3 ms·

> yields to match or beat chemical farming Is it true? "Chemical farming" only happened because the yields were better. Much better. What were farmers doing wr

> yields to match or beat chemical farming Is it true? "Chemical farming" only happened because the yields were better. Much better. What were farmers doing wrong? This sounds like another "we don't count fallow fields in the divisor" hustle. I'd love to be wrong. > Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed How do you control for herd immunity? One pesticide-free field will never see a locust plague, a thousand pesticide-free fields absolutely will. > government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs Is this really an anti-intervention argument or is it an attempt to frame the absence of steep fines on fertilizers and pesticides as a subsidy?

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Chemical farming happened because the bomb makers wanted to continue selling ammonia and giving ammonia to plants does make them grow big. But, it is a shortcut and destroys the symbiotic relationship with the soil life. Initially the soil still had a lot of organic matter and life in it and it only took a small amount of fertilizer. After killing the soil life there is no nitrogen, carbon, or phosphorus cycle, the OM erodes away, and the remaining dirt becomes compacted. As the soil degrades it has taken continually more fertilizer to keep yields up. Pesticides destroy the food chain. They kill pests and their predators which makes it easier for the pests to thrive. Predators keep pest populations in check but do not eliminate them. Fining the use of fertilizers and pesticides would be disastrous. If fertilizers and pesticides are seen as the sole way to grow all of our food the government will absolutely try to step in and pay for a portion or all of the fertilizers and pesticides as prices increase. This is the only way that chemical farming will remain dominant. It is simply becoming too costly to continue chemical farming. Like I said before, the best course is to just let the transition happen at the rate that it happens.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

Chemical farming happened because the bomb makers wanted to continue selling ammonia and giving ammonia to plants does make them grow big. But, it is a shortcut and destroys the symbiotic relationship with the soil life. Initially the soil still had a lot of organic matter and life in it and it only took a small amount of fertilizer. After killing the soil life there is no nitrogen, carbon, or phosphorus cycle, the OM erodes away, and the remaining dirt becomes compacted. As the soil degrades it has taken continually more fertilizer to keep yields up. Pesticides destroy the food chain. They kill pests and their predators which makes it easier for the pests to thrive. Predators keep pest populations in check but do not eliminate them. Fining the use of fertilizers and pesticides would be disastrous. If fertilizers and pesticides are seen as the sole way to grow all of our food the government will absolutely try to step in and pay for a portion or all of the fertilizers and pesticides as prices increase. This is the only way that chemical farming will remain dominant. It is simply becoming too costly to continue chemical farming. Like I said before, the best course is to just let the transition happen at the rate that it happens.