Can American soil be brought back to life?

[Red Baron Farms]

Can American soil be brought back to life?
A new idea: If we revive the tiny creatures that make dirt healthy, we can bring back the great American topsoil. But farming culture — and government — aren't making it easy.
By JENNY HOPKINSON

Most farmers hate politics, but here is a good explanation to how agriculture is screwed up by odious government regulations where there needs be none, and no regulations where abuses in the market place need stopped. It is literally insanity. We are literally committing expensive suicide, but city folks have not figured it out yet. And rural communities are so gutted it seems both main political parties can safely ignore our minuscule voting block.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm not a farmer but I would imagine the person with the greatest interest in preserving the topsoil would be the farmer who owns the land.

What exactly are the "odious government regulations" which are unnecessary?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Maybe we should feed them with blood?

Isn't that what the tiki-torch protesters want?

Blood and Soil?

 

[The Don]

I'm not a farmer but I would imagine the person with the greatest interest in preserving the topsoil would be the farmer who owns the land.

What exactly are the "odious government regulations" which are unnecessary?

Whatever they are, it's not clear from the article. The article does mention that a lot of US farm subsidy tends to promote existing systems of agriculture rather than the methods which, according to the article, promote soil health.

To the obstacles of farming culture and cost, advocates have another frustration: Washington. The federal crop insurance program is based on farmers planting the same crop in the same place each year to have a record for production, and it is not flexible enough to account for practices like cover crops. That reduces incentives for farmers to try new things, since the government-backed program will pay out whether they adopt good practices or not. And since taxpayers subsidize premiums, an increasing reliance on crop insurance to account for low — performing crops often doesn’t hurt a farmer’s bottom line.

“If we got rid of those subsidies, that would be the quickest way to get people to migrate to healthier soils,” said Dan DeSutter, an Indiana farmer who has been using holistic soil health practices on his land since the early 1990s. “If we are going to be subsidizing crop insurance, we should give the taxpayer something to show for it, which is clean water, clean air and healthy soil.”

As someone who isn't close to the issue, I see this as "failure to support properly" rather than "government regulations working against".

If these healthy soil proposals are to be adopted, it would require a complete change to the way that agribusiness operates however. My understanding is that most farms grow the same things year after year rather than operating crop rotation. I also presume that this only applies to annual crops and no-one is suggesting that fruit trees or asparagus plants should be grubbed up regularly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The biggest obstacle to sustainable farming is maximizing short-term gains.
Next is farm automation: big harvesting machines are only viable if crops ripen at the same time, to the same height, size etc.

Luckily, it is not that hard to repopulate soil with a microbiome: anyone who composts can tell you that.
Unfortunately, it will take a major food crisis brought about by soil depletion before anything will be done.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm confused why the article is presenting this narrative of topsoil health as new, ground-breaking knowledge. We've known about these principles for centuries. George Washington himself had cover crop strategies, and we had the Dust Bowl that showed what happened when it was ignored.

Anyway, the carbon capture aspect of it is sort of a reach that has been tacked on.

 

[theprestige]

Well, the progressive response to Trump voters for the past couple years has been that they should shut up, abandon the false hope of restoring small-town America, move to the cities, and join the rest of the clients of the state. And vote Democrat, of course. Because Democrats know what's best for them.

Building on this foundation, I would guess the direction of progress would be something like: Once we've moved all the bad and failing farmers off the land and into the cities, we can nationalize the agricultural resources and apply science-as-policy to grow food in a responsible, sustainable, and equitable fashion.

We just need to get the corporations and the red state farmers off the land, first.

 

[Ziggurat]

We just need to get the corporations and the red state farmers off the land, first.

 

[varwoche]

Well, the progressive response to Trump voters for the past couple years has been that they should shut up, abandon the false hope of restoring small-town America, move to the cities, and join the rest of the clients of the state. And vote Democrat, of course. Because Democrats know what's best for them.

Building on this foundation, I would guess the direction of progress would be something like: Once we've moved all the bad and failing farmers off the land and into the cities, we can nationalize the agricultural resources and apply science-as-policy to grow food in a responsible, sustainable, and equitable fashion.

We just need to get the corporations and the red state farmers off the land, first.

If you can provide so much as one substantive cite where a prominent Democrat proposes policies hostile to farmers* maybe your post won't seem like the abject BS that it now seems.

You might also want to demonstrate how Republicans, now in control of all branches of government, are going about fixing things.


* not counting anything related to ethanol, and certainly not counting the "death tax" canard

 

[dudalb]

Can American soil be brought back to life?
A new idea: If we revive the tiny creatures that make dirt healthy, we can bring back the great American topsoil. But farming culture — and government — aren't making it easy.
By JENNY HOPKINSON

Most farmers hate politics, but here is a good explanation to how agriculture is screwed up by odious government regulations where there needs be none, and no regulations where abuses in the market place need stopped. It is literally insanity. We are literally committing expensive suicide, but city folks have not figured it out yet. And rural communities are so gutted it seems both main political parties can safely ignore our minuscule voting block.

Because of it's mechanization of farming, we need a lot fewer farmers. One guy on his tractor can plow and harvest as much as 20 men. That means the rural economy can no longer support as many people as it just did.
Sorry, but your ideal of the "Yeoman Farmer" is obsolete. The small farm is no longer economically viable in any ecomomic system. Hence the shift to coporate farming. I don't see this reversing any time soon.

 

[Spindrift]

Well, the progressive response to Trump voters for the past couple years has been that they should shut up, abandon the false hope of restoring small-town America, move to the cities, and join the rest of the clients of the state. And vote Democrat, of course. Because Democrats know what's best for them.

Building on this foundation, I would guess the direction of progress would be something like: Once we've moved all the bad and failing farmers off the land and into the cities, we can nationalize the agricultural resources and apply science-as-policy to grow food in a responsible, sustainable, and equitable fashion.

We just need to get the corporations and the red state farmers off the land, first.

Yes all those leftist companies like ConAgra, Monsanto and Cargill are destroying the American Farmer.

 

[Shalamar]

Yes all those leftist companies like ConAgra, Monsanto and Cargill are destroying the American Farmer.

It’s always the liberals/Democrats/leftists fault. Always.

 

[Beerina]

The biggest obstacle to sustainable farming is maximizing short-term gains.
Next is farm automation: big harvesting machines are only viable if crops ripen at the same time, to the same height, size etc.

Luckily, it is not that hard to repopulate soil with a microbiome: anyone who composts can tell you that.
Unfortunately, it will take a major food crisis brought about by soil depletion before anything will be done.

It's odd that the most wildly successful human endeavor of all time, farming in ever-increasing quantities for thousands of years, is mislabeled as "unsustainable".

Like Peak Oil, this is another false red herring. Here's why for both.

Like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Evolution, this theory is wildly successful, makes successful counter-intuitive predictions decades into the future, repeatedly, and passes all tests thrown at it, for decades.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, the progressive response to Trump voters for the past couple years has been that they should shut up, abandon the false hope of restoring small-town America, move to the cities, and join the rest of the clients of the state. And vote Democrat, of course. Because Democrats know what's best for them.

Building on this foundation, I would guess the direction of progress would be something like: Once we've moved all the bad and failing farmers off the land and into the cities, we can nationalize the agricultural resources and apply science-as-policy to grow food in a responsible, sustainable, and equitable fashion.

We just need to get the corporations and the red state farmers off the land, first.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know a single progressive that wants the farmers to move to the cities. We don't want to destroy small towns either or to nationalize agriculture.

We do care about wetlands, streams and habitats for birds and fisheries. We care about top soil preservation and chemical runoff and overuse of herbicides and pesticides as well.

If there are regulations that are odious and not effective towards all of these ends, be specific and I'll fight to have them changed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I'm not a farmer but I would imagine the person with the greatest interest in preserving the topsoil would be the farmer who owns the land.

What exactly are the "odious government regulations" which are unnecessary?

Did you read the link first of all?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Whatever they are, it's not clear from the article. The article does mention that a lot of US farm subsidy tends to promote existing systems of agriculture rather than the methods which, according to the article, promote soil health.



As someone who isn't close to the issue, I see this as "failure to support properly" rather than "government regulations working against".

If these healthy soil proposals are to be adopted, it would require a complete change to the way that agribusiness operates however. My understanding is that most farms grow the same things year after year rather than operating crop rotation. I also presume that this only applies to annual crops and no-one is suggesting that fruit trees or asparagus plants should be grubbed up regularly.

That is partially correct but the primary subsidies are designed to keep the highest possible over production of corn and soy, even when it is the least efficient crop paying the poorest profit.

There is both a carrot and a stick. The subsidies are the carrot, come this way and receive guarantees in the form of crop insurance. The insurance guarantees both floor price and yields....with the caveat that only GAP approved methods are eligible for the crop insurance, and only those crops directed by the USDA....which is still stuck on overproduction of corn and soy regardless of the radically lower efficiency.

The stick besides the GAP stick is regulations preventing vast areas from raising animals like beef pigs and chickens on the land. The reason for those regulations are because the industrial model, although far far less efficient, needs those animals raised in confinement to use up the part of the excess corn and soy production being subsidized! So if a farmer does actually bring the animals back to his farm,(integrated farms are massively more efficient as waste streams from one side feed the other side of the operation) in many cases over vast areas of the former great plain states, there is no way to legally process and sell the animals! He simply can't legally do it, so therefore he is stuck growing corn and taking the subsidies that just barely keep the bank foreclosure away 1 more year...hopefully.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not a farmer but I would imagine the person with the greatest interest in preserving the topsoil would be the farmer who owns the land.

What exactly are the "odious government regulations" which are unnecessary?

Did you read the link first of all?

Is your point that we all should be?

If so, I agree.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not a farmer but I would imagine the person with the greatest interest in preserving the topsoil would be the farmer who owns the land.

What exactly are the "odious government regulations" which are unnecessary?

That is partially correct but the primary subsidies are designed to keep the highest possible over production of corn and soy, even when it is the least efficient crop paying the poorest profit.

There is both a carrot and a stick. The subsidies are the carrot, come this way and receive guarantees in the form of crop insurance. The insurance guarantees both floor price and yields....with the caveat that only GAP approved methods are eligible for the crop insurance, and only those crops directed by the USDA....which is still stuck on overproduction of corn and soy regardless of the radically lower efficiency.

The stick besides the GAP stick is regulations preventing vast areas from raising animals like beef pigs and chickens on the land. The reason for those regulations are because the industrial model, although far far less efficient, needs those animals raised in confinement to use up the part of the excess corn and soy production being subsidized! So if a farmer does actually bring the animals back to his farm,(integrated farms are massively more efficient as waste streams from one side feed the other side of the operation) in many cases over vast areas of the former great plain states, there is no way to legally process and sell the animals! He simply can't legally do it, so therefore he is stuck taking the subsidies that just barely keep the bank foreclosure away 1 more year...hopefully.

So as a progressive city folk, how can we help address the problem? I understand what the purpose of price supports and subsidies were in the 1930s and how overproduction led to the dustbowl in say in Oklahoma.

Have you ever thought that say the culture wars between city and rural Americans is a side show designed to divide and conquer? Although I'm not big on conspiracy theories. But frankly as someone who has spent a lot of time in both environments, I find it absurd.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Is your point that we all should be?

If so, I agree.

Good, then scroll down and see the grass growing between corn rows? That's primary productivity going to waste unless there is a chicken pig or preferably a ruminant to come along and recycle the grass and also any usable residues from the crop. The land right off the bat jumps in productivity efficiency and profitability from that single move, and low and behold the inputs cost drops and the soil recovers.

"When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA

Less inputs means even more soil life building more fertile soils supporting even more primary productivity, which used efficiently continues the cycle in a positive reinforcing feedback curve. We all benefit from this.

Completely the opposite of the highly inefficient industrial models with their negative feedbacks. And it is all directly due to government interference in the marketplace. It's by design that we are destroying our country.

"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The OP link makes dozens of assertions, and while it names names (Robert Myers, a professor of soil sciences at the University of Missouri & David Montgomery, a professor of geology at the University of Washington who has written three books on soil health & Ron Nichols, a spokesman for USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service), there is no link to their research. It makes it hard to evaluate the claims. Obviously modern farming has allowed major increases in food production. That has not been without drawbacks I doubt I need list here.

It's an interesting premise that the soil becomes dust vs clumping. I would have thought that had more to do with water content so it is a new concept for me. I don't think one needs all the rest of the back to nature/government is bad hype to have this discussion.

Personally I have switched to mostly organic for a couple reasons. One, to avoid the main pesticide used in corn which has had the science of the dangers of that pesticide attacked with manufactured doubt, something we've seen time and time again with tobacco, climate change, and with aspirin causing Reyes Syndrome (in the years between when we knew kids should not be getting aspirin until a public campaign and labeling took place, about 500 kids died of preventable Reyes Syndrome).

Second reason is of course to stop the use of antibiotics in farmed animals and eggs. And third, to address the US corn subsidies which are harmful in multiple ways, I avoid products with corn syrup. I also avoid animals fed heavy diets of corn so I look for 100% grass-fed beef.

These are the little things I believe if enough consumers do, will have an impact. But I digress.... about that clumpy vs dry soil: There is fodder for a decent discussion here but the OP seems to have a more muddled topic in mind. Perhaps if someone could tease the science out and provide some links to some of the research...