Submitted by Cross_examination t3_10hso0q in science
its_ean t1_j5a75oj wrote
Clickbait Title.
- Not a discovery.
- Not a fluke.
- Ancient in origin, but still in use.
Planting more than one type of thing in the same field is an established practice with various benefits. Established, like, probably around the invention of agriculture established.
Paper:
Cereal species mixtures: an ancient practice with potential for climate resilience. A review
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00832-1
>[…]the sowing of maslins, or cereal species mixtures, was formerly widespread in Eurasia and Northern Africa and continues to be employed by smallholder farmers in the Caucasus, Greek Islands, and the Horn of Africa, where they may represent a risk management strategy for climate variability.
techresearchpapers t1_j5anzrb wrote
Certain crops can have a symbiotic relationship, making a polyculture produce larger yields.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)
This is especially true for any plant with the ability to fix nitrogen using it's roots
RobfromHB t1_j5bc0jr wrote
Three sisters planting is not higher yielding than rotating the same crops on the same land and it is massively labor inefficient by modern standards. I wouldnt even recommend it at small scale.
Edit: Follow the science downvoters.
dontpet t1_j5bvffo wrote
Could you cite source for your claim? The wiki article included only a positive affirmation of the approach. "Food Yields and Nutrient Analyses of the Three Sisters: A Haudenosaunee Cropping System"
Busterlimes t1_j5ca6b9 wrote
I think it was MSU that did a study with field crops gaining water retention and nutrient retention by taking 10% of the farmland to grow indigenous plants and flowers. Monocultures are terrible and less efficient in the long run if you aren't looking at a pure profit motive.
RobfromHB t1_j5f1oqk wrote
We can prove it with some light math. 20 lbs protein per bushel and the average yield for top ~15 states is about 50 bushels per acre. Converting that to kg protein per ha: 20x2.2x50x2.5 = 5,500 kg of protein per hectare using straight soy. That's more that 10x higher than the research mentioned in that article. The main reason for their result is the horrendously low yield on their control group.
Aardark235 t1_j5ickug wrote
Divide by 2.2 instead of multiplying. Gives 1100 kg of protein per hectare. Article is off by a factor of two. Not surprising for this kind of “study”.
RobfromHB t1_j5jmxnb wrote
Shame on me. I'd like to blame being on a phone for that, but I'll eat it. Thanks for the correction and pointing out it's still reasonably higher.
Aardark235 t1_j5joo9j wrote
It happens. Root cause is the world (USA) should move on from pounds and switch to SI. I am so tired from the headaches these dual systems create.
[deleted] t1_j5bqsnr wrote
[removed]
footinmymouth t1_j5aea64 wrote
In other words, modern focused monocropping especially in grains is counter to previously learned farming practices that were more sustainable.
ubermeisters t1_j5ad1l0 wrote
any article in this subreddit that starts the word 'fluke' automatically is going on the "do not click" list for me. It's an unscientific term and to start out with it is an obvious giveaway to the clickbait intent.
> scientists hate these top 10 ways ancient people were better at graining than you
[deleted] t1_j5cqqjc wrote
[removed]
_smooth_talker_ t1_j5ae4x7 wrote
When people are pushing GMO mono-crops as the key to food stability I can’t help bit think that this is the real answer.
Obviously, this type of farming is not as easy to automate but most small farmers I know prefer this approach to the idea of driving over mono crops…
Our small organic co-ops manage to keep us fed but we’d need a whole lot more to meet the needs of the whole country.
TK-741 t1_j5cch0p wrote
The reality that “efficiency” isn’t as important as reducing the distance food travels from farm to table.
So really, we shouldn’t even be predominantly relying on centralized agriculture, but food grown in our own backyard/community.
That isn’t to say the farmland should therefore be developed into highways and cities, but that we can do more from within our cities than we are currently allowing ourselves to do.
sfzombie13 t1_j5h2hm8 wrote
having a general idea of how much wheat it takes to make a loaf of bread and how much bread i eat in a year tells me this is not possible given the size of most cities and the fact we eat more than just bread. it could supplement our diets, but never sustain us.
sciguy52 t1_j5dhlil wrote
Yeah I had read this article thought it was interesting and read some scientific publications regarding agriculture, especially large scale. First and foremost, polyculture is not new, in fact it has been studied quite a bit. For large scale ag it results in overall lower yields. They have tried this stuff in a variety of ways and so far, it does not work best. Where it might work better is small scale subsistence farmers from which this is based. And that was not due to better yields, it was better for getting SOME crop rather than NO crop when weather was not good. A very different thing. They may well figure out a system that works for large agriculture, but so far this just results in less production. Also learned some other interesting things that conflicts with posts below as well.
its_ean t1_j5duzsi wrote
At scale, crop price doesn't reflect the actual cost. It could be a net benefit to give up some production density / yield for stuff like improving resource efficiency, reducing polluted runoff, decreasing pesticide use, prolonging pesticide effectiveness, and even nutritional quality. Without subsidization though, the impact of increasing food prices is regressively disproportionate. Also, getting the industry to behave itself is a goddamn nightmare.
Ferengi_Earwax t1_j5aonef wrote
Doing the real work. Thank you will skip it
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments