Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

So this geography prof of mine put forth an (obviously canned) assertion that agriculture on rainforest land is unsustainable because of the poor soil

i dont know about the soil (keep in mind that this exact prof also told us that the soil on the steppes of asia was very fertile, soil which i have held in my hand and found to be horrible, too sandy and few nutrients, he acted annoyed when i told him, after class as i didnt want to contradict him in front of everybody)

however i can get on the boat with row cropping and high tillage causing erosion and destroying soil, we have solutions to this problem though

he also stated that livestock also destroyed soil
and, and i love this, that once cut down the rainforest NEVER grew back, which is quite a claim, so has there never been a natural fire over the past 8,000 years?


however my big question is this, how does grazing cattle make land useless and destroy it?
grasses anchor soil, land just sitting around with grass on it _develops_ topsoil, and cattle can speed the process

his answer was that they graze the grass and kill it, allowing erosion
there is one major problem with this however
pigs root up the soil sometimes
overgrazed horses can pull grass out by the roots
but cattle have NO UPPER incisors (thats the front teeth btw) making it impossible to grip the grass and yank it out, the best they can do is grub the surface extremely low, which is technically capable of killing the grass, but only in extreme circumstances, think of it like mowing your lawn so low it kills it, not very common when you have enough water, and if the rainforest has anything, it is water, one reason why row cropping destroys the land so quickly

he did not mention that their hooves are capable of causing erosion damage, however it is minor, generally in paths they follow



basically i i seeing what i thought i would see, to sum up, poor land management creates poor land

so i thought up a comparison, you find a guy along a shore line throwing grenades into the lake, he tells you he is fishing
obviously this isnt a good way to fish, very destructive and not as productive. should you cry and whine to him about what he is doing wrong, or teach him how to use a better method


the best way to reduce amazon destruction is to teach proper farming methods that conserve soils and reduce the need to slash down new forest

[mathurin]

i forgot to mention, this option is probably not thought of since most of the activist types dont know much about farming, tending more toward urban settings

[Kindred]

mathurin wrote: So this geography prof of mine put forth an (obviously canned) assertion that agriculture on rainforest land is unsustainable because of the poor soil

He’s wrong, rainforests typically have highly fertile soils, which is also why they are typically the first lands to be cleared for agriculture, and why they are being reduced in size globally.

Quote: i dont know about the soil however i can get on the boat with row cropping and high tillage causing erosion and destroying soil, we have solutions to this problem though

It is a fact that we loose 45 million hectares annually due to unsustainable land practices; the primary one is cattle grazing. While we can use techniques such as adding fertilisers to soils, these practices themselves require land, and some soils most certainly are rendered useless by agriculture due raised water-tables and the salinity which accompanies it. This is why towns are failing in Australia currently- even replanting large red gums on the fertile [former] floodplains of our Murray-Darling system would not see a return to fertile ag-land for hundreds of years, and the return to the former-ecosystem would take even longer. The same applies to many other ecosystems; it is a combination of land clearing for agriculture, and then stocking land with hard-hoofed quadrupeds atypical of the systems chosen to support them.

Quote: he also stated that livestock also destroyed soil

They do; they are large, heavy hard hoofed animals which cause erosion.


Quote: and, and i love this, that once cut down the rainforest NEVER grew back, which is quite a claim, so has there never been a natural fire over the past 8,000 years?

Rainforests are ‘climax communities’ which generally occur in the absence of exogenous disturbance including fire. They generally occur after a series of successional stages which themselves may take hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Fire in rainforests is an extremely rare event due to their innate moisture, but if fire does go through a rainforest, it will render it back to an early successional form. In such a system, species, generally remaining in the soil bank, will respond to the fire (or more specifically, the chemicals in smoke and extra light and rain penetrate to low strata which occurs concurrent and subsequent to fires). If no more fire occurs for hundreds of years, another rainforest may develop, but it may lack species formerly present, particularly in highly fragmented ecosystems which characterise human settlements.

Quote: however my big question is this, how does grazing cattle make land useless and destroy it?
grasses anchor soil, land just sitting around with grass on it _develops_ topsoil, and cattle can speed the process

his answer was that they graze the grass and kill it, allowing erosion
there is one major problem with this however
pigs root up the soil sometimes
overgrazed horses can pull grass out by the roots
but cattle have NO UPPER incisors (thats the front teeth btw) making it impossible to grip the grass and yank it out, the best they can do is grub the surface extremely low, which is technically capable of killing the grass, but only in extreme circumstances, think of it like mowing your lawn so low it kills it, not very common when you have enough water, and if the rainforest has anything, it is water, one reason why row cropping destroys the land so quickly

It’s due to a combination of (and an interaction between) altered water tables, altered abiotic conditions, and the presence of large, hard-hoofed quadrupeds atypical of rainforests, and most certainly atypical at the densities usually permitted.

Quote: he did not mention that their hooves are capable of causing erosion damage, however it is minor, generally in paths they follow


That’s incorrect.


Quote: basically i i seeing what i thought i would see, to sum up, poor land management creates poor land

That’s correct.

Quote: so i thought up a comparison, you find a guy along a shore line throwing grenades into the lake, he tells you he is fishing
obviously this isnt a good way to fish, very destructive and not as productive. should you cry and whine to him about what he is doing wrong, or teach him how to use a better method


the best way to reduce amazon destruction is to teach proper farming methods that conserve soils and reduce the need to slash down new forest

I agree.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: He’s wrong, rainforests typically have highly fertile soils, which is also why they are typically the first lands to be cleared for agriculture, and why they are being reduced in size globally.

I believe the big question is how come rain forests are highly productive in such poor soil. The soil is actually usually very thin, but with a high humus content so nutrient recycling occurs readily. But heat, rainfall and light account for most of the productivity.

Quote: The first Europeans to view humid tropical forests were stunned by the luxuriant growth, giant trees with huge buttresses, thick vines, plants growing on plants (epiphytes), and so forth. Such luxurious growth signals high productivity, and modern scientific measurements confirm this. If one measures the photosynthesis, or captures the litterfall of leaves, branches, fruit and other plant parts to the forest floor, one finds the production of tropical evergreen forests to be roughly double that of temperate forests.
It would be natural to infer that tropical soils are very fertile in order to support this high productivity. But, as we have seen in other instances, or general inferences about what makes sense are often incorrect -- we must look more closely at the system and analyze how it functions. In fact the soils are very thin and the rock below them highly weathered (Figure 4).

You already know that ecosystems are open with respect to nutrient cycling, meaning that inputs and outputs are significant. What makes humid tropical forests so productive is the combination of high temperatures, light, and rainfall year-round (good growing conditions), coupled with especially efficient nutrient recycling.

A pretty good basic site:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/rainforest/rainforest.html

But this thin soil and high rainfall is why tropical rain forests are so fragile and are totally destroyed when deforestation occurs. The high amount of decaying organic matter that becomes the soil is gone, and the soil is thin so it is used up in one or two seasons of growing, and then the high rainfall creates a lot of erosion. This is why folks down there use slash and burn farming techniques.

It's kind of like a one, two, three punch that rainforests are susceptible to, so these environments are very fragile.

[Josh]

Quote:
basically i i seeing what i thought i would see, to sum up, poor land management creates poor land

exactly.

Quote: i forgot to mention, this option is probably not thought of since most of the activist types dont know much about farming, tending more toward urban settings


also, the same can be said for the new breeds of "farmers" that are leaving south american urban areas to farm in the freshly cut rain forest. they are motivated by a subsidized-like initiative put forth by produce exporting countries. (piss poor economic planning).

Quote: geography prof of mine

geography professors... they're trouble. i'm not saying geography professors are ALL bad. but, they usually aren't the cream of the crop.

Quote: the best way to reduce amazon destruction is to teach proper farming methods that conserve soils and reduce the need to slash down new forest

you said it yourself. the hinderance there is getting people to listen and overcoming cultural boundaries.

[mathurin]

Kindred wrote: mathurin wrote: So this geography prof of mine put forth an (obviously canned) assertion that agriculture on rainforest land is unsustainable because of the poor soil

He’s wrong, rainforests typically have highly fertile soils, which is also why they are typically the first lands to be cleared for agriculture, and why they are being reduced in size globally.

which is what i think as well, do you have any sources to prove it, i have never been there and the only source i found was questionable, and it claimed 8 inches of topsoil was poor, that is actually not bad

but until i have some source i cant really tell him

Kindred wrote:
Quote: i dont know about the soil however i can get on the boat with row cropping and high tillage causing erosion and destroying soil, we have solutions to this problem though

It is a fact that we loose 45 million hectares annually due to unsustainable land practices; the primary one is cattle grazing. While we can use techniques such as adding fertilisers to soils, these practices themselves require land, and some soils most certainly are rendered useless by agriculture due raised water-tables and the salinity which accompanies it. This is why towns are failing in Australia currently- even replanting large red gums on the fertile [former] floodplains of our Murray-Darling system would not see a return to fertile ag-land for hundreds of years, and the return to the former-ecosystem would take even longer. The same applies to many other ecosystems; it is a combination of land clearing for agriculture, and then stocking land with hard-hoofed quadrupeds atypical of the systems chosen to support them.

cattle might be a problem in australia, but dont assume they are everywhere

did you not notice that cattle have no upper incisors, they cannot pull grass, on "grub" it down, if you like i can take a picture of some land directly across the road from my house, the landowner frequently overgrazes and it currently looks like a lawn, this happens every year i have seen, it is on a hill, yet some how the "hard hoofed quadrapeds" havent caused any noticable erosion, maybe your soils wont hold grass well enough, or they are run in extremely high quantities.


Kindred wrote:
Quote: he also stated that livestock also destroyed soil

They do; they are large, heavy hard hoofed animals which cause erosion.


they dont here in kansas, except in specific "cow paths" which they themselves create, i can make pictures again


Kindred wrote:
Quote: and, and i love this, that once cut down the rainforest NEVER grew back, which is quite a claim, so has there never been a natural fire over the past 8,000 years?

Rainforests are ‘climax communities’ which generally occur in the absence of exogenous disturbance including fire. They generally occur after a series of successional stages which themselves may take hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Fire in rainforests is an extremely rare event due to their innate moisture, but if fire does go through a rainforest, it will render it back to an early successional form. In such a system, species, generally remaining in the soil bank, will respond to the fire (or more specifically, the chemicals in smoke and extra light and rain penetrate to low strata which occurs concurrent and subsequent to fires). If no more fire occurs for hundreds of years, another rainforest may develop, but it may lack species formerly present, particularly in highly fragmented ecosystems which characterise human settlements.


then say it takes a very long time, but NEVER is too much, even a couple centuries is a tangible figure, anything else is just fantasy and an attempt to make people cry over its loss.

fire was just an example of a natural disaster, with over 8000 years of history something has to have destroyed some portion of the rain forest

the claim that a forest, plants and such, are unreclaimable is ridiculous


Kindred wrote:
Quote: however my big question is this, how does grazing cattle make land useless and destroy it?
grasses anchor soil, land just sitting around with grass on it _develops_ topsoil, and cattle can speed the process

his answer was that they graze the grass and kill it, allowing erosion
there is one major problem with this however
pigs root up the soil sometimes
overgrazed horses can pull grass out by the roots
but cattle have NO UPPER incisors (thats the front teeth btw) making it impossible to grip the grass and yank it out, the best they can do is grub the surface extremely low, which is technically capable of killing the grass, but only in extreme circumstances, think of it like mowing your lawn so low it kills it, not very common when you have enough water, and if the rainforest has anything, it is water, one reason why row cropping destroys the land so quickly

It’s due to a combination of (and an interaction between) altered water tables, altered abiotic conditions, and the presence of large, hard-hoofed quadrupeds atypical of rainforests, and most certainly atypical at the densities usually permitted.


perhaps in your areas, got a link?
overgrazing has always been a problem, it isnt the fault of the industry that poor methods are used

proper use of cattle actually increases fertility, as the grass holds the soil the cow makes deposits, i works well

Kindred wrote:
Quote: he did not mention that their hooves are capable of causing erosion damage, however it is minor, generally in paths they follow


That’s incorrect.

got a link or anything else, you talk alot about hard hoofed animals, and that may be a problem in australia, but in places with decent topsoil (in this case decent being around 3 inches) ground cover takes care of it



Kindred wrote:
Quote: basically i i seeing what i thought i would see, to sum up, poor land management creates poor land

That’s correct.


yay, we agree on something



Kindred wrote:
Quote: so i thought up a comparison, you find a guy along a shore line throwing grenades into the lake, he tells you he is fishing
obviously this isnt a good way to fish, very destructive and not as productive. should you cry and whine to him about what he is doing wrong, or teach him how to use a better method


the best way to reduce amazon destruction is to teach proper farming methods that conserve soils and reduce the need to slash down new forest

I agree.

yay, we agree on something else





isnt australia full of sheep, i dont know but sheep might have upper teeth and be able to destroy land like horses, i will ask my dad, they ran some sheep a very long time ago (he hated them with a passion)

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: He’s wrong, rainforests typically have highly fertile soils, which is also why they are typically the first lands to be cleared for agriculture, and why they are being reduced in size globally.

I believe the big question is how come rain forests are highly productive in such poor soil. The soil is actually usually very thin, but with a high humus content so nutrient recycling occurs readily. But heat, rainfall and light account for most of the productivity.

Quote: The first Europeans to view humid tropical forests were stunned by the luxuriant growth, giant trees with huge buttresses, thick vines, plants growing on plants (epiphytes), and so forth. Such luxurious growth signals high productivity, and modern scientific measurements confirm this. If one measures the photosynthesis, or captures the litterfall of leaves, branches, fruit and other plant parts to the forest floor, one finds the production of tropical evergreen forests to be roughly double that of temperate forests.
It would be natural to infer that tropical soils are very fertile in order to support this high productivity. But, as we have seen in other instances, or general inferences about what makes sense are often incorrect -- we must look more closely at the system and analyze how it functions. In fact the soils are very thin and the rock below them highly weathered (Figure 4).

You already know that ecosystems are open with respect to nutrient cycling, meaning that inputs and outputs are significant. What makes humid tropical forests so productive is the combination of high temperatures, light, and rainfall year-round (good growing conditions), coupled with especially efficient nutrient recycling.

A pretty good basic site:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/rainforest/rainforest.html

But this thin soil and high rainfall is why tropical rain forests are so fragile and are totally destroyed when deforestation occurs. The high amount of decaying organic matter that becomes the soil is gone, and the soil is thin so it is used up in one or two seasons of growing, and then the high rainfall creates a lot of erosion. This is why folks down there use slash and burn farming techniques.

It's kind of like a one, two, three punch that rainforests are susceptible to, so these environments are very fragile.

Good points. The topsoil of rainforests are typically highly fertile, which also leads to their degredation as topsoil is lost from the system following (and during) land clearing.

[Winchester]

This land has been grazed by cattle for around 100 years. Don't see a heck of a lot of soil erosion here, not rain forest granted, but cattle grazed responsibly in the right environment causes little damage.

[Kindred]

1) It was more than likely a grass-land or grassy-woodland prior to its use as ag-land
2) America has a long history of hard-hoofed quadrapeds, including equids and species similar to common cows.

[cap'n queasy]

That's blackland prairie. With several feet of topsoil.

[Winchester]

Kindred wrote: 1) It was more than likely a grass-land or grassy-woodland prior to its use as ag-land
2) America has a long history of hard-hoofed quadrapeds, including equids and species similar to common cows.

Exactly, and cattle do not cause erosion in this type of environment unless they are confined and allowed to overgraze.

I agree with you guys that grazing cattle in slashed burned amazon is going to cause problems. It is no where near the same environment as the picture I posted. I'm just trying to point out that cattle in and of themselves are not the problem.

The problem is caused by the way the land is utilized and abandoned.

[Winchester]

cap'n queasy wrote: That's blackland prairie. With several feet of topsoil.

Ah, no. 4"-6" of topsoil is average around here.

[mathurin]

Winchester wrote: Kindred wrote: 1) It was more than likely a grass-land or grassy-woodland prior to its use as ag-land
2) America has a long history of hard-hoofed quadrapeds, including equids and species similar to common cows.

Exactly, and cattle do not cause erosion in this type of environment unless they are confined and allowed to overgraze.

I agree with you guys that grazing cattle in slashed burned amazon is going to cause problems. It is no where near the same environment as the picture I posted. I'm just trying to point out that cattle in and of themselves are not the problem.

The problem is caused by the way the land is utilized and abandoned.

responding to both winchester and kindred

winchester,
there is no reason why herds cannot be properly managed on former amazon land, obviously it isnt a good idea to cut down more for it, but it is possible so long as the proper steps are taken, in fact it is a good idea, there is no lack of water in and around the rainforest so that isnt an issue, the only problem is getting a decent pasture base before turning them loose. a good sod can take all the hoofs cattle can throw at them



kindred
1) possibly, but what is the difference, land can change
2) i assume you mean deer and buffalo, which arent everywhere, horses and cattle were transplanted by europeans

i really think australias problem lies in sheep, sheep have upper incissors and are capable of ripping grass up from the ground, causing far more damage than their hooves

unless the soil is very sandy and loose in australia then cattle are perfectly sound, it works both ways, grass holds soil but soil must also provide purchase, loose soils wont hold jack

[nygreenguy]

Sorry to break it to you gents but cattle grazing is one of the BIGGEST threats to local ecosystems in the WORLD. They effect the local ecosystems on every single level.

As for rain forest soil, their topsoil is thin, only a couple inches. The soil below it is practically barren. How does the plants grow? They are great at storing energy (which allows them to not get their nutrients from the soil) and because they feed off the decaying matter. The problem is, when the land is cleared, the topsoil lasts about a maximum of 2 years. And once the land is cleared, it nearly impossible to get things to grow like they did because they have no soil to grow in and we get the "edge" effect.
Quote:
and i love this, that once cut down the rainforest NEVER grew back, which is quite a claim, so has there never been a natural fire over the past 8,000 years? You see, forests, especially rainforests are the byproduct of millions of years of evolution. The plants and trees alone dont make up the rain forest. EVERYTHING does, every animal, bacteria, and fungus. All of this takes time. Years, decades, centuries to comeback. This is why when you cut virgin forest, replanting the tress doesnt make a "forest" Its only trees. The forest will never come back in our lifetime.

Quote: his answer was that they graze the grass and kill it, allowing erosion True, but thats not all. They strip the land of vegitation. This is easile seen, but then, when it rains, there is nothing to slow the rain down, so we have runoff. Runoff also erodes. And since the water is "runoffing" it doesnt reach the roots of the plants that are left. They then die, making the soil totally barren. That along with soil compaction allows for further erosion, etc, etc, etc... There is not a single scientific doubt of the effects that grazing has on soils. It is bad, VERY bad. It IS manageable, but not enough to keep up with the current demand for catle that we have.

[mathurin]

nygreenguy wrote: Sorry to break it to you gents but cattle grazing is one of the BIGGEST threats to local ecosystems in the WORLD. They effect the local ecosystems on every single level.

what a blanket statement, wow, where to start
firstly i want to thank you for giving me the same canned arguments he did, and giving me someone to sound off to so i dont snap his little neck and get an F
second, what first, or even secondhand experience do you have with ag, what i am asking is, who told you this, or have you seen it with your own eyes
my own eyes have seen an overfarmed barren piece of land turned into fertile pasture while running cattle on it, the cattle helped, the cattle did most of it

third, please elaborate, the only legitimate complaint i have heard about cattle is that they take alot of water, which may cause desertification in areas so inclined to it, which basically just means that if you want to run cattle you should try to do it in an area with enough water resources (water is a localized resource)

nygreenguy wrote:
As for rain forest soil, their topsoil is thin, only a couple inches. The soil below it is practically barren. How does the plants grow? They are great at storing energy (which allows them to not get their nutrients from the soil) and because they feed off the decaying matter. The problem is, when the land is cleared, the topsoil lasts about a maximum of 2 years. And once the land is cleared, it nearly impossible to get things to grow like they did because they have no soil to grow in and we get the "edge" effect.

this is a myth, if the soil can grow trees then it isnt infertile, the problem is not that the soil is inherently bad, and i am not claiming it is fabulous, just that poor methods of land management destroy it

just something, you might not want to say "the soil below is practically barren"
because that is the same for all areas, there is topsoil then below it (i swaer, i cant remember the name) and what is below it is infertile, which is why they dont call it topsoil

the soil only lasts 2 years because of poor farming practices, not because it is bad soil


http://www.tropicriverwoods.org/rainforestmyths.htm
this site states that topsoil is around 12 inches, which it claims is poor, but is actually quite good

nygreenguy wrote:
Quote:
and i love this, that once cut down the rainforest NEVER grew back, which is quite a claim, so has there never been a natural fire over the past 8,000 years? You see, forests, especially rainforests are the byproduct of millions of years of evolution. The plants and trees alone dont make up the rain forest. EVERYTHING does, every animal, bacteria, and fungus. All of this takes time. Years, decades, centuries to comeback. This is why when you cut virgin forest, replanting the tress doesnt make a "forest" Its only trees. The forest will never come back in our lifetime.


ahh, let me be certain i get this
if i take someones coke from the fridge at work, then buy another to replace it, i havent really replaced it because it is a different coke
or something like that

trees take years to grow, animals and other minor plants do not

and, how did the rainforest survive the ice ages, millions of years indeed
regardless, give a number, say within our lifetime, say 200 years, say anything except NEVER, never says nothing but "IM A HIPPIE WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING!!!" to your audience, it destroys your credibility

http://www.tropicriverwoods.org/rainforestmyths.htm
same site as before

"Contrary to popular belief, the same rainforests have not been here for "millions of years". The fossil record demonstrates that rainforests have existed, off and on, for millions of years, but not the same rainforests that we have today. In fact, all of today's rainforests formed after the end of the last Ice Age which was winding down only about 15,000 years ago."


nygreenguy wrote:
Quote: his answer was that they graze the grass and kill it, allowing erosion True, but thats not all. They strip the land of vegitation. This is easile seen, but then, when it rains, there is nothing to slow the rain down, so we have runoff. Runoff also erodes. And since the water is "runoffing" it doesnt reach the roots of the plants that are left. They then die, making the soil totally barren. That along with soil compaction allows for further erosion, etc, etc, etc... There is not a single scientific doubt of the effects that grazing has on soils. It is bad, VERY bad. It IS manageable, but not enough to keep up with the current demand for catle that we have.

wow, you have really been polluted, do me a favor, go out to a park with an empty soup can that you have punched holes in, find some bare soil and pour water in the can above it, simulating rainfall
note that the water doesnt actually "runoff" that badly, and that the soil still soaks up plenty of water to allow for plants to grow
a simple experiement can say so much

now onward
it is nearly impossible for cattle to graze grass so low it dies, technically it is possible, but the probability is incredibly low, not quite as low as death by stingray, but perhaps around the area of death by mountain lion probability, very low

the reason for this (since you dont appear to have read the first post) is that cattle have no upper teeth, they have a "pad" of cartiledge or something similar, they cannot damage the grass below a certain point (and responsible/intelligent farmers keep them from reaching this point because when they "grub" it that low they pick up all sorts of parasites from the ground, as well as metal objects, cattle will eat nails and such things normally, it can then poke a hole in the stomach and cause problems, one solution to which is to feed them a magnet, i swear, i couldnt make this stuff up) directly across the road from my house is an overgrazed pasture, it just looks like a lawn, i can take a picture if you like, he has grazed it this low for several years now (he isnt terribly bright) and the pasture is very green and reasonably healthy

horses sheep and (i think) goats have upper teeth and are capable of destroying the vegitation, but cattle really arnt
mostly, if your livestock is destroying your land then you have problems and need to relearn farming

[sunwook]

RAINFORESTS tend to have low-nutrient soil. While leaves fall, animals die, etc everyday, the soil cannot stay fertile because most nutrients are taken up by the trees soon after it is cycled into the soil. So no, fertile soil is not a characteristic found in tropical rainforest biomes.

[mathurin]

sunwook wrote: RAINFORESTS tend to have low-nutrient soil. While leaves fall, animals die, etc everyday, the soil cannot stay fertile because most nutrients are taken up by the trees soon after it is cycled into the soil. So no, fertile soil is not a characteristic found in tropical rainforest biomes.

blah blah blah, try giving me something i havent heard before next time

the farmers there get several good harvests off newly slashed forest (the environmentalists say 2 years, which makes me think closer to 5) which means that there is nothing inherently wrong with the soil, just the methods

indigenous people have been farming the area for many thousands of years, we need to adapt their techniques
alittle work on grazing land will help bring back already deforested areas (grass+cattle= better ground in the future) using the right grasses and proper techniques of course

seriously, do you know this stuff you spout yourself, who is feeding it too you?
they love to fool you, do you know anything about agriculture?
you can look at the links i provided before for a source that claims 12 inches of topsoil, and claims that is poor, well i am here to tell you it is adequate, even good to have 12 inches (24 is fabulous, but 12 is about all you can expect)


love the factoid though
open your eyes