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

Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#21

Post by Waterluvian »

RetroTechie wrote: post #18
mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

The basic problem is one of non-closed loops: Each harvest takes minerals out of the soil (as well as some soil). Regenerative farming may help the soil to replenish some of those minerals by freeing them from the rock portion of soils. But not at the rate harvest-after-harvest removes those. So you need to replace minerals taken out. Industrialized farming does this through minerals mined elsewhere. Which is hardly…

Made me curious so I went looking for information. Incredibly frustrating that almost every high-level source focuses on how the water is cleaned and solids are removed. Removed where? Doesn’t say. Eventually I found one local source that says it’s incinerated. So the human biological cycle doesn’t return the solids to the earth but puts it into the atmosphere? That’s pretty crappy.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#22

Post by _c3ag »

mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone...

[0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature...

seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number of years (to let flora thrive) to later raise corn or soy, which is way less aggressive and with modern practices they (the farms) have lifespans (if well managed) predicted by biologists of almost 100 years. (i worked in one for a brief period of time)

the guy who proposed the "regenerative agriculture" movement always made big money from livestock and at some point even got in-between the government with a freaking study that concluded that they had to kill ~ 40,000 elephants (and they killed) for maintaining the health of the ecosystem.......... ⟨i think if we still made billiard balls out of elephants tusks, i wouldn't be surprised if that guy had a company that made them⟩

if you want to dive in esoteric practices to thrive food and sustainability, go vegan and maybe take a look at stuff like this [which doesn't have any meaningful replication so far]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18773... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_G%C3%B6tsch

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#23

Post by alfred_wram »

_c3ag wrote: post #22
mikewarot wrote: post #6

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone... [0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature... seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number…

This is a more nuanced issue than this comment would lead you to believe. "the guy" is probably referencing Allan Savory, check out his Ted Talk about the elephant story. He gets a lot of undeserved aggression. Here's a link to some of Savory's responses to the Manbiot ("go vegan") perspective - https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#24

Post by RetroTechie »

bluGill wrote: post #20
RetroTechie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? Take a (hand) shovel. Put it into a corn field, and have a look at the soil. Now go to a forest, and do the same. Compare, and you will understand the mechanism, and the extent. Hint: in natural ecosystems, a good portion (if not majority) of all carbon is in the soil not above it. And much of that carbon stays in the soil for a looooong time.

I.have done that, the.forest was unfertile sand just a few cm down while corn fields arw black dirt for as deep as I can dig. The real lesson above is location, I did the above in locations 1000km apart with very different soil profiles. Modern corn farming is mostly done in former tall grass prairie. (Corn is a grass) forests are mostly in former forests you cannot compare anything about them.

True: location is important. Tropical vs. temperate, elevation, rainfall, etc. And of course its composition.

The other lesson is that soils can take a long time to build up (on the order of ~1 cm. per year iirc, if that). Modern agriculture mostly takes from that, tending to leave degraded soils behind.

Some agriculture 'breadbasket' areas are only that because soils there had centuries of relatively little disturbance to build up into a thick, fertile mass.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#25

Post by [deleted] »

alfred_wram wrote: post #23
_c3ag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone... [0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature... seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number…

This is a more nuanced issue than this comment would lead you to believe. "the guy" is probably referencing Allan Savory, check out his Ted Talk about the elephant story. He gets a lot of undeserved aggression. Here's a link to some of Savory's responses to the Manbiot ("go vegan") perspective - https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...

[deleted]

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#26

Post by aaron695 »

gruez wrote: post #17
aaron695 wrote: post #3

The only lesson here is having a local source of nitrogen, which is natural gas and a way to process it for national security. Or the alternative, bulldozer more ecosystems. This is the modus operandi of the CO2 disciples. Zero respect for the environment and people and only the worship of a future rapture ~ a century away. It's also why food waste is feature not a bug. Only in real extremes people starve. Not sure h…

>This is the modus operandi of the CO2 disciples. Zero respect for the environment and people And what is "showing reflect"? letting animals, plants and humans be displaced because of climate change? > only the worship of a future rapture ~ a century away. So to be clear, you are saying climate change is real, but it's fine because it's "~ a century away"? What are we going to do in a century then?

[dead]

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#27

Post by colechristensen »

balderdash wrote: post #13

Isn’t this fairly intuitive? Wouldn’t this be somewhat akin to being surprised that the most productive workers are most affected by power/fuel disruptions?

That it happens, sure. You do a study like this to get the magnitude of the effect to enable folks to make models of this kind of thing which helps pricing and planning for shocks.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#28

Post by colechristensen »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #5
throwagri wrote: post #4

The worst thing is that many countries fail to produce staple food of the population instead depend on other countries and blame them when they fail to secure the produce.

Unlike the economy, food is a zero sum game. Most produce has a limited lifespan, unless you opt to freeze everything, which is not something all consumers desire or buy. This means that most food that leaves the farm must be consumed within a narrow window. Only exporting and importing food from diverse regions will allow you to minimise food waste and therefore have an efficient low-cost market. This also creates c…

Most calories that most people eat come from grains which can be stored for years. This article is about that. The economics of produce are much different.

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#29

Post by _c3ag »

alfred_wram wrote: post #23
_c3ag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone... [0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature... seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number…

This is a more nuanced issue than this comment would lead you to believe. "the guy" is probably referencing Allan Savory, check out his Ted Talk about the elephant story. He gets a lot of undeserved aggression. Here's a link to some of Savory's responses to the Manbiot ("go vegan") perspective - https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...

the person execute a poor study on ecosystem, concludes that 40,000 elephants should be killed to maintain other organisms... and he shouldn't be target of aggression? who knows if their political and military involvement didn't took part on the government liberating that shit! the guy cares _so much_ about life/sustainability that still eat meat/cheese (like mammals other than humans are really primitive creatures) and has livestock under his belt

also, have you read the first link i send? his studies on land regeneration includes areas that were recovering after expelling livestock... this guy and his practice is a joke. not even entering into other sensible topics like animal welfare, production and efficiency of the kingdom plantae/fungi vs. animalia etc.

maybe they should read a bit what science is observing and concluding after hundreds of years of research in something summarized like; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/97814200466...

edit: i mean, sure, everyone makes mistakes. sometimes they cost an entire set of thousands of mammals but the problem is after that, trying to lure consumers into a practice that not even 50 years of research on the subject concluded anything relevant [0] (to the point that we can't even differentiate efficiency between the default way of letting cattle pasture vs. holistic management), shouldn't be other motif to rant?. caring for the environment should be a black and white resolution with the best tools we have right now. life is too precious to fuck just because you want a steak at your table... and we know, for a long time that going vegan is the best way! or at least stop this freaking modern consumerism of animal products.

[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_ce...

Re: Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas

#30

Post by bluGill »

RetroTechie wrote: post #24
bluGill wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.have done that, the.forest was unfertile sand just a few cm down while corn fields arw black dirt for as deep as I can dig. The real lesson above is location, I did the above in locations 1000km apart with very different soil profiles. Modern corn farming is mostly done in former tall grass prairie. (Corn is a grass) forests are mostly in former forests you cannot compare anything about them.

True: location is important. Tropical vs. temperate, elevation, rainfall, etc. And of course its composition. The other lesson is that soils can take a long time to build up (on the order of ~1 cm. per year iirc, if that). Modern agriculture mostly takes from that, tending to leave degraded soils behind. Some agriculture 'breadbasket' areas are only that because soils there had centuries of relatively little disturba…

Modern agriculture.build soil at the rate of about 1mm per year. Up until the 1930s it was really bad, but science has been looking at soil since then and that has gotten out to progressive farmers. Even the typical farmer who is more traditional has learned a lot and maintains existing soil.

I doubt there is anything that will build soil at 1cm per year that us sustainable (you can maybe do that rate by taking good soil and moving it)

Post reply on HN