4 ms·
Always be wary of studies conducted by people taking a political assumption and turning it into the basis of their paper. It's not coincidal that said studies
by idownvoted 5y ago
Always be wary of studies conducted by people taking a political assumption and turning it into the basis of their paper.
It's not coincidal that said studies either lack specifics in some areas, while being over-specific in others or are cited in the same manner (leaving out details where it helps the political camp, being over-specific in others).
One can already see this turning up in general rebuttals of agriculture, or citations that leave out the critical detail that soil erosion is caused by corn specifically, not crops in general. Or which kind of geographic reagion was used. Or how well farmes tilled their land (see the picture about erosion down-hill: its just a question of the right tilling-technique to prevent that from happening).
And as a last resort you can always toss it into some meta study to "prove" your point.
- datavirtue 5y agoI have lived in the corn belt my whole life. I was just surprised that anyone might think there is significant topsoil left. The average field is continually beat to hell by machines that create magnificent dust storms twice each season--spraying glyphosate and planting, and then harvest. All the major farmers in my region use no-till but they dump lots of fertilizers and/or must rotate between corn and soya (beans create and accumulate nitrogen at the roots, leaving it behind in the soil for the next crop). All the fields I'm used to are very pale and clayish. Dark soils in newish-virginish soils stand out like a sore thumb and can really only be found in small non-factory fields.