On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:40:48 GMT, Mark & Shauna wrote:

Frogleg wrote:

I am waiting for some organic purist to declare all agriculture is
damaging to the ecosystem, and we should become gatherers, living on
such roots and shoots as 'nature' provides.

"No till" farming has benefits mostly related to reducing soil
erosion. This is scarcely a problem in a home garden plot.

I doubt no-till will ever be the norm but it is far more than an erosion
control and makes complete sense if you can employ it. As I stated
however this can be hard to do on a massive scale. The mere amount of
organic mulch that would be needed on large commercial farms would be
overwhelming in generation and application. No-till does produce far
better soil and therefore growing conditions for crops however I dont
think the increased yeilds of no-till practices would offset the expense
(both dollars and environmental) of going no-till on mass.

I didn't say erosion control was the *only* presumed benefit of
no-till farming. Soil compaction is reduced by not using heavy
machinery in the fields. Fossil fuel is saved and pollution avoided by
not using heavy machinery in the fields. (I wonder if harvest is by
hand.)

As I understand it, no-till means no weed-clearing, with planting or
seeding accomplished by slits or holes poked through existing organing
matter. I fail to understand how this reduces weeds. I also understand
that crop yields are *lower* with no-till, but one feels so good about
being 'green' that it doesn't matter.

I am also curious how no-till produces "better soil." It certainly can
result in fields where topsoil isn't blown or carried away in
rainwater runoff, but I fail to see how that improves soil quality.

That said, its foolish not to practice it on a home level as it is a
better practice in every facet and the results will show this. Better
yeilds, less pests, less weeds, less water. All things every gardener
lusts for on a daily basis.

Please elaborate on "better practice in every facet." Give me a few
facets.