"Billy" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message news:wildbilly-

As you will see, industrial no-till was introduced
to combat the erosion and loss of top soil. But industrial no-till
relies on expensive chemical inputs of fertilizers and increasing
quantities of chemical remedies to combat pests (vegetative and insect
problems)

I think your post is a bit too broad in it's scope.

You might be interested to read up on P.A. Yeomans and his farming
methods
ie keyline. He was a broadacre farmer who really understood how to
conserve
and in fact improve his land with some mechanical tillage (of sorts)

Thanks for bringing P. A. Yeomans to my attention. I'll be sure to read
more
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglib...010125toc.html

How ya going? I trust you're in your usual good mood;o)

In what way did you find my comments too broad? From the quote fro my
post, I can only presume that you felt that my commenting on in-puts
was going beyond the discussion of no-till gardening/farming. In truth
the article, itself, broached this subject, so if there are any
thrashing to be meted out, I would direct you to the authors of the
article. My humble self, am only the messenger.

Since I don't have access to the Scientific American, I can't comment on how
effective your extrapolation from the article is.

However, it occurs to me that there are more than one way of doing something
called "no till" when it applies to an industrial (aka farming) situation.
Fukuoka would be one that you would know (although to both of us, his small
patch of land would be a tad on the small size to be considered a farm, but
then it is one for Japan). He certainly wasn't into increasing fert. or
pesticide use.

I didn't know if you knew of Yeomans so thought you might be interested. He
is 'different' in his approach to farming and although his keyline may not
exactly be no till, it is certainly minimal (if that) till. I thought he
would be an example where using a tractor to improve soil fertility and to
minimise use of chemicals may interest you.

You won't go all narkie on me, will you, if I ask what you see as
the application of P. A. Yeomans principals to gardening?

Without having read it, would it be about the same as the Scientific
American article?

I figure all research/comment about soil/soil life/biota/plant life etc etc,
should have some applicability to gardening but how much would depend upon
the reader and their degree of interest. You and I might get excited about
earthworms and fallen leaves and others might just see them as being a
source of holes in their immaculate lawn or rubbish spoiling the immacualte
greenness of their lawn.

I really
haven't read much yet. It seems as if he wanted to address the needs of
soil organisms, which fits onto organic gardening, and that his
principle efforts were in acquiring sufficient moisture for the soil.

Yep. That is central to his work and given the situation in Oz (dry and
ancient soils with low humus levels and lacking in phosphates) some of his
work has had dramatic results.

As I said, I haven't read much yet and I may have horribly misconscrewed
everything. I would appreciate your take. If you care to give it.


--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related