Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] on Logsdon and the many versions of no-till

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] on Logsdon and the many versions of no-till
  • Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:56:57 -0600


Good to see different opinions. There are some absolutes that come to mind
however. Small farms statistically are more productive, and the smallest the
most productive. And the smallest need the least machinery being labor
intensive. Let's remember that tilling also brings up weed seeds, and subsoil
doesn't belong on top of the ground. And fossil fuel is a finite resource
getting far more expensive to find and extract. Tilling or plowing absolutely
requires machinery that runs on fossil fuels, gas or diesel, and it can't be
run on electric batteries or power from wind or solar or other renewables.
Point being, our grid can, in theory, run at greatly reduced power on
renewables, but machinery or vehicles requiring gas or diesel must go on
depending on fossil fuels. And there is no chance supply can ever meet demand
in the future, and this public realization based on all the evidence means
speculators will begin bidding up the price of oil and gas again this year or
next year, and fuel dependent machinery and vehicles will either do without
or pay much higher prices to operate. And the cost of living will keep going
up. And another absolute - our income - wages and pensions and profits - will
not go up. And all our theories and opinions will be trumped by events beyond
our control, and soon. As they say, nature bats last.

I could provide many links to evidence of these things but they're public
knowledge. If we wait till it gets announced on the 10:00 o'clock news it's
too late to adapt. I started this list years ago as Soilmakers, anticipating
what's happening right now. (If I turn out to be wrong then you should call
me on it). I didn't understand no-till back then. In my view those soils that
seem to need tilling shouldn't be farmed in the first place, or they should
be used to grow perennials you don't till that are adapted to those soils.
But again, the cost of fossil fuels will decide whether we can afford to till
anywhere.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

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

On 6/19/2010 at 12:12 PM Pete Vukovich wrote:

>I'd say soil that has a porous or thin eluviation zone (so called 'A'
>zone in some texts) benefits from occasional tillage as an example,
>likewise some soils with clay substrates are improved by tillage
>particularly those that get bound up with large amounts of nutrient
>robbing mosses. I also think tillage removes some weeds better than roll
>crimping (eg my old friend swamp hemlock), and I think some heavier
>compacted soils can be improved by it also.
>
>No question that tillage reduces the bacterial and fungal load - which
>sometimes is a good thing, of course it can also interfere with soil
>structure/peds. Again depending on conditions / slope / climate ... etc
>both structure and soil supporting communities tend to restore themselves.
>
> Wildlife does some small scale 'tilling' of its own which benefit some
>soils and some plants, something I believe which is fairly well known to
>mushroom hunters.
>
>I don't think there are any absolutes with respect to tillage any more
>than there are absolutes with respect to soil type and structure. My view
>here is largely influenced by my observations not by being an expert. I've
>yet to fully understand how cactus and orchids grow next to each other in
>an oak forest on sand substrates (which are self tilling due to the wind
>and yes its deep tillage) in a climate thats subzero more than half of the
>year.  I just think its a case by case basis not some sort of golden
>rule...
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page