There is always a lot of controversy between the till and no till people. Personally, I like to use my tiller and/or moldboard plow to turn amendments under, it works well for me and years of doing it has caused a lot of improvement in my garden instead of destroying the soil structure, soil food web or causing hardpan as so many will claim will happen. I wonder how many have actually, personally experienced anything like that, or, are repeating what they have read that someone wrote. Probably extremely few, if any would be my guess.

The choice is yours, the main difference will be in how much physical exertion you will expend. I would think that a lot would depend upon the size of the plot that you want to prepare and amend.
Good luck with what ever your choice is.
Bill P.

That is one reason I asked the question. I've read on here that some thought it was bad and wanted to know the pros and cons.

My mom alway just had me till the garden for her and she always had very nice gardens.

Bill S

There are problems associated with giving one simple answer to the "till" vs "no-till" question.

First, you have to consider why in particular you are turning over the ground ... and it really requires more information that normally is given by the person asking the question.

Second, you need to know what kind of soil the gardener is dealing with ... and that can make a huge difference regarding whether you should use a roto tiller, a turning fork, a plow, etc.

And of course it matters what you're mixing into the soil ... compost, slow release granular fertilizer, gaseous nitrogen fertilizer, or whatever other ammendments that may depend upon cover or not require cover to prevent evaporation, etc.

Let me give an example ...

If you were creating a new raised bed atop dense clay soil, you would want to use a roto tiller and incorporate your organic components into the underlying soil lift by lift as you build the bed up. Even if you were to build a 12-inch or 16-inch deep raised bed directly atop clay soil, and even though 12 inches of good composted material mixed with a silty loam topsoil would be sufficient to support good tomato root growth ... you would experience extremely poor drainage that will adversely effect your crop.

What you would have done is to create a fragipan at the horizon where your raised bed material lay atop the original heavy clay soil. The unhomogenized soil horizon would result in water draining down through the raised bed hitting the clay barrier and spreading horizontally, then wicking back up and super saturating the root zone with an artificially perched water table in your bed.

Now, on the other hand, if you layer by layer ... say four to six inch lifts ... roto till the compost and topsoil into the underlaying heavy clay, you would create a much better chance of percolating the drainage down into the subsoil. That's because organic materials work together with clay particles to create a much better drainage soil layer.

The way it works is that small particles of organic components of the compost bond with the very tightly bonded clay particles in the native soil to form small bits of conglomerated soil through which water can pass ... whereas water cannot efficiently pass through tighly bonded clay particles. The only effective way to get this bonding between clay particles and compost is a very thorough mixing motion afforded by a roto tiller or pug mill.

On the other hand, if I were building a 12-inch or 16-inch raised bed planter atop very sandy soil ... or even a very mellow sandy loam ... I wouldn't hesitate to load in the compost and topsoil mix directly on top of the untilled original soil. However, the deeper the tilth, the better the growing conditions. But at least with a sandy loam underlayer, you will have decent drainage.

Now, I'm gonna let the others argue whether roto tilling destroys biota in the soil ... and all that other stuff. The point I'm trying to make is the decision to roto till or not can be very dependent on just what you're trying to accomplish with regard to soil building and improving drainage.

There is definitely a place for tilling and there are definitely benefits to no-till cultivation.

Bill

I am thinking one advantage may be.... not moving pathogens up into the root zone due to deep tilling.
I experienced what I hope was'nt Fusarium Wilt. One zone of the garden plants went pale yellow and succumbed.
I had plants there for a number of years before this one... tilling as deep as I could then tilling in my compost this year for the first time.
Always before I would turn it all in with a shovel.
Hopefully it's a week strain........ this fall and winter can "clean" the soil.

Bill, what's your opinion of this?

I'm making some raised beds on a "Wharton silt loam". Unfortunately, it is heavily eroded. The original profile for this soil consists of 69" of silt and sand horizons with a small amount of clay in the lower levels, over a layer of rippable shale(at the location originally profiled, actually only a few miles from me in western PA). However, in digging for my beds, I have already found shale at one foot. Geez, talk about corning it to death. This was an old field, farmed from the 1850s until the late 1930s or early 1940s, and the erosion was evidently extreme. Since the 1950s, though, it has produced a respectable forest cover, some of which I am clearing for my garden. Sixty and seventy foot Virginia pines and red oak, most of which I remember as being in 1955 no taller than I am.

Now here's the plan. I've built the frame for some beds just far enough below surface to get them level after removing the humus layer from the top. I planned to dig down two feet below the bottom of the frames then mix the soil with organic material, etc. and put it back in. The shale complicates things. I don't think it would interact the same as clay but I also don't think it will drain very well, I'll try at least two of these but since you seem to have thought about these things, I'm wondering what you think.

Yep, I know it's a lot of work but I hope it's better than growing on one foot of dirt over rock. Believe it or not I have done something similar before with good results, only that time it was in a thick red clay that you could have made pottery from. It was trucked in fill and I built the frame as described above (4' X 32'), then dug 2' below the bottoms to remove all the clay and replaced it with creek-bottom soil from another part of the property. Yeah, a heck of a job but I really had good tomatoes. The plants grew about eight feet tall with no amendment the first year except a little bone meal and blood meal. The size and flavor of the fruits were stupendous. So a plan like this can work. It did before. I'm wondering about now.

I get a lot of amusemnt out of people who originally had 69" of silt and sand which has eroded to a foot. There was about an inch of top soil in my garden when I started and it was gray and devoid of humus. Over a thickly laid moraine of glacially deposited rocks. With a thin layer of clay cementing the rocks in place. It wouldn't even grow weeds - well, maybe a hawk weed every two feet or so. My original digging was done with a crow bar. (I was a lot younger and more ambitious back then)
Personally, I hand dig and prefer to turn the soil over, figuring that I'm burying debris (mulch) as well as spores, etc. And I'm about to sow winter rye so turning it over in spring is essential. And in places where there is no cover crop (currently growing kale, Swiss chard and beets) I put compost in and mix it as I dig.
The first area that gets dug in spring is for sugar snaps, then I tackle the tomato plot. And then squash and beans. By hand digging, I'm automatically limited to a garden of the size I can more or less keep weeded.

Here's what I did and here's what I do now...:)

My yard slopes slightly to the south. PERFECT! I tilled up about a foot of soil (red clay and topsoil) and added builder's sand and compost to that base. Then I constructed the cedar frames. At it's lowest point my cedar boxes are a foot off the ground. At the highest almost three feet above. To this frame I added compost/topsoil. So, at my lowest spot I have a foot of added material and another foot below the frame that was tilled and fortified. I have no drainage issues.

I did all this years ago. What I do now is simply lasagna compost and mulch. Nothing more. No turning. No tilling. No digging. No compaction as I don't walk in it. Yes the soil does get turned a bit when I plant but that's about it. Excellent black soil to work in. Works great for me.

Bill, Titans gave me a scare on Sunday! Pats look great...:(

Thanks Bill for the great write up.

One of the things I need to get done is getting the soil tested. The past two years I've had one of the blights in these beds I'm asking about. I put straw down this year and that helped tremendously, so will be doing that again.

The soil is, from just looking at it, a real fine silt and with what looks like flaked rock chips, very small. It drains really well. But it is severely lacking in any type of substance that tomato plants would like. So I need to do some major soil building.

Thus the question, should I till in the straw, grass and other stuff or turn it in with a maddox and shovel?

Also, how long before hand does this stuff need to be add
so that it can be used by the plants?

Thanks for all the help.
Bill S

if I used a maddox to turn the soil vs buying a tiller

I'm a tiller because I have one and because at 70 it is a lot easier. My gardens are great and like gonefishin said, it works well for me and years of doing it has caused a lot of improvement in my gardens. Further, I don't think that any other approach will mix all those amendments in nearly was well.

But if, like you, I didn't have one and if I was dealing with a "normal" garden in size, I'm not sure I'd go buy one just for that purpose. They aren't cheap and require maintenance. Is your need for one enough to justify the cost? Have you checked into a one-time rental or hiring it done or a loan from someone who has one?

Dave

oldroser,
Why is that amusing? I think it is a rather sad example of what our people have done to this land. You see, I never had 69" of silt as I wasn't here in 1855. Presently, I think I'm lucky to have one foot left, which is what was here when I acquired the property twelve years ago and all I can do is try to use it in the best way I can figure out. I won't do all of my beds in the same way but that way seems appropriate for some purposes, so I will try it. I mentioned the trees because I think that amount of growth indicates that, in spite of all the erosion, there is still quite a bit of value there that I can use.
And it's not that I haven't ever seen places as poorly endowed as yours or even worse. In at least one of them, the people have built up beautiful and large fields from bare rock by centuries of hard manual labor. I have to have great respect for that, not be amused because they don't enjoy all the advantages I have had.
I do hope that you are where you are because you have chosen to be there and that you have plenty of enjoyment out of what you do there.
The real point of mentioning the pre-existing thickness of the soil was to illustrate the nature of what is there now and to ask someone who has apparently spent some time considering these things for an opinion on a situation I may not fully comprehend. I've studied some soil science too, in an informal fashion, but I don't have all the answers. Nor do I think anyone does but I'm willing to listen, especially when there is someone who shows an inclination to help others.
I'll try this and I'll try that. I hope to learn something along the way and have a few good crops too.

Sneezer,

I hadn't intended to answer your questions in this thread because this thread appeared to be a "roto tilling vs hand turning the garden" discussion ... and I had only introduced the drainage/subsoil issue as an example. But now I feel more compelled to answer here than start a new thread.

First of all, I agree with you, Sneezer, it's a sad legacy that nearly five feet of good silt loam was eroded from land like yours due to traditional row crop farming between the 1850s and the 1950s. But the farmers scratching out a living on Warton soils in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and southwestern New York State unfortunately did not have soil conservation programs and technologies through NRCS like we do today.

Without adequate soil conservation techniques, it's easy to understand how a fine loamy mix like Worton series Cr, if that's what you have, cultivated on 3 - 8% slopes would wash away into the bottoms. On a 6% grade it only takes 50 feet horizontal to develop sufficient velocities for sheet flow to cause severe erosion. Someone down below you surely has some good deep soil as a result.

As you dig out a level bed benched into your slope, I would stockpile whatever loam comes out to reincorporate back into the bed when you refill it. If you hit shale at the back of the bench, hopefully it will be rotten enough to work through or at least break up a bit before you refill your bed.

Since Warton soils are interbedded with clay shale, siltstone, or fine-grained sandstone depending on the individual location, you could expect any degree of variable subsoil permeability. I hope you are on a siltstone or sandstone, but if the shale is tight or slick clay and impermeable, you might want to lay some subsurface drain tiles to weep any perched water forward and down slope.

I'm like Big Daddy and firmly believe the absolute best material to add for both fertility and drainage is good rotted compost and other fully decayed organic materials. Remember that soil particles like clay especially, and silt to a lesser extent, have a strong negative charge that will hold lots of positively charged nutrient ions to feed your tomato roots. Rotted organic material also is negatively charged and will do the same. Sand grains have a very week negative charge, therefore hold very little nutrients in bondage.

Rotted organic material also is the best for drainage because clay particles glom onto organic particles thereby creating a medium through which water can pass far more easily than through tighly compacted layers of flat clay particles alone. If water can pass through the growing medium freely, then roots will follow to pluck nutrient ions off the clay, silt and humus particles ... and your tomatoes will prosper.

Initially I would use a roto tiller to reincorporate the silt loam taken out of the bed site and to incorporate all the compost, humus and other amendments you'll be adding into the raised bed. The more homogenized the medium the better, in my opinion. But like Big Daddy, I wouldn't worry as much down the road about roto tilling every season ... I'm lazy ... and just keep piling grass clippings, chipped leaves, horse manure, compost, whatever fully rotted organic material you have available on top of your finished bed.

As the bed matures, I like using one of those four or five pronged heavy garden forks to turn the bed in the spring just to take a look at the worms, get some air in the medium, bust up any big globs of wet or sticky dookie, and make everything look all presentable.

I envy you up in that beautiful country.

Bill

Bill,
(and any others)
Yes, I'm in full agreement about those old farmers. They did what they knew and what they could. They had their dreams, their hopes and their lives and they left behind what they left behind. And however sad that part of their legacy is, there are other parts that are more encouraging. That's why I'm willing to go on with what's left and try to honor them as much as is possible.

By the way, the Whartons go on down into Kentucky and,yes, 2% to 8% slope is what I have, maybe 2 acres of it, with Gilpin silt loam above. I suppose the rest of "my" Wharton is growing shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico. Must be why the Mississippi is known as "Big Muddy".

Well, it's not much sloped, in fact it's almost level where I am digging or at most 2% so I've got the shale over the whole bottom of the pit. The first layers of it are "rippable" to use the published profile terminology, then it gets pretty solid. I can't tell by digging if it is fractured enough to drain so I suppose after I've gone down far enough I'll pump a few inches of water into it to see what happens.

I'm stockpiling everything and, since a tiller wouldn't help much, I expect to screen it before returning it to the hole. At the same time, I'll add plenty of organic material. I'll probably have room for a fair portion of that creek bottom soil to add, which may even have a little more clay in it. Maybe even some pond muck. I've also stockpiled about a 3" layer of forest topsoil that I scraped off first and will probably incorporate that into the top layers of the finished bed. As far as subsequent years go, I'll probably do about what you are saying.

Except for the drain tile. Golly, that would be some job getting a line of tile into that shale so I guess I'll pass on that one for now and hope it works out. I'm thinking that if it drains even a little bit and is deep enough, then it should be OK. At least it was OK in the earlier bed I made and that one couldn't have drained much better, though I don't really know. But what about this idea - suppose I just put a few tiles in the bottom (I have some old ceramic ones that were left here). That wouldn't make a drain line but there might be a space for excess water to collect until it can drain. If there's filter cloth above it, the roots wouldn't follow. Any sense to that?

I'm grateful for your insights into the ionic behaviors. I knew that in general and, basically, that's what I'm trying to apply. And yes, it may be not exactly the right thread but, after all, I had to catch you somewhere. Then, why the envy. I thought Indiana was pretty good any time I was there. Many years ago I went over to pick up the 43rd WoodMizer ever made and I've also been through Brown County on the way to Bloomington. So, why the envy. Also, any more insights will be deeply appreciated.

You guys have just blown my mind! I want it to be simple but now I'm intimidated by the whole thing. This year (first garden) I just roto-tilled a patch in my red clay, added topsoil and compost, mixed it in well with a cultivator and planted my garden. I watered with Miracle Gro every couple of weeks for the first two months.

My tiny little patch produced copious vegetables all summer - I'm still harvesting okra, peppers, melons and some tomatoes. I thought that was all there was to it. :)

Just so I'm clear on this, what do I do for next year? I thought I'd chop up the current plants right into the soil and incorporate my summer's accumulation of compost. I thought about covering it with landscape fabric to keep weeds out and encourage composting. Then next spring, mix it all up and start over. Will that work? Will I be harboring diseases, pests or pathogens that way?

lisalu,

Sorry about the intimidation. Didn't mean it that way. Why don't you just go ahead and do what you described. If you ever want to become a show-off, know-it-all like us you could try that too. Maybe some of us would still be here for you to work your magic on us.

Bill:
I think that you are ok with your plan. If you experienced any diseases or plant virus etc. , it probably would be wise to NOT compost the vegetation from the garden.
Your plan is basically what I do each year, adding even more compost in the spring. I have planted a cover crop before, for lots of "green" in the mix. I keep it tarped until the oak and maple seeds from the trees have dropped in the spring.
Tom

I'll be digging in OM this season, but I have a Garden Claw Gold--which is a nifty and efficient tool. I'll also give a nod on making lasagna beds--they're are just wonderful and extremely rich in nutrients.

Haha, from a simple tilling or turning question we get erosion from 1850 to 1950 LOL. Its all good and interesting reading. I like it.

Found this site about how to build your soil. What do you guy thing of it?

Here is a link that might be useful: building soil

I confess I went pretty fast through that article PNWBill, my ADD got in the way...:)Any article as long as War and Peace I skip these dayz...:)

It sounded ok to me. I just want to add that from my own experience once you get your well drained base (Why raised beds work better IMO) all one really has to do is lasagna compost and use a good organic mulch. My personal mulch choice is shredded leaves mixed with untreated grass clippings 50/50. Other materials can work equally well but these are plentiful for me. Compost added pre season and post season. If you are careful what you layer you are seldom ever bothered by weeds. As years go by those weed seeds are buried deeply. Less weeds is another good reason to lasagna compost.

Bill-in-PNW says he "found this site about how to build your soil. What do you guy thing of it?" Building Good Soil

Generally it is a good Web page with legit information. Specifically, the first half of the article, I agree with totally ... except maybe the strange, new age first paragraph :::Earth to Author:::

In fact, the analogy of the clay bowl filled with wet sand is right on. Also the causes the author gives for suburban soil problems, and saying that removing the soil and hauling it away isn't warranted is correct as well. I think I pointed out in an earlier message that I would stockpile excavated topsoil and reincorporate it to a planting bed.

I also am encouraged that the author seems to recommend organic material rather than sand to improve permeability of clay soils ... as the addition of sand to clay only creates cement! And it would take tilling in almost one foot depth of sand all across your entire garden to change a clay silt loam into a sandy silt loam ... and you would only end up reducing the nutrient bonding capacity of the soil by doing so.

What I don't agree with in the article is the addition of gypsum, which would be totally worthless on non-alkali soils, and I wouldn't willy nilly add lime without soil testing first.

Yes to adding compost! Finished compost is usually neutral, not acid, and needs no lime. The greensand, bone meal and guano the author advises are organic sources of potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen. Fine. You can substitute 12-12-12 granulated if you're not a militant organic gardener. I use 9-12-12 or 9-15-15 for tomato beds.

I have absolutely no idea what the kelp enzyme is for. I prefer my kelp wrapped around sushi :::smile:::

Bill

Agree that it is sad what years of poor farning methods can do to the land. It's just hard for me to think of 12" of topsoil as a problem. Should add that my parents' farm (on a portion of which I now reside) had a great example of old fashioned agriculture - a barren hillside of pure shale where the original settlers raised corn on a fairly steep slope. My parents planted it to scotch pine - it certainly was of no use for agriculture. They also contour plowed the tillable land, limed, fertilized..... it's all houses on 5 acre lots at present. The only exception is a 25 acre woodlot still in the family but with taxes rising every year, it's questionable how long we can keep that intact.
My own plot was a very poor pasture which has now gone back to woods but at the rate deer are browsing the brush and the new saplings, it will soon be as barren as that slate hillside.

Interesting point:

"Many of you have been informed at one time or another that you have poor soils. Duh! And then, almost in the same breath, someone -- an expert, of course -- has told you that in order to grow that garden that you've always wanted you'll need to get rid of that poor soil and put in anywhere from 12" to 36" of new "topsoil." The next time you hear this I have a suggestion: RUN AWAY!!! Unless the soil at your garden site is contaminated with toxic substances, there is nothing wrong with your soil that a little time and patience combined with a minimum of work cannot cure. Removing soil is labor intensive and transportation of dirt can be costly."

It would seem that's just about what I'm doing, except that it won't be over a a large area, just a couple of raised beds. And of course, the one making the "recommendation" is just myself, not an expert who just happens to have some "topsoil" to sell.

And a second interesting point:

"But the main reason not to trade dirt is a little thing called soil interface. This is a condition that occurs when soils of different textures are put into the same space. If you made a bowl out of modeling clay, filled it with sand and then filled the bowl with water, what would you get? You're right: you get a bowl of wet sand. That is exactly what happens when a layer of a porous soil is put on top of a non porous soil. Then a whole new set of problems begins, including but not limited to oversaturation of the imported material."

Just what I am concerned about. But then we will see.

"Agree that it is sad what years of poor farning methods can do to the land. It's just hard for me to think of 12" of topsoil as a problem." [Old Roser]

Well, first of all I think we should clearly define our terms. While I'm guilty of it too, the term "topsoil" is grossly misused. Actually, there is very little true topsoil left on any land that has endured sustained agriculture. Probably less than an inch at very best.

Soil horizon "A" is the "surface soil" of which the very topmost inch or so in most people's backyard might meet the definition of "topsoil" by virtue of having sufficient decomposed organic material and other biomass to take on a very dark color and super mellow, almost spongy, texture. The rest of the surface soil is simply surface soil or "horizon A."

Horizon "B" is the subsoil, an accumulation of clay, minerals, rock fragments, and small soil particles (sand, silt and clay in most locations) weathered out of the parent material or laid down atop the substrata (horizon "C") by alluvial action.

In many locations, there is no true topsoil left. It all washed or blew away over a century ago through erosion of open ploughed fields. And what is presently at the surface is at best surface soil, and in some more unfortunate cases, subsoil.

In the most unfortunate cases, even the subsoil has washed away and all that is left is horizon "C," the substrata or parent material. This "horizon C" shouldn't be mistaken for "bedrock" ... as "substrata" or "parent material" is not rock solid, but weathered to some degree by penetration by tree roots, freexing and thawing, earthquakes, etc. In recently urbanized areas, many lawns are nothing but substrata and subsoil all jumbled up and redistributed by unconscientious developers who failed to stockpile surface soil when scraping out the road beds, laying water and sewer lines, excavating detention basins and lakes, or grubbing out the crawl spaces and basements.

But in the case posed by Sneezer, where 69 inches of Wharton silt loam has been reduced by erosion to a mere 12 inches overlaying "rippable shale," I'm gonna take a wild guess that what's left is nothing but subsoil (horizon "B") as the horizon between surface and subsoil surely was breached long before 5 feet of soil was lost. And if the rippable shale Sneezer encounters 12 iches below surface is loose enough, it would be considered the substrata horizon "C" parent material. That means Sneezer has a hefty task reconstituting anything approaching the soil quality formerly at the site, as it takes worms, microoganisms and natural processes about 500 years to manufacture an inch of true topsoil.

Bill

Pretty close, Bill, but I'm actually somewhat luckier than that because after row cropping ceased, the spot grew up in forest. Consequently, I've got 3 to 4 inches of that nice decomposed forest litter. Rest assured, I'm keeping every bit of it. Next is apparently a remainder of the B horizon, possibly a middle to lower level of it, consisting of about 30% coarse sand and the rest a very fine silt. About 4 to 5 inches thick, lots of tree roots so apparently still quite fertile. No stones, no clay, greyish brown in color. Followed by another bit, apparently, of B horizon, 7 to 8 inches thick, more yellow in color, harder to dig with some solid looking inclusions. In water, it all breaks down to about 30% fine sand, 60% silt and 10% clay. Not as many roots. Then the "rippable" shale for about 3 or 4 inches followed by a much tougher shale or siltstone.

If you were to read the published profile, you would see that the original A horizon was 9 (yes, 9!) inches thick. This profile is where the 69" number came from, of which 22" to 37" was B, divided into several subhorizons, any of which was probably better soil than many people today are able to enjoy, even in the very top layers. Even the C horizon was 23" thick. Each of the existing layers I've described above can be co-ordinated with some part of the published profile, with of course a substantial degree of uncertainty.

What a shame for so much of that to be gone. Nonetheless, I still consider myself fortunate to have what is left and hope to do whatever I can to use it as wisely as possible. This thread has been of considerable help in that respect.

For anyone who cares to see what a truly wonderful soil would have looked like, the "Official Series Description" can be found here:

http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/W/WHARTON.html

By the way, I don't think I ever said anything about having 12" of "topsoil" or complained of having a problem with it, though of course it is a problem in the technical sense of trying to understand how to proceed. I'm not unhappy with that, though.