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

Re: NO-TILL FARMING TAKING ROOTS.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.