I don't believe it. Every year I plant a heavy cover crop and till it under in the spring. A lot of the farmers do the same thing. Where the farmers used to grow 75 bushels of corn per acre they now get 200. Many rotate crops from corn to beans and the beans don't require much fertilizer and they put nitrogen into the soil and the corn likes that.
Missing carbon my ass . The world is greener than it was . Wonder were it went ? Test soil after crops and what do you think you are going to get ? Of course it is temporarily gone ... Then it returns to the soil and so on. Lying bastards ... whoops sorry , I think the implication is that it goes away and is not still in our environment.
For once I'm going to agree with Spike's link. I don't know if the 133 billion tons number is correct or not but it's true that modern farming practices cause the release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere and it is not being sequestered at the same rate resulting in net carbon loss from the soil to the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration by the soil can be improved through no-till, manure application and other practices but where I live it is not happening. Deforestation needs to stop as well as it is a major cause of carbon loss to the atmosphere.
Those of you that think everything that you don't understand or agree with is a liberal plot need to get a grip.
Removing dead and dying trees from forests should be done. Leaving it rot creates tons of methane plus when it catches fire it's devastating it burns so hot it sterilizes the soil. Talk about carbon release, just look out west right now. The ranch I hunt in Oregon backs up to a wilderness area. The ranch has been logged and replayed for years. When, not if, that NF catches fire there will be no stopping it until it totally runs out of fuel. It's steep and will blow through there like Sherman in South Carolina. The private ranches that border it will be the fire breaks. 75 plus years of highly combustible Duff on the forest floor just waiting to burn.
When I took physics as an undergrad, Prof. Gleeson lectured about how the ability to measure things would result in our attributing some value to things that we could measure, but that didn't really make a difference.
So, if I assume that the number is correct, the next questions are about its significance. Without that information, I can't get alarmed.
I agree with Pig Doc. There is a lot of truth to the referenced story. The story addresses how modern fertilizer practices cover up the fact that ag land is not as productive now as it was in the past. In my mind, however, the main reason for this loss intrinsic productivity is loss of productive topsoil is due to erosion. It takes many years to build topsoil, but it can be all taken away quickly due to bad farming practices and an untimely heavy rain.
There is nothing to be alarmed about. The enriched CO2 in our atmosphere is a benefit to crops and all green life. It tends downward as it is heavier than air. Of course one needs to add vital nutrients to the soil after it is worked and crops grown on it. Anyone with a home garden knows that. And farmers do too. Honestly they do.
Intensive farming is a net gain . Although some don't appreciate such things as Round up ready plants , it does reduce the tilling and produces more abundance in the same space as well as the reduced need for further chemical control . Darn good products too come from GMO alterations . It is irrational to think a farmer is not taking care of his livelihood (soil quality) to best produce the crop intended.
Soil can and should be managed and it is in the interest of the farmer to do so. Resting the land (alternating crops, cover crops and alternating areas of production is easily accomplished ) . There is so much unused farm-able land that it is a wonder how this could be perceived as an issue at all. (specially , used for livestock needs not our produce) Land in South America if we need to expand .
Deforestation is initially a negative but the replanting or natural spread of plants is astounding. In fact a new growth environment is very productive . More problematic would be the artificial surfaces that we cover our land with (roads buildings and such) but that is such a small proportion of our land mass as to be insignificant in the carbon cycle . Same for farming . It is such a small fraction of this green world that it is a non issue. Regarding the additional co2. in the atmosphere.
Apparently the earth has increased by 11% vegetation since the industrial revolution so it seems counter intuitive to conclude there is a loss of carbon when it is sitting right there on top of it . But I suppose it is specific to the dirt (Soil) on these farms , not the overall loss to our world.
I'm not buying it . Calling BS on this story. Not the soil issue That part is true but the inference that this is part of our "climate issue" is not .
Rhody , that is only half the story. The world Biomass is increasing , and not just here in our Continent but in Russia, China, Australia,Africa and many other places. This increase is due to a slightly warmer planet and increase in CO2 . Which is still well below the optimum growing conditions (plants thrive in 1000 p.p/million and mostly die off at around 250 pp/M) No harm to man either way with CO2. The loss of rain forest is a shame for the loss of unique plants and animal species that thrive there but little more than that .
Nature rebounds with a vengeance. Man burns Carbon for his welfare and Nature responds with stimulated growth. Great system , Thank God.
Then you are clueless on loss and sequestration of carbon by soil. I'm pro-GMO, pro-Roundup and pro-intensive agriculture but I understand the effects of turning millions of acres that were once forested or grassland into land that has crops on it 5 months of the year.
Not clueless , " Soil can and should be managed and it is in the interest of the farmer to do so. Resting the land (alternating crops, cover crops and alternating areas of production is easily accomplished )" What gave you the idea Pig D. that I don't understand this ?
The gist of this and other like stories are generated by Man Made Global Climate Change kooks. I advocate a cover crop or a simple addition of green matter as some Tractor equipment (implements ?) does do and should do. It leaves behind what is not harvested as the food portion and this should offset most of the soil loss . There is no viable alternative than to return what we take from the soil. We must harvest right ?
Yes, you are clueless. Get out of MA and come to the midwest and you will see what has been happening. Nobody is "resting land". There are no "cover crops". There is not "simple addition of green matter". The traditional corn/soybean rotation is being replaced by corn on corn. Corn ethanol is the heart of the problem. Corn takes 4 months to grow and the rest of the year the soil is bare. Corn strips carbon from the soil. In the past 8 years over 13 million acres of CRP grassland, which sequesters carbon into the soil, has been plowed up to produce corn for ethanol. That alone has caused over 10 million tons/year of lost carbon from the soil. It has also cost SD 65% of their pheasants. These are facts, not stories made up by kooks.
Pig , It is what should be done I didn't say it was being done . "Soil can and should be managed and it is in the interest of the farmer to do so. Resting the land (alternating crops, cover crops and alternating areas of production is easily accomplished ) ." That is twice now , Learn to read or have yourself checked out for comprehension skills.
Ha/KS show the source ? I love a good myth when I can get one....
There is some corn on corn but not a lot of it. Corn is hard on soil. Where as soybeans actually give to soil. In the red river valley south of patato country the average 4 year rotation is soybeans, corn, wheat the sugar beats. Yes guys will plant two years of corn after beats. However they are taking a huge risk. If they don't catch the summer rains right crop is poor. As far as farmers being paid to let ground sit idol. Well that program ended a long time ago as far as I know. My grandpa was in it back when I was a kid. It was started because of surplus in small grains. It's original intention was to help raise small grain prices. In western Kansas and Nebraska I do see a lot of crop land left idol for a year. The reason it is done is to conserve moisture for next years crop. Many years ago I went south custom combining. I was told farmers out there farmed half of there ground a year for that exact reason. The original reason for no till was to conserve moisture as well. With rising corn and bean prices as well as GMO crops (Round Up Ready) being developed some farmers chose to spray and not till to conserve costs. Now there paying the price since weeds have grown immune to Round Up.
I am not a dirt guy but I do know that adding stover back to the soil helps in creating soil. Corn does create a lot of stover.
I do like the positive sides to ethanol. However the negative sides are costly. The loss of habitat as well as CRP etc is insane just to make a few more bucks.
There are not many cover crops planted every year from what I see in the Midwest. A few but not many. I know my grandpa and uncle only did it for future alfalfa fields.
One more thing Kansas, Nebraska the Dakotas etc will not fall till. Once again to aid in moisture for the following years crops.
The wheat guys here go fallow every other year. The corn guys water and fertilize so they go every year. Never met a farmer with a mortgage but all the one I know have more from 10k to 250k acres and it's been in the family for over 100 years. They all get subidies of some sort.
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm ( Subsidies ) The CRP: Paying Farmers Not to Farm : NPR There is money going out to these programs . Should there be ? probably so. But the Feds could also pay to restore the soil or require some of it to be done.
My intended point was that there is an abundance of land to farm and it should be kept healthy. It is a catch 22 between land health and farm and product cost we all understand that.
Personally I think it is ridiculous to be making ethanol . Cost per gallon is very high and not "saving our environment" one bit. Waist of good land resources if you ask me.
But what could I know ... I'm stuck in Massachusetts ... ...Really ?
Good point to the resting cost HA/KS. and to the weeds issue , hence an occasional cover crop to add back to the soil and block weed growth( Round up ready Peas if it exists.) . I don't have the economic answer. Just the environmental angle addressing erosion of top soil and soil fertility and carbon value in soil . I think it is solvable but it adds to the cost of the next crop granted. Cant have it both ways and it is a pickle. But If it is a problem it must be fixed.
The people I know that have CRP have set aside ground they would not plant anyhow. Steeper hills that are hard on equipment, area too arid , wetter areas they cannot get into in the spring and fall etc.
Thank you for posting that Whitey. Subsidies indeed. And to get the other CRP subsidy they don't need to cut into their profit land. But more subsidies from John Q. Taxpayer... I don't have the answer to this but I see a milkin' goin' on. Farmer up the road (yes we do have some little farms here ) does something similar for his Government gift. I sure wish I had a ton of land to bargain with... What were my ancestor /relatives thinking ?
I can read Pi. Here's your quote: "Missing carbon my ass . The world is greener than it was . Wonder were it went ? Test soil after crops and what do you think you are going to get ? Then it returns to the soil and so on. I hate these lying bastards."
You are clueless city boy trying to pretend you know something about agriculture when it's clear you know nothing. Comical really. Are you going to blame it on being drunk again or just admit you are out of your league?
"Removing dead and dying trees from forests should be done. Leaving it rot creates tons of methane plus when it catches fire it's devastating it burns so hot it sterilizes the soil. Talk about carbon release, just look out west right now. The ranch I hunt in Oregon backs up to a wilderness area. The ranch has been logged and replayed for years. When, not if, that NF catches fire there will be no stopping it until it totally runs out of fuel. It's steep and will blow through there like Sherman in South Carolina. The private ranches that border it will be the fire breaks. 75 plus years of highly combustible Duff on the forest floor just waiting to burn."
What you say is true, BUT (there's always a "but"), fire is a natural phenomena and is a necessary part of an natural ecosystem. There are some species of trees that only release seed when they're subject to fire. It can be argued that sometimes the worst thing you can do is prevent fire and let the understory and duff get to a level that when is there is a fire it is hotter and more widespread that it would normally be. Once again, a case of man "helping" nature.
I have several acres of prairie pasture that I don't put horses on and I burn it every few years in early spring. You should see the plants that season after a burn! It's like a super shot of nitrogen! If I do it every other year or so then it never get's to be a really hot fire because the fuel level isn't overwhelming. It's a quick fire but not all that hot. It'll burn dead grass and such but not young trees. I think there's a lot to be said for controlled burns if that's feasible. NOTHING is stable in nature, it's going to change in one way of the other whether we approve of it or not, so we may as well do it but when we can control it to a degree.
"You are clueless city boy trying to pretend you know something about agriculture when it's clear you know nothing. Comical really. Are you going to blame it on being drunk again or just admit you are out of your league?"
"This thread is hilarious. Bunch of testosterone-stoked keyboard cowboys."
There is meat in this thread, unlike the "Liberals" thread that is nothing but bashing and threatening to beat people up. Did I do that? Do you have anything to contribute on the topic of carbon loss from soil to atmosphere? I didn't think so. Get lost.
If the farm land is being damaged , are there any solutions to help the land improve? I'm not a farmer and the world population is not getting any smaller. If there is no solution then we should try and find one. Everyone has to eat.
Is this really happening? Am I learning something on the "Community Forum" section on bowsite? I think It is and I am! It's pretty cool to keep the discussion on topic and argue positions and facts. Thanks Pig Doc and others who did that!
Experts estimated that 133 billion tonnes of carbon has been removed from the top two meters of soil since farming began some 12,000 years ago, about the same as the total amount lost from vegetation.
* ( 12, 000 years ago ?. I don't think the problem goes back that far and I doubt there was much farming as we know it ,in the same spot as now. And the planet is greener , hence the carbon is not missing. Lost from vegitation ? WTF does that mean ?)
However the figure is still dwarfed by the 450 billion tonnes of carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution began and humans started burning fossil fuels on an unprecedented scale.
* ( what does that have to do with a specific space (the agricultural zone) losing carbon "locally" by unsound farming practices ? Sounds like a MMGW correlation which is why it started to smell like BS to me right away )
Soil is obviously vitally important for the growth of crops that feed humans and livestock. Concern has been growing what some refer to as the “soil fertility crisis”, a problem that can be masked by the use of artificial fertilizers. ( Well...)
* Not "masked" which infers "a sneaky wool over the eyes ...". To whom would they be masking ? The soil fertility loss is being compensated for with Fertilizers and that isn't healthy for the natural soil condition . OK so what ? It can be fixed. But its not being fixed .... I get it, but so what ? It will eventually have to be fixed . And the temporary loss of CO2 in a portion of our huge land mass doesn't constitute a crisis.
Carbon released from the soil also contributes to global warming.
* This is where the agenda of MMGW horsedookie gets going thick and is the real message of this article ... Totally BS. There is such a small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere .004% and our contribution is a fraction of that. That even saying this farming caused - "soil carbon loss" adds to global warming is beyond reasonable to say. Misleading and goes to the myth of CO2 being a driver of Climate. Its BS.
Somehow this was not a problem for other readers. It was for me. - Pi
Agreed HA/KS , And to manipulate us into the purchase of what they are peddling ... Windmills , "organic food" , Solar farms , Carbon credits , Climate study grants , Electric cars, restrictions on American industry and energy , Fake gods and idles , fake / exaggerated issues /news , Add to the list, I don't want to have all the fun...
""Human population and economic growth has led to an exponential rise in use of soil resources.
“The consequences of human domination of soil resources are far ranging: accelerated erosion, desertification, salinization, acidification, compaction, biodiversity loss, nutrient depletion, and loss of soil organic matter.""
And hydroponics are (is?) just incredibly inefficient........ being nearly 100% artificial.....
If you make your living growing and selling ag products I would listen...... but those trying to make some point about how humans are evil..... not so much. In reality they have no skin in the game. The clearly make their living elsewhere.... as American farmers feed the world.... If so concerned I would guess those who new better would jump in and show everyone how it should be done......
Malthusian trap ? Catastrophe ? ( man produces an abundance but instead of being a foundation for good health and surplus it produces a greater population growth which negates the advantage.)
Population went up by 2X more than he predicted and yet the Rate of hunger is in decline . Virtuous behavior ,didn't happen because we feed people ?. Perhaps that is the unfortunate reality...
This next line makes a case ,that we should not feed the poor , in order to starve people into being less dependent and helpless and in a state of moral decline.
(1798) Malthus reasoned that the constant threat of poverty and starvation served to teach the virtues of hard work and virtuous behavior. "Had population and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emerged from the savage state," he wrote, adding further, "Evil exists in the world not to create despair, but activity."
Malthus wrote that mankind itself was solely to blame for human suffering:
"I believe that it is the intention of the Creator that the earth should be replenished; but certainly with a healthy, virtuous and happy population, not an unhealthy, vicious and miserable one. And if, in endeavoring to obey the command to increase and multiply, we people it only with beings of this latter description and suffer accordingly, we have no right to impeach the justice of the command, but our irrational mode of executing it.
Yep , and the issue was switched, refocused on a minor issue and nit picked by a Pig doctor in order to avoid the greater truth of it all. Personal attacks also. I will not respond to those that persist in that way. He is Fired.
I have to update a few rules ... and will play until it seems too personal to make it worth while ... I accept , that sometimes the Spirit rules the day or event ... He who lives by the Spirit will not be judged by the law / rules. And then "blam", someone gets a loving smack. LOL 2
HDE , There are some conflicting thoughts in Malthus ideas/ statements but also interesting thoughts.
Apparently he was a preacher. Yet he talks about mans development and evolution as it pertains to mans "emerging from his savage state". To the Faith ,that is heretical talk . Fine by me if he struggled with this , but its conflicting with the idea that God is the mover of mans development and not other men , certainly not agricultural practices... Seems he was walking two diverse paths . The great divide...
Lovely, and all true. Drunk posting and clueless on the topic at hand. Examples:
"There is so much unused farm-able land that it is a wonder how this could be perceived as an issue at all." Could not be farther from the truth. HA called you out on this one.
"I advocate a cover crop or a simple addition of green matter as some Tractor equipment does do and should do." Haha! What's this "green matter" you speak of? There is no such thing. "Tractor equipment"? They are called implements. "Cover crops"? Rarely if ever used.
"And to get the other CRP subsidy they don't need to cut into their profit land." CRP is not a subsidy. It's a program to prevent the farming of environmentally sensitive land. A farmer can make a lot more farming it than putting it in CRP. That's why 13 million acres of it have been plowed up in the last 8 years. We need more CRP, not less.
"You're fired". That's a belly laugher. Looks like you are new here. I've been here over 15 years and have called BS on a lot of people smarter than you. A little birdy told me you ruined the MA state forum with your azzhatism. Now you are here trying to do the same thing. If you think I'm going away you are delusional.
yep, been here 15 years, and dont you forget it ....ROFLMAO !! ..... Piglicker, many here see who the delusional one is ... (you) .... Mr. I wanna play nice then you start your crap all over again..... whiny little cry baby turd of a subhuman, Mr. I am better than you all, why 'cause I said so .... lol... ... we all know it, we all see it, we all see right thru your crap ....
The mall cop has spoken. Put your badge on, grab some donuts and get to Sears.
BTW, I have been thanked for my input a couple of times on this thread. Has that ever happened to you? Probably not as most people don't get thanked when all they can do is call names and post the same picture of two birds 300 times.
So, CRP is less than desireable ground to farm (per Whitey) and is a program to prevent farming of environmentally sensitive land (per Pig Doc).
How is this program funded and who is the recipient? Why in the world would you even need a program that is "self managed" because of terrain that is hard on equipment, but a farmer can make more if farmed? Seems the farmer would need an incentive not to farm if he can make money from it. Yes...?
"" mall cop has spoken. Put your badge on, grab some donuts and get to Sears.""
I doubt if JTV is a mall cop, he is a US Veteran. The point you've missed is he's shown you more respect then you've shown him. He also has friends. Which is something you clearly don't have. Now tell us again how much money you have and great your fantastic life is. Then get lost.
Damn dude, you really are so full of yourself... this is so damn funny .... first of all, those "birds" have only been around for a short while... 300 times ? ... see there ya go again, fabricating what isnt true .... just a petty, small minded individual that makes fun of some ones employment, and even then he STILL dosnt know what I do, may think he does, but dosnt....lol..... I love the fact you cant control yourself..... back to your CRP stuff ...
The Discovery Channel special Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman that premiered on August 31 actually discusses how some farmers are addressing this issue. The farmer part is filmed in KS and my son did some of the filming.
I think that you can see the entire film if you have the Discovery Channel on cable or other provider, but I don't know how that works.
The CRP costs taxpayers almost $2 billion a year — this year, that amounts to about 8 percent of all farm subsidies. Congress established the program in 1985. It's the oldest and largest of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's efforts to protect soil, water and wildlife in farming areas.
The program's goals have shifted over the years. "The CRP started out as an erosion-control program. It's evolved into a wildlife and water-quality program," says Robert Harkrader, a district conservationist with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in Coffee County, Kan.
Farmers offer to enroll their land in the CRP. It has to be land where crops previously grew. If the USDA accepts the offer, the farmer gets paid a fee, roughly equivalent to the rental value of the land, to stop growing crops on it.
"farmer gets paid a fee, roughly equivalent to the rental value of the land" Not really, but it has been a good program for some areas. I am not in favor of farm subsidies, but at least this program was good for land and wildlife.
"So, CRP is less than desirable ground to farm (per Whitey) and is a program to prevent farming of environmentally sensitive land (per Pig Doc).
How is this program funded and who is the recipient? Why in the world would you even need a program that is "self managed" because of terrain that is hard on equipment, but a farmer can make more if farmed? Seems the farmer would need an incentive not to farm if he can make money from it. Yes...?"
I was hoping someone could help me understand, but I guess no takers...
It's not hard to look up or figure out. It's funded by the USDA and the farmer gets paid the public is the benificary. In Washington it is used to protect streams and rivers from excessive run off benifitting Salmon and steelhead. It is also used to protect eco systems like the shrub steppe in the Palouse region. Many bird species depend on the program to thrive. It's a game like anything else involving regulations. The farmers I know try to maximize their tillable land. It was land once farmed by their grandparents and parents before new methods allowed them to increase yields and stop farming very difficult terrain. If you are a sportsman, wildlife viewer our love nature you benefit. The tax payer is renting private property for their benefit. All of the crp ground I am aware of is open to the public. Mule deer, white tail , partridge , quail , owls, hawksall thrive in this program.
Read up on the history of the tributaries of the snake river in Wa, ID, OR before the program. One example is the Palouse river. One of the best trout stream in the world before mechanized farming allowed farmers along the river to till ever inch of ground. Every fall and spring the river looked like chocolate milk from run off. It was also choking the snake river and they would have to dredge to allow barges past sand bars. Most of that has gone away. The trout have not returned like they were 100 years ago but the steelhead and Salmon thrive in that part of the snake. The small mouth and cat fishing is world class and so is the hunting. It's paradise.
This is Palouse falls on the Palouse river about 5 miles from the Snake river. All of the land on the right side of the river is private. Roughly 50k acres used only for grazing sheep and cattle and the family that owns it rarely uses it for grazing anymore. The land on the left is a state park completely surrounded by dry land tilled soft white winter wheat farms. There are green buffers all along the river.
Farmers around here were putting any piece of ground they wanted into the CRP program...didnt have to be "sensitive"... this was 20-30 years back.... if they didnt want to farm it, it went into CRP, as the prices rose on corn and beans, they had the option to renew...many didnt as it was profitable again to use that land for crops.... Quail and pheasant nesting areas were gone, the birds vanished and so was the bedding for deer and birthing areas for fawns,,,now these lousy farmers are now up rooting every tree line, burning and destroying every bit of strip cover and fence rows they can .. once again wildlife is disappearing, gone are dens trees for raccoons, 'possums, squirrels, flying squirrels, mice, snakes etc, nesting areas for turkey and their roost trees gone ... all for gosh almighty dollar ...
The loss of organic matter (also known as carbon) is one of the biggest problems facing modern row crop farming. Modern farming practices kill the biological activity in the soil which causes the soil to lose its fertility. This is not really any more debatable than the fact that yesterday was the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
"HDE. You sniffed out the stink in their illogical line of thinking. They can't explain it . Good job. Why pay for what isn't going to be farmed because it is hard on equipment ?"
CRP is not necessarily "hard on equipment". As Whitey pointed out CRP is designed to protect water ways and environmentally sensitive land. Farmers are business people in a very tough business. Most are going to farm every acre of their land trying to generate cash flow, even if that land butts up to a waterway. CRP is a small economic incentive to take that environmentally sensitive land out of production.
If you want to piss and moan about agriculture at least pick something worth complaining about, like ethanol mandates that are causing 40% of our corn crop to be used for fuel instead of food. And if you are going to piss and moan about agriculture please don't do it with your mouth full. Ungrateful city boys...
The topic got way off point. Something big made from something small ( a small aspect of the greater theme/points) . The original point of the link was a story about Soil structure and its dreaded "carbon -lost " , the great trigger word for the CMM Global warming alarmists . Re read the article and see the real agenda , the rest are piggy back points with some truth to consider, but they are selling something else. BS wrapped in a blanket.
No one is complaining about CRP's, what some are complaining about is the self-absorbed opinion some may possess of themself and/or others (in which they know NOTHING about).
The other "complaint" is the loss of organic material in the soil that has been "used up" and yet there are advanced technologies and strategies that suggest the very arguement of a "used up" resource is outdated.
And then, there are some who recognize that a farmer is incentivized to allow crop land to go to CRP, but others can't seem to get their head around it.
For 'the one(s)' I suggest go back and very carefully read what has been posted, come back without a conceited viewpoint and not assume they know everything about a thread contributor. This will prevent the condition of the word 'assume', in this case it's just "u ass"...
Your reading comprehension rivals that of a 5 year old. No one said "used up". No one said there is no incentive for CRP. The facts are that when you plow up grassland or deforest land there is a huge net loss of carbon. This is not being replaced by commercial fertilizer, which is typically only N, P and K. CRP is a great program and provides incentives to farmers to take land that should not be farmed out of production. Ethanol mandates are bad policy. Pi knows nothing about agriculture.. These are my points. I made them clearly and repeatedly. Read really slowly and you MIGHT comprehend. If not, get lost.
""Human population and economic growth has led to an exponential rise in use of soil resources. "The consequences of human domination of soil resources are far ranging: accelerated erosion, desertification, salinization, acidification, compaction, biodiversity loss, nutrient depletion, and loss of soil organic matter." - Spike Bull's link.
Used up. Term used loosely and refers to gone and difficult to come back, hence the "slang" use of quotation marks around it.
As far as ethanol in fuel, bad move for several reasons. Most will agree to that. That is, however, a different topic for a different thread.
You can obfuscate all you want. The point of the article is that modern tillage practices cause movement of carbon from soil to atmosphere and that is factual. If you disagree post some facts. If not STFU.
Originally from Iowa and if it wasn't for chemicals they wouldn't grow enough to financial make it, the ground is almost sterile without it. Just take a shovel out and dig to try to find a worm not going to find one unless the farmer is growing organic . Iowa is the most change state in the 48 with the loss of wetlands, sloughs and trees, it is not what I grew up in anymore, real sad, use to be a hunting paradise.
Yep, 'ol Pig Licker is sure playing nice ... smh... telling people to STFU or get lost .... this is the crap that he has devolved into ... very ironic and hypocritical....a lot of that "critical thinking" going on there .... those birds are circling ..