4 ms·

>What is the solution? Make it illegal to grow crops in a way that destroys soil? That would be a start. Farming practices that have been known for centuries t

>What is the solution? Make it illegal to grow crops in a way that destroys soil? That would be a start. Farming practices that have been known for centuries to maintain field fertility have been discarded because it reduces average annual yield (and thus, profits). It's been artificially propped up by the use of nitrogen rich fertilizer, but that's a dwindling supply. > "Eat mor Chiken" as the chic-fil'a cows say? Eating less meat and eating more crops directly would improve our odds.

RealityVoid 4y ago
Why do you say nitrogen fertiliser is a dwindling supply?
- lightedman 4y ago
  The majority of synthetic fertilizers are produced from oil and gas products. Recent events have put some supply constrain on those.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
You mean the organic farming practices that destroyed the Tigris and Euphrates, or the ones that caused the 30's first bowl or many others? We know what causes soul loss. The primary factor is tillage. And if you want to grow food on land without tillage the best way is to use more herbicide and more fertilizer, or to turn it into pasture and raise animals on the land.
- mort96 4y ago
  Why would you assume your parent comments is referring to farming practices from around the gilded age in the USA? Do you think they were more focused on long-term soil health at the cost of short-term profits back then?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  organic farming that caused the dustbowl ?! the modern understanding of organic farming is not related to whatever you are trying to imply and impugn. It is a lazy use of language with an obvious fallacy. One liners like that are common in politics aimed at the under-educated; wrong audience here.
- flangola7 4y ago
  I said centuries, not the 1930s. Industrialization culture upended many tried and true practices that had been used for a millennium and not all of their replacements are equally sustainable, even if they are more efficient in the short term. The best thing society could do for itself is stop obsessing over growth-seeking and find a way to live sustainably again.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Farms in the 1930s were still mostly animal powered and used the same techniques that have been used for thousands of years. From the perspective of the soil, "industrial agriculture" means the plough and monoculture, both of which have been around for over 5000 years. Any replacement for industrial agriculture has to feed 7 billion people without raising prices significantly. Good luck with that.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      That's wrong and obviously so. Established farming practices did not work for 5000 years and then suddenly stop working in the past century. The practices themselves changed. If you want something to search up, there's the increasingly common term "peak fertilizer." > Any replacement for industrial agriculture has to feed 7 billion people without raising prices significantly. Good luck with that. It's 8 billion now. The single most important thing that can be done in that arena is curtail meat consumption. Calories-per-acre are several times higher when the crops are used to feed humans directly rather than the inefficient roundabout of feeding animals then feeding the animals to humans. We will both increase our total food supply and reduce the need for tilling and artificial soil fertilization without having to add a single acre of cropfield. Crops also require much fewer resources (water, electricity, human labor, land area, etc.) to produce and manage than livestock, and do not emit methane.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        Historical breadbaskets such as the Middle East, Egypt, Ethiopia and Mexico did not lose that status in the past 100 years, nor were they destroyed by fertilizer. Today, the breadbaskets of the world are places like North America and the Ukraine that have been under cultivation for less than 500 years. Crop yields have increased substantially in the past century. Established farming practices did not suddenly stop working in the past century.
culopatin 4y ago
>And thus profits. It reduces the supply of food, which will likely cause more land to be used for farming. Also less people can afford a vegetable and can only eat corn syrup. This goes against the push for a growing population. If we had time to first accept and plan around a shrinking population we could afford to use less land or use the current one in a less aggressive way.

RealityVoid 4y ago

Why do you say nitrogen fertiliser is a dwindling supply?

lightedman 4y ago
The majority of synthetic fertilizers are produced from oil and gas products. Recent events have put some supply constrain on those.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

You mean the organic farming practices that destroyed the Tigris and Euphrates, or the ones that caused the 30's first bowl or many others? We know what causes soul loss. The primary factor is tillage. And if you want to grow food on land without tillage the best way is to use more herbicide and more fertilizer, or to turn it into pasture and raise animals on the land.

mort96 4y ago
Why would you assume your parent comments is referring to farming practices from around the gilded age in the USA? Do you think they were more focused on long-term soil health at the cost of short-term profits back then?
mistrial9 4y ago
organic farming that caused the dustbowl ?! the modern understanding of organic farming is not related to whatever you are trying to imply and impugn. It is a lazy use of language with an obvious fallacy. One liners like that are common in politics aimed at the under-educated; wrong audience here.
flangola7 4y ago
I said centuries, not the 1930s. Industrialization culture upended many tried and true practices that had been used for a millennium and not all of their replacements are equally sustainable, even if they are more efficient in the short term. The best thing society could do for itself is stop obsessing over growth-seeking and find a way to live sustainably again.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Farms in the 1930s were still mostly animal powered and used the same techniques that have been used for thousands of years. From the perspective of the soil, "industrial agriculture" means the plough and monoculture, both of which have been around for over 5000 years. Any replacement for industrial agriculture has to feed 7 billion people without raising prices significantly. Good luck with that.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    That's wrong and obviously so. Established farming practices did not work for 5000 years and then suddenly stop working in the past century. The practices themselves changed. If you want something to search up, there's the increasingly common term "peak fertilizer." > Any replacement for industrial agriculture has to feed 7 billion people without raising prices significantly. Good luck with that. It's 8 billion now. The single most important thing that can be done in that arena is curtail meat consumption. Calories-per-acre are several times higher when the crops are used to feed humans directly rather than the inefficient roundabout of feeding animals then feeding the animals to humans. We will both increase our total food supply and reduce the need for tilling and artificial soil fertilization without having to add a single acre of cropfield. Crops also require much fewer resources (water, electricity, human labor, land area, etc.) to produce and manage than livestock, and do not emit methane.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      Historical breadbaskets such as the Middle East, Egypt, Ethiopia and Mexico did not lose that status in the past 100 years, nor were they destroyed by fertilizer. Today, the breadbaskets of the world are places like North America and the Ukraine that have been under cultivation for less than 500 years. Crop yields have increased substantially in the past century. Established farming practices did not suddenly stop working in the past century.

culopatin 4y ago

>And thus profits. It reduces the supply of food, which will likely cause more land to be used for farming. Also less people can afford a vegetable and can only eat corn syrup. This goes against the push for a growing population. If we had time to first accept and plan around a shrinking population we could afford to use less land or use the current one in a less aggressive way.