2 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Retric 4y ago
    PS: Just to add. 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! Individual large river delta’s contain hundreds of cubic miles of soil. It’s not a limitless supply, but there is plenty of soil though not topsoil to cover 3 million square miles of the Canadian Shield.

by b112 4y ago

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.
- Retric 4y ago
  PS: Just to add. 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! Individual large river delta’s contain hundreds of cubic miles of soil. It’s not a limitless supply, but there is plenty of soil though not topsoil to cover 3 million square miles of the Canadian Shield.