Frogleg wrote in message . ..
On 16 May 2004 10:10:15 -0700, (simy1) wrote:

would it not be best for this thread to move to sci.agriculture? This,
after all, rge. If one wants to be organic in a small garden or plot
in most temperate climates, no till is best at saving labor (long
term) for a given yield. For soybeans farms, it's a different story.

I didn't realize rec.gardens.edible had become a moderated group. Do
you have any other new rules we should know about?

I hate protracted arguments, so here is a brief summary of why no-till
is best for the gardener (or even the small herb farmer). There are
fundamental differences between a gardener and a farmer. A farmer does
it for a living (for profit). A gardener does it as recreation and
also for health.

1) a farmer does mostly annuals, a gardener does a mixture. Farmers
that do perennials (like herbs) tend to do no-till, unless they want
to kill their asparagus plot to put something else in there.

2) gardeners spend a disproportionate amount of time weeding compared
to farmers. Mulch and no-till minimize that time.

3) farmer mostly seeds, gardener mostly plants. Mulch is incompatible
with seeding, and I always have to plan ahead about that so that a few
plots are clear of mulch (there are a few greens that I prefer to
seed, and this is best done by mulching with leaves, which dissipate
in one year). Where I don't mulch, I have weeds. It is a breeze to
plant right through the mulch, and it is a do-it-once job that agrees
with my philosophy. Mulch and automatic seeding are not really
compatible, so the farmer is right to avoid mulching.

4) farmer pays water 1/3 to 1/5 of what I pay.

5) farmer has automatic irrigation. Even if I have it, I have to water
seedlings and plants by hand until established. Mulch reduces that
time.

6) it is inconceivable for farmer to leave at critical times during
the growing season for three weeks, but I do that all the time. The
mulched plant takes that much better than the unmulched plant.

7) farmer has a tractor, which services a large tract of land and
therefore pays for itself. A tiller, I don't know, costs $500? For
that kind of money I can build a large hoophouse that will give me
many more veggies (and a more extended season) that a tiller can ever
provide. Maintenance-free, too, as a hoophouse has no carburetor.
Fighting with a recalcitrant piece of equipment is the least
entertaining part of gardening (gardening is supposed to be relaxing).

8) a tiller will never give as good a tilth as no-till, and makes
weeding worse.

9) farmer has to pay bills, can not wait for no till to work. My
parents took a plot of clay and with mulch, taprooted veggies and
other ground-breaking veggies such as favas and potatoes, brought it
to heel within a few years (and enjoyed it ever since).

9) a farmer tills, applies herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer. I do
none of that, because no-till improves soil fertility, improves plant
resistance to disease, and the mulch and no-till block out weeds. I am
very happy that my food is free of that, thank you very much.

10) farmer has to follow market, I do not. I can put down 3 inches of
wood chips (a somewhat harsh material that agrees with only a few
veggies, and takes two to three years to go) knowing that this year I
will plant tomatoes, the next garlic
and so on and so forth.

11) I have much better access to my land. As you posted earlier, a
farmer would have to have dump trucks come in and leave deep ruts, and
then it needs to be spread out. I can drag a few tarps full of leaves
to my beds and be done with mulching for the year in a couple of
hours.

The cons are slugs and voles, which I have now beaten, and in warmer
climates the encouragement of disease.