On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:17:08 GMT, Mark & Shauna wrote:

Frogleg wrote:

I'm sure there are benefits to this method, as there are to many
others. However, few regimens are suitable in all areas and all
situations. Theoretical and anecdotal evidence of benefits
notwithstanding, one supposes that if no-till had no downside,
industrial and family farming would be revolutionized, which is
clearly not the case. Farmers and gardeners are practical people. They
see that some methods aid them in their goals, and others don't.

The invention of the plow may have been a disaster for the maintenance
of the "soil horizon" and soil "crumb structure," but it allowed the
cultivation of food for an ever-expanding population.

I feel, on a large commercial scale, there is a happy medium between the
two practices with a lean towards machinery and away from mulching, but
as you move towards the small scale and then down to home food plots,
the happy medium can become heavily leaning towards no-till. But,
especially in the US, schedules, free time, laziness, and so on mean
that turning the key on the tiller will always be the choice over
anything that involves manual labor.

Personally on our small farm we lean towards no till for selfish
reasons, less and easier weeding, better soils, constant amendment, and
so on. With tillage you normally add less to your soils and some of what
you add is lost due to the practice. However like I also said, in our
large plots we "take the hit" and use tilling in the interest of speed
and production but it is crystal clear in practice which is best but we
dont have access to large quantities of slave labor to implement no-till
on the whole.

lots of snippage

So you extol no-till farming, but till where it's time-saving and
promotes productivity? And don't see a contradiction in this? You'd
use no-till exclusively if you had unlimited labor available? Your own
experience is contrary to your stated position. I sympathize with
desire to farm and garden in a 'gentle' way and to recommend that to
others. But aside from subsidized experiments and voluntary labor, it
doesn't seem to be adequate for profitable crop production in the real
world. To me, this is similar to the 'revolution' in growing and
selling 'organic' foods. Yes, people are "demanding" organic products,
but only those who can afford to pay a considerable premium.

It is *good* that people are experimenting with new/old methods, and
doubtless some successful techniques will percolate into the
mainstream. Look at how composting has become virtually ubiquitous in
home gardening. Success can't be argued with. But success has to be
measured in *real*, practical improvement. For good or ill,
agriculture is driven by the marketplace.