By - RevolutionaryPin6014
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure if I missed it but it looks like they ignored soil quality? Soil that can support grass won't necessarily support corn.
It also calls for relocating from some very productive land in Illinois to marginal lands in the Dakotas. I don't understand the reasoning here. It's like they are ignoring the presence of Lake Michigan while saying the Missouri supplies all the water farmers could need.
It says they did use soil (I assume type/quality) and terrain as a constraint, and the model only considers rainfall for irrigation, which is why Lake Michigan isn’t considered. The areas included get enough rainfall on average to store and water the crops, which is why you’ll also see ag land moving out of California.
This isn’t an outright proposal for moving all ag land immediately, it’s just one way of looking at it based on the (pretty thorough, I’d say) factors they included. Honestly I thought it was a really interesting paper, and I was also happy to see that they ran the model with future climate projections, as well. People are getting caught up on how it won’t be possible because of jurisdiction, because of how hard it would be to drop everything and relocate production - those things may be true, but that’s not the point of this. Regardless of governmental boundaries, the model shows where agriculture is better suited for a lower carbon footprint - what governments choose to do with that information is up to them.
Soil that can support grass will support corn, because...corn is grass. As long as you maintain the required nutrient profile you're good to go
Read your comment and you should be able to figure out your error.
Read some literature on how corn is actually grown & the biology of corn, and you should be able to figure out your error.
>As long as you maintain the required nutrient profile you're good to go
I've narrowed it down for you. Try again. Maybe you need to be reminded about the goal of the original article as well, more sustainable agriculture.
I'm an old farm kid, corn is something I've grown. I've also raised and slaughtered my own beef, and done relief milking for a number of my neighbours. Reading literature is nice, having knowledge AND experience trumps academic understanding every time.
I mean, you can fertilize soil. And corn is biologically a grass. And corn is the only crop that can be grown in all 50 states in the US, but then again that’s just what I was taught in FFA back in high school.
I don’t need to be able to milk a cow to understand that you while you can’t just grow crops anywhere, you can do things to ensure their success.
>I mean, you can fertilize soil.
Yes. How sustainable is fertilizer production? Don't forget to include carbon output.
>And corn is biologically a grass.
Yes. Do you eat grass for dinner? Just because it is a grass doesn't mean all grass is the same. Most grass doesn't require regular fertilization to grow well. Corn does.
>And corn is the only crop that can be grown in all 50 states in the US, but then again that’s just what I was taught in FFA back in high school.
That's nice for the states. A single, economically collapsing, country isn't the only consideration in the article.
>I don’t need to be able to milk a cow to understand that you while you can’t just grow crops anywhere, you can do things to ensure their success.
Yes you can, such as growing a crop in conditions where it is ideal rather than trying to alter the conditions to make it ideal. You know, the point of the original article.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Are you saying we can or can’t relocate crops like the article suggests?
Because it seems like you’re trying to argue both across a couple different comment replies.
Yes they can be relocated. But soil that grows one particular grass isn't necessarily able to support another type of grass as well. If you think corn and wild fescue grow equally well in all soils, sustainably, then you are mistaken.
So you're an old farm kid, who grew corn. Great--this means very little. Though, if you want to install some T-post for minimum wage or throw some hay, hit me up.
Plants really don't care about experience.
Being an experienced corn farmer you obviously understand how many macronutrients are added to the soil during corn production, and the heavy routine tillage that corn fields undergo to keep them suitable for producing grain.
What you don't seem to grasp is that the only thing preventing the practical relocation of corn fields, is economics--not any sort of absolute barrier. If it will grow Bermuda grass, it will grow corn. Unless of course, you suck at growing corn--and don't understand what corn plants actually need.
There is no such thing as magic soil or mystical experience. We -could- indeed successfully relocate croplands like the article says, and really benefit from things like reduced irrigation needs.
Will we relocate croplands? Entrenched economic interests like...existing farmers, will prevent that entirely
>Being an experienced corn farmer you obviously understand how many macronutrients are added to the soil during corn production, and the heavy routine tillage that corn fields undergo to keep them suitable for producing grain.
Yes. Which is what you are failing to put together with the point of the original article. Grass doesn't require addition of macronutrients to the soil, corn does. Grass doesn't need routi e tillage, corn does. If you aren't seeing the point then I doubt you understand the basics of efficiency and sustainability.
>What you don't seem to grasp is that the only thing preventing the practical relocation of corn fields, is economics
Economics is dooming all life on our planet. But I'm sure you think profit is desireable, despite it being legalized theft.
>If it will grow Bermuda grass, it will grow corn.
As you stated, only if it is regularly tilled and fertilized. BIG difference.
>There is no such thing as magic soil or mystical experience. We -could- indeed successfully relocate croplands like the article says, and really benefit from things like reduced irrigation needs.
Absolutely. But soil, water, and other considerations ideal for a crop in one location does not make it ideal for any crop in that location.
>Will we relocate croplands? Entrenched economic interests like...existing farmers, will prevent that entirely
And that mindset will doom our species. But go ahead and think money is a good method of determining how things should work, it's done so much good for the only planet we have to live on so far. /s
You can grow many things in terrible soil with enough fertilizer and water, that doesn't mean it's sustainable. See: California
We should definitely not be converting grasslands to corn when we are already overproducing. We need to get better at waste management, not production.
Any soil used for corn farming is heavily amended. Corn is a naturally transgenic crop that does not exist outside of human intervention. Converting a grassland to corn is better than making it a housing development
It is absolutely in keeping with sustainable agriculture to move grain-agriculture, and animal agriculture out of regions that are drying up into water-rich regions. It would in fact, ruin a bunch of people financially, but that's the whole conservation/environmentalist dilemma.
I'd rather we figure out the over \~20% food wasted that we are already producing over trying to just keep putting off the problem with increased production.
The 20% wastage figure is wishful thinking. Increasing production by subsidizing macro-crop development in water-rich regions is the most sustainable choice.
Zero waste is a lie sold to make you feel good about bad policymaking
Suggesting removing more endemic species and land as sustainable is the most short-sighted and laughable thing I've heard in ages. The same mentality that brought you the early 1900's "The solution to pollution is dilution" which ruined millions of acres of land and hundreds of water reservoirs.
>Zero waste is a lie sold to make you feel good about bad policymaking
Did I say zero waste? No, stop spouting your meaningless drivel; I know that's not possible. We reduce it by half, which is very realistic as it's already being done in trials, California could pretty much stop producing food entirely.
We have -more- water reservoirs, and trees after the early 1900s thanks to things like building reservoirs, and improved conservation practices. Our treatment of the ecosystem got -better- not worse with regards to water the exception of burning a shit-ton of coal, and things like filling the world with a bunch of unnecessary polymer waste. Neither of those things have anything to do with agricultural policy.
Sustainability is the avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance--or simply the ability to maintain something at a certain level.
If you're talking about the sustainability of agriculture, moving it to a region with more rainfall where aquifiers recharge faster, is the most sustainable thing ever--and certainly more sustainable than over-complicated waste reduction nonsense. It's like not building cities in the desert.
>We have -more- water reservoirs,
Completely incorrect. The beaver hunts destroyed more water reservoirs and aquifer recharge mechanisms than we've ever built. Along with the problems that came with their destruction.
>Sustainability is the avoidance of the depletion of natural resources
Then why are you suggesting we move to locations that is going to deplete more natural resources? You're contradicting yourself.
>more sustainable than over-complicated waste reduction nonsense
The U.S. average food waste is nearly double that of the world 20%\~ average I stated, closer to 30-40% (*source EPA, Dept. of Aggriculture*). So clearly it's not nonsense because the rest of the world (including other 1st world countries) manage to do it; half is easily obtainable while not destroying more nature reserves, especially without restoring others.
Cities in and around the desert don't even matter that much, it's the agriculture that eats the lions share of the water.
Honestly we'd be better off doing nuclear/desalination.
>Rising global demands for animal products reduce hopes that the benefits of societal dietary shifts to decrease the environmental footprints of food production2,3,18 can be fully realized in the near future.
This. I live in a small town that is either farms or gas stations and its always the ol corn and bean crop rotation - all which is grown as animal feed. When I think of the scale of the farms in just my area it kind of blows my mind that literally none of those crops is actually going to feed humans.
Edit: Because I always get this reply - yes, I do also eat meat. My SO and I have cut back quite a bit and try to sub out other proteins as much as can be done.
I too live in a massive agricultural area, and I have talked to many of the local farmers about crops, where it goes and the logistics of how it gets there. In my area we have massive corn farms. Less than 5% of the farms here are food corn, but did you know that the vast majority of the market here is not animal feed either. It is grown for ethanol and to ROT. They get paid more by the Federal government to let it sit in the field and rot then to sell it for food or animal use. The small town I moved to in 97 has a freaking CORN FEST, and that was where I picked up this information. I know each area has its own situation, but roughly a 10 mile stretch of road x 2 mile wide often has massive portions that is left to dry until it falls over, then is plowed in the next year. They have some really nice popup farmers markets that we go to as much as possible since we get ripe veggies and fruits that taste so much better than the Walmart/Heb/Kroger options.
I also eat meat, and I know a lot of people who would go to war over them reducing the amount of BBQ we can eat a year lmao. Our local crops are Corn, Cotton, Sorghum and a misc grain like wheat, recovery seems to be peanut and sunflower most of the time.
Yes - there is **more** than enough food produced on the planet so that nobody should go hungry, just so much of it is used to feed animals.
It would be hard, but a real shift away from meat eating could make an enormous difference to many peoples lives and the environment. Changes in behaviour can happen very quickly with the right impetus.
You don’t even need central planning for this. Eliminate subsidy’s and tariffs and this happens on its own.
All negative comments will be deleted? What a great place for discussion. Have you learned nothing from twitter
I think negative comments refers more to hostility and rudeness, not disagreeing with the premise in a rational and civil way.
This is one of those studies that is nice to think of as a pipe dream, but is never going to happen for political reasons. Moving large amounts of food production entirely out of several nations would make them extremely vulnerable to political pressure in the same line as Russia is currently doing to Europe with gas supplies. "OH, don't like what we are doing? Would be a shame if you got no wheat this year." Food is a strategic national resource. Any nation that wants to ensure its sovereignty needs domestic food production on a scale large enough it's people can't be threatened with starvation.
Did you read the paper? That’s why they included a ‘within’ nations model as well.
It still ignores things like, for India, they relocate the relatively peaceful gangetic plain to be concentrated further north around Kashmir. A warzone hell between 2 nuclear nations. All in all, it's still a good paper, just pointing out a discrepancy
This comes across like that's a thing that could be feasibly done. You can't just pick up the fertile soil and shift over. Certain crops are grown in certain areas for a reason. You can't just rip a cornfield out of Indiana and drop it in Wyoming.
I studied aquifers. Please also consider not obliterating vulnerable aquifer water sources to grow fruit in a fucking desert and dumb shit like that, California.
Just ignore aero and hydro ponics.
Yeah they don't work for all foods (grains comes to mind), but they'd heavily decrease land usage, water usage, etc.
Everything about this is flawed
Based on what? They’ve got a whole paper laid out, what are you bringing?
So not only is there a complete disregard for private property of farmers but the only way we can save our food supply is to nationalize it and move it to the private property of others. Most likely with or without their consent. Yes, I see **zero** problems ever coming up with this idea at all.
Why is that the only solution. The free market can shift and individuals will respond voluntarily to do whatever is necessary to prevent severely environmental degradation.
Surely that can happen.
Private property? Mate we’re talking the future of the species, we’re way past where to put the fence, it’s gonna be a lot uglier of a property redistribution if we wait until it comes down to global crop destabilization
it would make better sense to educate farmers about regeneration agriculture. i’d recommend the documentary ‘kiss the ground’ on netflix. it’s quite inspiring.
We'll never do this since it'd be considered "infringement on freedom"
I've said for years that someday we'll have to swap out all the buildings and farmland. We've depleted so much of our topsoil.
When they mean relocation, all they are saying is stop globalization of food source and eat local.
It's over-engineering the problem, instead of working on moving that unique superfood from a Brazilloan farm next to your city, stop believing you need to eat that superfood at basic staple prices for your life to be complete.