[Terrapreta] No-till and carbon

[Biopact]

Apparently there are some unintended consequences about my mentioning the 
no-till study, as some people seem to be throwing away the baby with the 
bath water.

I only referred to the study in the very specific context of whether no-till 
should count as a direct carbon offsetting concept (it probably shouldn't). 
But nobody said the many other advantages of no-till farming aren't worth 
pursueing (others on this mailing list have mentioned some of these 
advantages).

There are many uses for a farmer's "residual" biomass, no-till and biochar 
being only two of those. It comes down to exploring the most optimal 
combination of uses from a very broad standpoint of sustainability, and more 
importantly, profitability. This optimal use can only be determined after 
weighing off the many different (economic) advantages and disadvantages of 
all the different factors making up the different integrated bioconversion 
concepts (biochar, cellulosic biofuels, biogas, pellet production, no-till, 
etc...). The carbon offsetting capacity (and carbon credits) is only one of 
these factors, but an important one.

It's in this context that I mentioned the no-till study. Not to deny all the 
other potential benefits of no-till farming.

Regards, Lorenzo









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikolaus Foidl" <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] No till farming






Dear All!

No till farming is a religion and has very little sustainability.

The positive thing about no till is much lower energy need for field
preparation prior to planting and less compactation of subsoil. ( that s the
selling argument)

1) If in comparison the tillage farming and the now till farming are done
with one pass of preparation, the less compactation is proven wrong because
you pass with the same tractor hauling just different implements.

2) if the reason is to get the soil humidity better stored through a layer
of decaying material which prevents drying out of the top soil the argument
is o.k. As long as you have coverage ( at least 50%) The crux is that after
60 to 90 days most crops leave in the hot and humid tropics nearly now
coverage left except corn. So this argument of protection against drying of
soil is not fully valid

3) 0- tillage can not be practiced without an increased use of Herbicides.
This would be the perversion of argumentum for any protection of soil life.
Herbicides are the mayor killers of most of the soil live, starting in
killing first the photosynthetic active bacteria and micro algae which
produce the food sugars of all the rest of the biologic community chain.It
takes month to rebuild the chain of biologic live in soil with the
consequence of reduced crop health and productivity.

4) an other sub estimated problem of 0- tillage is the stratification over
time of different salts from the decaying organic matter. The different
salts have different infiltration and adsorbtion to the soil aptters , so
over time you get high concentrated layers of different salts in the top 5
to 10 cm of the soil. In extreme cases you can get growth inhibiting
concentrations.

5) due to higher oxygen access and higher humidity( dew) the so called cover
degrades much more rapid than if the same material would be incorporated.

6) in case you soil is capable to produce texture and aggregates when
undisturbed 0-tillage is without doubt the way to go. We after nearly 14
years of 0 -tillage have in the majority of our soils no texture and no
aggregate forming. Those soils which have visible texture and some kind of
aggregates are limited to the upper 3 to 5 cm. Specially in loamy soils
addition of CaO or lime would do a better an faster job then 0-tillage.

As in most things 0-tillage used like a religion turns out to be a myth or
urban legend without any sustainability. In areas or climate zones or soil
zones where the positive functions of 0-tillage can be enhanced its working
very well but need a case to case evaluation to balance the posite and the
negative against each other.

For example, some 10 years ago one application of herbicide per ha had costs
of about 6 US$ today we have costs in the range of 35 US£ per ha and rising.
+0 years ago many people changed from conventional to 0 tillage because the
costs for conventional where around 12 US$ per ha and the weeds still poped
up earlier then with herbicides. Today the costs for conventional are around
15 to 17 US£ per ha and we will see a lot of people going back to
conventional.
The 0 tillage was as well a fomented myth from companies like Monsanto
because they could start a whole strategy of Herbicide resistant crop and
pre and post application of herbicides together with the addiction creating
religion of 0-tillage.They are those who most defend 0 tillage as soil
quality improvers to sell the herbicide resistant genes and the huge amount
of herbicides ( the price was rising 300 % from last year for Glyphosate)

It all comes down in  the end to dirty business tricks and decoys where
unfortunately a lot of Universities and professors and world experts play
the game knowingly or lubricated.

The discussion about 0 tillage could fill tons of paper and would not end.
I rest my case.

Best regards Nikolaus



_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459 - Release Date: 21/05/2008 
17:34