[Terrapreta] No-till and carbon

[lou gold]

I guess so Lorenzo but another unintended consequence is that an
ignorant-about-farming guy like myself is receiving a great education
by reading through the discussion in this thread. Thank you to all
the participants.

touch the earth and blessed be,

lou




On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:

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



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080523/f20faa1f/attachment.html