seb47 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Does anyone grow peas and beans close together? My neighbour's 'moon gardening' guide said this is tres mauvais so I kept them separate this year. Now it's playing havoc with my crop rotation plans, and I want to start putting out some peas to over winter for an early crop. (I didn't have time to stick to any more of the moon gardening rules but didn't do too badly overall!)Thanks, Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julia Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I did earlier in the year and got a pretty decent crop off each but then I am new to this gardening lark and at the moment it is trial and error. I was talking with the old man the other day who has a potager next to mine, I was asking him what he was planting. nothing yet apart from onions and salad he said, so I asked him about Feves as I have bought some en vrac, no instructions on how to plant etc. His reply was to plant them on the 11 october and petit pois on the 15 th November, so I presume he is planting by the moon too. I shall ask him about planting them in rows next to each other, I did a search on the internet a while ago to about crop rotation but do not remember anything about planting beans and peas close by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb47 Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 Thanks julia - those are useful dates and we loved the feves from the market this year, so will have a go. It's easier to stick to the planting rules at this time of year when there isn't so much going on (providing we're not in the middle of a deluge like last weekend).Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 It may well be that beans and peas are enemies on the Moon but I have grown them successfully together for donkey's years both in the UK and for the past 3 years in France. Interesting as it is, it can be very hard to keep to moon gardening dates if it's peeing down or the soil is baked like concrete. Sometimes it is better to be governed by the soil and weather conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Blimey my neighbour wouldn't even think about venturing into her garden if the blinking moon wasn't right! Do you reckon that they are a bit obsessed with size over here! (veg that is!) I plant when i want to!!! Sod Mr. Moon!Louise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 When we first arrived here and I heard about the moon-gardening lark Iwas intrigued. I'm no botonist, so I read up what I could on thesubject, and I could find no actual scientific basis for any ofit. True, plants are aware of gravity - shoots head up and roots down,and this can be easily demonstrated without recourse to firing stuffinto space - but no causal link with the cycles of the moon can beshown.That said, the 28 day lunar cycle is a significant natural rythme foranimals, and plants are comparitively poorly studied, so there may besomething in it. Certainly some of the moon-gardeners I know achievespectacular results from both ornimental plants and food plants, thoughthis may be due to their general dedication to their gardens. Still, Iam not stupid enough to discard something simply on the basis thatthere is (as yet) no proof for it, so I try and stick to the lunarplanting schemes where I can. There's no scientific basis for dowsingeither and I thought it a load of codswallop until I watched someoneusing a twig to site boreholes. Now I'm not so sure - if I'm notprepared to trust the evidence of my own senses, then what am Iprepared to trust?Anyway, unless I've got the whole thing arse about face (not the firsttime!), I believe that peas and beans have the same lunarcharacteristics, so there is no reason here why they should not beplanted at the same time. Nothing in my "conventional" gardening booksgives me any reason not to plant them together, so I do. This makes alot of sense in rotations, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwyncelyn Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I have grown peas and beans close together and as others have said for years. No problems. Indeed both these fixe their own nitrogen into the ground and thus for crop rotation a crop that is a heavy feeder say such as pots should follow..........I think?However what I have had given me as a present is what I think is a great book on vegetable gardening by Sarah Raven and she deals at length with crop rotation and this year I have followed her advice with great success. Yes I may well be off my trolley but I have a large sheet of card with the plots outlined and then with details alongside such as manured limed etc and what crops went where that sort of thing. Over the top and for the next year I have tracing paper and repeat the exercise for the new crops. Bit of fun and seems to work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Crop rotation is a good system as it helps prevent build-up of pests and diseases in the soil particular to certain plant types and, as Llwyn says, lets following crops benefit from the nitrogen fixing properties of legumes - don't dig up the pea and bean roots, just let them rot in the soil. We've divided our veg plot into 4 large beds divided by pathways to help plan and manage the rotation. Only problem is, we're not big brassica fans so we have to be a wee bit flexible with the rotations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Is moon-gardening anything to do with Biodynamics:"Biodynamic farming is a form of spiritually evolved organic agriculture and animal husbandry. The term 'biodynamic' translates roughly from the Greek as 'working with life energies'. Crops are grown in accordance with organic principles, incorporating systems such as crop rotation and companion planting, but there is also a spiritual dimension of reverence and care for the land. Sowing and harvesting are contingent upon the vital influences of the soil and rock strata, and the position and influences of the sun, moon and stars."Now some of that makes sense, but what on earth is the vital influence of a rock stratum, being, as it is, so non-vital?Is all the moon-gardening chumf about the water table rising up to respond to the moon's gravitational pull true? Has anyone ever tested it, or is it all based on some straw-in-the mouth misunderstanding of the science?The BBC website asked a 'scientist' about it, and he endorsed it, but he also believes in astrology and crop circles, so, hey, maybe he's not the most impartial guy to ask. Nice one again, BBC, bringing irrationalism to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 [quote user="Dick Smith"]Now some of that makes sense, but what on earth is the vital influence of a rock stratum, being, as it is, so non-vital?Isall the moon-gardening chumf about the water table rising up to respondto the moon's gravitational pull true? Has anyone ever tested it, or isit all based on some straw-in-the mouth misunderstanding of the science?TheBBC website asked a 'scientist' about it, and he endorsed it, but healso believes in astrology and crop circles, so, hey, maybe he's notthe most impartial guy to ask. Nice one again, BBC, bringingirrationalism to the masses.[/quote]All fluids will respond to gravitational pull, so the moon couldinfluence the height of a water table in porous layers I suppose. Theissue is: is this important? Water will rise up through capailaryaction, will be held in soil by organic material and be more or lessavailable depending on the mineral contents of the soil. Whether theeffects of the moon are of significance seems to depend on who is beingasked.I'm always a little cautious to discount ideas like lunar gardeningsimply because of a lack of scientific basis - quite often very littlework has actually been done in these areas because of lack of funds orlack of interest. Soil science is hardly the sexiest of disciplines.Quite a lot of "scientists" still fall into the old trap of acceptingan absence of evidence as evidence of absence - actually rather morethan before as many usniversities have quietly dropped philosophy ofscience from ciricula as it is "non-core". [blink] One of the majordifficulties of trying to test anything in living systems is trying toformulate the experiment to have a managable number of variables(one is best). Bad science gets over this minor annoyance by ignoringit.Possibly there is something in it. If nothing else, following thecycles of the moon could be beneficial, particularly in the days beforehalfway accurate weather forecasting: if planting spuds so many fullmoons after the vernal equinox, for example, were followed as being arule it would ensure that growers would be more or less certain ofmissing the last frosts.Cas - have you got chickens? If so, fill your brassica break with kale. They love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 We don't have any chickens yet - still have to convince Jude that they won't escape and scratch up the flower garden.I can't imagine that any effect the moon has on the water table or sap has any significance compared to the remarkable power of capillary action, but maybe moon gardening, as Jon says, is rooted (sorry) in counting the days/seasons and organising tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 [quote user="Cassis"]We don't have any chickens yet - still have toconvince Jude that they won't escape and scratch up the flower garden.Ican't imagine that any effect the moon has on the water table or saphas any significance compared to the remarkable power of capillaryaction, but maybe moon gardening, as Jon says, is rooted (sorry) incounting the days/seasons and organising tasks.[/quote]She may have a point. With chickens, it does rather depend on thebreed. Some of the modern hybrids exhibit a near fiendish intelligence,and being of diminutive build can get through very small gaps. Some ofthe traditional heavy breeds (I'm a big fan of Sussex and Marans) aremuch slower on their feet and quite dim. The problem is that they allhave 24/7 to inspect the fencing and do sometimes get out, and whateverpeople say, they can do a lot of damage to the flower beds.I've fenced off about 200m2 of the vegetable garden and put a chickenhouse on it. Each winter (starting this week, in fact) I move themacross and give them free rein to scratch as much as they like. Bydoing this, I give them all the greens they could want over winter,they pick up weed seeds, grub out hibinating beasties and obliginglydung the area for me. By March it is clear and ready to be cultivatedagain. Could this be biodynamic I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sounds like an excellent system, Jon. Would you mind having a word with Jude for me? [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Jon - yes, all fluids respond to the gravitational forces exerted by the moon, but is anyone suggesting that at full moon the moon is NEARER to the Earth? Surely the phase of the moon is immaterial to the gravitational effect, so apart from equinoctal periods the force is relatively constant. Or have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Well, as I recall, the tides are highest around the time of full andnew moons, so presumably the moon is closer to a given point on Earthat these times - gravititational attraction varies with the inversesquare of the distance between the two bodies, as I am sure you know.The situation is complicated by the action of the sun - spring tideswhen the sun acts in alignment with the moon, neaps (sp?) when it is inopposition. My own inclination toward the whole business is that which I've alreadysuggested - that counting the cycles of the moon after certain keydates gave clues to when to plant to avoid poor weather conditions.This then became caught up with the general mystique around the moonherself and, voilĂ a whole folklore about when to plant according to the phases of the moon. Then again, I cannot prove this, and there may well be more to it, and as a race we just need to learn to measure it. I'd be interested to know if any close study has been made - I've not come across anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Hmm. I agree. I think I need to know what the difference between closest and furthest lunar approach actually is, and how it relates as a percentage difference (taking into account the inverse square law, as you say). And a tide is a rather different thing from sucking water up through kilometres of rock and clay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 [quote user="Dick Smith"]Hmm. I agree. I think I need to know what thedifference between closest and furthest lunar approach actually is, andhow it relates as a percentage difference (taking into account theinverse square law, as you say). And a tide is a rather different thingfrom sucking water up through kilometres of rock and clay...[/quote]Right! Hopefully no-one else is bothering to read this tread, so we shouldn't get in trouble for deviating wildly.According to my Boy's Big Book of Space, the closest the moon gets tothe Earth is 363104km and the furthest removed point is 405696km. Themoon has a mass of 7.35E22 kg. Plugging these into the general formulafor gravitational attraction (and assuming I've got my numbers right)shows that the moon attracts 25% more strongly at her nearest approachthan at her most distant. The absolute numbers are 3.72E-5 N /kg at the high end and 2.98E-5 N / kg at the low. For a person having amass of 70kg, this equates to a variation in weight across the lunardistance range of about half a gram, so this is not going to form thebasis of an exciting new diet.[geek] The questions now are: how sensitive are living things to variations ingravity of this magnitude? Would water held in rock formations behavelike a sea or not? And where can we find out? [blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm watching you two.[;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Jon - that is surprising (in the sense that the inverse square means that normal estimating is put out of whack) - I have the same trouble with logarithmic scales...The next question has to be how much water can be attracted through the strata. I guess that at c25%+ there could be a significant effect to something with low mass. Don't knock losing half a gram, by the way, I'd settle for it.I still can't google much on this, either for or against (and a lot of the pro argument is mumbo jumbo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Leave it with me....I may just know a man who might actually be able toshed some light on this (I know some REAL weirdos) or, if not, may knowwhere to look. I will be back.Casis - no ratting on us, OK? If you can keep it quiet, I'll count you in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Okay. Shhhh. [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh4 Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Dick Gravity operates independant of mass - Leonardo and te tower in Pisa stuff. So the fact that water has a low desity should not be a factor. You also have some strange ideas about water being kilometers deep in the rock strata. The closest water is either at sea level (as in seas and oceans) or at a higher level (whether on or under the surface) - max potential depth to water is 9km (from the top of Everest). Also most rock is impervious - ie any water under it will stay there. I would suggest that if there is an efffect it is more likely to be on the water in plant cells being attracted and either making the cells bigger, distorted or causing differental osmosis through cell walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 All this is a bit angels on a pinhead-ish, but gravitational attraction is entirely dependent on mass. Hence Jupiter has a much greater gravitational attraction than the Earth. But gravity is a very weak force on the human scale, so two objects dropped from the tower of Pisa would (wind drag apart) hit the ground simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Gravity a weak force? You should spend an hour with my feet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassis Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I heard that they were massive, but nothing on a planetary scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now