with no substantiation.

[mdvaden]

I have to admit though that I am impressed that you can develop a theory, research it and come to absolute firm conclusions in a month. You oughta get in touch with some universities, they could probably use your investigative techniques to solve some of the worlds more pressing problems than whether someone uses cardboard in their garden.

Lloyd

What makes you think I have not been in touch?

FYI, Oregon State University Extension changed a small part of their database based on one of my web pages. A forest scientist mentioned that they made some small alterations to their methods or scheduling, stemming from reading another page. And one other page was replicated online for arborists to get CEUs after reading and testing. Etc..

mdvaden,

I happen to agree sheet mulching is stoooopid.

That said, your article is making some pretty wild assumptions (the biggest ones being the products used would actually be recycled along with your comments on drainage and compaction). In addition to that, the complete lack of references to support your assertions pretty much makes it nothing more than an opinion piece with no substantiation.

The references might be handy to add. The only drawback is that various sites drop off the radar from time to time, and it's often better to have few or none. Just ran into that today on one of my pages where someone reported a link for a URL that was purchased by someone else.

Not sure what you meant on the drainage or compaction. Did you mean another page?

[mdvaden]

mdvaden,

In addition to that, the complete lack of references to support your assertions pretty much makes it nothing more than an opinion piece with no substantiation.

Think I found something that might work. Note that these were their assertions. I didn't invent this stuff. But the reference idea is a good one if one has a long shelf life.

I noticed that Wikipedia has one on paper, which will make a good generic starter, since it explains the basic idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

[pt03]

What makes you think I have not been in touch?

FYI, Oregon State University Extension changed a small part of their database based on one of my web pages. A forest scientist mentioned that they made some small alterations to their methods or scheduling, stemming from reading another page. And one other page was replicated online for arborists to get CEUs after reading and testing. Etc..


Ya, you're a legend in your own mind alright, those sound just like they will help solve some of the worlds more pressing problems.:rolleyes::laugh:

Seeing as how you already admitted that you build your web pages by tossing it "into the fray" and harvesting other peoples ideas, I'm sure you gave credit to them for doing all the thinking parts.

Seriously though, how much money do you make on those ads on your web pages? Do people have to actually click on one or do you get $$ just for visits to your page?:drinkup:

Lloyd

[mdvaden]

Lloyd - I don't often share trade secrets with people in Canada.

:usflag:

:)

[CHARLES CUE]

I sheet mulched my garden this year didnt know it was called that worked great just had to weed a little. we got it from our dumpster at our store no recycling in small towns Worked in DC for 12 years it was always funny 2 dumpsters 1 for garbage 1 for cardboard but they always put both dumpsters in one truck maybe there was a seperator in there dont know. The worms really liked it under the cardboard i think they liked me not recycling
Charles Cue

[mdvaden]

I sheet mulched my garden this year didnt know it was called that worked great just had to weed a little. we got it from our dumpster at our store no recycling in small towns Worked in DC for 12 years it was always funny 2 dumpsters 1 for garbage 1 for cardboard but they always put both dumpsters in one truck maybe there was a seperator in there dont know. The worms really liked it under the cardboard i think they liked me not recycling
Charles Cue

Charles, the Chinese are going to be looking for a lot more in the years ahead.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070713131330.htm

The article shows how practical it is.

If it can't be recycled, the garden is a good place. I hear that Pizza boxes should not be recycled due to the oils or grease. Pizza is not too far from Lasagna.

:)

[Smallaxe]

I sheet mulched my garden this year didnt know it was called that worked great just had to weed a little. we got it from our dumpster at our store no recycling in small towns Worked in DC for 12 years it was always funny 2 dumpsters 1 for garbage 1 for cardboard but they always put both dumpsters in one truck maybe there was a seperator in there dont know. The worms really liked it under the cardboard i think they liked me not recycling
Charles Cue

How does water get under your cardboard? Doesn't the garden look like a garbage dump?

[Kiril]

How does water get under your cardboard? Doesn't the garden look like a garbage dump?

It will go through it, however that is my biggest complaint with the stuff .... how it affects water distribution. Plus, it holds water where it is not needed, leading to higher evaporative losses. It would be better used in a compost pile than on the ground as a mulch.

[mdvaden]

How does water get under your cardboard? Doesn't the garden look like a garbage dump?

Maybe try a mythbuster with just cardboard.

I did a mythbuster video with conifer foliage and a torch once, and debunked some statements about how flammable some trees like madrone were - in landscape settings.

Simply took a torch to foliage - an extreme - to find what would ignite and what woud not. Its no big deal what the answer is, as long as the right answer can be ascertained.

[CHARLES CUE]

No it doesnt look like a garbage dump put a little saw dust on top to keep it froom blowing away till it get wet. The water does go threw it and the ground stays moist becouse the sun doesnt hit the dirt all you have to do is grab it the card board falls a part
Charles Cue

[phasthound]

Forgive me for I have sinned. This fall I began preparing a new veggie garden over some turf area at my house. I laid down a layer of cardboard and covered it with a soil/compost mix. Next I will chop fallen leaves with my mower and lay them over top to decompose. I had no idea how much ecological damage I was incurring. :)

[Smallaxe]

Forgive me for I have sinned. This fall I began preparing a new veggie garden over some turf area at my house. I laid down a layer of cardboard and covered it with a soil/compost mix. Next I will chop fallen leaves with my mower and lay them over top to decompose. I had no idea how much ecological damage I was incurring. :)

When I convert turf that way around here I have one thing that thrives under the cover and spreads like crazy after that. Canadian Thistle. No evidence of the stuff b4 I cover an area but so populous afterward it is difficult to get rid of.

Ecological damage... If you send a prayer to Gaia, will that exonerate you? or do you have to sacrifice a capitalist in the forest? :)

[mdvaden]

Forgive me for I have sinned. .... :)

"Where are thine accusers?"

"Go, and sin no more"

:)

[phasthound]

"Where are thine accusers?"

"Go, and sin no more"

:)

Not to worry Mario. I was being sarcastic. I enjoy your posts & writings. You present ideas in a thought provoking manner without accusations. I respect that even if I don't agree with everything you say. But then again I don't agree with everything anyone says. :)

You should post here more often.

[mdvaden]

Not to worry Mario. I was being sarcastic. I enjoy your posts & writings. You present ideas in a thought provoking manner without accusations. I respect that even if I don't agree with everything you say. But then again I don't agree with everything anyone says. :)

You should post here more often.


Thanks.

I was guessing you were posting sarcastic or tongue in cheek.

This is a fun site as the years go by. I've even met a few folks in person over the years.

[Grohorganic]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: this is too funny for words:drinkup: and at the same time a little disappointing:sleeping:

[mdvaden]

Here's one more link of many on the subject.

http://utahrecycles.org/cardboard.php

Consider this, if recycling is available in a gardeners town, and let's say they use 200 pounds, or 10% of one ton of cardboard for lasagna gardening, they are:

Wasting 9 Kilowatt hours of energy

Wasting 4.6 gallons of oil

Wasting 666,000 Btu's of energy

Another site said that recycling cardboard cuts sulphur dioxide emissions in half. so a no-till gardener laying cardboard or paper logically doubles sulphur dioxide emissions.

[Smallaxe]

Here's one more link of many on the subject.

http://utahrecycles.org/cardboard.php

Consider this, if recycling is available in a gardeners town, and let's say they use 200 pounds, or 10% of one ton of cardboard for lasagna gardening, they are:

Wasting 9 Kilowatt hours of energy

Wasting 4.6 gallons of oil

Wasting 666,000 Btu's of energy

Another site said that recycling cardboard cuts sulphur dioxide emissions in half. so a no-till gardener laying cardboard or paper logically doubles sulphur dioxide emissions.

Using the term "wasting", is something of a loaded agenda. Consuming energy to supply a need is what bolsters technological advances, quality of living, and economical well-being. Only if you believe the global warming scenario as promoted by Algore would you use the term "wasting".
I recycle cardboard to start brush fires to clean up the woods for fire breaks. Will they ever get smart enough in the West to do that? They would rather burn entire plots of forest, including houses, than cut a few trees and clean up the ground for effective firebreaks. That is where the term "wasting" needs to be applied. :)

[mdvaden]

Using the term "wasting", is something of a loaded agenda. Consuming energy to supply a need is what bolsters technological advances, quality of living, and economical well-being. Only if you believe the global warming scenario as promoted by Algore would you use the term "wasting".
I recycle cardboard to start brush fires to clean up the woods for fire breaks. Will they ever get smart enough in the West to do that? They would rather burn entire plots of forest, including houses, than cut a few trees and clean up the ground for effective firebreaks. That is where the term "wasting" needs to be applied. :)
Apparently they are making some changes in the forests out here for thinning and management, espcially after the Biscuit fire.

The other side of the coin, is that the nation sucked the forests dry from the west coast states of old growth conditions, and it may take about 500 years to re-establish proper biodiversity and habitat again. Many of the other states homeowners were happy to have the wood, but are not involved in correcting the problems left behind to figure out. At least in California, the Save the Redwoods league gets donations yearly, but that's pretty much focused on one two types of forest. It's amazing how many millions the tax payers have to dish out to replenish damage done by logging done for profit. In Redwood Creek National Park, 33 million dollars will be spent to restore the park. You may know that up to 8 feet of sediments filled up in the river from heavy rain following logging,

For example, one lichen lobaria that is abundant on old trees, actually fertilizes the forest. But it's barely present in many forests now, like the coast range here which you may have seen on Ax-Men, since that range is harvested in less than 100 year intervals.

On the energy part, there is another side of the coin too.

If we conserve energy by recycling and reduce the immediated demand for power, that gives the researchers and innovators more time to work on their solutons.

Some people are growing trees on land now too which helps. Even in the urban Beaverton area, there is this one remnant field left that I watch every year as the tree crop grows taller. It was just field before. Think they did it for a tax break too. But it's putting the land to use.

[Smallaxe]

I'm not defending the cutting of every tree for profit and leaving the land open for erosion. I'm talking about preventing the spread of fire over huge areas because we didn't take step one to prevent it from becoming so large. How much erosion is there on the scorched landscapes?
I didn't hear about your Biscuit fire. :)

[mdvaden]

I'm not defending the cutting of every tree for profit and leaving the land open for erosion. I'm talking about preventing the spread of fire over huge areas because we didn't take step one to prevent it from becoming so large. How much erosion is there on the scorched landscapes?
I didn't hear about your Biscuit fire. :)


Biscuit Fire was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_Fire

And there is more to it that I don't see in that article. But I've read that the forest was also too dense.

[Grohorganic]

I'm not defending the cutting of every tree for profit and leaving the land open for erosion. I'm talking about preventing the spread of fire over huge areas because we didn't take step one to prevent it from becoming so large. How much erosion is there on the scorched landscapes?
I didn't hear about your Biscuit fire. :)

it is in my mind the fact that forest fires where combated in the first place that has caused so much damage to forests in the event of fires at the present time. CONTROL BURNS SAVE LIVES!!!!!!:blob2::blob2:

[Smallaxe]

it is in my mind the fact that forest fires where combated in the first place that has caused so much damage to forests in the event of fires at the present time. CONTROL BURNS SAVE LIVES!!!!!!:blob2::blob2:

They could log off firelanes and if they decided to let it burn rather than fight it they wouldn't have to worry about another 500,000 acres.
It may have been in 2002 that we could smell the smoke from the western fires here in Wisco. and of course the haze was all across the midwest...

[Grohorganic]

the stop the burn campaing started a long time ago, say the 1940's.....

now its up to some smart thinkers to introduce fire line's that have been( perish the thought ) logged off. and some of the less old growth thinned( look out for the angry tree hugger) and maybe in some cases the forest lot to be over planted after logging in the first place. but NO some liberal hippies started the no fires and no logging trip and could not see the forest from the trees.

its the neglect over the last few years that has harmed the NATURAL forest to the extent it it is harmed now, fire was and still is a NATURAL part of the cycle of a forest life. stopping the fires that are natural was the first in a long line of bad choices, not in 2002 but way earlier than that!!!

[Grohorganic]

lets take a guess at how many fires this tree has seen????

[mdvaden]

lets take a guess at how many fires this tree has seen????

My guess would be about every 300 to 500 years, because its in an area thats more damp. That's the same redwood as the Nat Geo Oct. 2009 issue's foldout photo.

That particular one does not have much in the way of burn marks presently. But there was fire in the grove for sure. The second photo is not far away from it, and has charred burn marks on its trunk.

[Grohorganic]

so it looks like i healthy forest that burned. lets see some un burned crap, second or third planted stands that are just sh*t

[Smallaxe]

Just because a fire starts from 'natural causes', doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing. Scotpine needs to have its seed scarified with fire, b4 it will germinate. The likely reason is that it will perform well after a fire, but doesn't compete well in a healthy forest.
Scotpine is a weed tree and would not be a desired replacement for old growth forest. It is a quick, natural, ground cover that will hopefully help the, natural, disaster recovery. People are a natural part of the biosphere and should develop a sense of stewardship over the rest of the environment. Unfortunately, we can only work with exploitation or neglect.
Then there are the tree huggers who worship the earth and believe that trees are people too. Do the trees cry out in horror as they burn? They burn because the huggers are too stupid to understand they need to be managed.

University professors turn around and tell them that we must neglect the forests, let them burn, naturally. Neglect the rivers and streams, let them erode the banks naturally. Neglect the lakes and let them fill up with debris , naturally.
Now we are suppose to turn absolute control over to these fools, of anything within 1000 feet of any mudpuddle in Wisco. Never give a sucker an even break. We are the dumbest suckers in the world.

[ICT Bill]

Just because a fire starts from 'natural causes', doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing. Scotpine needs to have its seed scarified with fire, b4 it will germinate. The likely reason is that it will perform well after a fire, but doesn't compete well in a healthy forest.
Scotpine is a weed tree and would not be a desired replacement for old growth forest. It is a quick, natural, ground cover that will hopefully help the, natural, disaster recovery. People are a natural part of the biosphere and should develop a sense of stewardship over the rest of the environment. Unfortunately, we can only work with exploitation or neglect.
Then there are the tree huggers who worship the earth and believe that trees are people too. Do the trees cry out in horror as they burn? They burn because the huggers are too stupid to understand they need to be managed.

University professors turn around and tell them that we must neglect the forests, let them burn, naturally. Neglect the rivers and streams, let them erode the banks naturally. Neglect the lakes and let them fill up with debris , naturally.
Now we are suppose to turn absolute control over to these fools, of anything within 1000 feet of any mudpuddle in Wisco. Never give a sucker an even break. We are the dumbest suckers in the world.

You need to read some of Alex Shigo's books, it will rock your tree world

[Smallaxe]

You need to read some of Alex Shigo's books, it will rock your tree world

An Alex Shigo article:
"Remember, you cannot "feed" a tree, wounds do not "heal," roots
do not regenerate, wounds do not "bleed," mycorrhizae are organs, and you cannot
inoculate with organs and finally, wound dressings do not stop decay!
Ignorance of tree biology has been, and still is, the major cause of tree problems..."

After a lot of human vs. tree rhetoric he finishes up with the preceding paragraph. I watch bark grow over gouged trunks, broken or pruned branches and I watch sap dripping from a variety of tree wounds.

I do agree about dissecting trees and understanding anatomy with a chainsaw which I've done for years.
I've only seen the beginning of his philosophy, so its hard to say, but at this point I am unimpressed.

[ICT Bill]

An Alex Shigo article:
"Remember, you cannot "feed" a tree, wounds do not "heal," roots
do not regenerate, wounds do not "bleed," mycorrhizae are organs, and you cannot
inoculate with organs and finally, wound dressings do not stop decay!
Ignorance of tree biology has been, and still is, the major cause of tree problems..."

After a lot of human vs. tree rhetoric he finishes up with the preceding paragraph. I watch bark grow over gouged trunks, broken or pruned branches and I watch sap dripping from a variety of tree wounds.

I do agree about dissecting trees and understanding anatomy with a chainsaw which I've done for years.
I've only seen the beginning of his philosophy, so its hard to say, but at this point I am unimpressed.

I will make sure to inform you when Kevin Smith is speaking in your area, he was very close and has some very profound thoughts about trees

Excellent quote, higher thinking, group thinking, what makes me stronger makes you stronger

I don't know for sure but I don't think trees are political, I will ask one tomorrow while walking the dog