3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - b112 4y ago
      but rarely the only option. Unless you do crazy things, there is more land suitable for grazing only, than not. And doing crazy things makes zero sense in the context of this conversation, which was about how cattle are all some land is good for. Your argument seems to boil down to "well, we could literally move mountains of dirt, or perform massive terraforming projects on useless soil!," well of course, and so what. It doesn't make you correct, because this sort of discussion is senseless in the context we were discussing. Take the soil example, yes it would be billions per 100 acres, because on that scale (the Canadian shield) you'd either have to desoil massive amounts of usable farmless, or start grinding rock and creating new topsoil from that... so current market prices are meaningless! And if you were going to do that, why not just proclaim that the sahara is perfect farmland too, but of course you'd have to dig irrigation ditches, setup trillion dollar desalination plants, but hey I'm sure you'd chime in too, when someone says desert sand isn't good cropland too?!?!? No buddy, desert isn't good for growing corn. (I can hear you... But! But, you only have to...)
      - Retric 4y ago
        Nobody is grazing cattle in the Sahara. They did graze it next to their which is one of the reasons it’s expanded so far. That said, farmers are actually reclaiming land at the borders from the desert which isn’t possible with herding, in other words much of this land is only viable for farming. Your 50% benchmark in terms of land is really not a function of each individual acre of land on it’s own. The southwest as a whole needs vastly more irrigation than is available, but which specific bit of land becomes farmland and which but is used to graze cattle is very arbitrary. The parts that do grow crops generally have more to do with water rights and which bits are federal land than the actual land it’s self. Conversely a lot of US farmland is more sustainable for grazing, but the giant aquifer is a temporary solution.

by b112 4y ago

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.
  - b112 4y ago
    but rarely the only option. Unless you do crazy things, there is more land suitable for grazing only, than not. And doing crazy things makes zero sense in the context of this conversation, which was about how cattle are all some land is good for. Your argument seems to boil down to "well, we could literally move mountains of dirt, or perform massive terraforming projects on useless soil!," well of course, and so what. It doesn't make you correct, because this sort of discussion is senseless in the context we were discussing. Take the soil example, yes it would be billions per 100 acres, because on that scale (the Canadian shield) you'd either have to desoil massive amounts of usable farmless, or start grinding rock and creating new topsoil from that... so current market prices are meaningless! And if you were going to do that, why not just proclaim that the sahara is perfect farmland too, but of course you'd have to dig irrigation ditches, setup trillion dollar desalination plants, but hey I'm sure you'd chime in too, when someone says desert sand isn't good cropland too?!?!? No buddy, desert isn't good for growing corn. (I can hear you... But! But, you only have to...)
    - Retric 4y ago
      Nobody is grazing cattle in the Sahara. They did graze it next to their which is one of the reasons it’s expanded so far. That said, farmers are actually reclaiming land at the borders from the desert which isn’t possible with herding, in other words much of this land is only viable for farming. Your 50% benchmark in terms of land is really not a function of each individual acre of land on it’s own. The southwest as a whole needs vastly more irrigation than is available, but which specific bit of land becomes farmland and which but is used to graze cattle is very arbitrary. The parts that do grow crops generally have more to do with water rights and which bits are federal land than the actual land it’s self. Conversely a lot of US farmland is more sustainable for grazing, but the giant aquifer is a temporary solution.