3 ms·

I've been reading topsoil doomsday stories since the seventies. I've seen them written from the thirties. They completely ignore modern farming. We don't rel

I've been reading topsoil doomsday stories since the seventies. I've seen them written from the thirties. They completely ignore modern farming. We don't rely on topsoil, or care. Modern farming, especially since the fifties, is chemistry. The soil is merely a growing medium. We test it and add whatever is needed via petrochemical fertilizers. Better soil is better for the farmer, but far from necessary. And whomever says a millennium to make 30mm of topsoil knows nothing about the subject. I've seen nature make that much in less than a decade many times.

vbuwivbiu 9y ago
and minerals ?
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  Yes, my mother's favorite fertilizer on the farm was 8-12-16 with micronutrients, which were mostly minerals.
- pdfernhout 9y ago
  Ground-up rock dust works wonders: https://remineralize.org/ https://remineralize.org/ "Through our education and outreach, projects, research, and advocacy, Remineralize the Earth facilitates a worldwide movement that brings together gardeners and farmers, scientists and policymakers and the public to create better soils, better food, and a better planet. ... “Remineralization is one of the most important missions on the planet at this time. Together, we can remineralize gardens, farms, landscapes, and forests. We can grow nutrient-dense food and improve the nutrition and well-being of all life. And in the larger picture, it’s a key strategy to stabilize the climate!”"
  - vbuwivbiu 9y ago
    interesting, because the mineral content of food is a matter of chance usually. For example certain plants accumulate certain minerals more than others (e.g. brazil-nuts:selenium, cocoa:nickel) but the soil they're grown in may have more or less of those minerals, so it's hard to control one's intake
cantrip 9y ago
In the 70s were the doomsday stories saying we only had 110 years left?
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  No, they would say 10-30, typically. 110 isn't scary.
crpatino 9y ago
And where petrochemicals come from? From oil, which happens to be running out as well. What our grandparents did was to "fix" our reliance in an overexploited renewable resource making use of processes that consume a non-renewable resource and accelerate the destruction of the renewable resource at the same time, all this while artificially inflating the output of the original process and creating demand that cannot and will not be met in the future. Good job, Science!!! That's what happens when you fixate on wether things can possibly be done, but never consider if they should be done.
smallnamespace 9y ago
> We don't rely on topsoil, or care. Modern farming, especially since the fifties, is chemistry. The soil is merely a growing medium. We test it and add whatever is needed via petrochemical fertilizers. Better soil is better for the farmer, but far from necessary. I agree the article is hyperbolic, but there's a wealth of research showing that this approach has long-term negative consequences on soil health and the crops themselves, leading to long-term declines in yields. Not to mention the contamination of rivers and underground aquifers with nitrogen and potassium leading to widespread algal blooms deoxygenating rivers and leading to mass deaths in (literally) downstream aquatic ecosystems. One thing the industrial approach ignores entirely is the community of bacteria that live in symbiosis with plants. This includes both nitrogen-fixing bacteria (which presumably we bypass by just adding nitrogen directly). The better approach is to understand farming as part of greater ecosystem flows, and to work with the soil and not treat it as a barren Petri Dish.
uhtred 9y ago
Good old petrochemical fertilizers. Who cares if we kill off most other life in the ecosystem as long as we have us, corn and cows.
gozur88 9y ago
That sixty year time frame is convenient, since anybody making such a prediction will be retired or dead by then.
alisson 9y ago
Maybe its missing bacteria, fungi and other important life, this is one of the biggest reason of the rise of vitamin b12 deficiency in the world, even cattle and sheep need to take shots in some places. But if we focus on build soil instead of the plant we end up working far less in the future and without any need to buy or import things to grow food
peterwwillis 9y ago
The soil is not supposed to be a growing medium. The soil is supposed to be a microbiome. Sure, nearly-dead soil can work fine for growing plants. But it results in less healthy plants and runoff, which then has a cyclical effect. The byproducts of petro-fertilizers end up in the environment, which then ends back up in animals and plants. By not relying on healthy bacteria and fungi to naturally infuse plant roots with the nutrients and water they need, we are only getting short term benefits of reliable production. In the long term we will end up slowly poisoning the ecology that we absolutely need to keep agriculture sustainable.

vbuwivbiu 9y ago

and minerals ?

CapitalistCartr 9y ago
Yes, my mother's favorite fertilizer on the farm was 8-12-16 with micronutrients, which were mostly minerals.
pdfernhout 9y ago
Ground-up rock dust works wonders: https://remineralize.org/ https://remineralize.org/ "Through our education and outreach, projects, research, and advocacy, Remineralize the Earth facilitates a worldwide movement that brings together gardeners and farmers, scientists and policymakers and the public to create better soils, better food, and a better planet. ... “Remineralization is one of the most important missions on the planet at this time. Together, we can remineralize gardens, farms, landscapes, and forests. We can grow nutrient-dense food and improve the nutrition and well-being of all life. And in the larger picture, it’s a key strategy to stabilize the climate!”"
- vbuwivbiu 9y ago
  interesting, because the mineral content of food is a matter of chance usually. For example certain plants accumulate certain minerals more than others (e.g. brazil-nuts:selenium, cocoa:nickel) but the soil they're grown in may have more or less of those minerals, so it's hard to control one's intake

cantrip 9y ago

In the 70s were the doomsday stories saying we only had 110 years left?

CapitalistCartr 9y ago
No, they would say 10-30, typically. 110 isn't scary.

crpatino 9y ago

And where petrochemicals come from? From oil, which happens to be running out as well. What our grandparents did was to "fix" our reliance in an overexploited renewable resource making use of processes that consume a non-renewable resource and accelerate the destruction of the renewable resource at the same time, all this while artificially inflating the output of the original process and creating demand that cannot and will not be met in the future. Good job, Science!!! That's what happens when you fixate on wether things can possibly be done, but never consider if they should be done.

smallnamespace 9y ago

> We don't rely on topsoil, or care. Modern farming, especially since the fifties, is chemistry. The soil is merely a growing medium. We test it and add whatever is needed via petrochemical fertilizers. Better soil is better for the farmer, but far from necessary. I agree the article is hyperbolic, but there's a wealth of research showing that this approach has long-term negative consequences on soil health and the crops themselves, leading to long-term declines in yields. Not to mention the contamination of rivers and underground aquifers with nitrogen and potassium leading to widespread algal blooms deoxygenating rivers and leading to mass deaths in (literally) downstream aquatic ecosystems. One thing the industrial approach ignores entirely is the community of bacteria that live in symbiosis with plants. This includes both nitrogen-fixing bacteria (which presumably we bypass by just adding nitrogen directly). The better approach is to understand farming as part of greater ecosystem flows, and to work with the soil and not treat it as a barren Petri Dish.

uhtred 9y ago

Good old petrochemical fertilizers. Who cares if we kill off most other life in the ecosystem as long as we have us, corn and cows.

gozur88 9y ago

That sixty year time frame is convenient, since anybody making such a prediction will be retired or dead by then.

alisson 9y ago

Maybe its missing bacteria, fungi and other important life, this is one of the biggest reason of the rise of vitamin b12 deficiency in the world, even cattle and sheep need to take shots in some places. But if we focus on build soil instead of the plant we end up working far less in the future and without any need to buy or import things to grow food

peterwwillis 9y ago

The soil is not supposed to be a growing medium. The soil is supposed to be a microbiome. Sure, nearly-dead soil can work fine for growing plants. But it results in less healthy plants and runoff, which then has a cyclical effect. The byproducts of petro-fertilizers end up in the environment, which then ends back up in animals and plants. By not relying on healthy bacteria and fungi to naturally infuse plant roots with the nutrients and water they need, we are only getting short term benefits of reliable production. In the long term we will end up slowly poisoning the ecology that we absolutely need to keep agriculture sustainable.