6 ms·

Watch the video I linked. It explains how weeds thrive under bacterially dominated soils, precisely what is created by tillage and spraying. When you have a b

Watch the video I linked. It explains how weeds thrive under bacterially dominated soils, precisely what is created by tillage and spraying. When you have a balance of bacteria and fungi, crop species out compete weeds on their own, because the environment is suited to their needs.

Chyzwar 8y ago
Weeds are just plants that are native. They will always outperform genetically modified foreign crops that are optimized for yield. Some fast-growing crops can dominate weeds but you will still want to till for other reasons. I watched this video and she has no compelling evidence that this can work on a large scale. My family is doing farming for generations. You need fertilizers because crops consume minerals from the soil. You need chemicals because of monocultures create conditions for diseases and bugs. You need tilling because you do not have unlimited labour.
- hinkley 8y ago
  That's a bit inaccurate. Weeds are pioneer species (species that quickly colonize damaged or degraded areas). They aren't always native. They do have their uses for soil improvement, both structurally and nutrient availability, but if you're tilling anyway, or your animals are being poisoned by the weeds, you won't be that impressed. The soil has plenty of minerals in it. But most plants can't access them without symbiosis with fungi, which are all dead from the tilling.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  On one hand we have physical evidence and scientists, on the other hand we have you saying "my family has been destroying the soil for a long time and learned nothing the whole time". While you may find the latter more compelling, I do not. Weeds are early colonizing species, frequently foreign invasives, not natives. They do not always outperform crop species, as demonstrated by the millions of acres where they are outcompeted by the crops. You create barren lifeless dirt, precisely the niche early colonizing species evolved to fill. Of course they fill it. Just because you create your own problem, doesn't mean the rest of us suffer from that problem too. You do not want to till for other reasons, literally the entire purpose of tilling is to hinder plant growth. The fact that it hinders crop growth as well as weed growth seems to be lost on many people. There's a reason the majority of farms in the US and Canada are already no-till. The people currently doing your job better than you are pretty compelling evidence. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UEOVLpZrvvU https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UEOVLpZrvvU You do not need fertilizers because the dirt is made of those very minerals. You have literally tons of phosphorus sitting under your crop, but you have killed the microorganisms responsible for converting it to plant available forms. Monocultures do not create conditions for diseases and bugs. This has been researched to death. If alternating strips of corn and soybeans lowered disease and pest rates that's what everyone would do. It doesn't help at all. The problem is not the plants, it is the soil. I have no idea what your last point is even supposed to mean. Tilling is labor. "I don't have unlimited labor so I will use my limited labor on a process that increases my costs and lowers my yields" is pretty hard to make sense of.
  - hinkley 8y ago
    > There's a reason the majority of farms in the US and Canada are already no-till. I have heard this several times lately. But I grew up around tilled (sometimes double tilled) farmland, and I still see a lot of tilled earth when I'm out of town and think to look. What do we mean by most and what definition of no-till are we using?
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      We mean more than 50% of the farmed acres, and the definition is not tilling. Using a no-till planter to seed through the residue of the previous crop or cover crop. Most of the tilled acres are using some form of conservation tillage too, like strip till. Get out of Ontario and go look at a real farm.
      - Chyzwar 8y ago
        I do not know where you getting this data. I can tell you that in Europe there is very little land that is not tilled. Even on below if exclude grasslands you find that 70-90% of arable land is tilled. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Arable_area_by_tillage_practice,_EU-27,_IS,_NO,_CH,_ME_and_HR,_2010.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
        agsdfgsd 8y ago
        From the US and Canadian governments. That's why I said "in the US and Canada".
        Chyzwar 8y ago
        Even US and Canada no-till farming is still around 20-30%. It higher than Europe because of more intense use of herbicides and different farming practices. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/11/30/saving-money-time-and-soil-economics-no-till-farming https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/11/30/saving-money-time... Wider use of crop rotation, GMO, farming robots and micro-irrigation might reduce the need for tilling but it is still very far of. Farming is heavily subsidized but still not very profitable. Margins are small and no-till methods are not economically viable for most places.

Chyzwar 8y ago

Weeds are just plants that are native. They will always outperform genetically modified foreign crops that are optimized for yield. Some fast-growing crops can dominate weeds but you will still want to till for other reasons. I watched this video and she has no compelling evidence that this can work on a large scale. My family is doing farming for generations. You need fertilizers because crops consume minerals from the soil. You need chemicals because of monocultures create conditions for diseases and bugs. You need tilling because you do not have unlimited labour.

hinkley 8y ago
That's a bit inaccurate. Weeds are pioneer species (species that quickly colonize damaged or degraded areas). They aren't always native. They do have their uses for soil improvement, both structurally and nutrient availability, but if you're tilling anyway, or your animals are being poisoned by the weeds, you won't be that impressed. The soil has plenty of minerals in it. But most plants can't access them without symbiosis with fungi, which are all dead from the tilling.
agsdfgsd 8y ago
On one hand we have physical evidence and scientists, on the other hand we have you saying "my family has been destroying the soil for a long time and learned nothing the whole time". While you may find the latter more compelling, I do not. Weeds are early colonizing species, frequently foreign invasives, not natives. They do not always outperform crop species, as demonstrated by the millions of acres where they are outcompeted by the crops. You create barren lifeless dirt, precisely the niche early colonizing species evolved to fill. Of course they fill it. Just because you create your own problem, doesn't mean the rest of us suffer from that problem too. You do not want to till for other reasons, literally the entire purpose of tilling is to hinder plant growth. The fact that it hinders crop growth as well as weed growth seems to be lost on many people. There's a reason the majority of farms in the US and Canada are already no-till. The people currently doing your job better than you are pretty compelling evidence. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UEOVLpZrvvU https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UEOVLpZrvvU You do not need fertilizers because the dirt is made of those very minerals. You have literally tons of phosphorus sitting under your crop, but you have killed the microorganisms responsible for converting it to plant available forms. Monocultures do not create conditions for diseases and bugs. This has been researched to death. If alternating strips of corn and soybeans lowered disease and pest rates that's what everyone would do. It doesn't help at all. The problem is not the plants, it is the soil. I have no idea what your last point is even supposed to mean. Tilling is labor. "I don't have unlimited labor so I will use my limited labor on a process that increases my costs and lowers my yields" is pretty hard to make sense of.
- hinkley 8y ago
  > There's a reason the majority of farms in the US and Canada are already no-till. I have heard this several times lately. But I grew up around tilled (sometimes double tilled) farmland, and I still see a lot of tilled earth when I'm out of town and think to look. What do we mean by most and what definition of no-till are we using?
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    We mean more than 50% of the farmed acres, and the definition is not tilling. Using a no-till planter to seed through the residue of the previous crop or cover crop. Most of the tilled acres are using some form of conservation tillage too, like strip till. Get out of Ontario and go look at a real farm.
    - Chyzwar 8y ago
      I do not know where you getting this data. I can tell you that in Europe there is very little land that is not tilled. Even on below if exclude grasslands you find that 70-90% of arable land is tilled. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Arable_area_by_tillage_practice,_EU-27,_IS,_NO,_CH,_ME_and_HR,_2010.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
      - agsdfgsd 8y ago
        From the US and Canadian governments. That's why I said "in the US and Canada".
        Chyzwar 8y ago
        Even US and Canada no-till farming is still around 20-30%. It higher than Europe because of more intense use of herbicides and different farming practices. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/11/30/saving-money-time-and-soil-economics-no-till-farming https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/11/30/saving-money-time... Wider use of crop rotation, GMO, farming robots and micro-irrigation might reduce the need for tilling but it is still very far of. Farming is heavily subsidized but still not very profitable. Margins are small and no-till methods are not economically viable for most places.