Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#31

Post by throwaway894345 »

snarf21 wrote: post #19
gumby wrote: post #2

Modern farming is not the bucolic system drawn on the food packages in the supermarket. It's an extractive industry little different from mining or oil drilling. In fact industrial food is largely eating oil, both in energy intensity itself and the use of oil as feedstock for fertilizers and food additives.

I'm not worried about the soil, I'm worried about the water. The Ogallala Aquifer is shrinking. The more it shrinks, the more there will be compaction preventing it from refilling to previous states. We can always grow food in water but getting clean water will be an increasingly difficult task. Look how bad it already is in CA.

It seems to me that aquifers aren't sustainable water sources to begin with--we shouldn't treat them as a primary water source, but rather as a reserve source for scarce years. On the other hand, topsoil could be sustainable (at least for very large time scales) provided it's properly managed.

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#32

Post by searine »

milkytron wrote: post #15
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #10

These topsoil crisis stories have been running since the 1930s, and are still nonsense. Modern farming doesn't depend on soil nutrients. The soil is tested, then minerals and petrochemical fertilizers are added. The soil is basically a growing medium.

Wasn't the dust bowl caused by topsoil degradation? That seemed like a very substantial crises for wide swaths of the country's population.

>Wasn't the dust bowl caused by topsoil degradation?

No. It was caused by extensive deep tillage as method of pest control.

We have better tools and methods now.

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#33

Post by [deleted] »

nuisance-bear wrote: post #7
gumby wrote: post #2

Modern farming is not the bucolic system drawn on the food packages in the supermarket. It's an extractive industry little different from mining or oil drilling. In fact industrial food is largely eating oil, both in energy intensity itself and the use of oil as feedstock for fertilizers and food additives.

Maybe we shouldn't burn ethanol in cars. Maybe we shouldn't load up every food product with corn syrup.

[deleted]

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#34

Post by sp332 »

milkytron wrote: post #15
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #10

These topsoil crisis stories have been running since the 1930s, and are still nonsense. Modern farming doesn't depend on soil nutrients. The soil is tested, then minerals and petrochemical fertilizers are added. The soil is basically a growing medium.

Wasn't the dust bowl caused by topsoil degradation? That seemed like a very substantial crises for wide swaths of the country's population.

It was caused by lack of cover plants. Farms are using cover crops like ryegrass more because it helps keep water in the soil better.

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#35

Post by Edman274 »

milkytron wrote: post #15
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #10

These topsoil crisis stories have been running since the 1930s, and are still nonsense. Modern farming doesn't depend on soil nutrients. The soil is tested, then minerals and petrochemical fertilizers are added. The soil is basically a growing medium.

Wasn't the dust bowl caused by topsoil degradation? That seemed like a very substantial crises for wide swaths of the country's population.

"These topsoil crisis stories have been running ever since that time that topsoil crisis killed thousands and caused widespread food insecurity. Utter hogwash. Well, it would be hogwash if any of the hogs had anything to eat."

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#36

Post by selimthegrim »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #13
selimthegrim wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarah Taber covers this very well on her Twitter (even though she has a particular anti-dairy ax to grind)

There is more than one twitter account that comes up when you search for that name. I assume you mean this one (whom I happen to be following already and didn't realize it): https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww

Yes that’s her.

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#38

Post by tastyfreeze »

snarf21 wrote: post #19
gumby wrote: post #2

Modern farming is not the bucolic system drawn on the food packages in the supermarket. It's an extractive industry little different from mining or oil drilling. In fact industrial food is largely eating oil, both in energy intensity itself and the use of oil as feedstock for fertilizers and food additives.

I'm not worried about the soil, I'm worried about the water. The Ogallala Aquifer is shrinking. The more it shrinks, the more there will be compaction preventing it from refilling to previous states. We can always grow food in water but getting clean water will be an increasingly difficult task. Look how bad it already is in CA.

You should be worried about soil. Increasing the soil organic matter improves its water holding capacity, improves tilth and increases infiltration rate. In turn that decreases how much water is needed for crops in dry times and allows recharging of aquifers.

With the currently degraded soil, farmers worry about a couple inches of rain causing washouts or flash floods. Water runs over the top of the soil into surface waterways. Healthy soil can infiltrate many inches of rain an hour.

Infiltration example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDY35gGBkA

Longer soil health vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBnsgzeNIng

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#39

Post by wnevets »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #29
nuisance-bear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we shouldn't burn ethanol in cars. Maybe we shouldn't load up every food product with corn syrup.

Corn in the US is heavily subsidized. It's why corn syrup is so prevalent in US foods, because the subsidies mean it's cheaper than any other sources of sugar. In the US, Iowa is the largest producer of corn [1] (producing nearly 40% more than the next, Illinois,) and thus the greatest beneficiary of those corn subsidies. Could we reduce those corn subsidies? No, it's politically nonviable, in part because Iowa has e…

> Corn in the US is heavily subsidized.

So is oil. So farming corn is actually subsidized at-least twice!

Re: The U.S. corn belt has lost a third of its topsoil

#40

Post by failrate »

Spooky23 wrote: post #4
gumby wrote: post #2

Modern farming is not the bucolic system drawn on the food packages in the supermarket. It's an extractive industry little different from mining or oil drilling. In fact industrial food is largely eating oil, both in energy intensity itself and the use of oil as feedstock for fertilizers and food additives.

Exactly. I worked on a farm in my teens in 90s upstate ny that was like the last dying breath of the traditional family farm. It was a property that was intact since a land grant from a Dutch patroon and continuously farmed until around 2000. Today the family still owns it, and boards a few horses to pay the taxes. The farmer was an old-school conservative farmer. He was a local Republican Party leader for awhile, a…

This is a romanticized view of the small family farm. Our farmibg practices in the US were imported from Europe and were not adapted to our climates. Settlers spread like locusts across land that was so fertile that even if they didn't know what to do, the soil would rescue them. Until it was finally so used up that it couldn't support crops.
Post reply on HN