Slashdot Mirror


Plowing Carbon Into the Fields

OzPeter writes "A wheat farmer in Australia has eliminated adding fertilizer to his crop by the simple process of injecting the cooled diesel exhaust of his modified tractor into the ground when the wheat is being sown. In doing so he eliminates releasing carbon into the atmosphere and at the same time saves himself up to $500,000 (AUD) that would have been required to fertilize his 3,900 hectares in the traditional way. Yet his crop yields over the last two years have been at least on par with his best yields since 2001. The technique was developed by a Canadian, Gary Lewis of Bio Agtive, and is currently in trial at 100 farms around the world."

4 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Overpopulation by reporter · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Brian Gordon (987471) wrote, "Not that blowing it into the atmosphere is much better, but doesn't diesel exhaust contain all sorts of nasty toxins? If he's polluting his ground water then in a few years he'll have more to worry about than his dying crops..".

    Here's another angle of the problem.

    Suppose that humankind made a concerted attempt to voluntarily produce less children. Our population declines from 6 billion to 3 billion. Then, humankind does not need so much food and so much energy. The farmer in this thread of discussion can shutdown his farm and engage in another activity.

    However, talk of overpopulation is taboo. It is too closely tied to immigration. The current mantra is that growing the population is good, and immigration is the best way to grow the population. So, the population continues to grow, pressing against the limits of sustainability -- for the developed world.

    Pro-immigration (and pro-population-growth) fans claim that the issue is merely transferring some people from one country to another country and that, hence, immigration results in a net gain of zero to the world's population.

    Not quite. The actual problems are twofold. The environment of the country receiving the immigrants is placed under stress. (Currently, California has no additional land for farming or ranching to meet the needs of the ballooning population.) The freeing up of resources in the home country (from which the immigrants fled) now encourages more population growth. What we have now is population growth in the target country (which receive the immigrants) and additional growth in the home country.

    Wait. Now, you ask, "How will banning immigration help?" First, the population of the target country stops growing. Although the popuation in the impoverished home country may continute to grow, at some point, malnutrition and starvation will ensure that the population reaches some maximum value, or (more likely) the angry and starving mobs will wage a civil war, killing plenty of the population. The end result is a form of brutal population control. Malnutrition (and starvation) or civil war. Take your pick. The end result is the same: population control.

    I point out this brutal logic without any relish. The hard facts of life are that a finite system like planet earth cannot sustain infinite population growth. We in the developed world should deal with the issue now before the Four Horsemen bring their own solution.

    Although modernization may appear to slow the growth, a recent article in "The Economist" claims that modernization does not necessarily do so. I will try to find the article if I have time. Perhaps, you in the SlashDot community can help me to find the article. It was published this year.

  2. Re:It's great but by Hadlock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Your IP has been logged by the EPA! Get our while you still ca-- ERROR CARRIER LOST

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  3. Plough by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In Australia, we don't "plow" anything into our fields; we plough it, as the original submission correctly said.

  4. Re:What by John+Allsup · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The Theory of Quantum Interpretation of Uncertain Passages of Law

    by John

    ...

    31.4.15.9. If it isn't obvious at first glance, ignore it!

    Rationale: it could have been made obvious if it was necessary (the logic approach proves this) and thus it is simply not intended as a message for you and so you may logically just ignore it.

    ...

    ...56

    The Theory of Quantum Interpretation of Uncertain Passages of Law

    by John

    ...

    31.4.15.9. If it isn't obvious at first glance, ignore it!

    Rationale: it could have been made obvious if it was necessary (the logic approach proves this) and thus it is simply not intended as a message for you and so you may logically just ignore it.

    ...

    ...56

    --
    John_Chalisque