|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 3, 2012 7:49:55 GMT -5
LOL The birds ARE the composters! Guinea poop is EVERYwhere! We actually do have a lot of stuff that we turn back into soil but we are using the terra preta method which is now in it's 4th year? Holy COW!! Has it been THAT long?!?! Well, the birds just love to "browse" through it so they instantly add to the pile. We've come a LONG way as far as amendments are concerned. We still don't have poop coming in. We actually have a great source for bunny pellets but collecting them is a bit of an issue. ONE of these days!
|
|
|
|
Post by ottawagardener on May 3, 2012 8:01:13 GMT -5
I want to eventually use covercrop/mulch methods more instead of importing mulch either from my forest or field or from outside sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by templeton on May 3, 2012 8:28:30 GMT -5
Ummm, this might be a bit naive, but if farmers have been tilling the soil for the last couple of thousand years, and notill is really the way to go, how come they got it wrong for so long? It seems crazy to think that these great survivors persisted in doing a useless and redundant practice while getting so many other quite sophisticated things right.
(Yep, I dig, but only as little as i can get away with)
T
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 3, 2012 10:11:57 GMT -5
Well, consider that "tilling" 1,000 years ago would have been possible ONLY if one were pretty well off. It would have been much more labor intensive and the metal tools required would have cost something in the neighborhood of two arms, three legs, and a bushel of wheat. So, it would have been very limited and it would have been done mostly where you just couldn't do it any other way. Places definitely exist where you absolutely positively must till.
On the other hand, why would you need to till for things such as berries, asparagus, tomatoes, peppers, beans, onions, brassicas, etc., when they will clearly pop up on their own without any help at all.
I think they they were a lot more like you. They dug, but only as little as they could get away with. I think THAT is the heart of the matter. Think too of "The Great Depression". In this case, tilling created the dustbowl by cutting up the sod which had existed since forever. So, there you have a very clear example of a situation in which folks came to a new and different place, they absolutely insisted on doing things the way they always had "back home" wherever that was, and it backfired big time. If they had been a bit more lazy, just dropped the seed they wanted on the ground.... well... who knows what might have happened? We might just be living in Utopia! (Yea, I doubt it, but hey, it's history so the facts are what they are and that allows us to be "imaginative" with the "might have beens". ;o)
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 3, 2012 10:47:07 GMT -5
"Might Have" beans?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on May 3, 2012 12:22:04 GMT -5
Well, consider that "tilling" 1,000 years ago would have been possible ONLY if one were pretty well off. I don't think that archeology would back this up, at least in the old world. I would agree that metal tools were very expensive but I'd say that folks have been tilling much more than using no-till since agriculture was invented. The ard plow predates written language and for most of history it was made entirely of wood and is a very simple device, usually just two or three beams of wood morticed together. One of the earliest common uses of iron was for iron points on ard plows and then moldboard plows to make them last longer. Compared to modern plows they didn't turn or aerate the soil to the same extent but it was certainly tillage. And I think in fuedal Europe at least the plows were not owned by individuals many times so ownership was shared or it was the property of the lord of the manor. |
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 3, 2012 15:05:43 GMT -5
Even Neolithic cultures commonly use digging sticks and stone mattocks to increase production.
Once one has a beast-of-burden (whether ox, onager, or wife), one can do some soil prep with a trimmed branch as a plow.
Even penning livestock in an area can break up soil to produce a seedbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on May 3, 2012 15:07:33 GMT -5
Yea Steev, I thought the same thing but then I figured I'd let you get the laugh. LOL ;o)
Weeeelllllll....... Yeeaaaaaa, your right about the ard plow. Heck, there were plows well before that as documented in the scriptures. But what percentage of planting was done using these tools?
I don't have a clue. My GUESS is that maybe 1/3rd (yea, presumptuous guess) of the ag done had access to these tools and used them. My thought is that these were available in denser populations where intensive farming was needed to feed large groups of people. There were lots of smaller populations here and there that would not have needed to farm so intensively and would therefore have made better use of no till methods.
Another thing is that "Lords of the Manor" were not always amenable to loaning stuff out. From what I know of the era there was a good percentage who were not, um... "civilized" enough to share for the benefit of all involved.
What I don't know is if there is any data to back my theory up or if I'm just blowing hot air. I adore history, just don't have the kind of time available to study it intensively. =o/
|
|
|
|
Post by raymondo on May 3, 2012 16:50:34 GMT -5
I think a big difference between tilling even 100 years ago and now is scale and frequency. With the advent of fueled tillers farmers could do a lot more and more often. In a film called Farm for the Future there was an interesting comment made that over the lifetime of the film-maker's father, a farmer, the life in the soil on his farm steadily declined. In the early days, when the farm first moved to mechanisation, ploughing was a major event for local bird-life which would follow the tractor to scoop up worms, beetles and so on that were exposed. Today, there's not a bird in sight when ploughing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ottawagardener on May 3, 2012 16:53:44 GMT -5
Tilling can increase production but only at the expense of the soil as it exposes organic matter to the surface with its wind, sun etc... is my understanding. Therefore over years of usage, it would decrease production so I would think. It is also 'easier' on a large scale to till to control weeds than to mulch given that you only needed one plough versus lots of mulch. HOWEVER, there was more of a recognition of leaving things fallow for long periods to rebuild soil/fertility in the past then there is in our more modern agricultural systems. The poorer the soil, the longer it had to be left fallow.
No till is a great way for me to build soil on my rocky/sandy substrate while lowering weeding to prevent competition for the other plants and maintain moisture levels. It may not be perfect - some people tell me that heavy clay must be exposed to warm up adequately in the spring but it works really well for me in comparison to the opposite. Besides, if the old ways were always better, we'd still be using them I'd think. Things move forward. Many agricultural researchers are trying to limit their tilling in order to maintain the soil, include cover cropping and other ways to keep the soil covered and rebuild or maintain it. I keep bumping across articles in science mags etc... though their version of low till often differs - i.e., kill off weed cover with herbicides.
|
|
|
|
Post by davida on May 3, 2012 18:59:38 GMT -5
In a film called Farm for the Future there was an interesting comment made that over the lifetime of the film-maker's father, a farmer, the life in the soil on his farm steadily declined. In the early days, when the farm first moved to mechanisation, ploughing was a major event for local bird-life which would follow the tractor to scoop up worms, beetles and so on that were exposed. Today, there's not a bird in sight when ploughing. I watched "Farm for the Future" a couple of years ago and the old photo with all of the birds following the plow made an impression that I think about often. And now with modern day farming, not a single bird follows a plow. My neighbor plowed a new area for me to extend my garden a few years ago and we had the same things with thousands of worms and a multitude of birds. I did not like the scene so now we make new beds by moving the chicken pen over a new patch of ground. I dump leaves and compost into the pen and the chickens kill all the weeds and grass. Move the chicken pen to the next bed and one shovel depth and width makes the row. The walkways are mulched. Some worms are destroyed by the shovel but not near as many. Chicken run is 16" by 50" for 800 square feet for 20 to 25 chickens. You can move the run 3 or 4 times a year to add 2400 square feet to 3200 square feet per year. Not the 4 acres that Joseph is farming but big enough for us. David |
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 3, 2012 20:39:10 GMT -5
That's the sort of integrated, incremental approach that I use. I no longer have access to a large tractor, but a two-wheel is really what fits my approach, anyway. Not being able to prep a huge expanse of ground serves as a brake on my exuberance for trying more varieties than I can deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonsaioutlaw on May 3, 2012 23:16:53 GMT -5
I have seen old reproduction plows at work and they only scratch the surface so to speak. The plow I have on my Farmall Cub even though it is close to 60 years old cuts deep. Perhaps we have gotten a little too good at plowing. I have read that the vast majority of the microscopic organisms that make soil "good" are located in the top six inches of the soil. I have postulated that perhaps tilling in of itself is not bad, but the depth at which we till.
That being said I am still coming to the impression that disturbing the soil is not good for it and if one has access to lots of mulch and uses something along "The Ruth Stout Meathod" one will have far greater soil than by tilling and destroying soil structure and microbes. I am seeing it first hand in my garden.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 4, 2012 0:25:34 GMT -5
I'm inclined to think it's mostly a question of condition of the soil, more than tilling, as such. I think that when the soil has lots of organic matter and adequate water, tilling and aerating it may set the bugs back a bit, but they come roaring back. Lacking humus and/or water, tilling just pulverizes dry/mineralized soil, promoting blowing or washing away. I think the key is increasing humus, more than reducing tillage, whether by importation or growth.
|
|
|
|
Post by potter on May 4, 2012 0:48:02 GMT -5
Till or no till..both ways of growing have been in use through out the history..but often depending of the local conditions.
In Europe..places where the soil wasn't very rich or deep, no till was used and depth was created by collecting different 'materials' from nature. Good example of this is seaweed..it was collected from beaches in HUGE quanties. In UK there is still growing areas where this old practice, though not in use anymore in such a scale, is still benefiting the growers..over the years they built the soil levels several feet higher.
|
|
