6 ms·

The whole point of GP's post is that you can't grow corn everywhere. There is some soil that only supports grass, and the most efficient way to extract nutriti

The whole point of GP's post is that you can't grow corn everywhere. There is some soil that only supports grass, and the most efficient way to extract nutritional value from this land is through grazing animals.

Retric 4y ago
Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. The availability of irrigation is largely a solvable problem. In the US for example the east coast, Alaska etc gets plenty of fresh water which just ends up in the ocean.
- ledauphin 4y ago
  kind of ironic that this discussion seems to have come full circle w/r/t to unsustainable irrigation...
  - Retric 4y ago
    Unsustainable irrigation is just cheaper than sustainable irrigation. It doesn’t mean unsustainable irrigation is the only option.
- b112 4y ago
  Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. No, it does not. In this context, 'grow' means 'in a usable fashion'. Rocky, hilly soil isn't tillable, is impossible to harvest en mass, and results in poor outcomes. It's almost like you've never farmed, and are making statements based upon theory, instead of real world usage cases. Whatever agenda you have, please stop trying to claim that all soil is good for corn. Even beyond that, there are places corn cannot grow. Period. Ever. For example, in many parts of Canada, the season is too short for corn to mature! Hay and other such things grow there, and such land is good for cattle too.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Not all crops involve tilling soil, some orchards are in extremely rocky hilly areas. It’s one of the reasons olive trees are so associated with Italy. Anyway, preparing an area for cultivation is a one time cost. People actually grow crops in areas you consider impossible because someone already put the effort possibly thousands of years ago even if it’s not currently economically viable. Terraces also work in hilly areas, though building them is expensive. Removing stones from fields is the origin of field stone houses and quite a few stone fences at property lines. The degree of effort required can be huge but at the extreme end people plant orchards in areas that are covered in boulders. For places where none of that effort is worth it, lumber is still a viable crop as long as it gets enough rain.
    - b112 4y ago
      You're changing the context of the argument, from "growing stuff people eat" to "growing stuff for grazing, because it makes no sense to grow crops there". Yes, you can grow crops anywhere, on the moon, in shipping containers, in your basement, and yes on terraces and if you spare no expense to change the land. But all of that is silly and absurd, and not part of the context of this discussion. Some of it just is not possible in any sane fashion. Some of the land you think is just "move a few rocks and it's fine, like people used to do" is not even remotely accurate or true. We're talking about hilly, rocky land, with 1" of topsoil (Canadian Shield), with poor soil. This land is what you throw a goat or cattle at. It's not something you import billions of dollars of topsoil per 100 acres, to make usable. I honestly don't get your argument here.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I was responding to how to maximize use of land. Grazing is low investment for low returns, but rarely the only option. I am explicitly not saying significant investment is economically viable, we have a vast surplus of farmland. That said, historically people would improve land because they had a labor surplus and few options for long term investments. We are living in a world where thousands of years of such decisions has made some real changes to various landscapes. Much of Asia is covered in terraces because they preferred really flat areas for rice fields and had a huge labor surplus. That’s a legacy I think worth remembering rather than the focus on who was in charge over the course of history. As to adding topsoil that’s closer to 10 million per 100 acres. Dirt’s very cheap in bulk though transportation long distances isn’t. Nowhere near viable when farmland is cheap and the Canadian Shield is that cold. But orders of magnitude better than you where suggesting.

Retric 4y ago

Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. The availability of irrigation is largely a solvable problem. In the US for example the east coast, Alaska etc gets plenty of fresh water which just ends up in the ocean.

ledauphin 4y ago
kind of ironic that this discussion seems to have come full circle w/r/t to unsustainable irrigation...
- Retric 4y ago
  Unsustainable irrigation is just cheaper than sustainable irrigation. It doesn’t mean unsustainable irrigation is the only option.
b112 4y ago
Irrigation lets you grow corn or other crops just about anywhere. No, it does not. In this context, 'grow' means 'in a usable fashion'. Rocky, hilly soil isn't tillable, is impossible to harvest en mass, and results in poor outcomes. It's almost like you've never farmed, and are making statements based upon theory, instead of real world usage cases. Whatever agenda you have, please stop trying to claim that all soil is good for corn. Even beyond that, there are places corn cannot grow. Period. Ever. For example, in many parts of Canada, the season is too short for corn to mature! Hay and other such things grow there, and such land is good for cattle too.
- Retric 4y ago
  Not all crops involve tilling soil, some orchards are in extremely rocky hilly areas. It’s one of the reasons olive trees are so associated with Italy. Anyway, preparing an area for cultivation is a one time cost. People actually grow crops in areas you consider impossible because someone already put the effort possibly thousands of years ago even if it’s not currently economically viable. Terraces also work in hilly areas, though building them is expensive. Removing stones from fields is the origin of field stone houses and quite a few stone fences at property lines. The degree of effort required can be huge but at the extreme end people plant orchards in areas that are covered in boulders. For places where none of that effort is worth it, lumber is still a viable crop as long as it gets enough rain.
  - b112 4y ago
    You're changing the context of the argument, from "growing stuff people eat" to "growing stuff for grazing, because it makes no sense to grow crops there". Yes, you can grow crops anywhere, on the moon, in shipping containers, in your basement, and yes on terraces and if you spare no expense to change the land. But all of that is silly and absurd, and not part of the context of this discussion. Some of it just is not possible in any sane fashion. Some of the land you think is just "move a few rocks and it's fine, like people used to do" is not even remotely accurate or true. We're talking about hilly, rocky land, with 1" of topsoil (Canadian Shield), with poor soil. This land is what you throw a goat or cattle at. It's not something you import billions of dollars of topsoil per 100 acres, to make usable. I honestly don't get your argument here.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I was responding to how to maximize use of land. Grazing is low investment for low returns, but rarely the only option. I am explicitly not saying significant investment is economically viable, we have a vast surplus of farmland. That said, historically people would improve land because they had a labor surplus and few options for long term investments. We are living in a world where thousands of years of such decisions has made some real changes to various landscapes. Much of Asia is covered in terraces because they preferred really flat areas for rice fields and had a huge labor surplus. That’s a legacy I think worth remembering rather than the focus on who was in charge over the course of history. As to adding topsoil that’s closer to 10 million per 100 acres. Dirt’s very cheap in bulk though transportation long distances isn’t. Nowhere near viable when farmland is cheap and the Canadian Shield is that cold. But orders of magnitude better than you where suggesting.