mikep
Member
- Location
- Arse end of Surrey, UK
Just taken this quote from another thread here by @New Puritan
And before anyone seizes on the "p" word, my land is certifiedorganic and, at present, there reallydoesn't seem to be a way to be min or no-til and organic, but that's a subjectfor another thread perhaps...
So why not? But not the usual type of thread perhaps. Please read on.
There is some research coming through that cultivations are more damaging than herbicides in soil health, as the above points out at present there of no realistic way of really going no till organically so almost by default no till is based on glyphosate.
Now both systems put the health of the soil first and both have great merit but are mutually exclusive.
Now to me this is total bullsh it and where I think holistic comes in.
To me holistic is taking the approach needed to achieve your aims by the least damaging route.
I submit that any action in farming by definition is damaging to the soil as soil wants to be a forest floor which is not much use to any society but hunter gatherers.
So all cultivations and additions are 'bad' and need keeping to the minimum. Most farmers do this as all actions have a monetary cost to be avoided.
Now no till farmers don't cultivate much but do add synthetic inputs whereas organic cultivate a lot and use fewer inputs. It seems to me that they are really of equal merit from a nature point of view as diesel, steel and invertion are as bad for us and the environment as are nitrates and triazoles etc so why are the soil association trying to steal the moral high ground?
It's purely marketing and why not they are a business after all so it think it is time to try to herd cats and see if we can get enough common ground to lay some holistic common ground with a view to getting a framework for our views any ideas?
And before anyone seizes on the "p" word, my land is certifiedorganic and, at present, there reallydoesn't seem to be a way to be min or no-til and organic, but that's a subjectfor another thread perhaps...
So why not? But not the usual type of thread perhaps. Please read on.
There is some research coming through that cultivations are more damaging than herbicides in soil health, as the above points out at present there of no realistic way of really going no till organically so almost by default no till is based on glyphosate.
Now both systems put the health of the soil first and both have great merit but are mutually exclusive.
Now to me this is total bullsh it and where I think holistic comes in.
To me holistic is taking the approach needed to achieve your aims by the least damaging route.
I submit that any action in farming by definition is damaging to the soil as soil wants to be a forest floor which is not much use to any society but hunter gatherers.
So all cultivations and additions are 'bad' and need keeping to the minimum. Most farmers do this as all actions have a monetary cost to be avoided.
Now no till farmers don't cultivate much but do add synthetic inputs whereas organic cultivate a lot and use fewer inputs. It seems to me that they are really of equal merit from a nature point of view as diesel, steel and invertion are as bad for us and the environment as are nitrates and triazoles etc so why are the soil association trying to steal the moral high ground?
It's purely marketing and why not they are a business after all so it think it is time to try to herd cats and see if we can get enough common ground to lay some holistic common ground with a view to getting a framework for our views any ideas?