5 ms·
Trouble is the yields of fertilized crops are unsustainable because over time they lead to soil erosion. If your concern is /sustainable/ yields, fertilizers ar
by nanna 6y ago
Trouble is the yields of fertilized crops are unsustainable because over time they lead to soil erosion. If your concern is /sustainable/ yields, fertilizers are the wrong answer.
- ced 6y agoSince everybody's been using fertilizers for a long (?) time, does that mean that farmlands aren't sold for as high a price? What happens when all the soil is eroded away?
- mikepurvis 6y agoThe obvious one is that when you conclude your farming operation and cease dispensing fertilizer, you leave behind a sterile desert where there was once fertile soil. This may not bother you if your intention is to farm indefinitely, but it's a bit depressing from a land-stewardship point of view. Other things can happen, too, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
- bluGill 6y agoModern farming doesn't erode soil. There have been decades since the dust bowl with less rainfall, but no repeat dust bowl because farming has improved.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoHow long does this process take? Presumably more than a few decades as I imagine much of the agricultural land in the US has been farmed this way for more than that amount of time.
- refurb 6y agoSoil erosion? Why is erosion unique to fertilized crops? Seems like erosion has more to do with farming technique, independent of fertilizer use or not. The soil erosion of the Dust Bowl area was addressed through improved technique. Fertilizers were not a key component of that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryland_farming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryland_farming
- hinkley 6y agoBecause the practices break down soil organic matter which help stabilize the soil. The American Dust Bowl was a combination of things, but the frequency of tilling was a big part of it. Farmers now till at least one fewer times per year, which makes quite a bit of a difference. It's complex, because our annual crops are almost all prairie soil plants, prairie soils are typically bacterial dominant anyway, but fungi typically provide a lot of the soil stability. Tilling pretty much kills all of the fungus, and the bacteria run wild breaking down soil carbon (fungal and crop roots).
- some-people 6y agoWe also do crop rotation, altering corn and soybeans every year. Applying nitrogen to the soil after harvest is also common practice. If it wouldn't cause another dust bowl, a lot of farmers would probably plant only corn since its much more profitable.
- KaiserPro 6y agoModern farming assumes that the soil is a mostly sterile medium to dump both fertiliser and seed. Basically sand with a tiny bit of organic fluff. Firstly sand blows away, secondly it doesn't hold water anywhere near as well. This means that you need more drainage channels, which means you get more runoff, which means you need more fertiliser. _proper_ soil, with plenty of organic matter is both more porous _and_ able to absorb more water.
- mikey_p 6y agoThis doesn't apply to a large amount of farming today, much of the issues with erosion have been solved by reducing tillage and other improved practices like contour farming, adding waterways, cover crops etc. None of this is related to fertilizers and their usage. Also if you want to get the most out of your fertilizer you will automatically be trying to reduce erosion. No one wants to put investment into soil that is going to disappear or be lost. There is also an increasing amount of regulation around controlling runoff of fertilizers in order to control water quality in lakes, rivers etc. Follow what is happening in Ohio and Lake Erie for example.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoThis is a fair distinction, but artificial fertiliser still requires fossil fuels to produce and so isn't sustainable even if it has zero negative impact on the soil's health.
- hedora 6y agoArtificial fertilizer doesn’t require fossil fuel. It requires energy, atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Roughly 50% of the nitrogen in average humans was extracted from the atmosphere using this process; it is well-established.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoInteresting - so theoretically one could run the process off photovoltaics? Didn't know that! Still, if we had to change to renewable sources of energy to run these processes tomorrow,the price would likely jump so enormously that their value would be mostly in niche applications.