No-till Farming
Many farmers always wonder about newer, more efficient ways to farm. Farming becomes more and more precise every day; farmers struggle to keep up with moisture loss caused by dry-spells, soil and nutrient run-off caused by erosion, and trying to raise better yields. Although it may seem as if there is no answer, many farmers are turning to no-till as the solution. Some farmers stand against no-till, saying it keeps the ground too cold for too long in the spring, or that it will not allow them to get their crops up, but much research proves these beliefs wrong. No-till is an advantage over conventional-till for three main reasons: conserves moisture in the soil, reduces erosion by wind and rain, and increases the quality of the topsoil.
One way no-till can prove an advantage is that it conserves moisture in the soil. By not turning up the soil, more moisture remains underneath, allowing crops to hold a supply of water during dry periods of little or no rain. Since more water remains in the ground, it benefits the crops because in hot months like July when there is little rain, crops need water, and no-till helps to supply that water. Crops like corn pollinate in July when it is the hottest and the driest, and a little extra water in the soil never hurts. During dry spells while conventional farmer’s crops burn up, crops that were no-tilled have extra water to drink and can often survive through these dry periods. Since stubble and trash remains behind to shade the ground, the earth remains unexposed to the sun and is less vulnerable to evaporation. As one no-till farmer, Darnell Poage says, “The cover on the field holds the moisture in from the sun and wind.” Because the sun is not shining directly on the groun...
... middle of paper ...
...e give it a shot. No-till has been proven many times, over and over again. Many farmers find no-till as an advantage because it conserves moisture in the soil, reduces erosion by wind and rain, and increases the quality of the topsoil.
Works Cited
Al-Kaisi, Mahdi and Mark Hanna. “Research Supports No Till.” Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
Al-Kaisi, Mahdi. “Tillage in 2001: No-till.” Integrated Crop Management. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011
“CropWatch: Tillage/No-Till Systems.” Water.unl.edu. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2011
Horowitz, John; Robert Ebel, Kohei Ueda. “U.S. Farmers Increasingly adopt ‘No-Till’ for
Major Crops.” Amber Waves 8.4 (December 2010): 9. Web. 25 Oct. 2011
Poage, Darnell. Personal interview. 6 Nov. 2011
Voss, Jim. Personal interview. 6 Nov. 2011
The nature of the Southern Plains soils and the periodic influence of drought could not be changed, but the technological abuse of the land could have been stopped. This is not to say that mechanized agriculture irreparably damaged the land-it did not. New and improved implements such as tractors, one-way disk plows, grain drills, and combines reduced plowing, planting, and harvesting costs and increased agricultural productivity. Increased productivity caused prices to fall, and farmers compensated by breaking more sod for wheat. At the same time, farmers gave little thought to using their new technology in ways to conserve the
First of all, gardening has been proven to ameliorate the wellbeing of an individual. As Finley says, “we are soil”. Since we are creatures of the earth, it makes sense
Sheshadri, T. (2001, December 26). Student recognized for agricultural acumen. The San Diego Union Tribune, N1-4. Retrieved on March 20, 2002 from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe (Newspapers) on the World Wide Web: http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe.htm.
“Farming techniques such as strip cropping, terracing, crop rotation, contour plowing, and cover crops were advocated.” ("About the Dust Bowl")These new techniques were advocated in order to try and prevent more dust from getting picked up by wind and starting the dust storm again. “But for years, farmers had plowed the soil too fine, and they contributed to the creation of the Dust Bowl.”(Ganzel) This was a big mistake farmers had made. This was one of the huge factors in contributing to the Dust Bowl. This has definitely changed now. “Now, many farmers are learning how to raise crops without tilling their fields at all. (Ganzel) Farmers now not tilling their fields at all is a new farming
Traditional agriculture requires massive forest and grassland removal to obtain land necessary to farm on. Deforestation and overgrazing has caused erosion flooding, and enabled the expansion of deserts. But with drainage systems, leveling, and irrigation provided by the Green Rev, all this terra deforming will unlikely happen again. We can retain clean air and lessen the global warming effect caused by deforestation.Many people argue that a revamp in agriculture will be way too expensive and unrealistic especially for those poor farmers in third world countries. However many times, they exaggerate the price.
The European settlers who first arrived at the Great Plains found hardy grasslands that held the fine-grained soil in place in spite of the long recurrent droughts and occasional torrential rains. A large number of the travelers settled down in this area and built farms and ranches. These land uses led to soil exposure and great erosion. The cattle ranches were very profitable for the settlers; unfortunately, this led to overgrazing and degradation of the soil. In addition, farmers began to plow the natural grass cover and plant their own crops. Without the original root systems of the grass to anchor the soil, much of it blew away. The wide row crops were very disastrous because between the crops, the land was kept bare; as a result, this area was exposed to the elements. Also, the nutrients in the soil were used up by the plants faster than they could be replaced. The soil had become exhausted.
Settlers who first arrived at the Great Plains found the grasslands keeping the grain like soil intact. In result many settled down in the area and began building ranches and farms. At firs the there was mostly cattle ranching and some farming. However, a series of droughts and overgrazing of the grasslands let to the growth of land cultivation. Also recurrence of wet weather led to the belief that “previously” dry land is suitable...
There are two theories that holistic management advocates swear by. One is that grazing can be beneficial if preformed in the correct way. The other is that resting land is not good for it. Both theories basically state that land can and should be grazed. To understand these theories some background information must be given as to how land works. Land can be identified on a scale of how hydric or xeric it is. Every piece of land falls between those two points. Hydric lands get a great deal of rainfall and have high humidity. As a result they have much more vegetation on the ground and therefore many more organisms to break things down. Xeric lands are just the opposite; they are much drier. They have less rainfall, less humidity, less vegetation, and fewer organisms. When vegetation dies in hydric system, the great numbers of organisms quickly decompose it. When vegetation dies in a xeric system the decomposition is a much longer process. Savory also compares these landscapes using the terminology of brittle and nonbrittle environments. The more brittle the land is, the more xeric it is. Oppositely, the more nonbrittle the land is, the more hydric it is.
This research plans to compare and contrast the similarities and differences in agricultural development between the Jericho Valley,in present day Palestine, and that of the Andes Mountains. There are several aspects to compare in these regions. First and perhaps most obvious is the environmental differences of these regions as well as the ecological changes in each region has itself undergone. Closely linked to these environments is the native biological species, how these native species have been domesticated, as well as looking at what crop species have been introduced to the regions, and their effect on the native species. After explaining the differences in climate of the two regions it is important to understand who was doing the farming in these areas. This will be looked at in terms of cultural evolution, groups' social approach to farming and how that affects land use and technical procedure.
For years, farmers had planted crops on the same land and neglected to use crop rotation (Wormser 32). Crop rotation is a method of planting crops in alternating areas to allow soil to regain nutrients and moisture. Farmers had chosen not to do this and instead overplanted their crops to gain a larger surplus. By destroying their land from over planting, farmers had a much harder time growing crops (Wormser 32). They no longer had the enriched soil that plants require. By then, it was too late to rotate the crops, because water evaporated so quickly and no nutrients were left. Reinhardt and Ganzel say that “it was constant work to put food on the table” (Reinhardt Ganzel). As a result of poor soil, farmers had a difficulty growing enough crops for a surplus, which meant they had a hard time selling produce. With little money, farmers had to be self-sustaining, although it was hard to even keep the family fed. farmers doomed themselves by not rotating crops, and the consequences were minimal crops and
Farming has changed a lot over time, new technology has been invented, more food can now be produced, and more farms have opened. Most of the new technology that has been invented for farming was made to make farming faster. In the 18th century horses and oxen were used for power, hay and grain cutting was done with a sickle, cultivating by hoe threshing was done with a flail, ("Spielmaker"). A lot also happened in the 17th century; The scythe and cradle was introduced, the invention of cotton gin in 1793, Thomas Jefferson's plow with a moldboard with the least resistance tested (1794) ("Spielmaker"). A very common fertilization technique in the middle age was called "marling". The technique Marling is when a farmer would spread clay which contained lime carbonate on to their soil. This process restored the nutrients needed to grow crops. Some farmers also used manure as a fertilizer which they got from livestock they raised ("Newman"). Farmers had a spring and a fall crop....
For years organic farmers and conventional farmers have feuded over which is superior. Organic farmers argue that their product is more eco-friendly because they do not use the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers conventional farmer’s use. Conventional farmers argue that their product is healthier and yields more. People tend to have stereotypes regarding the two types of farmers. Organic farmers are usually thought of as liberal, hippy, tree-huggers while conventional farmers are usually thought of as right-wing, industrialists. Obviously, some do adhere to this stereotype, but a majority of these farmers are normal, hardworking people. Although these farmers, both believe in their methods, one is no better than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but there is no true superior method of crop farming.
There are a number of sustainable farming practices and some of these are in place on my
The first people that started to depend on farming for food were in Israel and Jordan in about 80000 B.C.. Farming became popular because people no longer had to rely on just searching for food to get their food. In about 3000 B.C. Countries such as Egypt and Mesopotamia started to develop large scale irrigation systems and oxen drawn plows. In about 500 B.C. the Romans started to realize that the soil needed certain nutrients in order to bare plants. They also realized that if they left the soil for a year with no plants, these important nutrients would replenish. So they started to leave half of a field fallow (unplanted). They then discovered that they could use legumes, or pulses to restore these vital nutrients, such as nitrogen, to the soil and this started the process known as rotating crops. They would plant half the field one year with a legume...
As agriculture has become more intensive, farmers have become capable of producing higher yields using less labour and less land. Growth of the agriculture has not, however, been an unmixed blessing. It, like every other thing, has its pros and cons. Topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, continued neglect of the living and working conditions for farm labourers, increasing costs of production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural communities. These are the cons of the new improved agriculture.