http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/2...-gardening.htm

Mark & Shauna wrote:

Here is a good link for you to read. It was 6th on the list from
Google under "no till gardening".

Mark

Frogleg wrote:

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.

Mark & Shauna wrote in message link.net...
http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/2...-gardening.htm

Mark & Shauna wrote:

Here is a good link for you to read. It was 6th on the list from
Google under "no till gardening".


nice link, and basically what I posted earlier. I bet frogleg comes
back asking for more evidence.

On 14 May 2004 06:55:49 -0700, (simy1) wrote:

Mark & Shauna wrote in message link.net...
http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/2...-gardening.htm

Mark & Shauna wrote:

Here is a good link for you to read. It was 6th on the list from
Google under "no till gardening".


nice link, and basically what I posted earlier. I bet frogleg comes
back asking for more evidence.

:-)
I don't want more evidence. I am as convinced my way is best for me as
others are that theirs is the True Path.

Frogleg wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 02:18:17 GMT, Mark & Shauna wrote:


http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/2...-gardening.htm

Mark & Shauna wrote:


Here is a good link for you to read. It was 6th on the list from
Google under "no till gardening".


I think what puts my back up is someone asking a simple question
(about tilling in this case) and immediately having someone jump on
him saying "no, no -- you can't do that -- that's awful -- do it *my*
way." In all fairness, your first answering post wasn't quite in that
category, but there *are* some like that in the thread. And I haven't
been as kind as I might.

The reference you cite is a mildly partisan one, though with some
interesting information. However, quoting one of *its* references, "In
Nature, the earth is not tilled, and fertilizers (dead plants and
animals, fallen leaves, etc.) begin as mulches on the soil's surface."
In nature -- excuse me, Nature -- food crops are not cultivated except
by accident.

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.

This is why I said no-till will probably never be a large scale
commercial solution, however if you look into commercial farming they
are moving as close to it as possible while still maintaining mechanized
production to keep the yields up. The subsoil industry is cranking for
instance.

The simple fact is what has been stated over and over, that there IS no
perfect solution. I cant believe that after a few million years of
evolution this cant be "unsaid" but it seems in almost every
conversation it must be repeated over and over.

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.

Mark

Hi Mark,

This is why I said no-till will probably never be a large scale
commercial solution,

From what I read, some people are success in the large scale no-till.
The ways they apply are sound logical to me.

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,

The mulch does not need to come from outside, it can be the residue
left over there by previous crop or cover crop mown down.

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.

Here we don't have slave as well. I'm planning to set up communities,
no-till do provide job for those that don't have much choice, this
will reduce crime that due to unemployment.

Regards,
Wong

--
Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m

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.

Frogleg wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:17:08 GMT, Mark & Shauna wrote:


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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


Frogleg wrote:

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.
snip
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.

No,
We use no till where the consumer is unwilling to pay the extra it
costs for quality in the current marketplace. It can be likened to a
fine furniture craftsman selling his wares. You wouldnt expect him to
sell a hand crafted piece of furniture using conscientious materials and
resources, with his customers best interest in mind, for the same price
Walmart gets for a particle board computer desk in a box. He will gladly
sell you a box of sh*t if thats all your willing to pay for but if you
want the handcrafted piece you have to want it. The same goes for us in
our marketplace. We arent big enough to make our operation profitable
solely on commercially competitive produce and plants and our market is
to small in the organics to support us either. We have to blend the two
to be profitable but we sure as hell arent going to sell the quality
stuff for the same as GreenGiant produce. It just aint da same sh*t.
We live in a society (US here) driven predominantly by low cost and low
quality food. In the case of the above scenario also by low quality
department store goods. Todays consumer cares not for conscientious
practices with regards to their purchases and this causes us to make
decisions to do what we choose, and thats small scale farming and
nursery sales, in some percentage in the way the masses want it. Its
simply a decision based on the current market. One can hope it will
change or not but it is what it is.

Mark

On Fri, 14 May 2004 02:18:17 GMT, Mark & Shauna wrote:

http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/2...-gardening.htm

Mark & Shauna wrote:

Here is a good link for you to read. It was 6th on the list from
Google under "no till gardening".

I think what puts my back up is someone asking a simple question
(about tilling in this case) and immediately having someone jump on
him saying "no, no -- you can't do that -- that's awful -- do it *my*
way." In all fairness, your first answering post wasn't quite in that
category, but there *are* some like that in the thread. And I haven't
been as kind as I might.

The reference you cite is a mildly partisan one, though with some
interesting information. However, quoting one of *its* references, "In
Nature, the earth is not tilled, and fertilizers (dead plants and
animals, fallen leaves, etc.) begin as mulches on the soil's surface."
In nature -- excuse me, Nature -- food crops are not cultivated except
by accident.

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.