I think the no-till and the conservation industry has been struggling with this for some time now. The equipment manufacturers dont help matters any when they exploit the phrase "no-till" to sell any piece of equipment of any design. IMO, what you describe is a form of conservation farming. IMO, it is a good one and I agree with your thoughts on it. But those that practice "no-till" as a complete system, or as they call it, a "wholistic" system. That wholistic system is long term or permanent. It does not include tillage in any way ever. So when the prhase no-till gets used to describe a short term absense of tillage and a new start every few years, it is considered as using the phrase out of context.

 Personally, I agree with it. The phrase "no-till" was sort of a coined phrase that was/is intended to describe the wholistic system. Once the manufacturers and farmers that did not understand no-till started using the phrase to include anything and everything that reduced a pass over the field, it severely diluted the phrase "no-till".

 Once the arguments started getting heated and very public, it became sort of a purposeful sign of disrespect on the part of conventional tillage farmers to use the phrase no-till out of context all the time just to ruffle feathers. Many now, after years of being exposed to the diluted meaning of no-till, dont even realize the importance of what the phrase describes. IMO.

 I do what I can "here" to attempt to correct the curious when asked about my no-till, to tell them I do not practice no-till, I practice conservation methods or farming. Granted, I do have some ground now that has not been tilled for over 10 years, and the rotations were planted using a single disk drill, but since I will till that land when it becomes needed (yes, needed), and since I till other land every few years as needed, I am not practicing no-till. I do consider myself one that practices conservation farming.

 IMO.