Newbie question on tilling
Mike
mini-tiller. It's perfect for my 20 x 25 vegetable garden, and I've
tilled the whole thing up very nicely. It makes a beautiful tilth.
My question is this: When I see other people's gardens, they have
these wonderful rows with the vegetables on sort of long raised
mounds, and depressed paths between the rows. How the heck do they
get that? Do you have to rake after tilling? Or is there some
technique that I'm not aware of? When I till, the dirt just goes
everywhere.
-- Mike
Mark & Shauna
Manual labor. The best way to do it would be to lay out your garden and
then simply do this one time and then in subsequent years you dont till
the whole garden just the beds. There is no need to waste time, fuel,
effort on the paths so build them once and then forget about them.
The next step would be to scrap the tiller all together and move towards
no till gardening and then you will really be building some serious
soil. You will never walk in the beds, mulch them heavily, and never
till again.
The tiller will still be handy for other things but at that point dont
take it in the garden any longer as it ruins your hard work.
Good Luck,
Mark
Frogleg
You gotta fritz around with your dirt. Rake some up into mouds or
rows; just walking around will compress the dirt into 'paths'. A
tiller, as you've discovered, just tills. You have to supply the
finishing work.
Allonia
second worst thing you can do as a gardener. The soil is actually pulverized
into the finest particles of the soil possible.
This will inhibit any and all possibilities of existing life forms of
earthworms and night crawlers to exist in the soil. Additionally, the soil
will compact to concrete conditions after the first rain!
"Frogleg" <fro...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:kpfn90d58h8v6lumf...@4ax.com...
nswong
>Additionally, the soil
> will compact to concrete conditions after the first rain!
It do create a crusting after the rain, if the soil does not cover
with mulch after till. But to mix in organic matter for a fast cure of
bad soil type, I do think rototill are good for it.
My soil are black heavy clay soil. The black color not due to high
organic, but because of lack of oxygen. People here use it to make
brick. It's low PH and high iron, a fern are dominating here. After a
rain, water can stay there for days.
For each inch of my soil, I till in one inch of rice hull, up to four
foot deep. After the tilling complete, I transplant my plant on it,
and cover with mulch. This work for me. Without doing in this ways,
all ground cover I tried before will not survive.
Regards,
Wong
JRYezierski
"Allonia" wrote in message Tilling with a Mantis, Honda, Sears or any other
mini-tiller is about the
> second worst thing you can do as a gardener. The soil is actually
pulverized
> into the finest particles of the soil possible.
> This will inhibit any and all possibilities of existing life forms of
> earthworms and night crawlers to exist in the soil. Additionally, the soil
> will compact to concrete conditions after the first rain!
What are you taking about????
I have never had any problems with the soil getting compacted after rains of
any type.If what you are saying is true than tell me why the semi-organic
farmer neighbor of mine rototills his fields than plants his
carrots/parsnips and beets in the same field.When he harvests the soil is
not compacted even after a few mopnths of rain or irrigation.
I'm a para with a large garden that has permanent isles/rows. My rows are
about 20"s wide that are rototilled yearly to blend in the compost.I have no
compaction occurring in my garden rows at all.
Frogleg
Another method to make raised beds are get your lumber and construct your
large form for the raised bed.Than dig out the same amount of soil that the
sides of the raised bed are(say you used 10inch wide boards or the sides are
that high)leaving a few inches for the sides to rest on.Than fill in with
some old hay or other compost or even new balled hay where you removed the
soil.Pack this filler and replace the removed soil.You will need to get
additional soil to fill up the raised bed completly.
There you go, you now have a raised bed.
Or as other poster said rake up and mound the soil to have a freeform
raised bed.
Jerome
Mark & Shauna
> "Allonia" wrote in message Tilling with a Mantis, Honda, Sears or any other
> mini-tiller is about the
>
>>second worst thing you can do as a gardener. The soil is actually
>
> pulverized
>
>>into the finest particles of the soil possible.
>>This will inhibit any and all possibilities of existing life forms of
>>earthworms and night crawlers to exist in the soil. Additionally, the soil
>>will compact to concrete conditions after the first rain!
>
>
> What are you taking about????
What the poster was talking about is over tilling and especially with
high speed sharp tined tillers. You basically create powder which is not
the best thing for gardening. You can do some reading about "til pan"
and no till gardening and learn about the negatives of tilling. Many
will argue that tillers have no place in the garden however this isnt
always true in the real world. We are small scale organic farmers and in
many cases we use 3PT hitch tillers on our tractors however we are very
careful not to over till.
As you state, one of the best places for use of a tiller is when you
are starting from very poor ground or grass. They are almost essential
in the first couple years unless you can employ countless quantities of
low wage or slave labor. However, if you have the ability to build your
soil heavily in those first couple years the tiller should never see
that soil again once its built up. Of course if you have the time,
energy, and manpower, you can do away with the tiller from the start but
in the real world when you are taking a piece of ground from say red
clay covered with grass to a viable piece of land to grow on, a tiller
is almost a must. This goes for most poor soils. However, tilling in
general is not the best option if it can be avoided. It can be, but on
larger scales it gets very very difficult.
Mark
Frogleg
wrote:
>
>"Allonia" wrote
>>Tilling with a Mantis, Honda, Sears or any other
>>mini-tiller is about the
>> second worst thing you can do as a gardener. The soil is actually
>>pulverized
>> into the finest particles of the soil possible.
>> This will inhibit any and all possibilities of existing life forms of
>> earthworms and night crawlers to exist in the soil. Additionally, the soil
>> will compact to concrete conditions after the first rain!
>
> What are you taking about????
>
>I have never had any problems with the soil getting compacted after rains of
>any type.
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.
simy1
This of course is incorrect. No-till substantially helps with weed
reduction, by leaving buried seeds buried, and soil structure
improvement (if coupled with organic mulch). No tiller will ever
produce a soil as fine as earthworms can. Minor gains are also to be
had from improved soil fertility, again thanks to the eartworms.
Mark & Shauna
> 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.
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.
Mark
Frogleg
>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.
nswong
> As I understand it, no-till means no weed-clearing
For my understanding, it's a minimal soil disturbance and high residue
practice. I do organic no-till, and do mow weed and leave the residue
there.
> 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.
To reduce chance of being eliminated by disaster(e.g fire), seeds will
not emerge at the sametime. Seeds deposit in soil are called seed
bank.
Most of small seeds need to be near/on soil surface to emerge.
Tillage do bring them to the soil surface, reduce tillage do reduce
the existing seeds of seed bank being bring up to soil surface.
High residue of plant(organic matter) insulate the new seeds carry by
wind from reaching the soil.
Some plant residue(mostly cereal) do release chemical that inhibit
seed emergent.
Some seeds need heat or light to emerge, high residue do isolate it.
Under high residue, clitters are active and eating seeds.
...
>I also understand
> that crop yields are *lower* with no-till, but one feels so good
about
> being 'green' that it doesn't matter.
After the soil had been build up, no-till can acheive higher output
with same input compare to conventional tillage system.
To build up my soil fast, I mixed rice hull up to four foot deep in my
soil with one to one ratio.
> 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.
Clitter in soil will transport nutrient around from where it's
abundent to where it's lack of, and create tunnel that facilitate air
and water moving, root extend easier by follow these tunnel. Clitter
need organic matter for energy, tillage do cause lost of organic
matter in soil and break up those tunnel.
Tillage also break fungus that provide phosphorus to plant.
...
> >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.
For home garden, I will mow weed and left it there, on top of the weed
residue add some more organic matter. Make a hole put in my
transplant.
In this way:
Soil life and the tunnel created by them will not be disturb.
Meat eatting critter will eat those plant eatting critter, pesticide
are not needed. Critter in soil will eat weed seeds, herbicide are not
needed. Harmful lifeform(e.g fungus) to plant will be suppress either
eaten by or compete resource with other lifeform, other (xxx)icide are
not needed.
No hand tillage mean reduce back pain.
...
Regards,
Wong
--
Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m
Mark & Shauna
under "no till gardening".
Mark
Mark & Shauna
Frogleg
wrote:
>> As I understand it, no-till means no weed-clearing
>
>For my understanding, it's a minimal soil disturbance and high residue
>practice. I do organic no-till, and do mow weed and leave the residue
>there.
>
>> As I understand it, no-till means no weed-clearing, with planting or
>> seeding accomplished by slits or holes poked through existing
>> organic
>> matter. I fail to understand how this reduces weeds.
>
>To reduce chance of being eliminated by disaster(e.g fire), seeds will
>not emerge at the sametime. Seeds deposit in soil are called seed
>bank.
Soil here has enough in the bank to retire! :-)
>
>>I also understand
>> that crop yields are *lower* with no-till, but one feels so good
>> about
>> being 'green' that it doesn't matter.
>
>After the soil had been build up, no-till can acheive higher output
>with same input compare to conventional tillage system.
Many gardeners/famers don't have time to wait.
>
>To build up my soil fast, I mixed rice hull up to four foot deep in my
>soil with one to one ratio.
Mixed? So no-till needs a boost? Don't mean to be snippy, but this is
part of my point. Improving soil almost always means introducing
organic matter. Unless "no-till" has some very tricky definitions,
some sort of soil disturbance is necessary to accomplish this.
'Topsoil' is just that -- the top layer of decaying plant matter with
a little dirt. Around here, the soil is primarily clay and 'topsoil'
is a very thin 'frosting' on the ground. Suitable for weeds and wild
grasses in the upper level, and trees with tough, penetrating root
systems. *Not* suitable for most food crops.
>
>> 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.
>
>Clitter in soil will transport nutrient around from where it's
>abundent to where it's lack of, and create tunnel that facilitate air
>and water moving, root extend easier by follow these tunnel. Clitter
>need organic matter for energy, tillage do cause lost of organic
>matter in soil and break up those tunnel.
I do not know what 'clitter' is. Tilling certainly kills plants
(weeds) and buries the remains, but that means *more* organic matter
in the soil
>
>For home garden, I will mow weed and left it there, on top of the weed
>residue add some more organic matter. Make a hole put in my
>transplant.
I have nothing against mulch. However, if the mown weeds contain seeds
or parts that easily root, I don't see how this is any 'solution' to
the problem of weeds competing with desired plants.
>
>In this way:
>Soil life and the tunnel created by them will not be disturb.
>
>Meat eatting critter will eat those plant eatting critter, pesticide
>are not needed. Critter in soil will eat weed seeds, herbicide are not
>needed. Harmful lifeform(e.g fungus) to plant will be suppress either
>eaten by or compete resource with other lifeform, other (xxx)icide are
>not needed.
This is a lovely plan. However, it rarely happens in real life unless
the meat-eating critter gets out there and picks the beetles off the
tomato plants. And this has little to do with whether or not to till a
garden.
>
>No hand tillage mean reduce back pain.
Well now, that *is* a happy thought. :-)
Frogleg
>http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/26/no-till-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.
nswong
There is no such thing of best approach to solve a problem in all
short of situation/environment, what I will do are choose the approach
that come out the best result with resource available for me.
No-till system got it weakness, but other system do so. So I'm not a
purist of any system. I just pick one that is best for the job on
hand.
> Many gardeners/famers don't have time to wait.
In a bussiness, if we got time and money, we can go to long term
investment. If not, do other way.
In my case, I prepare my land for retirement and for experimental
purpose.
For retirement, I ask myself what should I do on this land now to give
me a comfortable life, when I'm old, no income, no one to depend on.
So I plan it for not depend of any input from outside, included man
power.
For experiment to commerciallise, I need to try out a way that can
work for my targeted market segment. Up to now, for what I know,
organic no-till do work best for my plan.
> Improving soil almost always means introducing
> organic matter. Unless "no-till" has some very tricky definitions,
> some sort of soil disturbance is necessary to accomplish this.
Dead body of life form(plant root, earthworm, fungus...) in soil are
organic matter, this does not till in by man. For soil contain high
organic matter, tillage can avoided by the first day. For those soil
void of organic matter, planting cover crop and mulch can work, but do
take long time. So I choose to till in organic matter before
implement no-till system.
>Around here, the soil is primarily clay and 'topsoil'
> is a very thin 'frosting' on the ground. Suitable for weeds and wild
> grasses in the upper level, and trees with tough, penetrating root
> systems. *Not* suitable for most food crops.
My soil are worse, when the time I just come here, most part of my
land no tree can found, and except a fern, no other weed can survive.
By now, it's a good land for agriculture.
> I do not know what 'clitter' is.
Thanks for you pointing out, it should be critter(creature).
> Tilling certainly kills plants
> (weeds) and buries the remains, but that means *more* organic matter
> in the soil
Most weed are succulent, the organic matter in a form(starch...) that
will not last long. Tillage do cause lost of those(humus...) that can
last long. So most of the time, organic matter introduce by tillage
does not compensate the lost cause by it. In my case, I till in a lot
of lignin(rice hull), and lost non(soil void of organic matter).
> >For home garden, I will mow weed and left it there, on top of the
weed
> >residue add some more organic matter. Make a hole put in my
> >transplant.
>
> I have nothing against mulch. However, if the mown weeds contain
seeds
> or parts that easily root, I don't see how this is any 'solution' to
> the problem of weeds competing with desired plants.
Weed can regrow from root, weed can grow from seed... But there is
mulch to suppress there grow. A transplat in polythene bag provide a
good start. By the time weed push through the mulch, the transplant
already establish, can compete better than weed. Without weeding, the
harvest are satisfactory. Of course I can weeding and make it look
like a normal garden, but just don't feel the need. I prefer spend my
resource on other thing.
> This is a lovely plan. However, it rarely happens in real life
unless
> the meat-eating critter gets out there and picks the beetles off the
> tomato plants. And this has little to do with whether or not to till
a
> garden.
An organic no-till land do support more life form than land under
other system. This will support those predator when there is no pest
available, some predator do eat beetles(bird, preying mantis,
frog...). I use *meat-eating critter* instead of predator are because
I don't know how to spell predator and lazy to look up in dictionary.
> >No hand tillage mean reduce back pain.
>
> Well now, that *is* a happy thought. :-)
Just imagine you are an old mand now. What do you choose, tilling soil
or mulching with your *old* man power? ;-)
I'm a practical guy, result oriented. Most of the time just do
practical thing use the proven, tested method that will bring good
result. Will explore different approach before stick to one way...
( self praise <g> )
Cheers,
simy1
> http://www.farm-garden.com/primers/26/no-till-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.
Frogleg
wrote:
>There is no such thing of best approach to solve a problem in all
>short of situation/environment, what I will do are choose the approach
>that come out the best result with resource available for me.
I agree completely.
>> Many gardeners/famers don't have time to wait.
>
>In a bussiness, if we got time and money, we can go to long term
>investment. If not, do other way.
I agree with this also.
>
>In my case, I prepare my land for retirement and for experimental
>purpose.
>> Improving soil almost always means introducing
>> organic matter. Unless "no-till" has some very tricky definitions,
>> some sort of soil disturbance is necessary to accomplish this.
>
>Dead body of life form(plant root, earthworm, fungus...) in soil are
>organic matter, this does not till in by man. For soil contain high
>organic matter, tillage can avoided by the first day. For those soil
>void of organic matter, planting cover crop and mulch can work, but do
>take long time. So I choose to till in organic matter before
>implement no-till system.
But if you were willing to wait "a long time," how would mulch make it
down to the soil that needs to be improved? I have a lot of worms in
my compost, but the clay ground underneath is still...clay.
>> Tilling certainly kills plants
>> (weeds) and buries the remains, but that means *more* organic matter
>> in the soil
>
>Most weed are succulent, the organic matter in a form(starch...) that
>will not last long.
Maybe in Malaysia. Weeds here are pretty much regular ol' plants,
grasses, and vines.
>Tillage do cause lost of those(humus...) that can
>last long. So most of the time, organic matter introduce by tillage
>does not compensate the lost cause by it. In my case, I till in a lot
>of lignin(rice hull), and lost non(soil void of organic matter).
How does tilling reduce organic matter?
>> I have nothing against mulch. However, if the mown weeds contain
>seeds
>> or parts that easily root, I don't see how this is any 'solution' to
>> the problem of weeds competing with desired plants.
>
>Weed can regrow from root, weed can grow from seed... But there is
>mulch to suppress there grow. A transplat in polythene bag provide a
>good start. By the time weed push through the mulch, the transplant
>already establish, can compete better than weed. Without weeding, the
>harvest are satisfactory. Of course I can weeding and make it look
>like a normal garden, but just don't feel the need. I prefer spend my
>resource on other thing.
I don't know your methods, but around here, mulch has to be regularly
re-applied to surpress weeds. And my experience is that desired plants
that have to compete with weeds for water (in short supply at some
times of year) do poorly, no matter how vigorously they start out.
Frogleg
:-)
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.
Harvey Schmidlapp
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:40:48 GMT, Mark & Shauna <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>Frogleg wrote:
>>
>>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.
Actually, no-till is probably much easier to do on a large scale. Many
of the big farm equipment companies make machines specifically for the
purpose of no-till.
> 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.)
I don't know where you live but you might call your state's extension
service and see if they can put you in touch with someone actually using
no-till processes. You might learn a lot.
> 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.
While no single system will work better than all others in all cases,
no-till certainly does not result in *lower* yields in most cases.
Here's a piece at the University of Maryland (where much of the no-till
technology was poineered, IIRC):
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/MCE/Publications/Publication.cfm?ID=259
And another (PDF) from Iowa State University:
http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1097.pdf
If you don't believe them, here's a farmer writing about no-till:
http://www.cedarmeadowfarm.com/TFSArticle08.html
--
HLS
nswong
I had to go to my land now, I will give more detail if I can find it
in my notes when I'm back.
> >Dead body of life form(plant root, earthworm, fungus...) in soil
are
> >organic matter, this does not till in by man. For soil contain high
> >organic matter, tillage can avoided by the first day. For those
soil
> >void of organic matter, planting cover crop and mulch can work, but
do
> >take long time. So I choose to till in organic matter before
> >implement no-till system.
>
> But if you were willing to wait "a long time," how would mulch make
it
> down to the soil that needs to be improved? I have a lot of worms in
> my compost, but the clay ground underneath is still...clay.
A soil lack of oxygen(water log, compact..) will hinder life
form(plant root, earthworn...) to go into it.
Eartthworm don't like low PH soil.
>
> >> Tilling certainly kills plants
> >> (weeds) and buries the remains, but that means *more* organic
matter
> >> in the soil
> >
> >Most weed are succulent, the organic matter in a form(starch...)
that
> >will not last long.
>
> Maybe in Malaysia. Weeds here are pretty much regular ol' plants,
> grasses, and vines.
>
> >Tillage do cause lost of those(humus...) that can
> >last long. So most of the time, organic matter introduce by
tillage
> >does not compensate the lost cause by it. In my case, I till in a
lot
> >of lignin(rice hull), and lost non(soil void of organic matter).
>
> How does tilling reduce organic matter?
All organic matter can decopose to become carbon and nutrient.
Decoposition go faster when oxygen are available. This is why compost
pile are recommended to turn for airation. Tillage do bring in oxygen.
>
> >> I have nothing against mulch. However, if the mown weeds contain
> >seeds
> >> or parts that easily root, I don't see how this is any 'solution'
to
> >> the problem of weeds competing with desired plants.
> >
> >Weed can regrow from root, weed can grow from seed... But there is
> >mulch to suppress there grow. A transplat in polythene bag provide
a
> >good start. By the time weed push through the mulch, the transplant
> >already establish, can compete better than weed. Without weeding,
the
> >harvest are satisfactory. Of course I can weeding and make it look
> >like a normal garden, but just don't feel the need. I prefer spend
my
> >resource on other thing.
>
> I don't know your methods, but around here, mulch has to be
regularly
> re-applied to surpress weeds. And my experience is that desired
plants
> that have to compete with weeds for water (in short supply at some
> times of year) do poorly, no matter how vigorously they start out.
I'm refer to annual crop, vegetable..., those just take a few months
to mature. For perenial, mulch of course should be re-applied. There
is something else you had to do to make this work, but I can assure
you that it's working at my land.
Sorry! I'm in a rush, will not check my spelling or wording at all.
Regards,
Mark & Shauna
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
nswong
> 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.
nswong
I can't find it in my notes, I think has been deleted, so I will reply
base on what I remember.
> But if you were willing to wait "a long time," how would mulch make
it
> down to the soil that needs to be improved?
Direct way as a night crawler(earthworm) pull the mulch down to the
tunnel.
Indirect way as a slug eating the mulch, and die in a tunnel due to
old age.
> I have a lot of worms in
> my compost, but the clay ground underneath is still...clay.
If the worms in the compost do not want to move down to your clay
soil, this is what you get.
It can be they don't like your soil(low PH, water log...), or they
don't have the need(looking for shelter, water...) to do it.
If you plant some deep root type plant on your compost after it's
cured, you will see the soil are changing.
But you have to make sure the plant will bear with your soil. There is
some plant that can live in a low PH, water log soil.
> >Most weed are succulent, the organic matter in a form(starch...)
that
> >will not last long.
>
> Maybe in Malaysia. Weeds here are pretty much regular ol' plants,
> grasses, and vines.
Succulent just a generic indicator of lack of lignin, search in Google
to find up the % of lignin in your *regular ol' plants,
grasses, and vines*.
> I don't know your methods, but around here, mulch has to be
regularly
> re-applied to surpress weeds. And my experience is that desired
plants
> that have to compete with weeds for water (in short supply at some
> times of year) do poorly, no matter how vigorously they start out.
When transplant, I will use a hand held string treamer to mow(?) dow
the weed, make a hole, plant the transplant. Add more mulch to about
6 inches thick. Normally people recommend 3 inches, but I'm using
thick mulch to avoid the need to add mulch for annual plant.
For perenial, I will use string treamer to mow dow the weed where it
can be. For weed around perenial, I use sickle to mow(?) it. After
that I reapply mulch to 6 inches deep. I do not pull the weed because
some weed are hard to pull and weed pulling will hurt perenial feeder
root.
One of the reason of I prefer man power than large machinary are this
will create job and reduce the crime cause by unemployment.
Regards,
Frogleg
>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.
simy1
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:17:08 GMT, Mark & Shauna <n...@no.com> 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.
Frogleg
>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?
simy1
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.
simy1
I hate protracted arguments, so here is a brief summary of why no-till
Mark & Shauna
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:17:08 GMT, Mark & Shauna <n...@no.com> 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
Frogleg
>Frogleg wrote:
>> 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.
You clearly understand the economics, yet say the marketplace does
*not* drive production. It does, whether you like it or not. There are
more people who want low-cost goods and food than those who are highly
discriminating and can afford top dollar for perceived top quality.
Exaggerating for effect, your fine furniture craftsman can't make much
of a living if he produces one beautiful chair every 3 months and
tries to sell it for $5,000. The market for $5,000 chairs is extremely
limited. The craftsman may reasonably argue that his chair is far
superior to the 4 included in a tatty, machine-made 5-pc 'dinette
set', and that the price includes 3 months of labor, but if no one can
afford his fine work, he and his family will starve.
You write as if consumers were making choices to prefer inferior food
and goods, rather than preferring lower prices. You can't grab
customers by the throat and *force* them to pay a premium for what you
regard as a superior product. If/when there are enough consumers who
want and can afford organic foods, or if/when organic foods can be
produced as cheaply as non-, everyone will be eating organic foods.
*I* would like to compare specially-raised produce to common or
(non-)garden varieties, but I can't afford to.
>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.
You *do* understand. The marketplace is driving your own practices.
> 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.
You can't change tastes by legislation or by telling people they
*should* be more discriminating.
simy1
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:14 GMT, Mark & Shauna <n...@no.com> wrote:
always good, even refreshing, to see free market principles strongly
defended in a recreational usenet group. Way on topic. What about
agricultural free trade, frogs? Gotta eliminate those tariffs. Just as
important as tilling, if not more. Any nuggets about the Doha round?
Mark & Shauna
I dont believe the marketplace (consumer) -solely- drives production. In
todays climate if you cant see that people purchase what they are fed
(and heavily marketed I might add) you are blind. The simple fact of the
matter is that in the vast majority of cases the consumer "really"
doesnt make his or her decision on their purchases, for the most part
the marketers and manufacturers make it for them.
As an example, granted there are still the families who are making
decisions based on how many dollars they have to feed a given quantity
of fry in their part of the creek bed but we are witnessing one of the
many episodes of sustained good times right now with the biggest
vehicles and homes flying off the lots by the bag full and yet the drive
for lower and lower quality, cost, and conscientious, products is at an
all time high. Now, we both know that if coupled with the marketing for
these products were merely tidbits of the long and short term
consequences that go hand in hand with these low cost, low quality
goods, they would not be the choice for most consumers.
Now you say, well thats ludicrous, its in a companies best interest to
market there product in a positive way and they would never do anything
to the contrary, which I agree with whole heatedly. However the point is
that we have bred a climate of willing numbness which will gladly look
the other way as long as they get the first two criteria fulfilled, low
cost, and low quality disguised as medium quality. We no longer live in
a society where a company can tell the consumer "DDT is good for me" and
they have no data to the contrary and merely believe what they are told.
As sad as that scenario is, this one is worse. The consumer has more
data than ever, perhaps too much, but willingly chooses to ignore it and
rely on the data fed, no data at all, or in some cases look right at it,
and yet still turn the other cheek.
Think of this in direct relation to your statement to the effect that
"when people can afford better quality they will buy it". For the first
time in the history of consumer goods we have a parking lot where on a
_daily_ basis a Lexus or Mercedes SUV will be parked right next to a
1972 Ford barely passing inspection. You walk inside the store and there
is the woman driving the Lexus and the woman driving the 75' Ford
shopping in the same isle, buying the same product (for arguments sake
lets say its not in the grocery section). It is not to say that the two
should be segregated away from each other, and it surely isnt that the
store is offering a product of the quality the Lexus owner wants, but at
a cost the welfare mom can afford. If this were the case the welfare mom
would be driving the Lexus too, or at least something more than a 72'
Ford rotting off the frame.
Now I am assuming you would argue that this is a situation caused by the
uplift of low wage individuals who now have the ability to shop where
the rest do coupled with lower costs for quality goods lessening the gap
between the incomes. However I see it completely differently. Having
owned and operated my own businesses over the years I see it as a clear
reduction in the standards we as individuals set for ourselves coupled
with consumption based heavily, if not completely, on marketing. It
spins downward into a lack of self accountability which is a growing
topic of concern and conversation here in the US in every area, from the
justice system, to corporate hierarchy, to the school system, our
government, on and on.
This could be argued that it _still_ shows that it all falls back to the
"market" hence the consumer but many forces shape the way the consumer
thinks and more importantly acts. This is what marketing is at its core,
which is in large part driving the currnet mindset. Your not good at
marketing if you can only get someone to think a certain way, you have
to get them to act on that thought.
While this sounds very glum, I am always extremely optimistic about our
future and realize fully that it is merely a series of cycles in the
market, and its a hell of a lot of fun to watch.
> You write as if consumers were making choices to prefer inferior food
> and goods, rather than preferring lower prices. You can't grab
> customers by the throat and *force* them to pay a premium for what you
> regard as a superior product. If/when there are enough consumers who
> want and can afford organic foods, or if/when organic foods can be
> produced as cheaply as non-, everyone will be eating organic foods.
> *I* would like to compare specially-raised produce to common or
> (non-)garden varieties, but I can't afford to.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You *do* understand. The marketplace is driving your own practices.
I understand that the consumer, through decisions made for them, is
driving the marketplace. But yes, they are ultimately responsible as
they are forking over the cash. However the vast majority of the blame
doesnt rest on their shoulders. They do however suffer the consequences
of being the messenger but as long as there are pretty flowers passing
by the window they accept them.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> You can't change tastes by legislation or by telling people they
> *should* be more discriminating.
This topic always boils down to the "faith" game. Its like religion. Its
the way our societies have been set up for thousands of years. Your
viewpoint takes it out of the hands of anyone (for the most part, but I
know is the consumer) and throws it all up to a well studied but elusive
and mysterious force in the air as to why the market moves the way it
does having only subtle changes made, at best, by savvy or lucky
manufactures/marketers who do well with their work. I disagree. Rarely
in the economics debate, just as in religious debate, are
manufacturers/marketers talked about as a driving force or in fact the
orchestrators of the way the market moves. The manufacturer/marketer is
always seen as somewhat questionable but just poor sole, who is merely
trying to peddle his wares. In the faith based viewpoint it all falls
back to the consumer driving demand taking the responsibility away and
only allowing individuals to sit back and watch where it will go. While
I agree that the economy at its root is almost a living, breathing,
entity the ability to control it is becoming more and more available to
forces further down the chain (marketers, manufacture, government).
My position is that of course, the consumer always holds the ultimate
power which is where the real sh*t is, but there is a steering wheel, it
works perfectly well, and at least in the climate of the past 20-30
years, the consumer has barely had a pinky on the wheel (willingly) and
is looking out the side window at the pretty flowers going by. There are
other hands that are gladly doing the driving. Of course the pinky, in
an instant, can become a fist, or two, swatting the other hands away
taking full control but those flowers are really pretty.
Look, this has clearly gone way off, but still a fun conversation none
the less. I am sure we are teetering on the seesaw (or perhaps already
fallen off) of the people who just cant stand "ignore" or "delete"
pelting the thread with their "just stop its". If you want to take this
off Usenet it may be best. It has been fun, I could talk about this all
day(s) and always learn a thing or two, or three.
Ciao,
Mark
Frogleg
>Frogleg wrote:
>> You clearly understand the economics, yet say the marketplace does
>> *not* drive production. It does, whether you like it or not. There are
>> more people who want low-cost goods and food than those who are highly
>> discriminating and can afford top dollar for perceived top quality.
>
>I dont believe the marketplace (consumer) -solely- drives production. In
>todays climate if you cant see that people purchase what they are fed
>(and heavily marketed I might add) you are blind. The simple fact of the
>matter is that in the vast majority of cases the consumer "really"
>doesnt make his or her decision on their purchases, for the most part
>the marketers and manufacturers make it for them.
Oh, dear. This is getting very long. I will try to be brief and leave
out the analogies. I don't see a great deal of marketing directed at
sterring me away from organic products and toward those which are the
result of more industrialized processes. Could you supply an example
please? I note that one ad in today's paper has "bananas: 3lb/$1" and
"organically grown bananas: $0.69/lb" -- both without editorializing.
>Think of this in direct relation to your statement to the effect that
>"when people can afford better quality they will buy it".
I didn't say that. I said the market for high-priced goods and
services is smaller than that for the lower-priced variety. I made no
attempt to predict the shopping habits of the privileged.
>For the first
>time in the history of consumer goods we have a parking lot where on a
>_daily_ basis a Lexus or Mercedes SUV will be parked right next to a
>1972 Ford barely passing inspection. You walk inside the store and there
>is the woman driving the Lexus and the woman driving the 75' Ford
>shopping in the same isle, buying the same product
So there should be different stores for rich and poor? I'm missing
your point.
>This could be argued that it _still_ shows that it all falls back to the
>"market" hence the consumer but many forces shape the way the consumer
>thinks and more importantly acts. This is what marketing is at its core,
>which is in large part driving the currnet mindset. Your not good at
>marketing if you can only get someone to think a certain way, you have
>to get them to act on that thought.
AFAIK, the Jolly Green Giant doesn't practice thought control.
Consumers base their buying decisions on a myriad of factors. For
those with less money, the choices are more limited. And a high income
has little to do with taste or discrimination -- only with the number
of styles/choices that are possible.
>> You *do* understand. The marketplace is driving your own practices.
>I understand that the consumer, through decisions made for them, is
>driving the marketplace.
How do you keep the Evil Ones from molding *your* thoughts?
>> You can't change tastes by legislation or by telling people they
>> *should* be more discriminating.
> It has been fun, I could talk about this all
>day(s) and always learn a thing or two, or three.
Yes. I learned something about no-till. It's an interesting concept.