• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We grow the same amount of food on 30% of the land area

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Today we grow food very well.

The amount of food a particular piece of land produced in 1961 is now producing 3 to 4 times as much food. Generally.

Not so much a debate thing just an interesting thing to understand.

arable-land-pin.jpg

From;
Crop Yields - Our World in Data
 
But also, ethanol kills 20 million people a year based on numbers I invented
 
Tim the plumber said:
Today we grow food very well.

The amount of food a particular piece of land produced in 1961 is now producing 3 to 4 times as much food. Generally.

Not so much a debate thing just an interesting thing to understand.

View attachment 67287777

From;
Crop Yields - Our World in Data
Click to expand...

If you think we are using less land for agriculture based on that chart, I think you are misreading the data. Efficiency and land expansion are negligible compared to our progress in increasing crop yields.
 
Drawdown said:
If you think we are using less land for agriculture based on that chart, I think you are misreading the data. Efficiency and land expansion are negligible compared to our progress in increasing crop yields.
Click to expand...

Ah,

I think you have mis-read the thead.

The point is that we need only 30% of the land to grow the same amount of food as we did in 1961.

Althought that was in 2014. We had a 4.4% increase in food production last year....:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:

Ah,

I think you have mis-read the thead.

The point is that we need only 30% of the land to grow the same amount of food as we did in 1961.

Althought that was in 2014. We had a 4.4% increase in food production last year....:2razz:
Click to expand...

Intensive ag burns out the soil. We also are likely in the sweet spot of CO2 enhancement. Any more, and we will burn our plants out. Also intensive ag requires LOTS more water. WE use petroleum based ferts, that accumulate salts. There is a reckoning coming.
 
Guyzilla said:
Intensive ag burns out the soil. We also are likely in the sweet spot of CO2 enhancement. Any more, and we will burn our plants out. Also intensive ag requires LOTS more water. WE use petroleum based ferts, that accumulate salts. There is a reckoning coming.
Click to expand...

I understnad that that is the drivel peddeled by the anti-hunan cult but here is some stuff that you shoulde be aware of;change_in_leaf_area.jpg
arable-land-pin.jpg
 
Guyzilla said:
Intensive ag burns out the soil. We also are likely in the sweet spot of CO2 enhancement. Any more, and we will burn our plants out. Also intensive ag requires LOTS more water. WE use petroleum based ferts, that accumulate salts. There is a reckoning coming.
Click to expand...
Proper crop rotation can keep the soil viable, and the practice is over a century old.
Cotton and cow peas, taking a hay field out of rotation and growing cow peas for a season, will radically improve the soil.
Peanuts are another important rotation crop!
According to experts, the sweet spot for CO2 and plants, is between 800 and 1000 ppm
Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses
Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR),
increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
Proper crop rotation can keep the soil viable, and the practice is over a century old.
Cotton and cow peas, taking a hay field out of rotation and growing cow peas for a season, will radically improve the soil.
Peanuts are another important rotation crop!
According to experts, the sweet spot for CO2 and plants, is between 800 and 1000 ppm
Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses
Click to expand...


Corn as animal feed should be banned it is horrible for soil. It should be swapped for soy beans, which can help fix nitrogen in the soil
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Corn as animal feed should be banned it is horrible for soil. It should be swapped for soy beans, which can help fix nitrogen in the soil
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion!
Corn or Maize, make up one of the 3 dominant food crops, Wheat, Maize, and Rice.
In places with real hunger problems, Peanuts are likely the best crop.
 
longview said:
Thank you for your opinion!
Corn or Maize, make up one of the 3 dominant food crops, Wheat, Maize, and Rice.
In places with real hunger problems, Peanuts are likely the best crop.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said as animal feed, not human consumption
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Record Global Crop Projections Destroy Media Lies and Gloom[/h][FONT=Muli !important]CROP PRODUCTION SEPTEMBER 2, 2020[/FONT]
Click to expand...

There is no necessary link between increased agricultural output and the fact that AGW is quite real and a serious threat.

The Central Valley in California is a great example. A location that is NOT optimum for massive agriculture but is "preferred" because it has a longer growing season. To that end they dammed up as many of the rivers as humanly possible to provide for irrigation water. There IS groundwater in the Central Valley but the aquifers recharge slowly (on the order of THOUSANDS of years). With global climate change we expect to see multi-year droughts start and decrease snowpack in the Sierras. (This happened for about 1/3 of the total time I was living in SoCal). What that meant was that farmers in the Central Valley (where most of your table vegetables come from) started pumping the aquifers since snowpack melt and runoff is the NORMAL source of water there. They started to collapse some of the aquifers causing massive subsidence. Those aquifers are essentially dead now for the next many, many generations of humans.

It would be nice if AGW wasn't real because then we wouldn't have to worry about what happens when more multi-year droughts start up and the Sierra snowpack is negatively impacted. It's been back and forth for a few years.

Suffice it to say our agriculture is more a product of human engineering, which we've done an AMAZING job with over the years, than it is benefitting from "warmer temperatures".

We are getting ready to go to Vegas and bet the majority of our ability to feed ourselves. I hope we make the right bet.
 
Drawdown said:
If you think we are using less land for agriculture based on that chart, I think you are misreading the data. Efficiency and land expansion are negligible compared to our progress in increasing crop yields.
Click to expand...

Know the chart doesn't say we use less land it says we have higher crop yields per acre
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Corn as animal feed should be banned it is horrible for soil. It should be swapped for soy beans, which can help fix nitrogen in the soil
Click to expand...

From what I understand soy is a better nutritional staple for cattle. The only drawback I would imagine would be crop yield.
 
istodolez said:
A testament to advanced TECHNOLOGY.
Click to expand...

Yes, technology plays a part. Again, the problem is quantifying the different variables.

Your statement incorrectly implies technology was the only variable.

How can you constantly make the scientific gaffs that you do?
 
istodolez said:
There is no necessary link between increased agricultural output and the fact that AGW is quite real and a serious threat.

The Central Valley in California is a great example. A location that is NOT optimum for massive agriculture but is "preferred" because it has a longer growing season. To that end they dammed up as many of the rivers as humanly possible to provide for irrigation water. There IS groundwater in the Central Valley but the aquifers recharge slowly (on the order of THOUSANDS of years). With global climate change we expect to see multi-year droughts start and decrease snowpack in the Sierras. (This happened for about 1/3 of the total time I was living in SoCal). What that meant was that farmers in the Central Valley (where most of your table vegetables come from) started pumping the aquifers since snowpack melt and runoff is the NORMAL source of water there. They started to collapse some of the aquifers causing massive subsidence. Those aquifers are essentially dead now for the next many, many generations of humans.

It would be nice if AGW wasn't real because then we wouldn't have to worry about what happens when more multi-year droughts start up and the Sierra snowpack is negatively impacted. It's been back and forth for a few years.

Suffice it to say our agriculture is more a product of human engineering, which we've done an AMAZING job with over the years, than it is benefitting from "warmer temperatures".

We are getting ready to go to Vegas and bet the majority of our ability to feed ourselves. I hope we make the right bet.
Click to expand...

The AGW threat to crop production has been a staple of climate alarmist messaging. I will spare you the numerous links I could use to show this.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Know the chart doesn't say we use less land it says we have higher crop yields per acre
Click to expand...

Why did you feel a need to restate what I already said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom