Our good buddy, TheMoneyGuy, touched recently on the depletion of the rain forests, for use as farmland. This being a topic of recent study for me I would like very much to begin the discussion on world wide soil issues, and how they might mean our demise.
An interesting area of study.
TMG brings up some very good points; concentrating upon the soil issue, it will be a problem in future years. He brings up the Fertile Crescent, the Great Depression was partly caused by the Midwest dustbowls, and the Sahel Region of Africa is slowly moving south.
Climate warming (not going into whether it is natural or man-made!) and intensive agriculture are responsible for this process. Rainforest soils are very thin and nutrient poor, so only give a few years of productive agriculture before they are depleted or washed away. The only chance may be to utilize crops that fit in with the environment, but this does not lend itself to intensive agriculture.
We have not even started talking about water availability!
As TMG says, it is not looking good.
You guys flatter me.
I was born and raised in Oklahoma, as that is where my ancestors got put so to speak, when they moved the tribes there, my other ancestors come from Ireland and settled there since, hey they are just giving away all this land. (creates an interesting family dynamic when people marry the enemy so to speak)
Anyway, my grandparents moved to California for a bit during the dustbowl and sent money back so my Great Grandparents didn't have to make the move. They learned a lot about farming from all of that, and all of my relative’s that have degrees besides me are in Agriculture and most of them get cushy extension agent jobs. I should have done that but thought I needed to see the world. LOL.
Anyway, even with all they know now, staying on top of the land and keeping it viable is a 24/7 job, every time they yank one thing it pulls another and seldom there is know way to see how it is connected until the damage is done. My family was lucky, they were settled along the Canadian river bottom, but in the efforts to put everyone to work they built a dam there and flooded a lot of their original allotment. Long story short the Dam was for flood control, but ironically it was the floods they later learned is what made the land so good for farming.
Another weird after the fact is we were making sweeter corn and using those to make even sweeter corn, because the sweeter the corn the more people will pay for it. Anyway, turns out that stuff eats the land like a piranha. You have to use so much fertilizer to attain the same yield you end up not being profitable after a couple of years.
Anyway, even with the best land available, it is getting harder and harder to produce the same amount of food, I have a hard time seeing how this can keep up. It is one of the main issues I use for my opinions on population.
Your opinions are respected - I don't agree with everything you say, but you always raise interesting points that make people think!
We have a similar problem here - water is becoming scarcer in the south. Part of that is because the people can be wasteful, but a lot has been caused by the warmer summers and less frequent rain.
The fires 18 months ago had a double effect - a lot of forest was lost, and the land cannot hold the water as well. Soil erosion is a problem without the tree-roots to hold it together, so they are already looking at ways to adapt their agriculture. There is even an interesting view that the decline of the traditional Greek Donkey has not helped - manure held the soil together in ways that fertilizer cannot.
There is no major problem at the moment, but another 3 or 4 hot years could lead to problems. We have our plot of land and a few olive trees, and we hope to ride out the storm. 150 litres of our own organic wine every year helps - Happy Days
If we ever get an oppurtunity to share the wine I think you will find we disagree on very little. I sometimes have to search for those thought provoking statements.
As for the soil, it is something that seems so simple at first, only it is far more complex than anything we as a species have going on. I think it will prove to be more vexing than the climate.
Welcome any time, TMG - taking a sideways step out of the system is the way to go. I learned, many years ago, that sometimes the best way to fight the system is not to fight it. It seems to be quite capable of destroying itself in a spectacular fashion!
Scott: Must agree about the soil - fascinating stuff when you look at it in detail. The worst thing humanity did to the soil was start using chemical fertilizers. They add little to the soil and the run-off destroys river ecosystems. Every time humanity creates 'the next big thing,' we forget that it has a cost and then spend more resources trying to fix it. Good old manure did the job perfectly well!
Sir Dent: The Bible does have the odd nugget - these people lived close to the land and understood the principle of working with nature rather than trying to dominate it.
Yes, Wendell Berry once wrote that when we took animals off farms and put them onto feedlots, we had, in effect, taken an old solution—the one where crops feed animals and animals’ waste feeds crops—and neatly divided it into two new problems: a fertility problem on the farm, and a pollution problem on the feedlot.
The Egyptians mis usd the land and they got those plagues. That wasn't God's doing it was their own doing. They farmed that land so much that when it did rain and all that they got the floods and the famine and the bugs and everything else that comes from land mis use.
Soil wasn't really my first choice of study, however I how found it to be a rather interesting topic. There is a lot more to dirt than people realize.
I should really make a hub about this, but let me first point out some of the primary problems with North American farming, and soil depletion. Though water is becoming somewhat more scarce, that really shouldn't be the issue. Healthy soil is able to store water for long periods of time, thus overcoming dry periods. However, excessive tilling, compaction from heavy machinery, chemical fertilizers have all contributed to the lessening the quality of soil.
In the effort to grow as much as we can, for maximum profits, we have literally treated the soil like dirt. As such, we are quickly destroying millions of square miles of farm land. It won't be long until we are seeing the effects of this negligence.
This is the thing I really never thought about, always being a big city guy. Looks like it is really a serious problem, world wide. We used to praise American intensive agriculture back in USSR, and it always seemed the right way to go - not any more...
I got that hub on dirt up and running. For reasons of good form I will not link it here but you will find it under my hubs titled "farming our way to famine"
Hope you enjoy
I don't think anybody would object if you link it from here, it makes perfect sense
I know many won't like this at all. God had a plan for agriculture. He said work the land for 6 years and let it rest on the 7th.
Regardless of who's plan it was SirDent, good advice is good advice. However, we must keep in mind that the ecosystem in operation at the first publication of the bible is not the same as it is now. As omnipotent as God is, at the time his clergy didn't really know of the rest of the world and didn't account for these other ecosystems when writing the good book.
Here is a link as to what the lay of the land was back then:
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ … aneas.html
I think it has gone too far for it to work that way now. But if everyone turned to God like they were supposed to be in the first place who knows what miracles he might do. Of course one can start over now and it will help some, but maybe not enough to make any difference.
The interesting thing about feedlots, is that they don't have to be a disaster. I have seen many examples of methane recovery systems providing all the power a farm needs and surplus for sale. Its an easy system, with little cost (comparatively) and helps maintain a healthy herd.
The problem being that there is no current legislation to order that systems like these be in place. Other than watershed law, herd farmers have pretty much free reign over what goes into these animals (such as steroids) and what kind of living conditions these animals must suffer.
Please note, this is not intended to be a rant about cruelty to animals, don't worry they will come for theirs. This post is about the lack of governance when it comes to one of the greatest source of greenhouse gasses known to man.
Yes, and our genius administration just made the situation even worse by exempting livestock operations from publicly reporting emissions of methane, ammonia, and other toxic gases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03826.html
At this point it really feels like old Shrub is deliberately doing as much damage as possible to the environment, the economy and everything else before he has turn turn over the keys. I hope a CAFO moves in down the road from his fancy little gated community so he can get a taste of his own medicine. Sewage lagoons, woot!
Here we disagree completely. Based on my experience of living in two major Empires of our time, and watching other countries, too - legislation is never a solution. It always creates new problems, that require new legislation, that creates new problems, that require new legislation - you got it, right? All it essentially does is creating more absolutely useless and often harmful government jobs
Not sure if I agree with you on that one, Misha. A few years ago, I worked on a fish-farm in Ireland. A farmer upriver started using too much fertilizer on his land, which leached into the river and started killing the fish. Legislation allowed the owners of the fish-farm to prosecute - with no legislation, he would have put them out of business. The rules worked in that situation.
Without ANY legislation in place, they would have just come over and shoot him - problem solved and precedent established
That said, I think we will de-rail this thread completely if we start that kind of a discussion here. It's a nice thread and I don't want to do this
That was tempting.
Agreed - I must try to stay on topic, although the idea that too much fertilizer leaches into the rivers was almost soil related!
Europe tried grants, paying farmers to leave fields fallow, letting the soil recover. They are now moving towards giving subsidies for letting wild plants grow on farmland - this is one of the best ways of restoring soil, letting nature replace the nutrients. Not sure whether the political side will work, but the idea is sound. Whilst some land area is lost, good rotation actually increases overall yields in the long term.
I think there's a happy medium that needs to be found. I agree that too much regulation tends to backfire. In America, for example, it has tended to favor the very largest producers, so we have a very consolidated food supply that's frighteningly susceptible to bioterrorism and accidental contamination.
However, when you are talking about millions of pounds of liquefied pig shit soaking into the drinking water of local communities and filling the air with toxic gases... well, that is not acceptable either and it's pretty clear that the farms themselves aren't going to do anything about it unless they're forced to.
My grandfather was a farmer - over twenty years ago, he believed that things had gone too far. He practiced in organic/traditional methods long before the Green movement! He understood that for everything you take out, you need to put something back in. As for battery farming - he was a long way from being veggie, but had the old-school belief that if you are going to eat an animal, you have the duty to make sure that it has a good life.
Organic and traditional methods, seem great but in actuality, these carbon neutral practices are not enough to save the soil and air. There are other methods that are carbon negative (meaning producing less co2 than is absorbed by the earth, plants, etc) which should be legislated into farming.
Instead of subsidizing the auto industry, our governments should focus more on farm retrofits for methane recovery and carbon sequestration.
All this being said, I feel another hub coming on so I better get to it.
I can see how more legislation can be a bad thing. Believe me I KNOW. Perhaps than I shall revise my thinking and posting, and aim more for governments making it more lucrative for farmers to do things the right way. This can be done through tax breaks, grants and subsidies.
Then I advice everybody on this thread to take your time to read this hubber http://hubpages.com/profile/tom+mullen
I do agree to his anlysis
Actually, I would do it by removing (most) tax breaks, grants, and subsidies. Industrial agriculture is only cheaper because it's kept alive by misguided subsidies.
I have created a thread for legislation discussion. I put it in the politics section as I can see where that conversation is going.
Join me here for more on Agricultural Legislation http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/10099
I find that it is all connected. The purpose of this thread was to explore soil depletion and deforestation. As agriculture plays the biggest role in this I find it important that we address issues such as fertilizers and the effects of it leaching into rivers. This is vital as this leaching takes away from the soil causing massive amounts of depletion, erosion and arid conditions.
Deforestation for the sake of crops is quickly becoming one of the greatest threats to our planetary eco-system. Vast swaths of rain forests, aptly named ``the lungs of the planet`` are being clear cut for palm oil and sugar plantations.
Perhaps we should be looking at agriculture as a global threat rather than the savior of starving nations. It seems that agriculture has become more of an enabler for wild population growth.
I am sorry you thought that was off topic. What I was trying to convey is that the land way back then was differently laid out then it is today, but at the same time the deforestations and all that were still used then. I was trying to find a much bigger map of the areas in concern and this was the first one that came up in my Google Search.
There is another kind of ruin of land that is being performed right here in my state, county and town. You will be able to see the legislature that is trying to prevent the ruin of the Watershed we live in. It's a long hub though and I am noit sure that you would permit that link here. So I am asking if I can post it here.
Your post was not off topic. In the time It took me to write that post, you had already posted, so had many others. Thank you for your contribution to this thread. One might gain wisdom for the future by studying the past.
"Pol" from the Greek meaning people Followed by "itics" meaning Business. Hmmm Business of the People. Single largest business of the People is feeding of the people followed by the creating of the people. I would say Agriculture, the Food Industry and the sex industry are entirely political topics.
The Food and Sex supply and control of it has and always will be at the heart of Tyranny, as money would have no value if it couldn't buy food and sex.
Money is only as valuable as the underlying commodity. Money buys the politicians, who use it for food and sex and more money.
Wow what a weird little circle I have made here. Food makes people who have sex to make more people who need more food in order to have more sex in order to make more people who need even more food.
So, this is the cycle of Humanity, for those who seek power, they must control this cycle. The Church controls your mind in order to control your sex and your food. Government controls your money in order to control your sex and food. Corporations Control Churches and Governments!
Therefore, Both the Government and The Church agree to the screwing of the world in which we screw in.
"Very true - there was a tasty little scandal here, recently, where government officials swapped land with the church. Both sides made a tasty profit, and the taxpayer lost over $100 million." Is that why the riots in Greece?
Last time I checked, every animal in the kingdom was also into food and sex. It's gotta be about more than that where human beings are concerned!
Have you heard about brain theory? Where the reptilian brain is primarily concerned with these matters? Or--feeding, fighting, f**king, and breeding? The primary motivation is fear.
This is covered over by another part of that brain in mammals--primarily to do with social behavior.
Humans have both these two brain areas, but are a little more complex. The most advanced part of our brain seems to be about self expression and thinking.
Several philosophers and scientists especially out of the 60's and 70's thought that our primitive brains (reptile brains) were NOT just about shear on food and sex, but the gateway to enlightenment and higher being and acted like a switch.... They could always be turned BACK to fear and the reptilian brain function though--maybe that is what you are seeing in your theory.
"Hope that this is a relevant point, rather than shameless self-promotion - I do have a hub on some of the underlying reasons."
These are discussion forums having nothing to do with hubs. Promotion is only when one posts one's hubs, for the specific purpose of self-promotion as opposed to discussion.
"Where the reptilian brain is primarily concerned...." "This is covered over by another part of that brain in mammals--primarily to do with social behavior." I always thought the 'The Great Sphinx of Giza' caught the concept nicely.
Hey-hey guys, you lost me right here. Could somebody explain, please?
"Hey-hey guys, you lost me right here. Could somebody explain, please?" Sphinx- (lion's body) part reptilian brain, and (human head) part higher human brain.
There are many such figures throughout different cultures, too.... Never connected that before. Cool.
Just my to cents, but I studied biology in college and a man by the name of Bjorn Lomberg (once a huge name in Greenpeace) mentions in his very large book--the Skeptical Environmentalist--that the world has actually never been in such good shape, nor its citizens in such wealth. I mean, I'm not one to argue for or against that until I have irrefutable evidence for either argument, but a lot...LOT...of environmental organisations are backed by wealthy people with little else to do for hobbies, such as Al Gore.
I am an environmentalist, I tend towards socialism on some issues, and studied science in post-secondary university. I just don't think we're ever given a proper picture of what really is going on, and that leaves huge gaps in these 'stories' these rich quacks are coming up with in their free time.
Actually, I believe you are right on many issues. If you rely on traditional media and only a few sources, you will never even glimpse the truth. You need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I take the view that we are simply at a point in our evolution where a change toward our approach the the resources in the world is needed. It isn't about what is immediate, but what will be needed in the future.
All too true - I hate the media. The culture of celebrity worship has a lot to answer for, and I have little interest in such things (The Divine Kate excepted). As for reality shows.....
I agree. There is a need for alternatives as solutions for the future, but the world is fixing itself for us as we speak, possibly better than we could ever imagine.
Anyone familiar with bio-remediation? It's what I wanted to work in after graduation for a while, and it's essentially what has cleaned up oil spills for many years now. What is oil other than carbon? What consumes carbon? Bacteria!
So we genetically engineer a strain of DNA that 'creates' (loose use of that word) a bacterial species that will help eradicate that oil spill, and within 2-3 years you'd never have thought a spill happened. Sure, man has intervened, but nature itself has the power to fix virtually everything ailing the planet we live on. Something, of course, Al Gore will never tell you because he'd lose his 23 million honorary doctorates and his other 5 billion in Green lobbying. I hate that man....
In short, while there are some problems with the world, and I do believe it is the responsibility of the rich to take care of ALL of them (since a million dollar sweater for son-of-a-b**** chihuahua that Paris Hilton owns isn't good stewardship), the problems are collective of far more things than simple carbon emissions from cars.
Take coal plants for example. Nuclear power is efficient and safe and the only two major incidents in recorded history (3-mile and Chernobyl) were 2 entirely isolated incidents. 3-mile even was contained and taken care of, and Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen regardless. In fact it was pretty much purposeful.
If we switched every songle coal plant that emits highly toxic carbon fumes and trade them in 3 for 1 for nuclear plants, we'd be far better off already, not to mention we'd have lower power bills.
But then where would all those lobbyists for the coal industry get their unethical millions from?
Wow. You really do eat up the propaganda.
There are vast tracts of France that no one wishes to live in because of pollution caused by nuclear power plants.
We have no idea what to do with decommissioned nuclear power stations and no way of disposing of the waste.
Just because it says so on Fox news does not make it safe. As for the world fixing itself "possibly better than we could imagine." It will do that all right, but not by magically cleaning up all the pollution and replacing all the extinct species.
Bioremediation is applicable only in certain man-made pollution problems and makes no effect on many pollutants. So, whoop de doo, we made a problem and can now part fix it. Let me see you magically remove the heavy metals in so many fish that make them dangerous to eat now.
Not sure which planet you are on, but it doesn't seem to be the same one as me.
Yeah...obviously what I'm saying is magically remove everything that pollutes this world...since I clearly stated that above. Anyone can argue that either side is propaganda, all I'm saying is I've read many materials on both sides of the argument. I never said the world was perfect or we could fix everything, I did say however we can fix somethings with certain useful methods. Obviously you don't give a shite either, which seems to be your prerogative.
First, tell me about this nuclear waste please. I'd love to hear about it. I mean, come on, I'm not about to sell out to PhDs in environmental sciences when people here on hubpages have it far more figured out! The vast majority of what I'm hearing these days is the inability to get rid of waste steam/water, and yes that presents a problem. The problem you present is merely waste.
Second, I said no such thing of being able to replace what we've destroyed. While I wish we could (I did study zoology, and I have worked with many endangered species in the past) we sort of have to cut our current losses and work to prevent more. We can't wave a wand and eliminate it, though I find it hilarious you think I said we could. Of course it sounds more preconceived than actually derived from my statements.
As for reality TV shows, gag me! I know... Bad writing and scripting to boot.
When I got my degree in journalism, one of my objective was to 'see how things work..' I basically saw enough I would not make a good journalist anymore--unless I wanted to exhaust myself and probably lose jobs.
I should know this--and probably do--but not off the top of my head right now. Who is 'the Divine Kate?'
Cheap TV - I worked as crew for a small film production once, and I learned how much of the whole set up is lies. I am signed up for the Al Gore Haters society - the guy has a team of master manipulators surrounding him. In addition, I cannot trust a guy who needs that much hairspray.
The Divine Kate - Kate Bush. I have been in love with her since I was four years old! Mind you, the restraining order is pretty harsh - If I even listen to one of her songs, I could be locked up. My lawyer sucked that day
t.keely: Still not a fan of nuclear - I was born, and lived most of my life, just down the coast from Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing plant. A lot of problems there involving disposing of the waste. The oil eating bacteria is interesting - read about that a few years back, but never heard much since.
As a stop-gap, even coal can be useful if carbon capture technology is used. It costs too much, so nobody is interested
I'm trying to cut costs. Te only major waste is steam in regard to Nuclear power...I don't know too many true PhDs in the subject of science who will disagree with me either...seems that the voices that should be heard are being trample by the jackasses who are being heard. You know, geniuses in science like Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Al Gore, or Hillary Duff. These true 'geniuses' open their mouths and insert their entire leg every day they breath.
Sorry t.keely, but I know more about nuclear waste than I want to. I was born twenty miles down the coast from a nuclear reprocessing plant - the coastline there is the most radioactive in the world. Not propaganda - I have been there with a Geiger counter, and it went off the scale. That is hardly steam, and I do not need a celebrity to tell me that.
Ok then, my apologies to you and Lita and Mark, I am probably off a bit. Perhaps the technology I have learned/read of (since contrary to what seems to be popular belief, I don't touch the news--period) is either more recent or idealistic. Regardless, we have developed many good ways to rid pollution. Obviously there's a long way to go, but we're headed in the right direction. That's really all I am saying here. I'm not talking U.S.S.R. technology or Chinese technology as much as modern American, but like I said, I may simply be reading the idyllic writings of a college professor or researcher.
TK & Sufi-
I am not as technically oriented as I possibly should be in regards to this discussion, but I agree with Sufi that nuclear isn't the way to go.
I believe renewable sources that harness what is already there in nature will produce the best results... I always liked that quote they use so much in scientific writings, 'an elegant solution,' which often does not have to be complicated or destructive to be the most viable.
And! The academy! Know for bestowing accolades on the over rated and politicized in the fields of art and literature. Didn't realize it was also so much the case for science with Al Gore.
Mark, just wanted to retract the semi-sarcastic tones of my last comment.
I think these anti-pollution device you mentioned are akin to having stomach bypass surgery rather than going on a diet.
If that makes any sense?
Of course. I agree with you there. Trust me, I'm all for a less-technologically driven life overall. I don't own an ipod, I don't have a TV, I don't buy mainstream music albums, etc. I think it's all a waste of space. And the same thing goes for these quick fixes to perpetuate the capitalist agenda in Washington. Longterm it sucks even if they can muster a short term solution. I do feel that those of us who are doing it the right way are growing in number and we're much better off now than we were before when hippies were considered trash....'course in some areas they probably still are.
Don't worry about Mark - he feeds off sarcasm
No worries - most of us on this forum are scientists or can read the news without worrying about the words of HRH Lord Gore and his propaganda! assume that we know what we are talking about, and you will do just fine
Don't let us cantankerous old sods (that did not mean you, Lita, before the cyberslap heads my way) put you off - we have so many idiots posting on here that it is easy to be too defensive. We are all united in a hatred of Fox News, which is what the usual poster on here is armed with. Don't know if you followed the Global Warming thread, but you will see why we get a little tetchy.
I would like to read more about the bio-bacteria - my old man used to work on a sewage plant, so I have a healthy respect for what those little guys can do. I read about them a few years back, but heard very little since - whilst reducing the dependence of fossil fuels in the long term is the goal, short term solutions for cleaning up pollution are always of interest.
Incidentally, I used to live on the border of Waterford/Cork - great place
The only thing on Fox I can stomach is a strictly cable.business programme with Dave Ramsey, and he even turns me off nowadays. Top it off with the fact that I don't have a TV, I get my daily news filling from John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Hulu.com!
My in-law works in a waste management plant. It's tough work and rather dangerous, considering there's trillions upon trillions of potential specimen who would love to give you the hershey squirts for a week!
My family comes from Waterford, so I'm assuming I've mentioned it in my profile or that comment was ironically well-pointed
On the profile - not stalking you, but I like to check the profile of folks on the forum so that I do not put my foot in it. I have a couple of Oysterband tracks somewhere - they were on the BBC a couple of years back. Sadly, my PC is dead, so no access.
Better stop, or I will receive another restraining order!
Only if I have run out of coffee! I can live without tobacco and beer, but no coffee turns me into a killing machine.
I was thinking about Mark's sarcasm - if every hubber on here was polite, and agreed with everything he said, he would be bereft of purpose. Cast adrift from life, he would wander aimlessly from one day to the next, seeking to the fill the void in his being. A few years later he would be found slumped on a toilet, in an Elvis costume, after consuming too many chocolate coated bugs.
Luckily, there is no chance of us lot agreeing on anything!
Haha! I've got to see what MK posts in regard to THAT!
Anyone who can live without tobacco and beer, well, his opinion is not worth the pixels it is written on.
Although, I did order an Elvis costume recently....
LOL, I can see you in an Elvis Costume!!
Sadly, no choice with the beer - they drink lager over here. I do have cravings for a pint of Old Tom, occasionally
Marston's Pedigree for me. One thing the frogs do not understand is beer..... As for Greek beer... Well, lets just say, I understand.
The Retsina make up for it? At least the French can make wine.
Marstons is good. Lancaster Bomber - the finest brew ever made, although I remember a few cheeky pints of Cornish Knocker down on the Lizard
The Greeks have one decent brew, Mythos, but it has been sold to Heineken. That is not a good thing.
Otherwise, I drink Ouzo - instant oblivion. We also have our own grapes, so next year we will make lots of wine. We can then distill the grape-skins to make Tsiporou, otherwise known as Raki.
I am no PhD in Nuclear Engineering, I do know most of the PhD's in the US as they are constantly calling my phone and asking me questions, and if they feel like paying all of my expenses (I do mean all of my expenses and man I like to eat good) and 350 an hour for a minimum of 4 hours I will actually come out and answer their questions.
Since they pay me so much, I will answer your questions for Free (I say that last line in the voice of Forest Gump!!
This thread seems to have gone the way of the dodo, but seeing how the topic has turned to booze, i have found an interesting, soil related way of insuring vodka remains abundant.
Using potato`s as the feedstock for your vodka we can utilize some renewable materials and save some agricultural space by vertical gardening. More specifically in this case, using stacks of used tires to grow our potatoes.
First you start with some Terra Preta, a few tires and some potatoes. Lay down your first tire and fill it with some Terra Preta mixed with some of your local soil. Plant your potatoes within the tire and let them grow. As after a few days of the potato eyes breaking the surface, place another tire on top of the first one and fill with more Terra Preta. Repeat the first and second steps until you have a stack of 5 tires. Come harvest time, kick over your pile of tires and collect your potatoes. Make sure you save the soil for next season.
By using this method, you can grow a great many potatoes in filling your tires with land rather than filling your land with tires. This also ensures that there is no shortage of feedstock for your vodka production. Cheers!
While strong alcohol can no doubt be produced from potatoes, strictly speaking it is not vodka. Vodka is made from grain
LOL, learn something new everyday. Thank you Misha
Cultivation of grams causes Nitrogen enhancement in the field.
by Scott Mandrake8 years ago
Seems that the global warming post has taken a turn for the worse and headed into population control territory. I thought maybe if we should go that route we could do it here. So far from what I can tell is...
by Leaderofmany5 years ago
Okay, if God does not give you more than you can handle, why is my plate overflowing?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.