Mother's Minigardens

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Space

The most obvious difference between the two raised-bed plots and the other two gardens was size. We put the same number of plants of the ten most popular home-garden er's vegetables in each plot, yet the BFI and RB gardens each occupied a 4' X 42' bed, while the CR and DM gardens each took up a 10' X 42' area . . . two and a half times as much room! Such row gardens use as much as two-thirds of their area for pathways, while bed plots need just one-third of their area for that purpose. In an urban or suburban situation, where growing space is at a premium, this could be a critical difference.

Soil

The four methods vary in their potential to promote good, overall soil health. In the BFI bed, the earth was dug to a depth of two feet. The RB bed's soil was loosened about ten inches—the six-inch "reach" of the rotary tiller combined with about four inches of pathway dirt that was raked onto the bed. The CR garden was turned six inches down by the tiller. The radically different DM garden was never dug or tilled; however, it would work best if established over a soil that has previously been well worked and improved.

The virtue of a deeply worked soil was most noticeable during a heavy rain. The biodynamic/French intensive bed was relatively immune to erosion, no matter how heavy the rain. The rototilled, raised-bed plot was also quite erosion-resistant, but did remain soggy in its lower layers longer than the BFI bed. The conventional row garden definitely tended to puddle up and suffer runoff problems. The deep-mulch plot, though, showed no erosion effects: It soaked up water like a sponge.

Soil health was further promoted in the two raised-bed gardens by the fact that those beds were never stepped on, eliminating the root growth and drainage problems caused by soil compaction.

Fertilization

We worked the same amount of compost into each minigarden. Since the two raisedbed gardens were 168 square feet each and the other plots 420 square feet apiece, the beds received two and a half times as much compost per square foot as the row plots . . . resulting in a much more efficient use of compost. All that compost was readily available to the beds' plants; none of it was compacted in pathways, as was the case in the nonbed gardens. The benefit to the soil from this higher ratio of organic matter could make a significant difference over the years.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print