For many farmers, ploughing has long been regarded as a symbol of dedication; the visible proof that a new season has begun. But what if one of our most common "good farming” habits is quietly undermining productivity, increasing costs, and weakening resilience?

ALSO READ: Key to preserving Rwanda’s food security lies in the soil

This is not a call to abandon effort. It is a call to direct effort where it truly matters: in protecting soil as a living system. Conservation agriculture offers this logic, and its first principle is simple: minimize soil disturbance.

ALSO READ: Rwanda’s practical response to climate change and soil degradation

The argument for minimum tillage is not ideological; it is practical. It is a simple shift with significant returns for smallholders. When soil is disturbed less, it holds together better, absorbs water more effectively, and remains more biologically active. In a context where farmers must stretch every franc and every drop of moisture, these benefits are not optional; they are strategic.

Ploughing weakens the very foundation we depend on

Frequent ploughing breaks down soil structure, destroys earthworm tunnels, and closes the tiny spaces through which air and water move.

ALSO READ: Transforming Rwanda's agriculture landscape

The result is familiar: runoff, erosion, and soils that fail to retain moisture, especially during dry spells.

Minimum tillage works differently. By disturbing the soil as little as possible, farmers preserve its natural structure, improve infiltration, and reduce erosion. This is one of the most practical routes to stronger, more reliable production.

The benefits go beyond water conservation. Reduced disturbance helps protect soil organic matter, which supports the nutrients and microorganisms that make soil productive. It also reduces labour costs, limits compaction caused by repeated field operations, and supports carbon storage - a reminder that soil health is not just an agronomic issue, but also a sustainability priority.

Managing weeds: where support must become smarter

The most common concern about minimum tillage is weed pressure. While this concern is valid, it is not a reason to dismiss the practice; rather, it is a reason to strengthen the support system around it. There are several practical options to manage weeds: herbicides can be used before planting or after crop emergence to reduce the need for repeated cultivation.

Alternatively, weeds can be slashed or rolled before flowering and left on the surface as mulch, which protects the soil and suppresses new growth. Farmers can then plant directly into this mulch by placing seeds through the crop residues.

Minimum tillage is not a single method; it is a menu of options. For cassava and sweet potatoes, planting basins or half-moons allow for preparation of small planting spots while leaving the surrounding soil undisturbed. Zonal ripping loosens narrow strips to break hard layers without ploughing the entire field, improving infiltration and root growth. For manual weeding, hula hoes can cut weeds at the surface without turning the soil.

In other words, the question is not whether minimum tillage is possible, but whether extension and training programs are equipping farmers with the full toolkit to make it work.

A smarter national conversation on soil health

Rwanda has placed strong emphasis on agricultural transformation. However, transformation is not only about improved seeds or increased fertilizer use. It also involves how we treat the soil, the foundation upon which all other investments depend.

If we continue to disturb our soil in ways that accelerate erosion and weaken biological life, we will continue to pay the price through declining productivity, rising labour costs, and fragile harvests. Minimum tillage offers a practical alternative that protects soil structure and supports long-term productivity.

What should happen next

First, minimum tillage should be treated as a core pillar of training and demonstrations, not as an optional topic.

Second, testimonies from farmers who have already adopted conservation agriculture should be deliberately amplified, because peer evidence accelerates adoption more than technical messaging alone.

Third, support must match realities on the ground, especially in weed management, through practical demonstrations of mulching, rolling, direct planting into residues, targeted herbicide use where appropriate, and effective hand tools that avoid turning the soil.

The lesson is simple: sometimes, doing less to the soil allows it to give more in return. If we want healthier crops and more resilient harvests, Rwanda should stop treating ploughing as the default and start treating soil health as the priority.

The writer is the Director of Research and a lecturer at Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture (RICA).