Hi Mark,
From what I read, some people are success in the large scale no-till. The ways they apply are sound logical to me.
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.
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
Hi Frogleg,
I can't find it in my notes, I think has been deleted, so I will reply base on what I remember.
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.
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.
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*.
regularly
plants
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, Wong
-- Latitude: 06.10N Longitude: 102.17E Altitude: 5m
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.
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.
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:
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
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.You *do* understand. The marketplace is driving your own practices.
You can't change tastes by legislation or by telling people they
*should* be more discriminating.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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
So there should be different stores for rich and poor? I'm missing your point.
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.
How do you keep the Evil Ones from molding *your* thoughts?
Yes. I learned something about no-till. It's an interesting concept.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.