4 ms·

Isn't the issue that the arable land gets destroyed using the current practices[1]? Borrowing into the future and making farmers dependent on chemicals doesn't

Isn't the issue that the arable land gets destroyed using the current practices[1]? Borrowing into the future and making farmers dependent on chemicals doesn't seem like the best strategy in the long term. [1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/arable-land https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/arab...

marcinzm 6y ago
I don't see how that plot implies causality onto fertilizers. Population in the US has grown significantly and urbanization has been a trend for the last century. I'm assuming land converted into housing or suburbs or cities is no longer classified as arable.
refurb 6y ago
I’d love someone more knowledgeable to weigh in, but destroyed seems like an overstatement. There is land in Canada that’s been farmed for coming on 150 years. The last 60-80 being “modern” farming methods. It’s still highly productive land. In terms of your link, it looks like it’s not counted as farmland if it’s abandoned (no intention to farm it in the future). Some of that land may no longer be able to be cultivated, but I’d assume that’s not the only driver of the decrease.
- triyambakam 6y ago
  150 years and even 60-80 is a short time though considering plots in e.g. SE Asia being farmed for at least a thousand years. What would the long term for conventional farming look like?
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Most people in the US/Canada have no information on what was done a few hundred years ago. This is archaeological evidence that before Europeans came the natives were farmers, but disease (large numbers died) and introduction of horses most of the old knowledge of farming was lost even before the old farms were force-ably taken away.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Since "conventional" farming wasn't even a thing until ~50 years ago I'd say about 60 to 80 years sets an upper bound on "long term" w.r.t. "conventional" farming.
  - refurb 6y ago
    That’s the question. If we’ve been doing it for 150 years and don’t have square kilometers of destroyed soil, what does that tell you?
searine 6y ago
>Isn't the issue that the arable land gets destroyed using the current practices The changes you are citing are miniscule. A rounding error. Older methods absolutely destroyed arable land because they had no robust method of replacing what the crops took besides manure. For example, in the US, as soil east-coast farms were depleted by intensive farming in the 1700s and 1800s, people struck out west for fresh soil. This culminated in the dust-bowl era, and a rethinking of farm management. With modern fertilizer and testing, farmers can replace and renew their soil in detail with the specific macro and micronutrients which are lacking. Furthermore, no-till methods keep the soil anchored in place while more advanced methods of manure and residue use allow for building up organic matter. There isn't any more land. Farmers are no longer migrant. It is in their bests interests to protect the vitality of their soil, and they are doing that.
- modo_mario 6y ago
  I do wonder tho. Are they retaining enough of the phosphates they use with those actions. It still seems like one of those issues that's ignored too much because sources drying up prices going up is still one of those distant future things but i don't know enough bout what's being done.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Phosphates are a chemical, easy to add if needed - for a price. Many soils have far more than needed, so the farmer won't add more. 30 years ago farmers never measured sulfur content of their soils - acid rain replenished it - now the coal has cleaned up their emissions farmers buy sulfur. Farming is still a learning game. When John Deere bought a tractor company they wrote a letter (in 1918) to their dealers stating more or less that tractors are an interesting fad, but the company is well aware that the horse drawn plow will forever be the backbone of the American farm. Note that I said for a price. Farmers who buy that stuff and let it run off lose money in the long run and go bankrupt.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  by that logic, everyone in the "old world" would have stopped farming in 1100/1500. Until about 1870 it wasn't possible to "intensively" farm land. Intensive requires mechanisation. Practically that requires internal combustion engines. Intensive farming started when tractors became cheap enough for everyone to use. As soon as it was practical to plough hundreds of acres in a day, thats when "intensive" was a thing. In the US thats roughly the 20s. The second revolution was cheap pesticides with short half-lives. That was Glyphosate in the 70s.

marcinzm 6y ago

I don't see how that plot implies causality onto fertilizers. Population in the US has grown significantly and urbanization has been a trend for the last century. I'm assuming land converted into housing or suburbs or cities is no longer classified as arable.

refurb 6y ago

I’d love someone more knowledgeable to weigh in, but destroyed seems like an overstatement. There is land in Canada that’s been farmed for coming on 150 years. The last 60-80 being “modern” farming methods. It’s still highly productive land. In terms of your link, it looks like it’s not counted as farmland if it’s abandoned (no intention to farm it in the future). Some of that land may no longer be able to be cultivated, but I’d assume that’s not the only driver of the decrease.

triyambakam 6y ago
150 years and even 60-80 is a short time though considering plots in e.g. SE Asia being farmed for at least a thousand years. What would the long term for conventional farming look like?
- bluGill 6y ago
  Most people in the US/Canada have no information on what was done a few hundred years ago. This is archaeological evidence that before Europeans came the natives were farmers, but disease (large numbers died) and introduction of horses most of the old knowledge of farming was lost even before the old farms were force-ably taken away.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Since "conventional" farming wasn't even a thing until ~50 years ago I'd say about 60 to 80 years sets an upper bound on "long term" w.r.t. "conventional" farming.
- refurb 6y ago
  That’s the question. If we’ve been doing it for 150 years and don’t have square kilometers of destroyed soil, what does that tell you?

searine 6y ago

>Isn't the issue that the arable land gets destroyed using the current practices The changes you are citing are miniscule. A rounding error. Older methods absolutely destroyed arable land because they had no robust method of replacing what the crops took besides manure. For example, in the US, as soil east-coast farms were depleted by intensive farming in the 1700s and 1800s, people struck out west for fresh soil. This culminated in the dust-bowl era, and a rethinking of farm management. With modern fertilizer and testing, farmers can replace and renew their soil in detail with the specific macro and micronutrients which are lacking. Furthermore, no-till methods keep the soil anchored in place while more advanced methods of manure and residue use allow for building up organic matter. There isn't any more land. Farmers are no longer migrant. It is in their bests interests to protect the vitality of their soil, and they are doing that.

modo_mario 6y ago
I do wonder tho. Are they retaining enough of the phosphates they use with those actions. It still seems like one of those issues that's ignored too much because sources drying up prices going up is still one of those distant future things but i don't know enough bout what's being done.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Phosphates are a chemical, easy to add if needed - for a price. Many soils have far more than needed, so the farmer won't add more. 30 years ago farmers never measured sulfur content of their soils - acid rain replenished it - now the coal has cleaned up their emissions farmers buy sulfur. Farming is still a learning game. When John Deere bought a tractor company they wrote a letter (in 1918) to their dealers stating more or less that tractors are an interesting fad, but the company is well aware that the horse drawn plow will forever be the backbone of the American farm. Note that I said for a price. Farmers who buy that stuff and let it run off lose money in the long run and go bankrupt.
KaiserPro 6y ago
by that logic, everyone in the "old world" would have stopped farming in 1100/1500. Until about 1870 it wasn't possible to "intensively" farm land. Intensive requires mechanisation. Practically that requires internal combustion engines. Intensive farming started when tractors became cheap enough for everyone to use. As soon as it was practical to plough hundreds of acres in a day, thats when "intensive" was a thing. In the US thats roughly the 20s. The second revolution was cheap pesticides with short half-lives. That was Glyphosate in the 70s.