Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NO-TILL FARMING TAKING ROOTS.(Curtsy of Google alert)

Expand Messages
  • Raju Titus
    GUEST COLUMN: American farmers fighting global warming Dave Williams 21.FEB.08 More than 80 percent of mankind s diet is provided by the seeds of less than a
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 23, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      GUEST COLUMN: American farmers fighting global warming
      Dave Williams 21.FEB.08
      More than 80 percent of mankind's diet is provided by the seeds of
      less than a dozen species.

      Farming began around 10,000 years ago in the Middle East and for
      thousands of years it changed very little. Beginning in the 1850s the
      Industrial Revolution changed farming forever. John Deere invented the
      first self polishing plow and shortly before this Cyrus McCormick
      invented the first mechanical reaper. Both McCormick and Deere were
      pioneers in making America "the breadbasket of the world."

      But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop science
      found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon dioxide,
      which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to global
      warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for the
      majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
      such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of carbon
      dioxide.

      Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
      eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
      were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
      nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all farmland
      in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million metric
      tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere per
      year.

      One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
      practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
      costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
      and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
      acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel savings
      but in making a substantial difference in the environment right here
      in our own back yard.

      I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of the
      American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels are
      being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a great
      deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
      agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.

      All this leads me to believe that America should not be importing
      renewable fuels from countries that do not practice controlling the
      release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through their agriculture
      practices.

      Dave Williams, of Honesdale, is a member of the National
      Association of Farm Broadcasters
    • Dieter Brand
      ... Raju, This is ONLY achieved by using massive amounts of herbicides and other toxic chemicals. The above is a POLITICAL statement aimed at gaining
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        >In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
        >were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
        >nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all farmland
        >in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million metric
        >tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere per
        >year.

        Raju,

        This is ONLY achieved by using massive amounts of herbicides and
        other toxic chemicals. The above is a POLITICAL statement aimed
        at gaining SUBSIDIES in the form of carbon credits. It has NOTHING
        to do with natural farming.

        Please excuse my SHOUTING, but one doesn't seem to be heard
        otherwise.

        >All this leads me to believe that America should not be importing
        >renewable fuels from countries that do not practice controlling the
        >release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through their agriculture
        >practices.

        Of course not. Without foreign imports, American producers can
        fix higher prices. This is thinly veiled protectionism under another
        name. The champion of free trade only when it suits US interest.

        Dieter Brand
        Portugal



        ---------------------------------
        Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jeff
        The environmental critic... While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out this should be taken with a grain of salt. ... science found
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          The environmental critic...

          While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out
          this should be taken with a grain of salt.

          > But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop
          science found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon
          dioxide, which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to
          global warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for
          the majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
          > such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of
          carbon dioxide.

          yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
          plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
          portion of this loss.
          >
          > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
          > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
          > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
          > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
          farmland in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million
          metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere
          per year.

          The scale of the problem???
          150 million tons, ie 1.5 x 10^5 power.
          the amount of excess CO2 is on the neighborhood of 1.0 x 10^9

          This solution there for is less than .01 % solution to the problem.
          >
          > One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
          > practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
          > costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
          > and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
          > acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel
          savings but in making a substantial difference in the environment
          right here in our own back yard.
          >
          While savings are significant here, the amount of fuel used for
          tractors is small even compared to the amount of fuel used to bring
          the food to the grocery store. roughly 10 times the amount of fuel is
          used packaging and transporting the food as making it.

          If your going to use tractors- biodisel would be ideal.
          According to the ND soybean consul (and I did a rough check) a mere
          18% of the cropland in soybeans would produce enough biodisel to fuel
          all of the on-farm opperations. (this does not include no-till
          savings). But then again bio-disel is going a small bucket too.


          While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
          there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
          produces. So while DEITER points out they are (currently) dependent on
          these chemicals, Im' dont' think this is an arguement that should be
          used AGAISNT no-till farming.

          > I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of
          the> American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels
          are> being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a
          great> deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
          > agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.
          >
          hmm I'm not sure that the third world is ready or will every be ready
          for industrial agriculture.
          Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
          3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.

          People must raise themselves up, before they can even bring in the
          first of the economic juggernaut revolutions (the industrial),....
        • Raju Titus
          Dear Jeff, Thank you very much for nice comments. By the prectice of natural way of farming I found that tilling or plowing is the main culprit in
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 25, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jeff,
            Thank you very much for nice comments. By the prectice of natural
            way of farming I found that tilling or plowing is the main culprit in
            agriculture.If we do not till there is no need of any fertilizer and weed
            killer. Crops are not consuming any fertility but provide fertility.
            The loss of fertility and water holding capacity of soil vanishing due to
            plowing. Carbon emission means loss of fertility. Soil erosion means loss of
            fertility. Carbon and soil are same both are organic fertilizer. First
            removing our own fertilizer and taking it from out side is not wise. Few no
            till farmers are calculating number of earthworms per acer they are not
            using any chemicals because they know the harmful effect. Lot of no till
            farmers are not burning crop residues they are direct sowing in crop
            residues. Cover of crop residue works as mulch. Mulch control weeds, no need
            of weed killer. If no carbon/soil loss means no need of any fertilizers. In
            healthy soil always crops are healthy. No decease, means no need of any
            insecticide or pesticide. I agree that so many no till farmers are still
            using weed killer and chemical fertilizes because of no knowledge but one
            day they will realize and stop.
            I am not against of organic way of farming if no till.This is a ray of
            hope.
            Thanks
            Raju
            Natural farmer of India


            On 2/26/08, Jeff <shultonus@...> wrote:
            >
            > The environmental critic...
            >
            > While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out
            > this should be taken with a grain of salt.
            >
            > > But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop
            > science found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon
            > dioxide, which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to
            > global warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for
            > the majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
            > > such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of
            > carbon dioxide.
            >
            > yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
            > plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
            > portion of this loss.
            > >
            > > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
            > > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
            > > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
            > > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
            > farmland in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million
            > metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere
            > per year.
            >
            > The scale of the problem???
            > 150 million tons, ie 1.5 x 10^5 power.
            > the amount of excess CO2 is on the neighborhood of 1.0 x 10^9
            >
            > This solution there for is less than .01 % solution to the problem.
            > >
            > > One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
            > > practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
            > > costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
            > > and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
            > > acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel
            > savings but in making a substantial difference in the environment
            > right here in our own back yard.
            > >
            > While savings are significant here, the amount of fuel used for
            > tractors is small even compared to the amount of fuel used to bring
            > the food to the grocery store. roughly 10 times the amount of fuel is
            > used packaging and transporting the food as making it.
            >
            > If your going to use tractors- biodisel would be ideal.
            > According to the ND soybean consul (and I did a rough check) a mere
            > 18% of the cropland in soybeans would produce enough biodisel to fuel
            > all of the on-farm opperations. (this does not include no-till
            > savings). But then again bio-disel is going a small bucket too.
            >
            > While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
            > there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
            > produces. So while DEITER points out they are (currently) dependent on
            > these chemicals, Im' dont' think this is an arguement that should be
            > used AGAISNT no-till farming.
            >
            > > I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of
            > the> American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels
            > are> being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a
            > great> deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
            > > agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.
            > >
            > hmm I'm not sure that the third world is ready or will every be ready
            > for industrial agriculture.
            > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
            > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
            >
            > People must raise themselves up, before they can even bring in the
            > first of the economic juggernaut revolutions (the industrial),....
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dieter Brand
            Jeff, Raju et al., Many of us who have read Fukuoka and join this group have no previous experience of farming. Therefore, it is very important to make a clear
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 27, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeff, Raju et al.,

              Many of us who have read Fukuoka and join this group have no previous experience of farming. Therefore, it is very important to make a clear distinction between Fukuoka farming and conventional no-till farming so as to avoid misunderstanding.

              > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
              > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
              > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
              > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
              > farmland in the United States

              Without understanding the background, statements like this on the Fukuoka ML can be understood to mean that 36 % or 110 million acres of US agricultural land are under Natural Farming. Considering that there is probably not a single commercial farmer practicing Natural Farming in the US, this is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts that will make this ML the laughing stock of the entire community.

              The articles on conventional no-till posted on this ML are part of a debate opposing organic farmers against conventional no-till farmers. Unfortunately Raju has chosen to join the wrong side of the debate.

              Regarding carbon sequestration, the case can be made that organic farming is better at increasing soil organic matter than conventional no-till farming. Organic farmers rely on organic means including manure, compost, plant residues and green manure to grow crops. This increases organic soil contents even with ploughing. Conventional no-till farmers rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other chemicals to grow crops. The combined effects of these chemicals destroys soil biology (microbes, fungi, earthworms, etc.) which is necessary for the decomposition of plant residues. There have even been reports of no-till farmers who recommend ploughing every 3rd or 5th year because with a dead soil plant residues don’t decompose easily and get in the way of planting equipment.

              This shows that the case of carbon credits for conventional no-till farming is by no means as clear as it is made out to be. The most significant advantage of no-till farming is erosion control in particular in areas with a high erosion risk such as in the areas of the US dust bowl. The fact that the article forwarded by Raju does not even mention this clearly shows that its originators are a money grabbing bunch with their foretrodders in the trough. Some utility companies in the US already pay into funds for conventional no-till farming. Each time you turn on a light switch you pay for another round of Roundup to destroy soil life.

              >While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
              >there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
              >produces.

              Jeff, what is the basis for your statement? In conventional farming, one function of ploughing is weed suppression. In conventional no-till farming, this function is fulfilled by herbicides when herbicides are applied on a regular basis to chemically kill cover crops. Please also refer to the study of Worldwide no-till farming by Rolf Derpsch. In his study, he clearly states that the spread of no-till has only been made possible by the development of such herbicides as Roundup.

              >yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
              >plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
              >portion of this loss

              Today, there is very little virgin soil left for ploughing. My information is that about 10% of greenhouse gazes are due to agriculture. This includes the production of fertilizers and other chemicals, fuel for tractors etc., methane emission by feed stock and perhaps even a little oxidation due to ploughing. How much oxidation takes place depends on climatic conditions and soil management practices. How much carbon is lost when straw is left to dry on the soil surface in no-till farming has not even been investigated. Organic farming also emits less than no-till which relies on chemical fertilizers.

              > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
              > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.

              But that is exactly what the authors of Raju’s article want. Sell chemicals to the Third World. And if people in the Third World don’t want it. Well, the agrochemical lobby will use the lever of the Office for Foreign Trade to tighten the screws on the poor a little further.

              The purport of this article is purely cynical.

              Dieter Brand
              Portugal

              PS: It goes without saying that most of us on this ML are in favour of _organic no-till farming_ that fulfils the Fukuokan requirement of Do Not plough. However, the mere fact that among the no-till farmers in the US there are hardly any organic farmers goes to show that organic no-till farming like Natural Farming are by no means easy to achieve. Farmers are not stupid! They don't waste money on chemical fertilizers and herbicides if they were able to grow their crops without it. Organic no-till farming like Natural Farming is much more than just stopping to plough. Any assertion to the contrary is misleading.



              Jeff <shultonus@...> wrote:
              The environmental critic...

              While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out
              this should be taken with a grain of salt.

              > But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop
              science found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon
              dioxide, which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to
              global warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for
              the majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
              > such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of
              carbon dioxide.

              yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
              plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
              portion of this loss.
              >
              > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
              > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
              > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
              > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
              farmland in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million
              metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere
              per year.

              The scale of the problem???
              150 million tons, ie 1.5 x 10^5 power.
              the amount of excess CO2 is on the neighborhood of 1.0 x 10^9

              This solution there for is less than .01 % solution to the problem.
              >
              > One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
              > practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
              > costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
              > and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
              > acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel
              savings but in making a substantial difference in the environment
              right here in our own back yard.
              >
              While savings are significant here, the amount of fuel used for
              tractors is small even compared to the amount of fuel used to bring
              the food to the grocery store. roughly 10 times the amount of fuel is
              used packaging and transporting the food as making it.

              If your going to use tractors- biodisel would be ideal.
              According to the ND soybean consul (and I did a rough check) a mere
              18% of the cropland in soybeans would produce enough biodisel to fuel
              all of the on-farm opperations. (this does not include no-till
              savings). But then again bio-disel is going a small bucket too.

              While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
              there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
              produces. So while DEITER points out they are (currently) dependent on
              these chemicals, Im' dont' think this is an arguement that should be
              used AGAISNT no-till farming.

              > I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of
              the> American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels
              are> being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a
              great> deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
              > agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.
              >
              hmm I'm not sure that the third world is ready or will every be ready
              for industrial agriculture.
              Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
              3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.

              People must raise themselves up, before they can even bring in the
              first of the economic juggernaut revolutions (the industrial),....






              ---------------------------------
              Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jeff
              ... control, there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial produces. ... observation, and interaction with farmers and extention
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 27, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                > >While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed
                control,>there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard
                industrial >produces.
                >
                > Jeff, what is the basis for your statement?

                observation, and interaction with farmers and extention (government)
                employees using standard tillage and no-till.

                The farmers I know all use herbicide, regardless of tillage status.
                75% of the soybean crop uses round-up (herbicide, monsanto) ready GM
                soybeans. THis is regardless of tillage. Same thing with canola
                (food-grade rape oil).

                In conventional farming, one function of ploughing is weed suppression.

                Historically this is of course true. Modified planting times and
                regimes, and the use of GM modified crops have eliminated much of this
                ploughing.

                A distinction should be made between ploughing (turning the soil to
                make the seed bed), and cultivating (removing the weeds by plowing
                between rows). With the double planted rows for corn, sunflower, and
                soybeans, the full canopy deveops faste enough that the weeds are
                shaded out.
                With wheat and barley, becasue they are planted earlier the same
                effect take place. Occassionally problem fields of wheat are sprayed
                with a selective herbicide (for broad leafs only).

                Another technique in this chemical age is what's called pre-emergent
                treatment. THis is a chemical that stops or delays the the sprouting
                of any seeds in the soil. THis is used in the small grains and also
                the sugar beet industry. it is applied 3 days to a week after planting.

                When I was growing up migrant workers would manually hoe out weeds
                from sugar beets, this is no longer needed with the pre-emergent
                herbicide. Sugar beets don't tolorate cultivating even though they are
                row crops.

                In conventional no-till farming, this function is fulfilled by
                herbicides when herbicides are applied on a regular basis to
                chemically kill cover crops. Please also refer to the study of
                Worldwide no-till farming by Rolf Derpsch. In his study, he clearly
                states that the spread of no-till has only been made possible by the
                development of such herbicides as Roundup.
                >
                yes, made possibly by the chemicals, but the chemicals are used in
                standard agriculture regardless of ploughing status,

                that was my point.


                > >yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue
                of> >plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
                > >portion of this loss
                >
                > Today, there is very little virgin soil left for ploughing. My
                information is that about 10% of greenhouse gazes are due to
                agriculture. This includes the production of fertilizers and other
                chemicals, fuel for tractors etc., methane emission by feed stock and
                perhaps even a little oxidation due to ploughing. How much oxidation
                takes place depends on climatic conditions and soil management
                practices. How much carbon is lost when straw is left to dry on the
                soil surface in no-till farming has not even been investigated.
                Organic farming also emits less than no-till which relies on chemical
                fertilizers.
                >
                yes, our numbers agree on this point.


                > > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an
                expense the 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
                >
                > But that is exactly what the authors of Raju's article want. Sell
                chemicals to the Third World. And if people in the Third World don't
                want it. Well, the agrochemical lobby will use the lever of the Office
                for Foreign Trade to tighten the screws on the poor a little further.
                >
                > The purport of this article is purely cynical.
                >
                > Dieter Brand
                > Portugal
                >
                > PS: It goes without saying that most of us on this ML are in
                favour of _organic no-till farming_ that fulfils the Fukuokan
                requirement of Do Not plough. However, the mere fact that among the
                no-till farmers in the US there are hardly any organic farmers goes to
                show that organic no-till farming like Natural Farming are by no means
                easy to achieve. Farmers are not stupid! They don't waste money on
                chemical fertilizers and herbicides if they were able to grow their
                crops without it. Organic no-till farming like Natural Farming is much
                more than just stopping to plough. Any assertion to the contrary is
                misleading.
                >
                >

                >
              • Raju Titus
                Dear friend Dieter, *you wrote
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 27, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear friend Dieter,
                  *you wrote<The articles on conventional no-till posted on this ML are part
                  of a debate opposing organic farmers against conventional no-till farmers.
                  Unfortunately Raju has chosen to join the wrong side of the debate*.
                  -No my dear friend
                  Notill farming in crop residues without compost or inorganic
                  fertilizers is initiated by Masnobu Fukuoka.I love farmers who are not
                  tilling.I am not against of organic farmers.I am against of false organic
                  farming and false organic produces.
                  There is no need of any fertelizer in notill farming in crop
                  residues.No need of cow dung, noneed of cow urine,no need of rock powder,no
                  need of clay as fertilizer.No need of card board mulching.No need of any
                  organic or inorganic weed killer ,no need ofany organic or inorganic insect
                  or pest killer.
                  All things which I mentioned are necesesry when we till ,due to soil
                  erosion and carbon emision.. Organic farmers those who are tilling are
                  not eco-friendly. Farmers those who are not tilling but using herb
                  killers,insec killers,chemical fertelizers are wasting money and creating
                  pollution, should not get conservative benifits.
                  I know so many notill conservative farmers of America those are not
                  using harmful hazardus chemicals.The are saving earth worms houses for water
                  conservation.By this they are saving 75% input in diesal and 50 % in
                  irrigation.
                  Thanks
                  Raju Titus
                  Natural farmer of India







                  On 2/28/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Jeff, Raju et al.,
                  >
                  > Many of us who have read Fukuoka and join this group have no previous
                  > experience of farming. Therefore, it is very important to make a clear
                  > distinction between Fukuoka farming and conventional no-till farming so as
                  > to avoid misunderstanding.
                  >
                  > > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
                  > > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
                  > > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
                  > > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
                  > > farmland in the United States
                  >
                  > Without understanding the background, statements like this on the Fukuoka
                  > ML can be understood to mean that 36 % or 110 million acres of US
                  > agricultural land are under Natural Farming. Considering that there is
                  > probably not a single commercial farmer practicing Natural Farming in the
                  > US, this is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts that will make this
                  > ML the laughing stock of the entire community.
                  >
                  > The articles on conventional no-till posted on this ML are part of a
                  > debate opposing organic farmers against conventional no-till farmers.
                  > Unfortunately Raju has chosen to join the wrong side of the debate.
                  >
                  > Regarding carbon sequestration, the case can be made that organic farming
                  > is better at increasing soil organic matter than conventional no-till
                  > farming. Organic farmers rely on organic means including manure, compost,
                  > plant residues and green manure to grow crops. This increases organic soil
                  > contents even with ploughing. Conventional no-till farmers rely on chemical
                  > fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other chemicals to grow
                  > crops. The combined effects of these chemicals destroys soil biology
                  > (microbes, fungi, earthworms, etc.) which is necessary for the decomposition
                  > of plant residues. There have even been reports of no-till farmers who
                  > recommend ploughing every 3rd or 5th year because with a dead soil plant
                  > residues don't decompose easily and get in the way of planting equipment.
                  >
                  > This shows that the case of carbon credits for conventional no-till
                  > farming is by no means as clear as it is made out to be. The most
                  > significant advantage of no-till farming is erosion control in particular in
                  > areas with a high erosion risk such as in the areas of the US dust bowl. The
                  > fact that the article forwarded by Raju does not even mention this clearly
                  > shows that its originators are a money grabbing bunch with their
                  > foretrodders in the trough. Some utility companies in the US already pay
                  > into funds for conventional no-till farming. Each time you turn on a light
                  > switch you pay for another round of Roundup to destroy soil life.
                  >
                  > >While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
                  > >there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
                  > >produces.
                  >
                  > Jeff, what is the basis for your statement? In conventional farming, one
                  > function of ploughing is weed suppression. In conventional no-till farming,
                  > this function is fulfilled by herbicides when herbicides are applied on a
                  > regular basis to chemically kill cover crops. Please also refer to the study
                  > of Worldwide no-till farming by Rolf Derpsch. In his study, he clearly
                  > states that the spread of no-till has only been made possible by the
                  > development of such herbicides as Roundup.
                  >
                  > >yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
                  > >plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
                  > >portion of this loss
                  >
                  > Today, there is very little virgin soil left for ploughing. My information
                  > is that about 10% of greenhouse gazes are due to agriculture. This includes
                  > the production of fertilizers and other chemicals, fuel for tractors etc.,
                  > methane emission by feed stock and perhaps even a little oxidation due to
                  > ploughing. How much oxidation takes place depends on climatic conditions and
                  > soil management practices. How much carbon is lost when straw is left to dry
                  > on the soil surface in no-till farming has not even been investigated.
                  > Organic farming also emits less than no-till which relies on chemical
                  > fertilizers.
                  >
                  > > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
                  > > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
                  >
                  > But that is exactly what the authors of Raju's article want. Sell
                  > chemicals to the Third World. And if people in the Third World don't want
                  > it. Well, the agrochemical lobby will use the lever of the Office for
                  > Foreign Trade to tighten the screws on the poor a little further.
                  >
                  > The purport of this article is purely cynical.
                  >
                  > Dieter Brand
                  > Portugal
                  >
                  > PS: It goes without saying that most of us on this ML are in favour of
                  > _organic no-till farming_ that fulfils the Fukuokan requirement of Do Not
                  > plough. However, the mere fact that among the no-till farmers in the US
                  > there are hardly any organic farmers goes to show that organic no-till
                  > farming like Natural Farming are by no means easy to achieve. Farmers are
                  > not stupid! They don't waste money on chemical fertilizers and herbicides if
                  > they were able to grow their crops without it. Organic no-till farming like
                  > Natural Farming is much more than just stopping to plough. Any assertion to
                  > the contrary is misleading.
                  >
                  > Jeff <shultonus@... <shultonus%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
                  > The environmental critic...
                  >
                  > While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out
                  > this should be taken with a grain of salt.
                  >
                  > > But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop
                  > science found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon
                  > dioxide, which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to
                  > global warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for
                  > the majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
                  > > such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of
                  > carbon dioxide.
                  >
                  > yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
                  > plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
                  > portion of this loss.
                  > >
                  > > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
                  > > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
                  > > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
                  > > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
                  > farmland in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million
                  > metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere
                  > per year.
                  >
                  > The scale of the problem???
                  > 150 million tons, ie 1.5 x 10^5 power.
                  > the amount of excess CO2 is on the neighborhood of 1.0 x 10^9
                  >
                  > This solution there for is less than .01 % solution to the problem.
                  > >
                  > > One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
                  > > practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
                  > > costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
                  > > and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
                  > > acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel
                  > savings but in making a substantial difference in the environment
                  > right here in our own back yard.
                  > >
                  > While savings are significant here, the amount of fuel used for
                  > tractors is small even compared to the amount of fuel used to bring
                  > the food to the grocery store. roughly 10 times the amount of fuel is
                  > used packaging and transporting the food as making it.
                  >
                  > If your going to use tractors- biodisel would be ideal.
                  > According to the ND soybean consul (and I did a rough check) a mere
                  > 18% of the cropland in soybeans would produce enough biodisel to fuel
                  > all of the on-farm opperations. (this does not include no-till
                  > savings). But then again bio-disel is going a small bucket too.
                  >
                  > While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
                  > there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
                  > produces. So while DEITER points out they are (currently) dependent on
                  > these chemicals, Im' dont' think this is an arguement that should be
                  > used AGAISNT no-till farming.
                  >
                  > > I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of
                  > the> American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels
                  > are> being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a
                  > great> deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
                  > > agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.
                  > >
                  > hmm I'm not sure that the third world is ready or will every be ready
                  > for industrial agriculture.
                  > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
                  > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
                  >
                  > People must raise themselves up, before they can even bring in the
                  > first of the economic juggernaut revolutions (the industrial),....
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Dieter Brand
                  ... I take it this means with ploughing for making the seed bed, but without ploughing for removing weeds and without herbicides? But, don t the corn and
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >A distinction should be made between ploughing (turning the soil to
                    >make the seed bed), and cultivating (removing the weeds by plowing
                    >between rows). With the double planted rows for corn, sunflower, and
                    >soybeans, the full canopy deveops faste enough that the weeds are
                    >shaded out.

                    I take it this means with ploughing for making the seed bed, but without
                    ploughing for removing weeds and without herbicides? But, don't the corn
                    and sunflowers shade out the soybeans?

                    >Another technique in this chemical age is what's called pre-emergent
                    >treatment. THis is a chemical that stops or delays the the sprouting
                    >of any seeds in the soil. THis is used in the small grains and also
                    >the sugar beet industry. it is applied 3 days to a week after planting.

                    Ah, what would we do without the chemists?

                    Dieter



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

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jeff
                    ... without ... the corn ... no, this is a technique used for corn or soybeans or sunflowers. its two rows next to each other (6 ) and then a normal distance
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > I take it this means with ploughing for making the seed bed, but
                      without
                      > ploughing for removing weeds and without herbicides? But, don't
                      the corn
                      > and sunflowers shade out the soybeans?
                      >
                      no, this is a technique used for corn or soybeans or sunflowers.
                      its two rows next to each other (6") and then a normal distance (30")
                      15cm and 85 cm...
                    • Dieter Brand
                      ... That is good for you, but conventional no-till in the US does use fertilizers, herbicides, etc. ... That is not correct. ... Please let us know of these
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >There is no need of any fertelizer in notill farming in crop residues.

                        That is good for you, but conventional no-till in the US does use
                        fertilizers, herbicides, etc.

                        > Organic farmers those who are tilling are not eco-friendly.

                        That is not correct.

                        >I know so many notill conservative farmers of America those are not
                        >using harmful hazardus chemicals.

                        Please let us know of these farmers so that we may learn from them.
                        The articles you have posted are about conventional no-till farmers
                        using fertilizers, herbicides, etc.

                        A good site on no-till in the US is the NewFarm website of the
                        Rodale Institute. There is an attempt to replace herbicides with
                        mechanical means to kill cover crops, but I think that even some
                        of the examples given here are not completely organic.

                        http://www.newfarm.org/depts/notill/index.shtml

                        Raju, we all understand the advantages of organic no-till. The problem
                        is that in many parts of the World it is difficult of even impossible to
                        implement. Rather than repeating the advantages of no-till or to present
                        conventional no-till with herbicides, it would be better to discuss practical
                        means for achieving organic no-till under different conditions. In his
                        writing, Fukuoka is aware of the fact that each region needs a different
                        method and that there is no single method that can work everywhere.

                        Dieter Brand
                        Portugal


                        Raju Titus <rajuktitus@...> wrote:
                        Dear friend Dieter,
                        *you wrote<The articles on conventional no-till posted on this ML are part
                        of a debate opposing organic farmers against conventional no-till farmers.
                        Unfortunately Raju has chosen to join the wrong side of the debate*.
                        -No my dear friend
                        Notill farming in crop residues without compost or inorganic
                        fertilizers is initiated by Masnobu Fukuoka.I love farmers who are not
                        tilling.I am not against of organic farmers.I am against of false organic
                        farming and false organic produces.
                        There is no need of any fertelizer in notill farming in crop
                        residues.No need of cow dung, noneed of cow urine,no need of rock powder,no
                        need of clay as fertilizer.No need of card board mulching.No need of any
                        organic or inorganic weed killer ,no need ofany organic or inorganic insect
                        or pest killer.
                        All things which I mentioned are necesesry when we till ,due to soil
                        erosion and carbon emision.. Organic farmers those who are tilling are
                        not eco-friendly. Farmers those who are not tilling but using herb
                        killers,insec killers,chemical fertelizers are wasting money and creating
                        pollution, should not get conservative benifits.
                        I know so many notill conservative farmers of America those are not
                        using harmful hazardus chemicals.The are saving earth worms houses for water
                        conservation.By this they are saving 75% input in diesal and 50 % in
                        irrigation.
                        Thanks
                        Raju Titus
                        Natural farmer of India

                        On 2/28/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Jeff, Raju et al.,
                        >
                        > Many of us who have read Fukuoka and join this group have no previous
                        > experience of farming. Therefore, it is very important to make a clear
                        > distinction between Fukuoka farming and conventional no-till farming so as
                        > to avoid misunderstanding.
                        >
                        > > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
                        > > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
                        > > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
                        > > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
                        > > farmland in the United States
                        >
                        > Without understanding the background, statements like this on the Fukuoka
                        > ML can be understood to mean that 36 % or 110 million acres of US
                        > agricultural land are under Natural Farming. Considering that there is
                        > probably not a single commercial farmer practicing Natural Farming in the
                        > US, this is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts that will make this
                        > ML the laughing stock of the entire community.
                        >
                        > The articles on conventional no-till posted on this ML are part of a
                        > debate opposing organic farmers against conventional no-till farmers.
                        > Unfortunately Raju has chosen to join the wrong side of the debate.
                        >
                        > Regarding carbon sequestration, the case can be made that organic farming
                        > is better at increasing soil organic matter than conventional no-till
                        > farming. Organic farmers rely on organic means including manure, compost,
                        > plant residues and green manure to grow crops. This increases organic soil
                        > contents even with ploughing. Conventional no-till farmers rely on chemical
                        > fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other chemicals to grow
                        > crops. The combined effects of these chemicals destroys soil biology
                        > (microbes, fungi, earthworms, etc.) which is necessary for the decomposition
                        > of plant residues. There have even been reports of no-till farmers who
                        > recommend ploughing every 3rd or 5th year because with a dead soil plant
                        > residues don't decompose easily and get in the way of planting equipment.
                        >
                        > This shows that the case of carbon credits for conventional no-till
                        > farming is by no means as clear as it is made out to be. The most
                        > significant advantage of no-till farming is erosion control in particular in
                        > areas with a high erosion risk such as in the areas of the US dust bowl. The
                        > fact that the article forwarded by Raju does not even mention this clearly
                        > shows that its originators are a money grabbing bunch with their
                        > foretrodders in the trough. Some utility companies in the US already pay
                        > into funds for conventional no-till farming. Each time you turn on a light
                        > switch you pay for another round of Roundup to destroy soil life.
                        >
                        > >While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
                        > >there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
                        > >produces.
                        >
                        > Jeff, what is the basis for your statement? In conventional farming, one
                        > function of ploughing is weed suppression. In conventional no-till farming,
                        > this function is fulfilled by herbicides when herbicides are applied on a
                        > regular basis to chemically kill cover crops. Please also refer to the study
                        > of Worldwide no-till farming by Rolf Derpsch. In his study, he clearly
                        > states that the spread of no-till has only been made possible by the
                        > development of such herbicides as Roundup.
                        >
                        > >yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
                        > >plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
                        > >portion of this loss
                        >
                        > Today, there is very little virgin soil left for ploughing. My information
                        > is that about 10% of greenhouse gazes are due to agriculture. This includes
                        > the production of fertilizers and other chemicals, fuel for tractors etc.,
                        > methane emission by feed stock and perhaps even a little oxidation due to
                        > ploughing. How much oxidation takes place depends on climatic conditions and
                        > soil management practices. How much carbon is lost when straw is left to dry
                        > on the soil surface in no-till farming has not even been investigated.
                        > Organic farming also emits less than no-till which relies on chemical
                        > fertilizers.
                        >
                        > > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
                        > > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
                        >
                        > But that is exactly what the authors of Raju's article want. Sell
                        > chemicals to the Third World. And if people in the Third World don't want
                        > it. Well, the agrochemical lobby will use the lever of the Office for
                        > Foreign Trade to tighten the screws on the poor a little further.
                        >
                        > The purport of this article is purely cynical.
                        >
                        > Dieter Brand
                        > Portugal
                        >
                        > PS: It goes without saying that most of us on this ML are in favour of
                        > _organic no-till farming_ that fulfils the Fukuokan requirement of Do Not
                        > plough. However, the mere fact that among the no-till farmers in the US
                        > there are hardly any organic farmers goes to show that organic no-till
                        > farming like Natural Farming are by no means easy to achieve. Farmers are
                        > not stupid! They don't waste money on chemical fertilizers and herbicides if
                        > they were able to grow their crops without it. Organic no-till farming like
                        > Natural Farming is much more than just stopping to plough. Any assertion to
                        > the contrary is misleading.
                        >
                        > Jeff <shultonus@... <shultonus%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
                        > The environmental critic...
                        >
                        > While no-till plowing is a huge step forward, .. as Deiter points out
                        > this should be taken with a grain of salt.
                        >
                        > > But as time went on, researchers studies in evaluating crop
                        > science found that plowing of the soil was actually releasing carbon
                        > dioxide, which has been identified as a greenhouse gas contributing to
                        > global warming. Although industry and automobiles are responsible for
                        > the majority of carbon dioxide emissions, it was found that plowing on
                        > > such a large scale also can contribute a significant amount of
                        > carbon dioxide.
                        >
                        > yes, its acknoledged that 5-10 of the current increase is becasue of
                        > plowing of virgin soils. (Industrial) No-till can only restore a
                        > portion of this loss.
                        > >
                        > > Farmers here in America went to no-till farming practices to
                        > > eliminate this. In 2000 around 52 million acres in the United States
                        > > were using no-till practices for a total of around 17 percent of our
                        > > nation's farmland. This year we are around 36 percent of all
                        > farmland in the United States, which prevents as much as 150 million
                        > metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere
                        > per year.
                        >
                        > The scale of the problem???
                        > 150 million tons, ie 1.5 x 10^5 power.
                        > the amount of excess CO2 is on the neighborhood of 1.0 x 10^9
                        >
                        > This solution there for is less than .01 % solution to the problem.
                        > >
                        > > One of our local large corn farmers who has been using no-till
                        > > practices for more than 20 years has kept a record of production
                        > > costs. The outcome was less than 2 gallons of fuel per acre to plant
                        > > and harvest compared to plowing, which used more than 10 gallons per
                        > > acre to plant and harvest. This has resulted not only in fuel
                        > savings but in making a substantial difference in the environment
                        > right here in our own back yard.
                        > >
                        > While savings are significant here, the amount of fuel used for
                        > tractors is small even compared to the amount of fuel used to bring
                        > the food to the grocery store. roughly 10 times the amount of fuel is
                        > used packaging and transporting the food as making it.
                        >
                        > If your going to use tractors- biodisel would be ideal.
                        > According to the ND soybean consul (and I did a rough check) a mere
                        > 18% of the cropland in soybeans would produce enough biodisel to fuel
                        > all of the on-farm opperations. (this does not include no-till
                        > savings). But then again bio-disel is going a small bucket too.
                        >
                        > While no till farming is dependent on herbicides for weed control,
                        > there is little evidence that they use MORE than standard industrial
                        > produces. So while DEITER points out they are (currently) dependent on
                        > these chemicals, Im' dont' think this is an arguement that should be
                        > used AGAISNT no-till farming.
                        >
                        > > I only wish that other countries would follow the footsteps of
                        > the> American farmers. In some foreign countries where renewable fuels
                        > are> being produced no-till practices are not being used, creating a
                        > great> deal of carbon dioxide release. This problem is not limited to
                        > > agriculture but also to manufacturing in less advanced countries.
                        > >
                        > hmm I'm not sure that the third world is ready or will every be ready
                        > for industrial agriculture.
                        > Pesticides and chemical fertilizer and hybrid seeds are an expense the
                        > 3rd world can't afford, now or in the forseeable future.
                        >
                        > People must raise themselves up, before they can even bring in the
                        > first of the economic juggernaut revolutions (the industrial),....
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                        ---------------------------------
                        Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Dieter Brand
                        Each argument has two sides. Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list. Enjoy! Submitted by News
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Each argument has two sides.

                          Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list.

                          Enjoy!


                          Submitted by News <http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/news>
                          Account
                          on 24 February 2008 - 4:00pm. Environment
                          <http://www.scientificblogging.com/environment>

                          Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting,
                          to
                          agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these
                          soils
                          and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas
                          emissions,
                          according to new research published in a special issue of Waste
                          Management &
                          Research.

                          Carbon sequestration in soil has been recognized by the
                          Intergovernmental
                          Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission as one of the
                          possible
                          measures through which greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.

                          One estimate of the potential value of this approach - which assumed
                          that
                          20% of the surface of agricultural land in the EU could be used as a
                          sink
                          for carbon - suggested it could constitute about 8.6% of the total EU
                          emission-reduction objective.

                          "An increase of just 0.15% in organic carbon in arable soils in a
                          country
                          like Italy would effectively imply the sequestration of the same amount
                          of
                          carbon within soil that is currently released into the atmosphere in a
                          period of one year through the use of fossil fuels," write Enzo Favoino
                          and
                          Dominic Hogg, authors of the paper.

                          "Furthermore, increasing organic matter in soils may cause other
                          greenhouse
                          gas-saving effects, such as improved workability of soils, better water
                          retention, less production and use of mineral fertilizers and
                          pesticides,
                          and reduced release of nitrous oxide."

                          However, capitalizing on this potential climate-change mitigation
                          measure is
                          not a simple task. The issue is complicated by the fact that industrial
                          farming techniques mean agriculture is actually depleting carbon from
                          soil,
                          thus reducing its capacity to act as a carbon sink.

                          According to Hogg and Favoino, this loss of carbon sink capacity is not
                          permanent. Composting can contribute in a positive way to the twin
                          objectives of restoring soil quality and sequestering carbon in soils.
                          Applications of organic matter (in the form of organic fertilizers) can
                          lead
                          either to a build-up of soil organic carbon over time, or a reduction
                          in the
                          rate at which organic matter is depleted from soils. In either case,
                          the
                          overall quantity of organic matter in soils will be higher than using
                          no
                          organic fertilizer.

                          "What organic fertilizers can do is reverse the decline in soil organic
                          matter that has occurred in relatively recent decades by contributing
                          to the
                          build-up in the stable organic fraction in soils, and having the
                          effect, in
                          any given year, of ensuring that more carbon is held within the soil,"
                          they
                          explain.

                          But calculating the value of this technique to climate change policies
                          is
                          complicated. To refine previous calculations and to take account of the
                          positive and negative dynamics of carbon storage in soil, Favoino and
                          Hogg
                          modelled the dynamics of compost application and build-up balancing
                          this
                          with mineralization and loss through tillage.

                          Their results suggest that soils where manure was added have soil
                          organic
                          carbon levels 1.34% higher than un-amended soils, and 1.13% higher than
                          soils amended with chemical fertilizers, over a 50-year period. "This
                          is
                          clearly significant given the evaluations reported above regarding
                          carbon
                          being lost from soils, and the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in
                          the
                          atmosphere," they say.




                          ---------------------------------
                          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Raju Titus
                          Dear Dieter, We are talking about tilling .There is lot of carbon emission, soil /biodiversity erosion and run off due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in to
                          Message 12 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Dieter,
                            We are talking about tilling .There is lot of carbon emission, soil
                            /biodiversity erosion and run off due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in
                            to desert .Therefore farmers growing crops with fertilizer may be
                            organicaly or inorganicaly. In Fukuoka_farming all residues of crops and
                            weeds used as mulch without tilling.This mulch provide sufficient amount of
                            organic matter to the soil.There is no erosion of soil/biodiversity and rain
                            water do not go out of farm.It abosbed by soil.
                            By tilling all houses of earth worms,rats,and so many insects were
                            broken.These houses are taking most of the rain water deep in to soil. Due
                            to broken houses rain water instead of going in soil going out by speed and
                            washed lot of tilled soil (organic matter).
                            What I want say that most of the organic farmers breaking these houses by
                            tilling and allow lot of carbon emission ,soil/biodiversity erosion and run
                            off.This is not eco-friendly.This is not fighting back with global warming.
                            No-Till organic farmers are 100% fighting back with global warming.
                            Thanks
                            Raju Titus
                            Natural farmer of India.



                            On 2/29/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Each argument has two sides.
                            >
                            > Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list.
                            >
                            > Enjoy!
                            >
                            >
                            > Submitted by News <http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/news>
                            > Account
                            > on 24 February 2008 - 4:00pm. Environment
                            > <http://www.scientificblogging.com/environment>
                            >
                            > Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting,
                            > to
                            > agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these
                            > soils
                            > and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas
                            > emissions,
                            > according to new research published in a special issue of Waste
                            > Management &
                            > Research.
                            >
                            > Carbon sequestration in soil has been recognized by the
                            > Intergovernmental
                            > Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission as one of the
                            > possible
                            > measures through which greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.
                            >
                            > One estimate of the potential value of this approach - which assumed
                            > that
                            > 20% of the surface of agricultural land in the EU could be used as a
                            > sink
                            > for carbon - suggested it could constitute about 8.6% of the total EU
                            > emission-reduction objective.
                            >
                            > "An increase of just 0.15% in organic carbon in arable soils in a
                            > country
                            > like Italy would effectively imply the sequestration of the same amount
                            > of
                            > carbon within soil that is currently released into the atmosphere in a
                            > period of one year through the use of fossil fuels," write Enzo Favoino
                            > and
                            > Dominic Hogg, authors of the paper.
                            >
                            > "Furthermore, increasing organic matter in soils may cause other
                            > greenhouse
                            > gas-saving effects, such as improved workability of soils, better water
                            > retention, less production and use of mineral fertilizers and
                            > pesticides,
                            > and reduced release of nitrous oxide."
                            >
                            > However, capitalizing on this potential climate-change mitigation
                            > measure is
                            > not a simple task. The issue is complicated by the fact that industrial
                            > farming techniques mean agriculture is actually depleting carbon from
                            > soil,
                            > thus reducing its capacity to act as a carbon sink.
                            >
                            > According to Hogg and Favoino, this loss of carbon sink capacity is not
                            > permanent. Composting can contribute in a positive way to the twin
                            > objectives of restoring soil quality and sequestering carbon in soils.
                            > Applications of organic matter (in the form of organic fertilizers) can
                            > lead
                            > either to a build-up of soil organic carbon over time, or a reduction
                            > in the
                            > rate at which organic matter is depleted from soils. In either case,
                            > the
                            > overall quantity of organic matter in soils will be higher than using
                            > no
                            > organic fertilizer.
                            >
                            > "What organic fertilizers can do is reverse the decline in soil organic
                            > matter that has occurred in relatively recent decades by contributing
                            > to the
                            > build-up in the stable organic fraction in soils, and having the
                            > effect, in
                            > any given year, of ensuring that more carbon is held within the soil,"
                            > they
                            > explain.
                            >
                            > But calculating the value of this technique to climate change policies
                            > is
                            > complicated. To refine previous calculations and to take account of the
                            > positive and negative dynamics of carbon storage in soil, Favoino and
                            > Hogg
                            > modelled the dynamics of compost application and build-up balancing
                            > this
                            > with mineralization and loss through tillage.
                            >
                            > Their results suggest that soils where manure was added have soil
                            > organic
                            > carbon levels 1.34% higher than un-amended soils, and 1.13% higher than
                            > soils amended with chemical fertilizers, over a 50-year period. "This
                            > is
                            > clearly significant given the evaluations reported above regarding
                            > carbon
                            > being lost from soils, and the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in
                            > the
                            > atmosphere," they say.
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Linda Shewan
                            Raju, I think that although a lot of organic farmers till they predominantly till in a green manure crop which is directly adding to the carbon in the soil.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Feb 28, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Raju, I think that although a lot of organic farmers till they predominantly
                              till in a green manure crop which is directly adding to the carbon in the
                              soil. Organic standards all over the world dictate that the farmer must be
                              'building' soil.



                              As natural farmers (or wannabe natural farmers like me) we know that there
                              are many benefits to no tilling AT ALL - but it is wrong to say that most
                              organic farmers are carbon emitting and creating soil erosion. Biodynamic
                              farmers till and there are some amazing soil reconstructions/topsoil
                              deepening that has been facilitated through this and organic methods. A film
                              to see on this topic is One Man, One Cow, One Planet - How to Save the World
                              about a New Zealander Peter Proctor and his work in India. He is having
                              amazing results and while he is not no till, his methods are restoring
                              health to thousands of farms across India. Small steps perhaps - most people
                              can't make the giant leap to natural farming in one go - it is simply too
                              scary. Credit where credit is due.



                              Regards, Linda









                              From: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                              [mailto:fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Raju Titus
                              Sent: Friday, 29 February 2008 6:40 PM
                              To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] ORGANIC FARMING FIGHTS BACK ON GLOBAL WARMING



                              Dear Dieter,
                              We are talking about tilling .There is lot of carbon emission, soil
                              /biodiversity erosion and run off due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in
                              to desert .Therefore farmers growing crops with fertilizer may be
                              organicaly or inorganicaly. In Fukuoka_farming all residues of crops and
                              weeds used as mulch without tilling.This mulch provide sufficient amount of
                              organic matter to the soil.There is no erosion of soil/biodiversity and rain
                              water do not go out of farm.It abosbed by soil.
                              By tilling all houses of earth worms,rats,and so many insects were
                              broken.These houses are taking most of the rain water deep in to soil. Due
                              to broken houses rain water instead of going in soil going out by speed and
                              washed lot of tilled soil (organic matter).
                              What I want say that most of the organic farmers breaking these houses by
                              tilling and allow lot of carbon emission ,soil/biodiversity erosion and run
                              off.This is not eco-friendly.This is not fighting back with global warming.
                              No-Till organic farmers are 100% fighting back with global warming.
                              Thanks
                              Raju Titus
                              Natural farmer of India.

                              On 2/29/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@... <mailto:diebrand%40yahoo.com> >
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Each argument has two sides.
                              >
                              > Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list.
                              >
                              > Enjoy!
                              >
                              >
                              > Submitted by News <http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/news>
                              > Account
                              > on 24 February 2008 - 4:00pm. Environment
                              > <http://www.scientificblogging.com/environment>
                              >
                              > Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting,
                              > to
                              > agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these
                              > soils
                              > and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas
                              > emissions,
                              > according to new research published in a special issue of Waste
                              > Management &
                              > Research.
                              >
                              > Carbon sequestration in soil has been recognized by the
                              > Intergovernmental
                              > Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission as one of the
                              > possible
                              > measures through which greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.
                              >
                              > One estimate of the potential value of this approach - which assumed
                              > that
                              > 20% of the surface of agricultural land in the EU could be used as a
                              > sink
                              > for carbon - suggested it could constitute about 8.6% of the total EU
                              > emission-reduction objective.
                              >
                              > "An increase of just 0.15% in organic carbon in arable soils in a
                              > country
                              > like Italy would effectively imply the sequestration of the same amount
                              > of
                              > carbon within soil that is currently released into the atmosphere in a
                              > period of one year through the use of fossil fuels," write Enzo Favoino
                              > and
                              > Dominic Hogg, authors of the paper.
                              >
                              > "Furthermore, increasing organic matter in soils may cause other
                              > greenhouse
                              > gas-saving effects, such as improved workability of soils, better water
                              > retention, less production and use of mineral fertilizers and
                              > pesticides,
                              > and reduced release of nitrous oxide."
                              >
                              > However, capitalizing on this potential climate-change mitigation
                              > measure is
                              > not a simple task. The issue is complicated by the fact that industrial
                              > farming techniques mean agriculture is actually depleting carbon from
                              > soil,
                              > thus reducing its capacity to act as a carbon sink.
                              >
                              > According to Hogg and Favoino, this loss of carbon sink capacity is not
                              > permanent. Composting can contribute in a positive way to the twin
                              > objectives of restoring soil quality and sequestering carbon in soils.
                              > Applications of organic matter (in the form of organic fertilizers) can
                              > lead
                              > either to a build-up of soil organic carbon over time, or a reduction
                              > in the
                              > rate at which organic matter is depleted from soils. In either case,
                              > the
                              > overall quantity of organic matter in soils will be higher than using
                              > no
                              > organic fertilizer.
                              >
                              > "What organic fertilizers can do is reverse the decline in soil organic
                              > matter that has occurred in relatively recent decades by contributing
                              > to the
                              > build-up in the stable organic fraction in soils, and having the
                              > effect, in
                              > any given year, of ensuring that more carbon is held within the soil,"
                              > they
                              > explain.
                              >
                              > But calculating the value of this technique to climate change policies
                              > is
                              > complicated. To refine previous calculations and to take account of the
                              > positive and negative dynamics of carbon storage in soil, Favoino and
                              > Hogg
                              > modelled the dynamics of compost application and build-up balancing
                              > this
                              > with mineralization and loss through tillage.
                              >
                              > Their results suggest that soils where manure was added have soil
                              > organic
                              > carbon levels 1.34% higher than un-amended soils, and 1.13% higher than
                              > soils amended with chemical fertilizers, over a 50-year period. "This
                              > is
                              > clearly significant given the evaluations reported above regarding
                              > carbon
                              > being lost from soils, and the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in
                              > the
                              > atmosphere," they say.
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • macropneuma
                              This is a Fukuoka-sensei inspired farming and philosophy discussion group, expressly for people who want to discuss going straight to the point, the full
                              Message 14 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This is a Fukuoka-sensei inspired farming and philosophy discussion group, expressly for
                                people who want to discuss going straight to the point, the full solution... . Not for those
                                too scared to face that challenge to be here debating that which they are to scared to
                                face... .

                                True, credit where credit is due... . But lets look where that baby steps progress mentality
                                regarding sustainabilty has got us 'westerners' to date, up shit creek without a paddle... .

                                Eternity philosophy -getting to the root cause(s) and ulimate solutions now, whether from
                                wesstern cultures or elsewhere is all that will do now to catch up with and keep up with
                                the pace of runaway degradation.

                                Regards to you Linda, really!

                                And Cheers all.

                                --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "Linda Shewan" <linda_shewan@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Raju, I think that although a lot of organic farmers till they predominantly
                                > till in a green manure crop which is directly adding to the carbon in the
                                > soil. Organic standards all over the world dictate that the farmer must be
                                > 'building' soil.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > As natural farmers (or wannabe natural farmers like me) we know that there
                                > are many benefits to no tilling AT ALL - but it is wrong to say that most
                                > organic farmers are carbon emitting and creating soil erosion. Biodynamic
                                > farmers till and there are some amazing soil reconstructions/topsoil
                                > deepening that has been facilitated through this and organic methods. A film
                                > to see on this topic is One Man, One Cow, One Planet - How to Save the World
                                > about a New Zealander Peter Proctor and his work in India. He is having
                                > amazing results and while he is not no till, his methods are restoring
                                > health to thousands of farms across India. Small steps perhaps - most people
                                > can't make the giant leap to natural farming in one go - it is simply too
                                > scary. Credit where credit is due.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Regards, Linda
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > From: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                                > [mailto:fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Raju Titus
                                > Sent: Friday, 29 February 2008 6:40 PM
                                > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] ORGANIC FARMING FIGHTS BACK ON GLOBAL
                                WARMING
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Dear Dieter,
                                > We are talking about tilling .There is lot of carbon emission, soil
                                > /biodiversity erosion and run off due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in
                                > to desert .Therefore farmers growing crops with fertilizer may be
                                > organicaly or inorganicaly. In Fukuoka_farming all residues of crops and
                                > weeds used as mulch without tilling.This mulch provide sufficient amount of
                                > organic matter to the soil.There is no erosion of soil/biodiversity and rain
                                > water do not go out of farm.It abosbed by soil.
                                > By tilling all houses of earth worms,rats,and so many insects were
                                > broken.These houses are taking most of the rain water deep in to soil. Due
                                > to broken houses rain water instead of going in soil going out by speed and
                                > washed lot of tilled soil (organic matter).
                                > What I want say that most of the organic farmers breaking these houses by
                                > tilling and allow lot of carbon emission ,soil/biodiversity erosion and run
                                > off.This is not eco-friendly.This is not fighting back with global warming.
                                > No-Till organic farmers are 100% fighting back with global warming.
                                > Thanks
                                > Raju Titus
                                > Natural farmer of India.
                                >
                                > On 2/29/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@... <mailto:diebrand%40yahoo.com> >
                                > wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Each argument has two sides.
                                > >
                                > > Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list.
                                > >
                                > > Enjoy!
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Submitted by News <http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/news>
                                > > Account
                                > > on 24 February 2008 - 4:00pm. Environment
                                > > <http://www.scientificblogging.com/environment>
                                > >
                                > > Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting,
                                > > to
                                > > agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these
                                > > soils
                                > > and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas
                                > > emissions,
                                > > according to new research published in a special issue of Waste
                                > > Management &
                                > > Research.
                                > >
                                > > Carbon sequestration in soil has been recognized by the
                                > > Intergovernmental
                                > > Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission as one of the
                                > > possible
                                > > measures through which greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.
                                > >
                                > > One estimate of the potential value of this approach - which assumed
                                > > that
                                > > 20% of the surface of agricultural land in the EU could be used as a
                                > > sink
                                > > for carbon - suggested it could constitute about 8.6% of the total EU
                                > > emission-reduction objective.
                                > >
                                > > "An increase of just 0.15% in organic carbon in arable soils in a
                                > > country
                                > > like Italy would effectively imply the sequestration of the same amount
                                > > of
                                > > carbon within soil that is currently released into the atmosphere in a
                                > > period of one year through the use of fossil fuels," write Enzo Favoino
                                > > and
                                > > Dominic Hogg, authors of the paper.
                                > >
                                > > "Furthermore, increasing organic matter in soils may cause other
                                > > greenhouse
                                > > gas-saving effects, such as improved workability of soils, better water
                                > > retention, less production and use of mineral fertilizers and
                                > > pesticides,
                                > > and reduced release of nitrous oxide."
                                > >
                                > > However, capitalizing on this potential climate-change mitigation
                                > > measure is
                                > > not a simple task. The issue is complicated by the fact that industrial
                                > > farming techniques mean agriculture is actually depleting carbon from
                                > > soil,
                                > > thus reducing its capacity to act as a carbon sink.
                                > >
                                > > According to Hogg and Favoino, this loss of carbon sink capacity is not
                                > > permanent. Composting can contribute in a positive way to the twin
                                > > objectives of restoring soil quality and sequestering carbon in soils.
                                > > Applications of organic matter (in the form of organic fertilizers) can
                                > > lead
                                > > either to a build-up of soil organic carbon over time, or a reduction
                                > > in the
                                > > rate at which organic matter is depleted from soils. In either case,
                                > > the
                                > > overall quantity of organic matter in soils will be higher than using
                                > > no
                                > > organic fertilizer.
                                > >
                                > > "What organic fertilizers can do is reverse the decline in soil organic
                                > > matter that has occurred in relatively recent decades by contributing
                                > > to the
                                > > build-up in the stable organic fraction in soils, and having the
                                > > effect, in
                                > > any given year, of ensuring that more carbon is held within the soil,"
                                > > they
                                > > explain.
                                > >
                                > > But calculating the value of this technique to climate change policies
                                > > is
                                > > complicated. To refine previous calculations and to take account of the
                                > > positive and negative dynamics of carbon storage in soil, Favoino and
                                > > Hogg
                                > > modelled the dynamics of compost application and build-up balancing
                                > > this
                                > > with mineralization and loss through tillage.
                                > >
                                > > Their results suggest that soils where manure was added have soil
                                > > organic
                                > > carbon levels 1.34% higher than un-amended soils, and 1.13% higher than
                                > > soils amended with chemical fertilizers, over a 50-year period. "This
                                > > is
                                > > clearly significant given the evaluations reported above regarding
                                > > carbon
                                > > being lost from soils, and the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in
                                > > the
                                > > atmosphere," they say.
                                > >
                                > > ---------------------------------
                                > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Dieter Brand
                                Raju, enough fighting already ;-) Most of us understand the advantages of no-till. In an ideal World we would all practice organic no-till. But most of us
                                Message 15 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Raju, enough fighting already ;-)

                                  Most of us understand the advantages of no-till.
                                  In an ideal World we would all practice organic no-till.
                                  But most of us don’t live in an ideal World, and if I have
                                  the choice between:

                                  A) organic farming with tilling
                                  B) no-till farming with fertilizers and herbicides

                                  I will choose A) because I believe it is dangerous to introduce
                                  chemicals into the soil and into the food chain, and because
                                  conservation tilling and shallow cultivation, if done right, are
                                  not as destructive as industrial scale mouldboard ploughing.

                                  I posted this article to show that there are 2 sides to every
                                  argument and that we ignore the other side at our own peril.
                                  But the article doesn’t describe very well the multiple ways
                                  in which organic farming can benefit the soil, it is nothing
                                  like what the spin doctors from the other side of the big
                                  pond can produce to lobby for conventional no-till.

                                  > ... due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in to desert.

                                  In my native planes in the North of Germany, farmers
                                  have been ploughing for generations. There will never
                                  be any deserts.

                                  >Therefore farmers growing crops with fertilizer may be
                                  >organicaly or inorganicaly.

                                  Farmers growing crops with synthetic fertilizers are by
                                  definition not organic.

                                  > This mulch provide sufficient amount of organic matter
                                  > to the soil.

                                  Why then do conventional no-till farmers in the US use
                                  chemical fertilizers?

                                  > No-Till organic farmers are 100% fighting back with global
                                  > warming.

                                  How many of the 110 million acres of no-till in the US are under
                                  organic farming? Is it as much as 1 %? Or is it less?

                                  Dieter Brand
                                  Portugal



                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Bernhard Heuvel
                                  Hi Dieter, ... I don t agree with that. There IS already a desert, if you look closely. You don t need camels or scorpions to have a desert. You note the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Dieter,

                                    >> In my native planes in the North of Germany, farmers
                                    >> have been ploughing for generations. There will never be any deserts.

                                    I don't agree with that. There IS already a desert, if you look closely.
                                    You don't need camels or scorpions to have a desert.

                                    You note the run-off water on the surface, water not sinking into the
                                    soil! Water tables are lowered! Mineralization is low! Humus is rare.
                                    Live is rare. That's what I understand as a desert and all this signs
                                    you find on a German till-farming land.

                                    You THINK you don't have other choices, but is just your imagination
                                    that keeps you from simply doing natural farming with no-till.

                                    I experience a big problem here in Germany. That is, that everyone is
                                    teached, that farming without chemicals is not possible. Even gardening,
                                    even keeping animals, or anything else - nothing goes without chemicals.
                                    This year the chemical industry in Germany has made big wins, big money.
                                    The teach anyone here a life with chemicals. From beekeeping to
                                    rabbit-keeping, from the legumes in the garden to the field crops,
                                    everything has to be treated with chemicals. No other way - that's the
                                    message spread here. And the people DO BELIEVE. They are strong believers.

                                    Some are confused. They think: Hey, there has to be other ways! So they
                                    try stuff like no-till. Stuff like "organic" farming. They all fail.

                                    Why do they fail?!

                                    Because we actually live in a desert! Fukuoka, as I understand him, has
                                    drawn it very clearly. If you set up things in an unnaturally order, you
                                    HAVE TO do the work, you have to use fertilizers and herbicides. The
                                    spiralling of the unnatural cycle, remember?

                                    Here in Germany the simply copy Fukuoka's no-till farming, copying the
                                    method, but not the thinking. Because no one realizes that we are living
                                    in a desert, in a dead landscape, everyone gives up no-till farming and
                                    goes back to chemical usage. So they fail with their attempts of organic
                                    and no-till farming in the very beginning. They go back to the use of
                                    chemicals. After that trials they are even stronger believers of the
                                    chemical usage and are never converted back to no-till without
                                    chemicals. No way. "I tried it, and it didn't work", they say and
                                    nothing counts more than own experience. Strong believe here in Germany.
                                    Causing big big problems.

                                    I did a lot of smale-scale experimenting. Escpecially in my own garden
                                    and on scrap-land. From what I could get out of this experimenting is,
                                    that we in Europe have to build up nature from the very scratch. We have
                                    to do it like in the film "Greening the Desert". Because we are in desert.

                                    In my opinion the first things we have to do, is to plant trees. Because
                                    we have an immense need of shade. We need to shade the soil, because we
                                    actually are in a desert. That shading will get the health back onto the
                                    land. That brings back water, brings back the water table to the near of
                                    the surface, thus re-mineralizing the soil. Thus get back the plant's
                                    health. The water and thus the health cycle has to be set up again, to
                                    let nature work. If not setting this up, we have no chance at all, to
                                    establish a no-till farming here.

                                    There is another big problem. There is an immense need for so called
                                    "Bio"-food, organic food. The consumers do want them, now. This is a big
                                    business. So organic farming is about to develop into a masses
                                    production. Thus there are very few that start organic farming in a
                                    smale scale. They all start their farming at a big scale.

                                    That is because they farm for money, rather than for food production!

                                    Starting on a large scale no-till farming is about to fail very easily,
                                    because locale adoption and observing have to be done. Skipping that,
                                    it'll fail nearly for sure. Remind, what long time Fukuoka needed for
                                    his way of farming! All the observation! So no-till fails and everyone
                                    thinks: Humm, doesn't work. That is bull-shit. Give me chemicals. That
                                    works in a short time.

                                    Or they convert into organic farmers. Organic farming is not so much
                                    different from industrial farming. Organic farming uses the humus and
                                    compost of other areas to fertilize soil. Bringing in plant matter and
                                    mulch from elsewhere. Because they don't shade the soil, the minerals
                                    and humus goes straight into the rivers, straight into sea. (Warm soil
                                    doesn't take the rain in, if the rain water is cooler than soil
                                    temperature. Thus rain water runs off on the surface, thus taking away
                                    humus). Even polluting the environment! I don't think, that organic
                                    farming is much better than industrial farming, because it's commercial.
                                    It's set up to produce money, not food.

                                    Organic farming may be OK if done in a small scale. But it is surely no
                                    solution for today's problems here in Germany.

                                    The solution would be, to transform the desert into something green
                                    again. No-till farming, if set up properly, is the closest and most
                                    sustainable solution. The main problem here is the thinking and the need
                                    for money to live.


                                    Regards,

                                    Bernhard Heuvel
                                    -Germany-
                                  • Shawn Turner
                                    What Raju is saying is those methods are short-lived. Yes they do have immediate and amazing effects. But from a long term stance, you are simply prolonging.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      What Raju is saying is those methods are short-lived. Yes they do have immediate and amazing effects. But from a long term stance, you are simply prolonging. Fear and Fact are two different things. Fear is the ego perception of the future which does not exist.



                                      Linda Shewan <linda_shewan@...> wrote:
                                      Raju, I think that although a lot of organic farmers till they predominantly
                                      till in a green manure crop which is directly adding to the carbon in the
                                      soil. Organic standards all over the world dictate that the farmer must be
                                      'building' soil.

                                      As natural farmers (or wannabe natural farmers like me) we know that there
                                      are many benefits to no tilling AT ALL - but it is wrong to say that most
                                      organic farmers are carbon emitting and creating soil erosion. Biodynamic
                                      farmers till and there are some amazing soil reconstructions/topsoil
                                      deepening that has been facilitated through this and organic methods. A film
                                      to see on this topic is One Man, One Cow, One Planet - How to Save the World
                                      about a New Zealander Peter Proctor and his work in India. He is having
                                      amazing results and while he is not no till, his methods are restoring
                                      health to thousands of farms across India. Small steps perhaps - most people
                                      can't make the giant leap to natural farming in one go - it is simply too
                                      scary. Credit where credit is due.

                                      Regards, Linda

                                      From: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                                      [mailto:fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Raju Titus
                                      Sent: Friday, 29 February 2008 6:40 PM
                                      To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] ORGANIC FARMING FIGHTS BACK ON GLOBAL WARMING

                                      Dear Dieter,
                                      We are talking about tilling .There is lot of carbon emission, soil
                                      /biodiversity erosion and run off due to tilling. Healthy soil converts in
                                      to desert .Therefore farmers growing crops with fertilizer may be
                                      organicaly or inorganicaly. In Fukuoka_farming all residues of crops and
                                      weeds used as mulch without tilling.This mulch provide sufficient amount of
                                      organic matter to the soil.There is no erosion of soil/biodiversity and rain
                                      water do not go out of farm.It abosbed by soil.
                                      By tilling all houses of earth worms,rats,and so many insects were
                                      broken.These houses are taking most of the rain water deep in to soil. Due
                                      to broken houses rain water instead of going in soil going out by speed and
                                      washed lot of tilled soil (organic matter).
                                      What I want say that most of the organic farmers breaking these houses by
                                      tilling and allow lot of carbon emission ,soil/biodiversity erosion and run
                                      off.This is not eco-friendly.This is not fighting back with global warming.
                                      No-Till organic farmers are 100% fighting back with global warming.
                                      Thanks
                                      Raju Titus
                                      Natural farmer of India.

                                      On 2/29/08, Dieter Brand <diebrand@... <mailto:diebrand%40yahoo.com> >
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Each argument has two sides.
                                      >
                                      > Here is a forward that just come through the Permaculture list.
                                      >
                                      > Enjoy!
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Submitted by News <http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/news>
                                      > Account
                                      > on 24 February 2008 - 4:00pm. Environment
                                      > <http://www.scientificblogging.com/environment>
                                      >
                                      > Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting,
                                      > to
                                      > agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these
                                      > soils
                                      > and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas
                                      > emissions,
                                      > according to new research published in a special issue of Waste
                                      > Management &
                                      > Research.
                                      >
                                      > Carbon sequestration in soil has been recognized by the
                                      > Intergovernmental
                                      > Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission as one of the
                                      > possible
                                      > measures through which greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.
                                      >
                                      > One estimate of the potential value of this approach - which assumed
                                      > that
                                      > 20% of the surface of agricultural land in the EU could be used as a
                                      > sink
                                      > for carbon - suggested it could constitute about 8.6% of the total EU
                                      > emission-reduction objective.
                                      >
                                      > "An increase of just 0.15% in organic carbon in arable soils in a
                                      > country
                                      > like Italy would effectively imply the sequestration of the same amount
                                      > of
                                      > carbon within soil that is currently released into the atmosphere in a
                                      > period of one year through the use of fossil fuels," write Enzo Favoino
                                      > and
                                      > Dominic Hogg, authors of the paper.
                                      >
                                      > "Furthermore, increasing organic matter in soils may cause other
                                      > greenhouse
                                      > gas-saving effects, such as improved workability of soils, better water
                                      > retention, less production and use of mineral fertilizers and
                                      > pesticides,
                                      > and reduced release of nitrous oxide."
                                      >
                                      > However, capitalizing on this potential climate-change mitigation
                                      > measure is
                                      > not a simple task. The issue is complicated by the fact that industrial
                                      > farming techniques mean agriculture is actually depleting carbon from
                                      > soil,
                                      > thus reducing its capacity to act as a carbon sink.
                                      >
                                      > According to Hogg and Favoino, this loss of carbon sink capacity is not
                                      > permanent. Composting can contribute in a positive way to the twin
                                      > objectives of restoring soil quality and sequestering carbon in soils.
                                      > Applications of organic matter (in the form of organic fertilizers) can
                                      > lead
                                      > either to a build-up of soil organic carbon over time, or a reduction
                                      > in the
                                      > rate at which organic matter is depleted from soils. In either case,
                                      > the
                                      > overall quantity of organic matter in soils will be higher than using
                                      > no
                                      > organic fertilizer.
                                      >
                                      > "What organic fertilizers can do is reverse the decline in soil organic
                                      > matter that has occurred in relatively recent decades by contributing
                                      > to the
                                      > build-up in the stable organic fraction in soils, and having the
                                      > effect, in
                                      > any given year, of ensuring that more carbon is held within the soil,"
                                      > they
                                      > explain.
                                      >
                                      > But calculating the value of this technique to climate change policies
                                      > is
                                      > complicated. To refine previous calculations and to take account of the
                                      > positive and negative dynamics of carbon storage in soil, Favoino and
                                      > Hogg
                                      > modelled the dynamics of compost application and build-up balancing
                                      > this
                                      > with mineralization and loss through tillage.
                                      >
                                      > Their results suggest that soils where manure was added have soil
                                      > organic
                                      > carbon levels 1.34% higher than un-amended soils, and 1.13% higher than
                                      > soils amended with chemical fertilizers, over a 50-year period. "This
                                      > is
                                      > clearly significant given the evaluations reported above regarding
                                      > carbon
                                      > being lost from soils, and the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in
                                      > the
                                      > atmosphere," they say.
                                      >
                                      > ---------------------------------
                                      > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






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

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Dieter Brand
                                      Bernhard, I can see you are a strong believer , and there is no good arguing with believers. Farming is not primarily concerned with thinking and
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Bernhard,

                                        I can see you are a strong "believer", and there is no good arguing with
                                        believers. Farming is not primarily concerned with "thinking" and "imagination"
                                        as you put it and all that strong language certainly doesn't help. If you want to
                                        rant be my guest, but you don't need to use my argument in a different context
                                        as a hanger for your generalisations.

                                        Good day to you,
                                        Dieter

                                        Bernhard Heuvel <bernhardundee@...> wrote:
                                        Hi Dieter,

                                        >> In my native planes in the North of Germany, farmers
                                        >> have been ploughing for generations. There will never be any deserts.

                                        I don't agree with that. There IS already a desert, if you look closely.
                                        You don't need camels or scorpions to have a desert.

                                        You note the run-off water on the surface, water not sinking into the
                                        soil! Water tables are lowered! Mineralization is low! Humus is rare.
                                        Live is rare. That's what I understand as a desert and all this signs
                                        you find on a German till-farming land.

                                        You THINK you don't have other choices, but is just your imagination
                                        that keeps you from simply doing natural farming with no-till.

                                        I experience a big problem here in Germany. That is, that everyone is
                                        teached, that farming without chemicals is not possible. Even gardening,
                                        even keeping animals, or anything else - nothing goes without chemicals.
                                        This year the chemical industry in Germany has made big wins, big money.
                                        The teach anyone here a life with chemicals. From beekeeping to
                                        rabbit-keeping, from the legumes in the garden to the field crops,
                                        everything has to be treated with chemicals. No other way - that's the
                                        message spread here. And the people DO BELIEVE. They are strong believers.

                                        Some are confused. They think: Hey, there has to be other ways! So they
                                        try stuff like no-till. Stuff like "organic" farming. They all fail.

                                        Why do they fail?!

                                        Because we actually live in a desert! Fukuoka, as I understand him, has
                                        drawn it very clearly. If you set up things in an unnaturally order, you
                                        HAVE TO do the work, you have to use fertilizers and herbicides. The
                                        spiralling of the unnatural cycle, remember?

                                        Here in Germany the simply copy Fukuoka's no-till farming, copying the
                                        method, but not the thinking. Because no one realizes that we are living
                                        in a desert, in a dead landscape, everyone gives up no-till farming and
                                        goes back to chemical usage. So they fail with their attempts of organic
                                        and no-till farming in the very beginning. They go back to the use of
                                        chemicals. After that trials they are even stronger believers of the
                                        chemical usage and are never converted back to no-till without
                                        chemicals. No way. "I tried it, and it didn't work", they say and
                                        nothing counts more than own experience. Strong believe here in Germany.
                                        Causing big big problems.

                                        I did a lot of smale-scale experimenting. Escpecially in my own garden
                                        and on scrap-land. From what I could get out of this experimenting is,
                                        that we in Europe have to build up nature from the very scratch. We have
                                        to do it like in the film "Greening the Desert". Because we are in desert.

                                        In my opinion the first things we have to do, is to plant trees. Because
                                        we have an immense need of shade. We need to shade the soil, because we
                                        actually are in a desert. That shading will get the health back onto the
                                        land. That brings back water, brings back the water table to the near of
                                        the surface, thus re-mineralizing the soil. Thus get back the plant's
                                        health. The water and thus the health cycle has to be set up again, to
                                        let nature work. If not setting this up, we have no chance at all, to
                                        establish a no-till farming here.

                                        There is another big problem. There is an immense need for so called
                                        "Bio"-food, organic food. The consumers do want them, now. This is a big
                                        business. So organic farming is about to develop into a masses
                                        production. Thus there are very few that start organic farming in a
                                        smale scale. They all start their farming at a big scale.

                                        That is because they farm for money, rather than for food production!

                                        Starting on a large scale no-till farming is about to fail very easily,
                                        because locale adoption and observing have to be done. Skipping that,
                                        it'll fail nearly for sure. Remind, what long time Fukuoka needed for
                                        his way of farming! All the observation! So no-till fails and everyone
                                        thinks: Humm, doesn't work. That is bull-shit. Give me chemicals. That
                                        works in a short time.

                                        Or they convert into organic farmers. Organic farming is not so much
                                        different from industrial farming. Organic farming uses the humus and
                                        compost of other areas to fertilize soil. Bringing in plant matter and
                                        mulch from elsewhere. Because they don't shade the soil, the minerals
                                        and humus goes straight into the rivers, straight into sea. (Warm soil
                                        doesn't take the rain in, if the rain water is cooler than soil
                                        temperature. Thus rain water runs off on the surface, thus taking away
                                        humus). Even polluting the environment! I don't think, that organic
                                        farming is much better than industrial farming, because it's commercial.
                                        It's set up to produce money, not food.

                                        Organic farming may be OK if done in a small scale. But it is surely no
                                        solution for today's problems here in Germany.

                                        The solution would be, to transform the desert into something green
                                        again. No-till farming, if set up properly, is the closest and most
                                        sustainable solution. The main problem here is the thinking and the need
                                        for money to live.

                                        Regards,

                                        Bernhard Heuvel
                                        -Germany-





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

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Bernhard Heuvel
                                        Sorry for hurting your feelings. Don t want to generalize things. Hope you understand, that it is sometimes very difficult for me to live in such a country
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Sorry for hurting your feelings. Don't want to "generalize" things. Hope
                                          you understand, that it is sometimes very difficult for me to live in
                                          such a country like Germany. Talking, no...preaching that something has
                                          to be done! The strong words are the results of long years of struggling.

                                          So well, let us act instead of talk!

                                          Sorry again,

                                          Bernhard
                                        • Dieter Brand
                                          Bernhardt, No need to be sorry, you are most welcome to join the discussions. If you have read any of my previous messages you will know that I m strongly in
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Feb 29, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Bernhardt,

                                            No need to be sorry, you are most welcome to join the discussions. If you
                                            have read any of my previous messages you will know that I'm strongly in
                                            favour of organic no-till and that I have used much of my time and part of my
                                            meagre savings to find a local adaptation of Natural Farming for a number
                                            of years. Organic no-till or Natural Farming are different from conventional
                                            farming in that they are very place-, soil-, climate- and crop-specific. What
                                            works in one place doesn't work in another; while conventional farming is
                                            more universal: herbicides, for example, will kill herbs no matter where
                                            you are.

                                            What I want to say with this long prologue is that a model worked out in
                                            Japan does not necessarily work in another place. In some places we may
                                            find an adaptation, in other places we may have no choice but to allow for
                                            a degree of soil cultivation. We will not know by reading a book, we have
                                            to put the theory to the test by working the land. And farming is not a road
                                            show either, it takes many years to get anywhere. For example, last
                                            November, when the rains failed to come, I learned something new I had
                                            not understood for the 10 years I have already worked on my land: it is
                                            possible to grow a crop with ploughing even without rain because during
                                            the Winter the humidity of the ploughed soil will cause the seeds to
                                            germinate. In this specific example, it is not possible grow a crop without
                                            ploughing, no matter whether we use seedballs or not. What do we do?
                                            Go hungry or go to the Supermarket?

                                            This is starting to get almost as long as your previous message,
                                            and I better stop so as not to tax people's patients.

                                            General discussions are OK, but I prefer a constructive discussion
                                            of practical means for adapting Natural Farming to local conditions.
                                            I sometimes get a little impatient with generalisations that don't
                                            help to achieve this goal.

                                            I can understand that you sometimes feel frustrated where you live.
                                            I have spent 20 years in Germany and 40 years in many different
                                            countries in Europe and Asia. Compared to other countries, people
                                            in Germany live in a very privileged situation, things can be a lot
                                            harder elsewhere.

                                            Dieter Brand
                                            Portugal

                                            PS: I was young when Maoists were running through the streets of
                                            Europe. Extremes of thinking are never very good, but it is OK for young
                                            people to feel passionate about things if good sense and reason are not
                                            ignored. Now I sound like an old geezer, which I probably am ;-)


                                            Bernhard Heuvel <bernhardundee@...> wrote:

                                            Sorry for hurting your feelings. Don't want to "generalize" things. Hope
                                            you understand, that it is sometimes very difficult for me to live in
                                            such a country like Germany. Talking, no...preaching that something has
                                            to be done! The strong words are the results of long years of struggling.

                                            So well, let us act instead of talk!

                                            Sorry again,

                                            Bernhard





                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.