3 ms·

Fertility isn't "free". You pull nutrients out of the soil whenever you harvest.

by tagami 3y ago

tfourb 3y ago
Simply not true. Many plants accumulate surplus nutrients in their root systems or provide the required support for the soil life that sequesters nutrients in the soil. All of that remains in the soil when you harvest the plant, if you are not dump enough to destroy the soil live by tilling, which sadly is currently the norm in industrialized agriculture. If fertility isn't free, who the f*ck would something like succession happen, which is the norm in nature and can turn barren land into perennial forests. EDITED TO ADD: This is the reason why agriculture before the advent of chemical fertilizers (in the 1900s) was even possible. You'd simply rotate your crops so that they'd create a balanced nutrition profile in the soil without the need to add a lot of external fertility. Edge cases like the Nile floodplains excepted.
- biorach 3y ago
  >> Fertility isn't "free". You pull nutrients out of the soil whenever you harvest. > Simply not true. Many plants accumulate surplus nutrients in their root systems or provide the required support for the soil live that sequesters nutrients in the soil. All of that remains in the soil when you harvest the plant, That's inaccurate and simplistic. _Some_ plants generate _some_ nutrients in the soil. The most common example being legumes (in symbiosis with bacteria) fixing atmospheric nitrogen into a form essential for plant life. However all plants have complex nutrient needs. So even those that contribute something to the soil will remove other nutrients. In the example of legumes, to simplify, if the whole plant is harvested, they will have made a net contribution of nitrogen, but the soil will still be depleted of e.g. Phosphorous and Potassium. > if you are not dump enough to destroy the soil live by tilling, which sadly is currently the norm in industrialized agriculture. It's not a dumb approach, it can make sense. And it does not "destroy" the soil. Yes it _can_ cause leeching, soil erosion and depletion of some nutrients, but all these ill effects can be dramatically lessened by good practice. In Europe we have soils that have been tilled intermittently for millenia and are still productive.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    It is dump enough that it is now actively discouraged by German ag-extension services, if an alternative soil preparation/seeding method is available.
    - biorach 3y ago
      Again, "dumb" is not a great word to use here. Up until recently there were not realistic alternatives that would provide any kind of decent yield for many crops. Yes, with modern tilling machinery there are now alternatives available in some situations (min-till, disc only etc) which can avoid some of the potential ill effects of tilling.
      - tfourb 3y ago
        The type of intensive and regular tilling currently practiced in industrialized agriculture is part of a system that relies on the cheap availability of chemical fertilizers and pest control, which in turn were supported by the political and social developments at the time. Research and development of alternative farming systems were almost abandoned for decades and crops that took advantage of the chemical fertilization/tilling approach were prioritized to the point that we now essentially farm only a handful of different crop strains. Within this system, you are correct, no alternatives existed. But that doesn't mean that it made a lot of sense and that there weren't plenty of early warning signs that other approaches should be explored.

Fertility isn't "free". You pull nutrients out of the soil whenever you harvest.

by tagami 3y ago

Fertility isn't "free". You pull nutrients out of the soil whenever you harvest.

Simply not true. Many plants accumulate surplus nutrients in their root systems or provide the required support for the soil life that sequesters nutrients in the soil. All of that remains in the soil when you harvest the plant, if you are not dump enough to destroy the soil live by tilling, which sadly is currently the norm in industrialized agriculture. If fertility isn't free, who the f*ck would something like succession happen, which is the norm in nature and can turn barren land into perennial forests. EDITED TO ADD: This is the reason why agriculture before the advent of chemical fertilizers (in the 1900s) was even possible. You'd simply rotate your crops so that they'd create a balanced nutrition profile in the soil without the need to add a lot of external fertility. Edge cases like the Nile floodplains excepted.

biorach 3y ago
>> Fertility isn't "free". You pull nutrients out of the soil whenever you harvest. > Simply not true. Many plants accumulate surplus nutrients in their root systems or provide the required support for the soil live that sequesters nutrients in the soil. All of that remains in the soil when you harvest the plant, That's inaccurate and simplistic. _Some_ plants generate _some_ nutrients in the soil. The most common example being legumes (in symbiosis with bacteria) fixing atmospheric nitrogen into a form essential for plant life. However all plants have complex nutrient needs. So even those that contribute something to the soil will remove other nutrients. In the example of legumes, to simplify, if the whole plant is harvested, they will have made a net contribution of nitrogen, but the soil will still be depleted of e.g. Phosphorous and Potassium. > if you are not dump enough to destroy the soil live by tilling, which sadly is currently the norm in industrialized agriculture. It's not a dumb approach, it can make sense. And it does not "destroy" the soil. Yes it _can_ cause leeching, soil erosion and depletion of some nutrients, but all these ill effects can be dramatically lessened by good practice. In Europe we have soils that have been tilled intermittently for millenia and are still productive.
- tfourb 3y ago
  It is dump enough that it is now actively discouraged by German ag-extension services, if an alternative soil preparation/seeding method is available.
  - biorach 3y ago
    Again, "dumb" is not a great word to use here. Up until recently there were not realistic alternatives that would provide any kind of decent yield for many crops. Yes, with modern tilling machinery there are now alternatives available in some situations (min-till, disc only etc) which can avoid some of the potential ill effects of tilling.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      The type of intensive and regular tilling currently practiced in industrialized agriculture is part of a system that relies on the cheap availability of chemical fertilizers and pest control, which in turn were supported by the political and social developments at the time. Research and development of alternative farming systems were almost abandoned for decades and crops that took advantage of the chemical fertilization/tilling approach were prioritized to the point that we now essentially farm only a handful of different crop strains. Within this system, you are correct, no alternatives existed. But that doesn't mean that it made a lot of sense and that there weren't plenty of early warning signs that other approaches should be explored.