Dear Roger , The question of regeneration of the environment will not be solved by trying to lay a guilt trip on the present for alleged crimes committed some time in the past.
The question of reduced organic matter content and fertility of soils is not unique to Australia. It is a world wide phenomenon that under the present systems of industrial farming there is a gradual reduction in soil vitality generally. In Australia a lot of the soil organic matter is continually destroyed by fire. The plants that have adapted to this fire regime in most areas do not require very high organic matter content. Fire was a great tool used by the aboriginal hunter/ gatherers, however it had long term effects on the lush vegetation that once covered Australia. To claim there is problem with the soil in many areas being less than 1% organic matter is not necessarily a valid comparison. I have not seen any records of the early botanists and scientists in Australia going out and measuring the organic matter of the soils and recording it. My guess is that it has been a long slow drop in fertility that thas been exacerbated by some of the agricultural techniques which proved to be not suitable for this land. The use of 501 to will overcome the problem of locked up Phosphorus. If you are worried about how to treat the problems of herbicides in the soil you should check out the CSIRO who are generally recognised worldwide as having developed many very effective strategies for this problem. look up Bio remediation on Google and you will gain great information on potential strategies for herbicide problems. Your point of importing plants that should not be here is fine in hindsight, however it is the job of each succeeding generation to repair the damage done by the preceding generation. This repair job can only be done by taking the best of what has been ,and adding to it the best techniques that we have today. You would have to admit this or you wouldn't be so involved in Landcare. We can never go back and set a period in time and say that at this point we will draw an arbritary line and say that the ecology of this area will not be allowed to change. It is impossible to take an area back to what it was at any particular point in time. Environmental impacts whether from fire flood or man create the environment allowing new varieties to develop. The environment is always a work in progress adapting itself to the changes in conditions. The question of how we maintain and increase soil fertility is different to the debate of whether we should plant a certain species in a particular environment. I personally gain great satisfaction in being able to grow a beautiful plant, whether it be an Australian native or a Japanese Cherry. I maintain 300 acres of old growth open sclerophyll forest with eucalypts up to 150 ft high with rain forest interspersed down the gullies. This is a very good training ground as to what happens in a self regulated forest, not one that has been laid out in nice neat rows. There is diversity in a natural forest with nature deciding what to grow where. Even in a self regulated forest it is easy to see the difference in the mix at different times. Species come and go, and then just as mysteriously pop up again. Each thing that we do has a plus, and a minus. To say that there has not been benefit from cloven hoofed animals, or cats and dogs is a very narrow point of view . Give credit to our ancestors for the positive things that they have done, and you will find on the scales of balance that the positives far outweigh the negatives. You cant go back,only forward to wherever that may take us. Most people have always done the best they can with the information that they have available at the time. Barbara and I are looking forward to catching up with you at your Landcare site at Dalgetty. James .----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Wood chips / regeneration > Just a few more thoughts from a rebel of a different kind: > > Lloyd, will you look at what you're saying? Bearing in mind that Oz is > the driest continent on Earth and that before white settlement 200 years > ago the native flora and fauna which had adapted to climate conditions > over millions of years coexisted quite happily with the indigenous > population? > > The first thing 'we' did was introduce hoofed animals to a country that > had none. Also rabbits, domesticated dogs and cats. Next it was European > 'heavy soil' methods of farming in a mostly 'fragile soil' country. When > the soils failed to match up to or reduced below product expectations, > we introduced superphosphates followed 30 years later by a fearsome > array of artificial fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and straight-out > poisons. > > 'The local natives are not up to it anymore' BECAUSE we have 'seriously > modified the ecosystem'. One of our most damaging 'modifications' has > been to remove nearly all the organic content from soils through 200 > years of successive harvests without replacing it. Commonly known as > 'mining the soil'. I am willing to bet there isn't a working property on > the inland grain belt that has soil with an organic content above 1%. > Native grasses are naturally moisture retentive; imported species have > little if any retention qualities, die out during droughts. Eucalypts > and other native trees have leaf systems and life cycles which are > attuned to local conditions. Imported species do not, are not, 'do quite > ok' by taking up groundwater which could be used in better ways - like > stock watering. > > As for sheep and goats being a danger to new tree growth - fence them off . > > In a nutshell: > > In 1788 Oz had low water tables and no salinity, no blue-green algae, no > e-coli, unpolluted river or lake systems. > We imported animals trees and plants which shouldn't be here; changed > the ecosystem so they would flourish. > In 2002 we have high water tables, salinity, river systems and lakes > which abound in algae, e-coli, oils, chemicals and every other pollutant > you care to name. The soil has so much phosphate locked up in it you > could almost cut it up in blocks and sell it. > > Is there a lesson here, d'you think? > > roger > > Lloyd Charles wrote: > > >> why not grow trees that are suitable for the new environment > >>? - if they happen to originate in Europe or North America why is that > >>automatically seen as a problem? > >>Just a few thoughts from an old rebel. > >> > > >
