Tuesday, July 12, 2011

History of Composting

Medieval farming

"So what's da king doin' here, eh?"
About three and a half milennia ago I wrote an article about farming practices in the Middle Ages for a publication of the Kingdom of the West.  I have no idea if it still exists anywhere.  In it I learned one thing that really stuck with me.  For most farms there simply was not enough manure or compostable materials to make fertilizer in any quantity.  There were two reasons, that the animals on the farm were so ill fed themselves that their manure was insubstantial and because it simply would have cost too much to cart food scraps from cities.  So while I was looking into how to compost today at our community garden, I ran across this article.

History of Composting

From Composting for the Homeowner  by the University of Illinois Extension

Occasionally, curious individuals want to know the origins of composting. It is difficult to attribute the birth of composting to a specific individual or even one society. The ancient Akkadian Empire in the Mesopotamian Valley referred to the use of manure in agriculture on clay tablets 1,000 years before Moses was born. There is evidence that Romans, Greeks and the Tribes of Israel knew about compost. The Bible and Talmud both contain numerous references to the use of rotted manure straw, and organic references to compost are contained in tenth and twelfth century Arab writings, in medieval Church texts, and in Renaissance literature. Notable writers such as William Shakespeare, Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh all mentioned the use of compost.

On the North American continent, the benefits of compost were enjoyed by both native Americans and early European settlers of America. Many New England farmers made compost as a recipe of 10 parts muck to 1 part fish, periodically turning their compost heaps until the fish disintegrated (except the bones). One Connecticut farm, Stephen Hoyt and Sons, used 220,000 fish in one season of compost production. Other famous individuals that produced and promoted the use of compost include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington Carver.

The early 20th century saw the development of a new “scientific” method of farming. Work done in 1840 by a well-known German scientist, Justus von Liebig, proved that plants obtained nourishment from certain chemicals in solution. Liebig dismissed the significance of humus, because it was insoluble in water. After that discovery, agricultural practices became increasingly chemical in nature. Combinations of manure and dead fish did not look very effective beside a bag of fertilizer. For farmers in many areas of the world, chemical fertilizers replaced compost.

Sir Albert Howard, a British agronomist, went to India in 1905 and spent almost 30 years experimenting with organic gardening and farming. He found that the best compost consisted of three times as much plant matter as manure, with materials initially layered in sandwich fashion, and then turned during decomposition (known as the Indore method). In 1943, Sir Howard published a book, An Agriculture Testament, based on his work. The book renewed interest in organic methods of agriculture and earned him recognition as the modern day father of organic farming and gardening.

J.I. Rodale carried Sir Howard’s work further and introduced American gardeners to the value of composting for improving soil quality. He established a farming research center in Pennsylvania and the monthly Organic Gardening magazine. Now, organic methods in gardening and farming are becoming increasingly popular. A growing number of farmers and gardeners who rely on chemical fertilizers are realizing the value of compost for plant growth and restoring depleted soil.

Roman farming

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Guest Post: One Hundred Reasons I hate Spellcheck

Laake, self portrait
By Laake, Crazy Vampire Lust and Dogs

You may notice by the title that this isn't going to be about MY NOVEL or Rufus Magee. At least, not all together.

I really did mean too; honestly. And I'll tell you all about Rufus someday. The novel will come up today because that's what started my feud with Spellcheck.

It isn't much of a feud seeing as how it's completely one sided. They don't know I exist! And do you know what else? They don't know that you exist either! AND THEY DON'T CARE!!!

Okay, that's note entirely true. If what you want to do is write a report on ability of mice to type the collected works of Robert Burns given enough time; or perhaps you need to tell the shipping department that the leprous nuns of Our Lady of Perpetual Angst have canceled their order for 20,000 boxes of heart shaped paper clips and they shouldn't be shipped. In either of these instances Spellcheck will perform to your highest expectation.

Now I'll tell you right up front that I don't care a fig about typing mice or leprous nuns. Well; maybe a little about leprous nuns.

What I do want to do is write about sensible women falling in love with vampires. (No, really, she is sensible.)

REASONS TO HATE SPELLCHECK

#1 It doesn't believe in contractions!

In 106,00 plus words, 100,000 of them must have been contractions. At every single one of them I got a little green squiggly line. When I clicked on the little green line a note popped up informing me that I was an idiot and no sane person would ever write can't when can not is obviously far superior.

#2 It torments me over passive voices.

I'll admit that I needed help with this one. Apparently in the first draft I all but rolled over and played dead i was so passive. So, okay, I fixed the sentence. It told me no, I was still wrong. I tried again, still passive. After 10 or 15 tries I usually gave up and removed the sentence there by changing the whole story and turning my hero into a villain. I mean; all it had to do was rewrite the sentence for me and I would not have been contemplating suicide every time I started writing.

#3 It cannot abide casual speech. (or at least writing.)

I never before realized how how much trouble and & but cause. The first few times I was told that I should not (not a contraction) I tried every way I could to rewrite the sentence it coming out sounding like someone who had ALMOST learned English as a second language.

#4 Spellcheck has gone politically correct.

Whats wrong with that you say. Nothing if you don't plan on using words like lady, gentleman, blond, woman, man, girl, boy, or bridesmaid. I was informed that I should refer to her as the brides house cleaner. For the others person seems to be the accepted choice. Have you ever tried to make "The tall person took the blond person into his arms and kissed it." sound romantic?

Yeah, I know. That's only 4, but I'm sure that there are at least 96 more. If you have tried to write a letter to a friend, you can probably come up with a couple yourself. I wonder if that should be yourperson?

I have to go now. Just thinking about this makes me want my medication.