5 ms·
> returned from ag use for ecological restoration. We don’t really do that. If anything, the opposite now that the land yields more value. Largely we just use
by Scoundreller 4y ago
> returned from ag use for ecological restoration.
We don’t really do that. If anything, the opposite now that the land yields more value.
Largely we just use the excess to feed animals (ie: 90% energy loss) or ethanol/biodiesel (ie: using land as a 2-3% efficient solar panel, along with lots of inputs).
Something like 75% of US corn goes into the above 2.
- epistasis 4y agoWe do that, and actually pay farmers to keep land fallow in some cases. We must have this high leve of productivity before it's even a possibility, but once it's a possibility we can expand its use. The current economic system is changeable, one ag technology allows us to.
- hinkley 4y agoOne of the goals of regenerative agriculture is to get most of the benefits of fallow land while still using the land. From that standpoint, the math about "but you get less yield" is a bit of a non sequitur. I'm changing the divisor in the equation, which is usually how bad logic slips into an argument predicated on numbers.
- nine_k 4y agoCrops on the field are not yet the harvest; grain in a granary is. Harvesting is a very intense process, because the crops need to be collected in the few days when they are best quality and haven't fallen off. Harvesting often occurs around the clock in the season, using monstrous machines. The lower the yield per unit area, the longer it takes to harvest all, the more fuel is spent, and the higher the risk to lose a part of the crops due to harvesting them untimely. Lower-density crops are noticeably more expensive as a result.
- hinkley 4y agoWe are collecting and redistributing grain at a discount and using it for anything we can think of. Highly processed food, grain alcohol, “corn fed beef” which is likely a dietary disaster for humans. Remember, ethanol in gasoline is predominantly about lifting demand for corn in order to court votes from the upper Midwest. We don’t actually need to use corn for fuel. You can feed pigs on grain and nuts that fell before or after harvest. Ten pigs are pretty big harvesting machine. Birds as well. Mark Shepard is claiming about twice the yield per acre of conventional farms. He’s doing this by getting less than half a yield of four+ crops on the same land. The trick to being Mark Shepard is putting enough time and energy into your job to understand a dozen crops instead of hyper specializing in two, as if your neighbors aren’t doing the exact some thing. Now at the end of the day, we still need some staple crops around. That we can stockpile grain for three years and canned food for 18-36 months helps level out boom and bust cycles in agriculture. Good year? Rent warehouse space. Bad year? Let the warehouse lapse, or do invasive maintenance.
- epistasis 4y agoRegenerative agriculture is still a big step down from returning the land to natural ecosystems. Quantifying how big that step is, to the point of being able to pick a point in the pareto curve, is a big political decision. There's definitely a place for a lot lots of regenerative agriculture, but it's one part of a solution.
- tharkun__ 4y agoI'd totally agree w/ this from the "grow corn and then feed cows with it" standpoint. This is doubly bad if you're displacing natural grasslands and grassland grazing with this. I.e. plant corn on your previous grasslands and cram the cows into some barn. This came through HN just recently. Another way to do the same though is to go back to what the big buffalo herds were naturally doing. I.e. let your cows actually "trample and shit on the land" and that's what actually keeps it fertile. Then you harvest the cows for meat while keeping their number stable. Win - win
- Scoundreller 4y agoKinda what Iceland does. Multiple sheep per person. They tag 'em, let 'em roam free and collect them later in the year. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/iceland-welcomes-tourists-to-rettir-its-annual-sheep-roundup https://www.cntraveler.com/story/iceland-welcomes-tourists-t... Same with many random islands explorers came across: they'd leave some livestock so when they came back later they'd have some dense and fresh food ready to harvest. Didn't work so well in Australia. And probably any of the islands most likely.
- bombolo 4y agoThe reason why iceland can't have trees: sheep owners
- nine_k 4y agoIceland actually has some trees. But in that climate they don't grow very tall. Also, much of Iceland is a desert of lava, glass, and black sand; some other parts are covered with ice. Not many plants can survive in such a landscape, and those which do are usually not trees.
- cognaitiv 4y agoDeforestation in Iceland predates industrialization. “Deforestation is a major issue that is highly prevalent throughout the world. The country of Iceland has been hit especially hard by this catastrophe. A nation that once had forests covering 40 percent of its countryside began to lose its tree cover, when the Vikings arrived in the 9th century. By the early 20th century, however, this tree cover was reduced to just 0.5 percent. To this day, the government of Iceland is working towards reviving the lost forests and restoring the land, in order to work towards a more sustainable future. This problem relates to the course of Sustainability for the Common Good because it covers the environmental issue of deforestation as well as the solutions that are being put into play to make the land more sustainable” https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a4e20c53ee77427cb587cb70252f294b https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a4e20c53ee77427cb587cb7...
- skzv 4y agoIndeed. Improvements in efficiency often have the paradoxical effect of increasing resource utilization. This is known as Jevons Paradox [0], and it's been observed in many real world situations. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox