3 ms·
I initially copied the wrong number, the correct number is 1mm per year, coming from a Unas Amherst study not Smil’s book. It’s high vs pre industrial rates, bu
by ch4s3 6mo ago
I initially copied the wrong number, the correct number is 1mm per year, coming from a Unas Amherst study not Smil’s book. It’s high vs pre industrial rates, but not catastrophic and as Smil points out there are plenty of places where land being farmed industrially is gaining soil.
- greenie_beans 6mo agoglad we're working from the same figure now. 1mm per year is not insignificant, and soil is not a renewable resource... probably a fine amount of soil loss for a farmer's lifetime, but a land manager needs to think over centuries and not in profit cycles. > and as Smil points out there are plenty of places where land being farmed industrially is gaining soil. i would bet at least $100 this happens where they do cover crops and actually manage the soil as a resource to be preserved
- ch4s3 6mo agoThats 1mm in the upper Midwest around the Great Lakes, wind is doubtless a factor. You can’t generalize to all industrial ag from a dozen sites in 3 geographically similar states.
- greenie_beans 6mo agowind is definitely a factor, especially after you remove all the plant life through tillage and herbicide!
- ch4s3 6mo agoRight, but tillage is not a set in stone practice. The Nebraska Corn Board is now advocating no-til corn planting[1]. Apparently it's already dominant in Western Canada and more than half of Montana cropland is managed without tilling. Herbicide is a whole different discussion and probably too deep a rabbit hole so far down thread. [1] https://nebraskacorn.gov/cornstalk/corn101/what-is-no-till-farming-and-what-are-the-advantages/ https://nebraskacorn.gov/cornstalk/corn101/what-is-no-till-f...
- greenie_beans 6mo agoagreed on no-till! seeing it at scale is promising
- ch4s3 6mo agoThis is a large reason I see erosion as a non issue long term.