>
>It's true, that the very first Linearband "islands" later expanded to
>somewhat less suitable locations. But the original sites were still used
>for all the hundreds (no thousands) of years without interuption and
>of course without chemical fertilisation. Chemical fertilizers
>exist only for a very small timeframe to the past.

what happens to the craddle of occidental civilisation, what was left of
the fertile croissant way before chemical fertilisers, where is all the
water that was running in now dried out river and stream beds that i saw
from plane betwen india and the mediterannean ?

 as for our bodies, It takes many many years for the land to get so sick
that its survival is compromised .


>
>The "highest yeald possible" is not at all necessary, nor desired.
>Low yeald fields and slow growing plants are the best in mineral,
>micronutient and protein content.
>It is the small growing plants (harvesting only 3-4fold of the
>seed) which provided the thousandfold decrease of land space
>requirement from h/g to Linearband.

i follow you on that one and this is possible to have high yield in weight
of high density plants ( rich in mineral)

>Best nature fertilizing is done with intermediate fruit, like peas.
>They don't harm fertility, they just add to it, including nitrogen.
>The energy of a nature field is comeing only from the *sun*.
>I know a farmer who is doing this for >15 years without adding anything
>on the same space with great success.

If he was able to switch to no till he will be able to get an increase of
fertility no only maintaining it.
every plants , not only legumes are adding to the fertility by making
specific minerals available to the whole.  combination of a legume with a
member of the grass family ( grain) is better than grain alone but more
species is better.
>
>>Only Nature is able to increase fertility and top soil !  with the Natural
>>way of farming presented by Masanobu Fukuoka which we can approach that at
>>the most.
>
>I'm interested and will search for that Masanobu methods.

on the net you will find few things but the best is to reaf his book "the
natural way of farming" theory and practice of green philosophy.

>You seem to have a very different opinion what can be called organic over
>there. I'm pretty sure that what i've seen here *is* sustabiable.
>There's nothing taken from the soil, except some trace minerals.
>These may take many hundred years to decrease (they were build up in 12000
>years, after the last ice age).

naturally yeah till the next ice age which will remineralise the soils  for
an other cycle
but human activity precipitate the coming back ( never heard of the theory
of the green house effect having as consequence the glaciation) naturally in
that cycle there is a slow decrease of biomass with time leading to less
oxygene and more carbonic acid leading to green house effect more
evaporation at the tropic more clouds on the poles , more snow etc...) all
what we do with burning of stored biomass ( fossile and living ) is to
precipitate the trend .

>But if other plant remains are given back (as compost) it will never end.
>It will be a "perpetuum mobile" (driven by the sun).

it is true , except that tilling favorise bacterias over fungi and create a
waisting of nutrients ( it is like coffe it stimulate but wear out the
reserves.) On top of that compost made by heat is also waisting the energy
stored in plants . surface composting is the way nature recycle nutrients .
>
>I've seen reports that in Canada and east US the only left temperate
>untouched forests are beeing destroyed. I'd like to see them before,to have
>an impression, where the now untouched regions over here may develop to
>some time.

some time , standing mature  trees are over 1000 years old here.
when a tree like that fall on th floor it becomes a nursery bed . The forest
floor here is not leveled but is created by trunk of dead trees that takes
centuries to rot completly. You can see old trees with a big hole between
its roots where the nursery trees was before it rot.

>I can imagine that. Canada has very much more wood that even Skandinavia.
>Protect it! Raise taxes on it! Don't let some paper makers anywhere on the
>world use this just because of economic reasons.
>Here we have a recycling rate of about 50% of all paper.
>They are preferring fresh wood paper just because the raw material is too
>cheap! Too cheap for the recycling system to proceed.

thanks to the collective consciousness of germans and their discriminating
consumerism , it slowed down the devastation here. Japaneses are less picky
as buyers of wood products ( just their phone books require huges forest)


>I'd be interested to know what's the difference between what you call
>Natural farming and what organic farming is for me.
>Can be it's quite similar.

Tilling is the most obvious difference but read the book and you will
understand the true difference. Basically organic farmic is stemming from
scientific mindset ( except  maybe for the biodynamic method  ) Natural
farming is the antithesis of that mindset.
>
>Organic or natural farming is *not* a luxury. It's the only way to survive.
>The soil is running away. "Chemical" conventional farming is harvesting 4
to
>6-fold - but for a limited time. Moore than this gain is wasted by feeding
>some pigs and cattle.
>*That* is the luxury.

 in comparaison with chemical farming  yes,  and no , chemical farming is
not a luxuary it is pure folly. Organic farming is still a luxuary for the
peoples who reach a dramatically low level of fertility like in India and
other poor old countries and require enormous amounts of outside help
 nutrients in the form of manure or whatever) to restore the soil
.Cultivation of green manure on the spot can help but that is still a
luxuary for peoples who have little space and ressources to eat in the mean
time.
without tilling and increased biodiversity the soil heal itself while
growing food.

jean-claude