Sure, you harvest the plant, so you absolutely remove nutrients. But then you dig in compost to add nutrients. Turning over the soil is not what’s removing the nutrients.
It this idea makes any sense at all, I’ve completely missed it.
Okay I went to read up again on no dig methods, and it comes down to two reasons why one would consider no dig. First is that, when one turns over the top soil, you effiectively cut off the soil from the natural food web and systems of soil to keep it healthy (aside from nutrients). By not turning soil over, you allow the organisms in the soil to do their thing so to speak. Worms bring compost from the top (since you still add compost to no dig methods) and incorporate it, while also providing air to the soil and proper drainage, while insects and microbes also help to incorporate soil and keep the balance.
The other main reason one would use no dig is, in short, laziness. It takes far less time to prepare a bed for planting and less work to maintain. Some say this method of farming was the precurse of permaculture. It seems that no dig was also a popular farming method in areas that don’t have rich fertile soil.
I don’t know if that helps, but it is only one method out of many when it comes to gardening!
Thanks. I was thinking this - maybe people don’t want to dig because it saves effort, but then they feel pressured to justify that decision with an ideology.
You can’t just say “I’m not doing to because i don’t need to and don’t want to”. It sounds stupid. People feel like they need a solid reason to not do something everyone else is doing.
On the other point, worms and other organisms are fine with digging. Maybe fungus would suffer, or insects that lay eggs in the soil. Many weeds are killed by tilling.
But these ideas must be important anyway, when tending trees. You don’t want to dig at the roots of a tree, but still want to fertilise etc.
Yes that would be interesting.
Sure, you harvest the plant, so you absolutely remove nutrients. But then you dig in compost to add nutrients. Turning over the soil is not what’s removing the nutrients.
It this idea makes any sense at all, I’ve completely missed it.
Okay I went to read up again on no dig methods, and it comes down to two reasons why one would consider no dig. First is that, when one turns over the top soil, you effiectively cut off the soil from the natural food web and systems of soil to keep it healthy (aside from nutrients). By not turning soil over, you allow the organisms in the soil to do their thing so to speak. Worms bring compost from the top (since you still add compost to no dig methods) and incorporate it, while also providing air to the soil and proper drainage, while insects and microbes also help to incorporate soil and keep the balance.
The other main reason one would use no dig is, in short, laziness. It takes far less time to prepare a bed for planting and less work to maintain. Some say this method of farming was the precurse of permaculture. It seems that no dig was also a popular farming method in areas that don’t have rich fertile soil.
I don’t know if that helps, but it is only one method out of many when it comes to gardening!
Thanks. I was thinking this - maybe people don’t want to dig because it saves effort, but then they feel pressured to justify that decision with an ideology.
You can’t just say “I’m not doing to because i don’t need to and don’t want to”. It sounds stupid. People feel like they need a solid reason to not do something everyone else is doing.
On the other point, worms and other organisms are fine with digging. Maybe fungus would suffer, or insects that lay eggs in the soil. Many weeds are killed by tilling.
But these ideas must be important anyway, when tending trees. You don’t want to dig at the roots of a tree, but still want to fertilise etc.