| ▲ | altairprime 16 hours ago |
| Tilling requires less cognitive and logistical effort: you just apply calories to drag a blade through the soil and then dump seed in it. No-till requires things like “tracking the soil’s water retention levels”, “planting cover crops or even giving a field a year off”, and other such steps that in general can be summarized as “cost centers”. Given the economic climate, few non-corporate farmers can afford that investment without the collapse of their farm, and few corporate farmers (none at nationwide scale, afaik) are willing to invest in cost centers that threaten to decrease, rather than increase, their rate of profit growth year-over-year. One could absolutely make a case that regulatory investment in such things be imposed upon megacorp farms first, with their processes and technology made available by subsidy to smaller farms; it would be enough to structure the subsidy as inversely proportional to the acreage reaped for value, with some language ensuring that the cost of investment into land farmed by contract to a megacorp is paid to the land operator. To prevent certain abuses, they’d also have to modify farming contract law to make maintaining long-term use of the land an inalienable right, so that unsustainable output-quota farming contracts are unenforceable. This is an unlikely outcome in the U.S., but I still appreciate the researches providing more evidence in support of it. |
|
| ▲ | adabyron 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Giving a field a year off and cover crops have been done for hundreds of years by farmers who also till. There are a lot of different combinations of variables done for both tilling and not tilling depending on many factors. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Years off don't work great when coupled with high land prices and taxes. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lots of places give property tax breaks for agricultural land, which includes fallow fields. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Giving a field a year off and cover crops have been done for hundreds of years Even the old testament talks about letting the land sit fallow for a whole year, so thousands not just hundreds of years. | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | lurk2 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Tilling requires less cognitive and logistical effort: you just apply calories to drag a blade through the soil and then dump seed in it. No-till requires things like “tracking the soil’s water retention levels”, “planting cover crops or even giving a field a year off”, and other such steps that in general can be summarized as “cost centers”. No-Till is one of those ideas like permaculture or Modern Monetary Theory that attracts emphatic advocates while going against conventional practice. It isn’t clear why it would just be being adopted now if it actually worked. Do you have any actual experience farming? |
| |
| ▲ | arthurbrown 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What an odd response. We have centuries of evidence for minimal disturbance agriculture supporting civilizations. What evidently does NOT work is the quite new practice of industrial tilling and fertilizer, which is causing rapid breakdown of our natural environment and future potential for food production. | | |
| ▲ | thrownthatway 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What do you mean “does not work”? The industrial practices that have enable us to feed a population of 8 billion, with surplus - a lot of food is thrown out as waste because we have so much of it we really don’t have to be super strict with it. The industrial practices that have allowed the majority of the population to do something other than be directly involved in agriculture. What part of that isn’t working? The sky is falling, co2 will cook the planet, industrial agriculture is poisoning the land, over fishing will collapse fish stocks. We’ve been told these things for, what, at least sixty years now. Now we can add A.I. will de-employment everyone. I don’t believe any of it. | | |
| ▲ | modo_mario 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >co2 will cook the planet, industrial agriculture is poisoning the land, over fishing will collapse fish stocks. The insect population is down a ridiculous amount where I live and also in neighboring germany. I could link the study and such but honestly it's not like these things aren't backed up by my own experiences and those of my parents and grandparents. I do find a lot lot less insects than I did when i was young.
We no longer get much (if any) snow let alone the kneedeep stuff.
It's harder to catch certain kinds of fish. The fishing boats where I used to visit every year go quite a bit further nowadays because those fish stocks have collapsed. | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tilling with large amounts of mined fertilisers and poisons works for now, but is not especially durable. Many of us are going to discover this given that the fertilisers aren't produced anymore since the Hormuz Strait is blocked. | |
| ▲ | arthurbrown 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the point of this? You are saying that you will not accept any new information that goes against your belief system. The evidence is there. Read something. Watch a video. The resources are readily available and abundant. Make a garden patch and experiment for yourself if you refuse to accept any outside information. This video is 15 years old. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aR5OLgcc0 |
| |
| ▲ | altairprime 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ideally, industrial farming will use this new data to min/max tilling intervals for higher production per acre, which is still wildly suboptimal but at least provably better than arbitrary downtime practices (or even none) that they would otherwise settle on. If nothing else, that’s language their shareholders will listen to: “use fewer resources to produce more goods” is the holy grail of corporations, and fertilizer must be the death of their opex today. | |
| ▲ | lurk2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have experience as a farmer? If you don’t, why should I believe that farmers who continue to till their fields know less about this issue than you do? | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People in a local optimums don't necessarily know about better local optimums. | |
| ▲ | arthurbrown 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not a farmer, but you are welcome to ask a no-till farmer for their experience, or do some reading. Heck, you could read the article that we're commenting on where scientists have dedicated their career to understanding this stuff. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ikidd 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We no-till farm thousands of acres in the middle of millions more acres of no-till grain farming. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We no-till farm thousands of acres in the middle of millions more acres of no-till grain farming. 1) Does this practice work in every circumstance? 2) If so, why do farmers continue the practice of tillage? 3) Why did the practice of tillage originate in the first place? It seems extremely unlikely that the practice was adopted and then continued to persist for no reason. |
| |
| ▲ | altairprime 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, I don’t particularly care if the solution is cover crops, no tilling, a mix of both, or some other practice entirely (‘introduce groundhogs’ comes to mind as a particularly inflammatory option for mycelial networking). Advocacy for any single solution is not particularly interesting to me, so long as any practice is followed besides “dump imported nitrogen into the hopper each year until your waterways are toast”. (I am not your farmer, this is not farming advice.) |
|
|
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |