Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

Mitch,

 

I think we may need a political perspective on this. There seems to be an ongoing

war of words between the "organic camp" and the "no-till camp" about who is best

suited to save the planet from an imminent climatic meltdown. Others claim that

chisel ploughing of grasslands will save the world and that planting trees is worse

than useless. Still others see salvation in reforestation or in terra preta. Common

to all, I suppose, is the hope of getting their hands on some of that manna that

is expected to rain down in the form of carbon credits depending on how the climate

thing will play out. Perhaps this is symptomatic of commercial agriculture as it is

practiced in the industrialized World, which seems to be first and foremost interested

in how much subsidies you can get for what.

 

I believe nobody would contest that "organic no-till" is best, but it isn't always easy

to implement, and at present most no-till depends on herbicide-killed cover crops.

On the other hand, most organic farming, at least here in Europe, depends on

ploughing under green manure, which can mean additional ploughing, hence

additional fuel and additional oxidation of nutrients. I think farmers need to be

given technical assistance to make the difficult switch to organic no-till.

 

Dieter Brand

Portugal

"E. E. Mitchamore Jr" <emitch@att.net> wrote:

I'm troubled by the response of the person who initially responded to this article.  I've read the article several times and didn't notice any reference to herbicides or chemical fertilizers, and yet the commentator seems to view organic and no-till as opposing practices.  Why is that?

 

I've spent some time talking with Malcolm Beck, Texas' preeminent organic proponent, and these days he spends his time trying to move mainstream agriculture toward organic no-till.  He sees no-till as the only path that will allow a farmer to move from conventional farming to more sustainable practices while remaining financially viable.  This is from a man who has championed organic methods for more than 50 years.  So why would someone view no-till as contrary to organic?

 

E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
www.hillcountrynatives.biz

----- Original Message -----

From: TradingPostPaul

To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] NO-TILL FARMING OFFERS A QUICK FIX TO HELP WARD OFF HOST OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS

A little logic. The effects of tillage versus no-till are the same
regardless of herbicide use. The ill effects of herbicides and/or other
chemicals are bad whether till or no-till is practiced. Apples and oranges.


paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/14/2007 at 4:55 PM Marty Kraft wrote:

>Paul
>
>I sent this article to a friend and am including his response in this 
>email. Are we talking about commercial no-till vs an organic no-till 
>methods here? My friend raises organic wheat and is conscientious in 
>his work.
>
>Marty,
>
>You had better check your facts on this. The way no-till makes the 
>grade is by cheating on the soil tests. The main reason that KSU is 
>behind this is to sell new farm equipment and make a name for mr. 
>Charles Rice. There is more research showing that organic farming 
>will sequester more carbon than ANY other form of farming. And 
>another point, the no-till idea does NOT take into account the CO2 
>that gets released during the manufacturing of nitrate fertilizer. Of 
>course, organic does not use manufactured fertilizer.
>
>On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:16 PM, TradingPostPaul wrote:
>
>>
>> NO-TILL FARMING OFFERS A QUICK FIX TO HELP WARD OFF HOST OF GLOBAL 
>> PROBLEMS
>> http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/notill.htm
>>
>> COLUMBUS, Ohio - Increase no-till farming practices across the 
>> planet or face serious climate, soil quality and food production problems in 
>> the next 20 to 50 years. That warning from scientists appeared in the journal
>> Science this week.

>> Rattan Lal
>>
>> No-till farming helps soil retain carbon. Healthy topsoil contains
>> carbon-enriched humus - decaying organic matter that provides 
>> nutrients to plants. Soils low in humus can't maintain the carbon-dependent 
>> nutrients essential to healthy crop production, resulting in the need to use 
>> more fertilizers.
>>
>> A lack of carbon in soil may promote erosion, as topsoil and 
>> fertilizers are often washed or blown away from farm fields and into waterways, 
>> said Rattan Lal, the paper's lead author and the director of the carbon
>> management and sequestration center at Ohio State University.
>>
>> In no-till agriculture, farmers plant seeds without using a plow to 
>> turn the soil. Soil loses most of it carbon content during plowing, which
>> releases carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Increased levels 
>> of CO2 in the atmosphere have been associated with global climate change.
>>
>> "If every farmer who grows crops in the United States would use no-
>> till and adopt management practices such as crop rotation and planting cover 
>> crops, we could sequester about 300 million tons of soil carbon each year."
>>
>> Traditional plowing, or tilling, turns over the top layer of soil. 
>> Farmers use it for, among other reasons, to get rid of weeds, make it 
>> easier to use fertilizers and pesticides and to plant crops. Tilling also 
>> enriches the soil as it hastens the decomposition of crop residue, weeds and other
>> organic matter.
>>
>> Still, the benefits of switching to no-till farming practices outweigh
>> those of traditional planting.
>>
>> Since the mechanization of agriculture began a few hundred years ago,
>> scientists estimate that some 78 billion metric tons - more than 171
>> trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the soil have been lost to
>> the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
>>
>> Lal and his colleagues estimate that no-till farming is practiced 
>> on only 5 percent of all the world's cultivated cropland. Farmers in the United
>> States use no-till methods on 37 percent of the nation's cropland, 
>> which results in saving an estimated 60 million metric tons of soil CO2 
>> annually.
>>
>> "If every farmer who grows crops in the United States would use no-
>> till and adopt management practices such as crop rotation and planting cover 
>> crops, we could sequester about 300 million tons of soil carbon each 
>> year," said Lal, who is also a professor of soil science at Ohio State.
>>
>> "Each year, 6 billion tons of carbon is released into the planet's
>> atmosphere as fossil fuels are burned, and plants can absorb 20 
>> times that amount in that period of time," he said. "The problem is that as 
>> organisms decompose and plants breathe, CO2 returns to the atmosphere. None 
>> of it accumulates in the soil."
>>
>> Lal admits that full-scale no-till farming practices are a short-
>> term fix, but it's one that will give researchers enough time to find 
>> alternatives to fossil fuels.
>>
>> "There needs to be a global effort to adopt no-till farming 
>> practices soon. Governments need to mandate these practices or to provide financial
>> incentives to farmers to adopt them," said Lal, adding no-till 
>> methods may reduce a farmer's annual crop yield by 5 to 10 percent, at least 
>> for the first few years.
>>
>> It's also tough to ask farmers who lack the necessary financial 
>> resources to switch to no-till methods, especially in African and Asian 
>> countries where no-till levels are the lowest, Lal said.
>>
>> "No-till isn't readily practiced in most of these areas due to the 
>> lack of available financial resources and government support," he said. 
>> "Farmers often lack the seeding equipment necessary to drill through crop 
>> residue. And many farmers use leftover residue from the previous year's 
>> crops for fuel or animal fodder. So the cultivated soil gets compacted or 
>> eroded by water and wind."
>>
>> Topsoil is also a lucrative commodity - an acre of it can bring in 
>> $1,300 for a farmer in India, where the first few feet of soil are often 
>> removed for brick making.
>>
>> "No-till farming isn't a substitute for finding alternatives to fossil
>> fuels," Lal said. "No-till is definitely a short-term fix, but it may buy us up to 50 
>> years to find alternatives to fossil fuels. If we don't heed this 
>> warning, our planet may change drastically. There's no other choice."
>>
>> Lal co-authored the paper with Michael Griffin, Jay Apt, Lester 
>> Lave and M. Granger Morgan, all with Carnegie Mellon University.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Livingontheland mailing list
>> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

---

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.