Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let the East Bloom Again (Farming To Expand East Of The Mississippi?)
New York Times ^ | 22 September 2007 | RICHARD T. McNIDER and JOHN R. CHRISTY

Posted on 09/22/2007 6:45:35 AM PDT by shrinkermd

Until the middle of the 1900s, much of our country’s food and fiber was produced east of the Mississippi River. Maine led the nation in potato production in 1940, and New York wasn’t far behind. The South, including Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, dominated cotton. Large amounts of corn were grown in almost every state for consumption by the local livestock and poultry. Regional vegetable markets, especially in the mid-Atlantic states, served the population centers of the East.

By 1980, Western irrigation and improvements in transportation had largely destroyed this Eastern system of agriculture. Irrigated cotton in Arizona, California and Texas displaced the cotton economy of the Deep South. Idaho and Washington became the nation’s major potato producers. Corn production became more concentrated in the Midwest.

Through irrigation, Western farmers were spared the occasional droughts that had plagued Eastern farmers, but the specialized Western system came with a price. Water projects dried up the area’s rivers. Salmon runs disappeared. Soils were poisoned from the salt in irrigated water that is left behind after evaporation.

Returning agricultural production to the Eastern United States under irrigation would be efficient and environmentally sound. In the West, at least three to four feet of water per acre is needed every year to produce a good crop. In the East, only a few inches of irrigated water per acre are needed, because of the region’s heavier rainfall. Even in a dry year for the East, about a foot of water per acre will suffice.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agriculture; farming; irrigation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: shrinkermd

**Richard T. McNider and John R. Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.**

What the hell do they know about farming?


21 posted on 09/22/2007 8:54:35 AM PDT by Swiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swiss

You finally asked *the* question that needed asking.

I farm an irrigated section in Nevada. In Nevada, we grow some of the best hay in the world here. It isn’t just the land - it is our climate. Hot days and cool nights result in forages putting on lots of growth with less fiber.

You can grow alfalfa just about anywhere in the west. They grow lots of it in California. But when their nights heat up in April, they get lots more fiber in their hay than we get. Dairy farmers know that milk production is maximized when they can get more alfalfa protein into a milk cow with less fiber to fill her up.

So they pay a premium to haul low-fiber alfalfa hay out of Nevada into California, rather than suffer a milk production decline by feeding alfalfa grown locally. There’s a whole lot of irrigation and diesel fuel expended growing hay 500 miles from the dairy in the west, and even more diesel fuel used to ship the hay to the dairy. All that CO2 — to maximize milk production.

Maximizing milk production from a single cow means that you need fewer cows to produce the same milk. If you look at the NASS, you see that milk production per cow has been on an upward trend for years as better research into animal science and genetics maximizes the milk we get out of one cow.

Poorer-quality local feed means less diesel fuel burned... but means more cows for the same amount of milk. So we’d trade off CO2 for methane production. Oh, and cow poop. Lots more cow poop. Which produces more methane.

So... would be be putting out more or less satanic warming gases by using locally produce forage?

These are the sorts of things that most non-farming people, including professors of atmospheric science, don’t know.


22 posted on 09/22/2007 10:02:08 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You’re spot-on. Too many eastern farms are composed of smaller chunks of land.

With inflation since the 70’s, today’s farmer has to farm at least 2,000 acres of most row-crop commodities to support one family.

In the 60’s, the farm needed to be only about 400 to 600 acres to support a family.

To farm 2,000 acres or more, you need some huge machinery and big implements to reduce labor costs. Big machinery makes BIG noise. (I love the sound of howling diesels, but that’s just me, I’m a farmer).

Neighbors of farmers running equipment don’t like farmers. Or their equipment. Or the dust, spray rigs (or spray planes), etc, etc, etc.

Out here in the west, we have fewer idiot neighbors next to farms, as well as larger contiguous farms.


23 posted on 09/22/2007 10:06:53 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bert
Lots of that "fallow land" in Virginia's Piedmont region(s) has only a few inches of soil on it.

For the most part it's good for growing tourists.

24 posted on 09/22/2007 5:44:31 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Most of those zones can be converted to other uses through the simple expedient of paying any taxes previously forgiven as a consequence of setting up the zone.

What the farmer has done is rotate property taxes forward to any future owner when it comes to his marginal land.

We were checking out land in Bartholomew County, Indiana. We discovered that ANY piece of land on a 1 degree or greater slope was part of a Conservation District and didn't pay property taxes.

There's some lawyer in Columbus who can churn the easements out like crazy, and has done so.

25 posted on 09/22/2007 5:49:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ODC-GIRL
Don’t suppose the author has been to Michigan, Ohio or Wisconsin. LOTS of farms around here - all east of the Mississippi

True. You can add Indiana and Illinois as well. All largely agricultural states.

My guess is that this is a solution in search of a problem--which will evolve by itself through market forces.

26 posted on 09/22/2007 6:26:59 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Meanwhile, its a miracle that we still have folks with five acres to plant corn on here in Central New Jersey.


27 posted on 09/22/2007 6:27:54 PM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

cotton should be removed from arizona and california because it is water intensive.

we need the water for other uses.


28 posted on 09/22/2007 6:30:41 PM PDT by ken21 ( people die + you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
How much land is available east of the Mississippi? Are there large tracts of farm land now unused

There is a lot of land lying fallow, and as someone has observed, even returning to forest. In my work I drive around much of Northeast Ohio, which most people would consider an industrial area, but all I see is countryside-- and much of it not being farmed, although it has been in the past and could easily be again. I expect it is not atypical of much of the Eastern US, at least away from the seaboard.

The authors btw are "climate scientists" from Alabama, not NY.

29 posted on 09/22/2007 6:33:39 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
typical 40 to 160 acre family farm had been displaced by major farms

Last figures I saw on family farms, admittedly a few years back, showed that about two thirds were debt-free and profitable. These authors emphasize the water issue(being "climate scientists") but as transportation and other energy costs increase, more local ag production will become progressively more profitable.

The biggest problem right now is that it is more profitable for farmers to sell their land to real estate developers than to farm it. But that seems to me to be a situation the market may correct. If Amish can prosper using 19th century equipment and methods,( they can and do), I would say there is a bright future for smaller farms in the eastern US.

30 posted on 09/22/2007 6:42:46 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Why does a gallon of milk cost the consumer 40 to 50% more than a gallon of gasoline?


31 posted on 09/22/2007 8:20:25 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Uh, serious question or are you just spoofin’ me?


32 posted on 09/22/2007 9:37:56 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
As long as they are not owned by any of the large commercial producers. Commercial livestock farming brings all kinds of nasty crap into the food chain. We need to return to the local farms, and remove all of the restriction that prevent them from operating profitably.

I just finished reading an excellent book by a Virginia farmer, that scared the crap out of me.


33 posted on 10/01/2007 7:50:58 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

One thing the Northeast has along with their disasterous liberal high regulation governments, collapsed economies and solidly Blue political color is WATER. If the libs can find a way to help farmers instead of punishing them the Noretheast could indeed once again become a breadbasket economy.


34 posted on 10/01/2007 7:55:20 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson