#hats off to the Dirt Man (my fav prof)

[cookie-nom-nom]

thanks for the @, this man is a legend. I'd like to get into a little more explaining, though I'm by no means a soil ecologist and am doing cursory research. First of all the change in A profile is INSANE. That's the topsoil, where most of the organic decomposed stuff is. Also where most nutrients are, and so you want a good layer for farming since your crops grow better. Soil formation is extremely slow, so the sheer amount gained is impressive, especially when taken to account how much soil is usually eroded by conventional farming practice. Pretty bad given you need soil to grow stuff in.

Thing is, lots of farming practices disturb soil hella bad, like the tilling that is mentioned Dave avoided. Tilling very deliberately stirs up/loosens the soil such as through plows, which can destroy weeds and make it easier to plant. But tilling also causes problems like disturbing helpful organisms in the soil, like earth worms and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (...well amf oscillate in usefulness but I like them so dangit they get a mention!). And it makes erosion far easier because the soil is less compact and wind and rain can move it better. That soil causes problems both by no longer being on the farm, and often ending up in places its not supposed to be like rivers or blowing across the country like in the infamous Dust Bowl. Who knew breathing in dirt constantly is bad for literally everyone!

Fertilizer. Oh man. So, fertilizer causes a couple of problems. It also solved a lot of them in full transparency! There were massive concerns about how to feed the growing population, and fertilizer was a huge part in that. There are substantial consequences though. 1, you got to get those nutrients from somewhere, such as mining phosphorous and potassium, or mixing air nitrogen with hydrogen from natural gas. I don't have time to get into the ramifications of mining on the environment, but trust there's lots of them. 2. Lots of those fertilizers are washed away into rivers, lakes, etc which then inject excess nutrients that cause problems that kickstarts a process leading to fish and aquatic life dying due to lack of oxygen (eutrophication). So Dave cutting down on fertilizer usage helps the environment, but not necessarily his crop yield. Which he offset using cover crops (grown between the main crops, prevent bare ground (erosion) and can make it harder for weeds to grow). Peas are a legume, which have the ability to intake nitrogen from the air and store it, which adds nitrogen to the soil. I see evidence for peas as good for getting that nitrogen need (here). That source also suggests radishes work, though another source contradicts that. Anyway crop cover is hella important, and it's driving me a little crazy that my current job doesn't utilize it but well that's a confounding variable when trying to take data so we all make sacrifices in the name of science. Alas.

Multiple species have different nutrient requirements, and so by using a mixture of crops they can compete less. Niche partitioning lets gooo. It's like how I won't touch my roommate's blueberries, but since he's full on berries he only nibbles at my spaghetti whereas a second Nom in the house would mean WAR. Less bloodshed since we need different nutrient imput. More complete use of the nutrients in the soil mean they need less fertilizer imputs, plus the nutrients cover crops like the nitrogen fixing peas are adding to the soil. Dave used very little fertilizer without sacrificing yield much, which is a sign of very sustainable farming.

Fungicides and insecticides cause so so so many problems. Like you're introducing poison into the equation, and they don't ever affect only the pest a farmer is trying to get rid off. They tend to have health consequences for humans and ecosystems. The famous case of course being DDT, an insecticide that accumulated in fat and would travel up the foodchain when a contaminated animal was eaten, increasing in concentration and doing things like killing off eagles and songbirds. Also potentially doing things like leading to the endangerment of honey bees, generally being carcinagens, etc etc. Dave switching to using no fungicides and insecticides doubtlessly was very difficult, given pest control is a nightmare and jeopardizes yield. There are other methods of pest control however: things like using predators to the pest, having a variety of crops (see: monocultures are horrible), mechanical control, etc.

I know absolutely nothing about neonicotinoids and seed treatment, and so won't comment to avoid potential misinformation. Most of this has been my background knowledge supplemented with cursory research to confirm and offer jumping off points for further research if anyone cares to.

His cash crop yields have been increasing by an average of 5% annually for the past 5-6 years, with far less fertilizer and no fungicides, insecticides or seed treatment

^^highlighting because it's absolutely INSANE. Proof that more environmentally friendly approaches are beneficial. Wish this discussed more the economics of this, since if he's getting a 5% increase in yield but it takes 10% more money input it may still be infeasible for most people. As thin of a margin as many farmers operate on, more intensive and expensive methods may not always be possible, or too risky. I'm not here to demonize anyone who isn't employing these environmentally conscious agricultural practices, of course, since as it often is the real enemy is capitalism. I'm of the firm belief that anything that benefits the environment benefits humans in the long run, but as is the current system incentivizes profit now consequences later. Hard to change the machine when you're just trying not to get crushed. Which makes Dave's commitment all the more impressive despite the rigidity trap of the agricultural system being self propagating as it asks greater and greater inputs to maintain the human population.

It's honest work, and it means so, so much that he did it.