31 ms·
Soil Erosion: Why soil is disappearing from farms
- graeme 7y agoI never make this kind of comment, but that was unreadable. It broke scroll speed, didn't have a reader view, and the text constantly shifted from left to right hand side of the screen.
- zeristor 7y agoLooking at it on an iPad it insisted I go from landscape to portrait, a tad impertinent.
- stkdump 7y agoSame for my Surface clone, I had to detach the keyboard and rotate to portrait. I ended up reading it in firefox reader view.
- space_fountain 7y agoIt did that on my Linux laptop running Firefox, despite the fact that I can't actually even do that.
- gumby 7y agoAlso hard to read the text as it scrolled over a busy background. I gave up.
- skunkpocalypse 7y agoAgree. Thank goodness for reader mode.
- AlexAltea 7y agoThis was literally unreadable for me on Firefox. It insists on me rotating my phone (?), even though I'm viewing it on a desktop computer. The entire article is blocked behind that "rotating device" icon. Really terrible job.
- 0xDEFC0DE 7y agoGuess it's time to check in with the hydroponics scene and see how things are coming along.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoFarmers in Austria (where glyphosate was recently banned) are worried that without glyphosate erosion will accelerate due to the lack of reasonable chemical alternatives. This will be interesting to see unfold.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoNo/minimal till regenerative Ag would work. We have to change design of farm Mach aka tractors. Good opportunity for automation in Ag to step up to the plate and create a new paradigm shift
- Nasrudith 7y agoGlyphosate is no till farming already and keeps the soil in place with the dead weed while it decays. Farmers aren't paying money to spray it for shits and giggles. Although it would be interesting to see both a robotic mechanical weed killer's operation, performance, and economics in comparison.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoOk. Minimal or No till/non chemical farming then. There is no need for chemical Ag if we have automation. Chemistry removed the need for hard labour. It is still possible to use mechanization to replace toxic chemicals because weeding is all about timing, but even with mechanization, labour costs add up. Automation is the solution. And we have the capability and tech to do it now. I suspect that there will be some resistance and possibly nascent tech will be bought out to die in a dark vault after being acquired by the big players whose market share will be threatened. But it’s only a matter of time when the transition from tractor to Ag bots happens seamlessly..I feel the big tractor companies are just trying to time and manage the transition. They certain have a massive market share. Chemical Ag is certainly out. Automation will be the new paradigm.
- Merrill 7y agoEven if wind and water erosion were eliminated, modern agriculture is fundamentally a form of mining. Farmers grow crops that remove nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and a variety of other minerals from the soil. The crops are shipped to cities typically located on rivers or oceans. The crops are processed, eaten and the nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and other minerals are flushed into the rivers and oceans. The elements can be replaced as long as supplies of natural gas to fix atmospheric nitrogen and reserves of potash and phosphate rock last. But it is ultimately unsustainable.
- windsurfer 7y agoOver 95% of a plant is just hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon that it pulled from the air or water. Only a very small percentage of the material in a plant is actually from the soil, so most of the activity on a farm is not fundamentally a form of mining.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoI disagree. Farming is surface mining. Maybe aquaponics and hydroponics are only reliant on water and nutrients. And we should probably switch to soilless farming more..but soil based farming is most certainly surface mining and the most destructive thing we can do to this planet.
- gleapsite 7y agoCertainly prevalent forms of argiculture are akin to surface mining. My property is surrounded on three sides by a rotated field (corn, wheat, soy etc) and there's a 12-18" drop along those edges of my property line, persumably as the soil was extracted in plant form. However I believe there are forms of soil agriculture that aren't surface mining such as a short rotation coppice. The primary molecular structures being extracted are lignin and cellulose, which are comprised of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (that is, water and air sources).
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
- adrianN 7y agoOne thing I'd love to see more studies about is adding charcoal to the soil. There is decent evidence that this greatly improves soil quality as the large surface area of the charcoal particles allows microbes to grow and stores water. It also has the added benefit of capturing carbon in a form that is stable for millennia.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoBio char. But it works in more tropical areas. Otherwise it has to be shipped. South America case studies plenty.
- simonebrunozzi 7y agoI'm curious, why it doesn't work in temperate climates? Also, I think it heavily depends on how "rich" / volcanic the soil is in the first place, perhaps?
- jelliclesfarm 7y agohttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd : here [..]Here we use a global-scale meta-analysis to show that biochar has, on average, no effect on crop yield in temperate latitudes, yet elicits a 25% average increase in yield in the tropics. In the tropics, biochar increased yield through liming and fertilization, consistent with the low soil pH, low fertility, and low fertilizer inputs typical of arable tropical soils. We also found that, in tropical soils, high-nutrient biochar inputs stimulated yield substantially more than low-nutrient biochar, further supporting the role of nutrient fertilization in the observed yield stimulation. In contrast, arable soils in temperate regions are moderate in pH, higher in fertility, and generally receive higher fertilizer inputs, leaving little room for additional benefits from biochar. Our findings demonstrate that the yield-stimulating effects of biochar are not universal, but may especially benefit agriculture in low-nutrient, acidic soils in the tropics. Biochar management in temperate zones should focus on potential non-yield benefits such as lime and fertilizer cost savings, greenhouse gas emissions control, and other ecosystem services.[..]
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoTillage.
- leakybit 7y agoSounds like a good use case for GMO.
- jillesvangurp 7y agoSoil erosion is a reversible process but it will require a little effort and planning. When it works it's an investment that actually pays off. Here's a nice example of the Chinese restoring some soil: https://rethink.earth/turning-desert-to-fertile-farmland-on-the-loess-plateau/ https://rethink.earth/turning-desert-to-fertile-farmland-on-... I've seen a documentary with some before and after video footage. Quite amazing difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgDWbQtlKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgDWbQtlKI Planned grazing is another approach that has seen some success: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19/grazing-livestock-climate-change-george-monbiot-allan-savory https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19...
- home_project123 7y agoIs soil erosion ever naturally reversed ? It seems to me to be a one way downhill process ?
- maxerickson 7y agoSure, soil building happens naturally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species
- brohee 7y agoObviously there was no soil at first since it's dead organic matter.
- olliej 7y agoYes, but that’s not “reversing” so much as completely rebuilding soil, which takes decades of no farming and no tillage. A lot of loss can also be trivially reduces by planting rows of trees between fields, which I saw all over the place in NZ, but haven’t seen elsewhere.
- brohee 7y agoPretty standard in Europe : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocage
- 29athrowaway 7y agoWe produce food for humans, pets, livestock. Most of the livestock is not necessary, and 30% of all food will be wasted. Paper is also responsible for topsoil loss. Much of the paper is used in advertising campaigns that receive little to no attention from consumers, or to communicate information that could be sent electronically. Some more is used in redundant forms of packaging. We all have known how inefficient our processes are for a long time. But our expectation is that the environment should adapt to our needs and not the opposite. This belief is wrong, and will be proven wrong in the next decades.
- throwaway3627 7y agoDirt-based farms are antiquated and inefficiently use resources compared to fogbox and airponics. Healthy soil is great, if it's for grassland vegetation browsed by managed mega-herds.. otherwise, the trend (climate change and lack of roaming mega-herds) is towards desertification.
- QuickToBan 7y agoWith regard to fixing this, the article contains a link to: https://theconversation.com/to-restore-our-soils-feed-the-microbes-79616 https://theconversation.com/to-restore-our-soils-feed-the-mi... "To restore our soils, feed the microbes" (2017)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rmason 7y agoAs a former agronomist there are a couple of things in this article that concern me. It reads like a scare piece. Farmers for over fifty years have recognized the problem of soil erosion and are moving to reduce tillage. Sadly no-till where farmers plant into last years crop is only mentioned once. No-till requires more management and adoption started slowly. But now better chemicals for weed control, better planting equipment and adoption of a best practices list has contributed to its successful adoption and it's popularity has exploded. I am skeptical of the discussion of soil microbes which previously have been looked at as snake oil cures promising much but delivering little. There may be a genuine breakthrough this time, but show this skeptic the university replicated and peer reviewed research first. Far too often with these products all you see are farmer testimonials which unaccompanied by university research are a flashing red light indicating a scam.
- strainer 7y agoHere is a recent overview from Washington State University "Soil biology and soil organic matter; What do recent discoveries mean for soil management?"[1] I copy one quarter of its provided references below here, just to illustrate the situation that there is really no paucity of peer reviewed work from this field. About the potential for reversing the long term trend in soil degradation through microbially 'un-interested' and herbicide assisted no-till methods - wouldn't be appropriate to provide university replicated peer reviewed research which substantiates they have the situation covered ? [1] http://csanr.wsu.edu/soil-biology-and-soil-organic-matter/ http://csanr.wsu.edu/soil-biology-and-soil-organic-matter/ 1/4 References: Jackson, R.B., K. Lajtha, S.E. Crow, G. Hugelius, M.G. Kramer, et al. 2017. The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and Biotic and Abiotic Controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48(1): 419–445. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234. Janzen, H.H. 2006. The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38(3): 419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.10.008. Kallenbach, C.M., S.D. Frey, and A.S. Grandy. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nature Communications 7: 13630. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13630. Kästner, M., and A. Miltner. 2018. SOM and Microbes—What Is Left From Microbial Life. In: Garcia, C., Nannipieri, P., and Hernandez, T., editors, The Future of Soil Carbon. Academic Press. p. 125–163 Woolf, D., and J. Lehmann. 2019. Microbial models with minimal mineral protection can explain long-term soil organic carbon persistence. Scientific Reports 9(1): 6522. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43026-8.
- sarego 7y agoWhat comes to mind is something called "zero budget farming" invented by in India by Subhash Palekar. This is basically an approach based on the premise that modern farming including Organic farming is killing the microbes and other beneficial organisms in the soil critical to sustainable agriculture. http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/zbnf.aspx http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/zbnf.aspx
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- carapace 7y agoAgriculture is pretty much the dumbest thing you can do to land (other than simply poisoning it.) It's a process of converting ecosystems into people (and, since the invention of artificial nitrogen fertilizer, converting oil into people.) Ecosystems are more productive, so if we imitate Nature with "applied ecology" (such as Permaculture), we can actually create a new kind of civilization. One that generates more healthy soil than it loses. Toby Hemenway (RIP) gave a talk, "Redesigning Civilization -- with Permaculture" > Modern agriculture, industry and finance all extract more than they give back, and the Earth is starting to show the strain. How did we get in this mess and what can we do to help our culture get back on track? The ecological design approach known as permaculture offers powerful tools for the design of regenerative, fair ways to provide food, energy, livelihood, and other needs while letting humans share the planet with the rest of nature. This presentation will give you insight into why our culture has become fundamentally unsustainable, and offers ecologically based solutions that can help create a just and sustainable society. This is the sequel to Toby's popular talk, "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and The Planet, but not Civilization." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c
- quixoticelixer- 7y agoYeah bro who needs food anyway
- Nasrudith 7y agoThat is nakedly not true at all for yields and shows a massive ignorance of history, trophic layers, ecology, and economics to declare it less productive. Less biodiversity by definition but that is essentially the whole point of agriculture - producing what you want. Permaculture really seems to be the new Lysenkoism. They keep on making grand claims about their sustainability and output and how it is the only sustainable way yet their yields aren't even any better than conventional farming with crop rotation. If you want to preserve nature your best bet is unsexy density - scales better than local and distributed. Even solar and wind which benefit from being spread around are still clustered.
- carapace 7y ago
- gboss 7y agoI really enjoyed the book Third Plate by Dan Barber. (https://www.amazon.com/Third-Plate-Field-Notes-Future/dp/0143127152/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=the+third+plate+dan+barber&qid=1560270116&s=gateway&sprefix=Third+plate&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Third-Plate-Field-Notes-Future/dp/014...) While I don't know if the methods explored in the book will be able to sustain the entire world population. I really liked how he argues in this century we can focus on growing food for flavor and not just quantity and flavorful foods generally come from farms that have bio dynamic practices which support soil health and eliminate the need for nitrogen based fertilizers.
- learnfromstory 7y agoIsn't there something extremely wrong about the math in this blerg? Surely 12 million hectares produces a lot more than 20 tonnes of grain annually. Did they mean 20 tonnes per hectare? Otherwise it's low by a factor of ten million. Either way doesn't make sense.
- lsb 7y agohttps://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/nrcs143_014887.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/nrcs143_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel#Weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel#Weight A hectare is ~2 ac. Wheat looks like 2-5 tonnes/hectare Looks like 20 tons per hectare is pretty high, but
- hjalle 7y agoIt's 20 million tonnes per year according to the source https://www.unccd.int/actions/united-nations-decade-deserts-2010-2020-and-fight-against-desertification https://www.unccd.int/actions/united-nations-decade-deserts-...
- winchling 7y agoI presume they will, but will modern greenhousing and 3D farming (under artificial light in factories) help to reduce soil erosion, or not?
- saalweachter 7y agoScale is the problem. Just constraining yourself to the US and using the arbitrary 2000 calories per day per person, the US needs to produce about 2.4 x 10^14 food calories per year. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how many greenhouses that is or how many 3d hydroponic farms, but the counter offer is a few thousand square miles of corn.
- 11235813213455 7y agoTillage is killing organisms living in the soil, which are crucial for fertility and resistance to erosion. Permacultures have interesting techniques, like covering the soil to let weeds die and enrich the soil at the same time, not sure how those techniques can scale, even if they are highly productive. There are also the use of livestocks: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl... other links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil#Erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil#Erosion http://www.fao.org/3/a0100e/a0100e07.htm http://www.fao.org/3/a0100e/a0100e07.htm http://www.fao.org/3/t0389e/t0389e02.htm http://www.fao.org/3/t0389e/t0389e02.htm
- pier25 7y agoAgriculture is one of the biggest environmental catastrophes humans have perpetrated. Entire ecosystems have to be destroyed. I always find it disturbing when vegetarians think eating plants is a peaceful affair. One could argue about organic agriculture in balance with the environment, unfortunately it produces on average 20% less than monoculture industrial agriculture[1] and the food demands of the planet are only growing. [1] https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-farming-yield-gap/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-fa...
- gdubs 7y agoOne of the best books I’ve ever read on this subject is “Tree Crops”, Smith, 1929. Soil erosion is his main focus and he quotes FDR who says that a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. The subtitle of the book, A Permanent Agriculture, inspired Permaculture — a niche but growing group of farmers who look towards perennial crops with their deep root systems, and less fickle needs for inputs and maintenance. Because these plants are permanent, tilling is all but eliminated. The green revolution with its world-changing chemicals born out of the world wars led to a boom in yields, and has fed the world for the past century. But with our changing climate, and the obvious destructiveness of industrial farming (runoff, land use change and deforestation, emissions from tilling, emissions from chemical production and transportation), it’s pretty clear we need a new model. If you look at my post history, I recently linked to The Carbon Farming Solution — it’s fascinating and phenomenally well sourced. There’s an active push to develop perennials to replace many of our staple crops. This is, er, fertile ground for research.