These techniques are still a small minority in France, but is widely practiced in a lot of countries, especially in South America.
Why there? Not for environmental concerns, alas, but because the European type of agriculture has proven disastrous and inapplicable in this climate and in these soils.
In my opinion, classical agriculture is also fundamentally unfavorable in our climate, but in the long term, this explains why new techniques take longer to spread here.
Although generally very favorable to this evolution, I must make a few remarks.
- In the countries of South America, the growth of this technology allowed to cultivate soil taken from the forest, thereby contributing to deforestation; On the other hand, the use of glyphosate herbicides has expanded greatly to remove the cover before planting. It is also in this context that are developed GM crops.
- Same remark in France regarding the use of this herbicide, even if, overall, as has already been pointed out, the amount of herbicide products is much lower than in conventional farming.
- BASIC association, which is behind this video is not only concerned about the reduction in farm costs, but takes full account of the environmental responsibility of farmers and work for a reduction of chemical inputs. We must salute their desire to spread these techniques.
@ Minguinhirigue:
I have already had the opportunity to show this little film to farmers who are quite surprised, but too accustomed to their usual practice to consider changing (close to retirement).
More generally, obstacles, other than psychological, are of two kinds, material and intellectual.
- If the CHT only involve the implementation of a classic material, direct seeding requires a special drill representing a significant investment.
- Ploughing represents an easy way to catch many errors. With no-till methods, management is much more sharp and demanding. This requires greater technical, I do not consider it a disadvantage, quite the opposite, as it revalues the farming profession.
It should be understood that if for many city dwellers, agriculture rhymes with freedom, the reality is quite different. There is no such thing as an "independent" profession subject to so many constraints: framed by the administrative requirements governing premiums, by cooperatives and their technicians who tell them what to sow, how to do it, what treatments to apply and at what time, what price receive, they do not have much space left for personal initiative. We can better understand the reluctance to these innovations.
@ C moa:
@ Ahmed:
... I understand better some comments on other posts.
I am very satisfied: It is true that the consistency of a part must be assessed in relation to a larger whole. It is the opposite that causes usually my critics: consider only small suites reasoning, apparently rigorously logical, but, based on the totality of the problem only lead to absurdities.
