On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs wrote:
> No-till is a wonderful thing, and even with the increased herbicide
> input it is a much more productive and environment-friendly system
> than currently practiced in many places.
London replied: "How is increased herbicide use/acre more
environment-friendly?"
My reply: No-till is not the be all - end all of environmentally sound
farming. However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental
benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking,
cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used.
However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero
(major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement,
reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile,
etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As
for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with
some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types
for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil,
so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till
also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air
pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the
farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields.
No-till farming: Environmental panacea? Nope. Environmentally
friendly? Yep.
Son of Richard
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail