[HN Gopher] Earthquake scientists reveal how overplowing weakens...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Earthquake scientists reveal how overplowing weakens soil at
       experimental farm
        
       https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec0970
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 63 points
       Date   : 2026-03-25 14:12 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.washington.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.washington.edu)
        
       | monkaiju wrote:
       | I realize this exact data might be novel, but haven't we know
       | that till-reliant farming was detrimental to soil for a long
       | time? The no-till people are a huge part of the permaculture
       | movement, also theres always folks talking about how important
       | fungal networks are and how they're largely destroyed by tilling.
       | 
       | I mean even Karl Marx talked a ton about soil health and while he
       | mostly talked about "metabolic rift" not tilling (that I know
       | about) specifically it seems like a similar focus on short term
       | output vs long term soil health.
       | 
       | I guess I'm just not clear on if there is actually a new serious
       | problem being "revealed" as the title says or just being
       | substantiated further.
        
         | R_D_Olivaw wrote:
         | Agreed. This hardly seems like novel information. The method at
         | which he arrived at it is neat though, fwiw.
         | 
         | At the very least it adds a new vector to the position. I was
         | also unaware of how receptive to disruption fiber optic cables
         | were. So, at least I learned that.
        
         | idontwantthis wrote:
         | If no till is better and tilling is work, why do farmers till?
         | Why not do less work and have a better result?
        
           | Zanfa wrote:
           | In short term profits vs long term benefits, we all know who
           | wins.
        
           | altairprime wrote:
           | Tilling requires less cognitive and logistical effort: you
           | just apply calories to drag a blade through the soil and then
           | dump seed in it. No-till requires things like "tracking the
           | soil's water retention levels", "planting cover crops or even
           | giving a field a year off", and other such steps that in
           | general can be summarized as "cost centers".
           | 
           | Given the economic climate, few non-corporate farmers can
           | afford that investment without the collapse of their farm,
           | and few corporate farmers (none at nationwide scale, afaik)
           | are willing to invest in cost centers that threaten to
           | decrease, rather than increase, their rate of profit growth
           | year-over-year. One could absolutely make a case that
           | regulatory investment in such things be imposed upon megacorp
           | farms _first_ , with their processes and technology made
           | available by subsidy to smaller farms; it would be enough to
           | structure the subsidy as inversely proportional to the
           | acreage reaped for value, with some language ensuring that
           | the cost of investment into land farmed by contract to a
           | megacorp is paid to the land _operator_. To prevent certain
           | abuses, they'd also have to modify farming contract law to
           | make maintaining long-term use of the land an inalienable
           | right, so that unsustainable output-quota farming contracts
           | are unenforceable.
           | 
           | This is an unlikely outcome in the U.S., but I still
           | appreciate the researches providing more evidence in support
           | of it.
        
             | lurk2 wrote:
             | > Tilling requires less cognitive and logistical effort:
             | you just apply calories to drag a blade through the soil
             | and then dump seed in it. No-till requires things like
             | "tracking the soil's water retention levels", "planting
             | cover crops or even giving a field a year off", and other
             | such steps that in general can be summarized as "cost
             | centers".
             | 
             | No-Till is one of those ideas like permaculture or Modern
             | Monetary Theory that attracts emphatic advocates while
             | going against conventional practice. It isn't clear why it
             | would just be being adopted now if it actually worked. Do
             | you have any actual experience farming?
        
           | Loughla wrote:
           | No till requires access to first world country technology to
           | make work. No till in the United States and similar countries
           | is very very very established practice. It's not less work by
           | any means, it's just a different kind of work with different
           | machinery.
           | 
           | Source: was full time farmer until Grandpa died.
           | 
           | I'm guessing less developed countries still till the soil? I
           | have no idea.
        
           | __bb wrote:
           | The other replies make fair points, but tillage does still
           | have it's uses.
           | 
           | Quick examples:                 - Inversion tillage
           | (ploughing) to bury green manure crops or bulky organic
           | manure       - Subsoiling (deep tillage) can help break
           | underground compaction, to allow better root penetration
           | - Working with soils prone to surface capping
           | 
           | There's also a spectrum:                 - Full inversion
           | tillage       - Low/min-till       - No-till
           | 
           | With a wide range of operations you can perform from one end
           | to the other. You might end up taking a mix-and-match
           | approach as years/fields demand it.
           | 
           | EDIT: This is a response to the question "why do it?" rather
           | than anything in the context of the article itself.
        
           | markdown wrote:
           | Because no-till doesn't scale. It's incredible for market
           | gardening to feed the rich who can pay a premium at a farmers
           | market, but it's not going to feed the world.
        
             | bethekidyouwant wrote:
             | Modern farming already uses low or no till.
        
             | boccaff wrote:
             | The estimated area of no-till in Brazil is between 33 to 50
             | million hectares. It won't be hard for you to find videos
             | of no-till corn being planted following soybean. There is
             | also grass cover that is planted after the main crop
             | season, that is later grazed. This cover stays till the
             | next year and the new crop is planted without tilling. You
             | may need to use "plantio direto" "milho safrinha" and
             | "braquiaria de cobertura" plus some translation.
        
         | altairprime wrote:
         | The original article is markedly better at explaining that this
         | is substantiation through direct evidence of soil structure in
         | live fields, as opposed to e.g. core samples or whatever.
         | 
         | https://www.washington.edu/news/2026/03/19/earthquake-scient...
        
         | huijzer wrote:
         | After Marx's philosophy caused a famine that led millions to
         | die, you think he has useful agriculture knowledge to teach us?
        
       | altairprime wrote:
       | Given the discovered ability of fiberoptics to sense water
       | content, a kind of fiber fabric could be deployed to sense water
       | levels across an entire field at the cubic yard level. The
       | sensing controller would end up resembling an LCD addressing
       | controller in reverse, with row/column/subpixel (sub-terranean-
       | pixels!) breakout. Not that pixel-addressed farm fields are going
       | to be efficient to work _yet_ , lacking both processes and
       | tooling for soil, seed, and harvest -- but with sensing- and
       | tool-assisted farming, we ought to be _more_ able to harness the
       | soul that we have without destroying it with the sledgehammer-
       | nail "till the whole field" approach.
        
         | contingencies wrote:
         | Precision weeding is a thing. Some do it with poison, some do
         | it with picking, some do it spraying hot oil, others do it
         | spraying hot water. Any way you do it, it basically removes the
         | weeding argument for tilling soil... but only if the weeds are
         | small. If the weeds are large (think aggressive rhizomes or
         | grasses) it wont be effective.
         | 
         | Other arguments for tilling exist: aeration, mixing-in of new
         | organic content/fertilizer (not really necessary: green waste
         | can just be dumped at surface level in many cases, and this is
         | already becoming more common in mass-agriculture with 'cover
         | crops'), furrow-creation for seed planting, etc.
         | 
         | Fundamentally, leaving a field uncovered for any length of time
         | is bad and destroys the soil more than if you'd just let it
         | grow weeds or a temporary crop for awhile then culled that as
         | in-place fertilizer for a next crop.
         | 
         | A few months ago some friends of mine visited Australia from
         | overseas and I took them to one of the older wineries in the
         | area. The winery manages something like 10-20 major fields.
         | They brought in a new viticulturalist to manage the fields and
         | the first thing he did was introduce cover crops. In the
         | tasting, they brought out soil cores from before and after the
         | changes, which had only been in place for two years. The
         | difference was tremendous. The old methods, unquestioned for
         | decades, left the soil dry, poor, and largely infertile. The
         | new methods restored organic matter, moisture retention, and a
         | significant sub-surface biome.
        
           | altairprime wrote:
           | Noted(?). Um: did you mean to comment on the main post
           | instead of my comment? I'm only talking about futuristic
           | pixel-grid stuff related to the fiberoptics advancement, so
           | I'm not quite sure what questions to ask here about the bulk
           | of your response re: soil biome management; is there some
           | connection I'm missing? Perhaps: Are there already tilling
           | solutions that can do one square yard only, to whatever
           | specified depth, in use at this winery?
        
       | CrzyLngPwd wrote:
       | That heavy clay soil in the main photo looks awful.
       | 
       | I have around 45 acres of heavy clay, poor agricultural land,
       | which would look very similar to that if we allowed heavy
       | machinery, or even an ATV, on it when it is sodden.
        
       | trusted_brother wrote:
       | Yes this is entirely true and we must ban farming immediately.
        
         | steve_adams_86 wrote:
         | Yeah, why don't people just go to the grocery store for food
         | instead of making a mess with farming?
        
       | regus wrote:
       | Overplowing is what created the dust storms of the Great
       | Depression Dust Bowl era.
        
       | heathrow83829 wrote:
       | to till or not to till, that's the question. one way to look at
       | is check the yields that result from dig vs no dig. Charles
       | dowding did exactly that. for seven years he had two plots, one
       | where he dug and one where he didn't. in each one he added the
       | same amount of compost and grew teh same crops on both sides.
       | 
       | Overall, the nodig plot harvest 10% more. but here's where it
       | gets interesting. those yields were not uniformly spread across
       | the vegetable types. if you dig into the data, you'll see, some
       | did quite worse with dig and some did quite better. guess which
       | ones did better on dig? Potatoes, Rutabagas, carrots and parsnips
       | and cabbage all did better in Dig! roughly to the tune of about
       | Potatoes 21%, carrots 21%, Rutabaga 14%, Cabbage, 11%, broad
       | beans 10% better. it's all published in his books. Everything
       | else did better with no dig. Shallots especially did 33% better
       | with no-dig, ales 21% better, onions 22% better with no dig.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-25 23:00 UTC)