SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the too-much-of-a-good-thing-is-not-so-good dept.
At least 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) of U.S. farmland were flooded after the "bomb cyclone" storm left wide swaths of nine major grain producing states under water this month, satellite data analyzed by Gro Intelligence for Reuters showed.
Farms from the Dakotas to Missouri and beyond have been under water for a week or more, possibly impeding planting and damaging soil. The floods, which came just weeks before planting season starts in the Midwest, will likely reduce corn, wheat and soy production this year.
"There's thousands of acres that won't be able to be planted," Ryan Sonderup, 36, of Fullerton, Nebraska, who has been farming for 18 years, said in a recent interview.
"If we had straight sunshine now until May and June, maybe it can be done, but I don't see how that soil gets back with expected rainfall."
Spring floods could yet impact an even bigger area of cropland. The U.S. government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned of what could be an "unprecedented flood season" as it forecasts heavy spring rains. Rivers may swell further as a deep snow pack in northern growing areas melts.
[...] The flooded acreage represents less than 1 percent of U.S. land used to grow corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, sorghum and barley. In 2018, some 240 million total acres of these crops were planted in the United States, USDA data shows.
[...] In Wisconsin more than 1,000 dairy and beef animals were lost during winter storms and 480 agricultural structures collapsed or damaged, according to an email from Sandy Chalmers, executive director of the Wisconsin state office of the USDA's Farm Service Agency.
US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue tells Fox News Business:
"There may be as many as a million calves lost in Nebraska"
https://agroinsurance.com/en/usa-nebraska-ag-losses-from-flooding-estimated-close-to-1b/:
The Nebraska Farm Bureau president says farm and ranch losses to the devastating flooding could reach $1 billion in the state.
President Steve Nelson estimates $400 million on crop losses because of crops that will be planted late — if at all. He also estimates up to $500 million in livestock losses as the state struggles with swollen rivers and breached or overtopped levees following heavy rain and snowmelt.
Apparently this is a loss of about 1% the total cattle in the US:
All Cattle and Calves
- 94.4 million - 1% increase from 2017 (93.7 million)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:40PM (37 children)
Mother Nature is still the boss, and we are just fleas on her dog's back.
We take our food supplies for granted. A couple of rainy seasons like this one and the US population will have a little respect for how climate affects food, and how much of a gamble it is to be an actual farmer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:48PM (7 children)
Just apply khallow's solution, move everything uphill, problem solved.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:19PM (6 children)
Or just don't bother to plant anything on flooded ground that season or rebuild on the cheap what got flooded. Sure, it's a problem for a small group of farmers and people who have stuff in flood zones, but there's plenty of dirt simple solutions - including move everything uphill. What I find remarkable about this is how people try to spin it into a big deal. Even if we had a couple of years with rainy seasons, we'd just have a small amount of flooded land (less than 1% remember?). But maybe that minute generation of respect for nature accurately represents the level of respect we should have for climate change?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:28PM (3 children)
Most of what that is basically farmland. They do not really build anything on it already (buildings and roads get in the way of growing stuff to sell). Many of the roads are just basically dirt burms with some gravel thrown on top. About every 10-15 years it all gets flooded out. They basically just do not plant this season. Next season they will. In neb it is a tad worse this year as one of the flood control points broke down after 90 years. Also in these areas there is not really any 'uphill'. It is all mostly flat.
They plant in these areas as it is close to water. The river however floods out every few years. The areas you are thinking about do not have as much water (being up hill and water runs down).
It is a decent idea. But not economically feasible. I can walk you through the math. But I will let you work out what it would cost to run hundreds of miles of pipe to move water around. Just to dump back out on the ground.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:05AM (1 child)
I think this is one of the major contributions of forming fertile croplands. Water + organic fertilizer = fertile cropland.(areas subject to frequent flooding usually have less tree cover, thus the land has more sunlight for crops-Mekong Delta, Mississippi Delta, Amazon Delta, etc. come to mind)
Most of the majority of fertile ground seems to be subject to flooding depositing organic matter on said lands. The 'flat' terrain of the Midwest USA + multitude of rivers seems to fall into this category.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday March 31 2019, @09:27PM
You left out the big one: The annual Nile floods supported the most successful of the ancient civilizations for several thousand years.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:48AM
California does kind of pricy with a few billion dollars for that kind of thing. It can be done cheaper, of course, particularly since leaking water isn't an environmental nightmare, unlike petroleum, for example.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:33AM
I've noticed a lot of fakenews effort being put into OMG FOOD PRICES WILL SKYROCKET!! -- when logically it should have an effect of maybe 2% (allowing for some shit-rolls-downhill with regard to costs).
If the flooded areas were the only arable land in the U.S., then we'd be in trouble. As it is... it's gonna be a bad year for them without crop insurance, and ugly for insurance and FEMA payouts, but it's only a blip against the natural variance in annual crop production.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @06:29AM
Why can't they just turn the fields into rice paddies? And hockey rinks in the winter? They should at least try to save that water for California's next drought.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:59PM (27 children)
It's interesting to look into "preppers". Almost no one is prepping for global warming, instead it is the opposite.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:29PM (22 children)
My company is well positioned for global warming. They manage a bunch of tourist properties for state and federal governments. Not a one presently is near sea level. Several of them would have longer tourist seasons as a result of global warming. Yellowstone National Park, where I work, has seen a modest increase in viable weather. There's not much really of the negative effects of climate change that will mess up the park for tourism. Sure, in theory, there's a chance of the cold-adapted animals having a tough time (at least till they migrant 100-200 miles to the north).
I think it strange that I, climate lukewarmist am probably better prepared, such as it is, for climate change, even most of the hysterical stuff, than people who claim to be concerned about climate change.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:49PM (8 children)
Except for there being fewer and fewer tourists with the means to visit.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:38AM (2 children)
You been to Yellowstone during tourist season? It's gotten downright crowded. Way more than when I was a kid -- then you might have minor attractions all to yourself. Not anymore...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 31 2019, @10:18AM (1 child)
That's his point -- it's so expensive and crowded that nobody goes there anymore.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:18PM
Yogi? is that you??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:51AM (4 children)
Except of course, climate change has been happening for a while and people just haven't gotten poorer. Instead, we see huge increases [nationalparked.com] in visitation. For example, in 1960, visitation (1.4 million) was a third what it was in 2016 (4.3 million). The narrative isn't coming close to explaining reality.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:45PM (3 children)
Nice try. When things get to the point to where people have to start "moving uphill", that will mean there are vast disruptions to the current state of things. There will likely be a great deal of social and economic turmoil, and luxury activities such as tourism will be the first to feel the effects.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:55AM (2 children)
Nice victory you should mean. Assertion was made, which has been dramatically false historically.
I disagree that the disruption is vast. Keep in mind the slow time scales. So you have to move your house in a century or two? How many houses will be built on that spot before anyone has to move? I'd say at least two. People don't get how minimally we and our societies are affected by slow changes. That's why I assert that contrary to the concern expressed above, we'll probably never notice the effects of climate change even over a few decades except for some modest geographical effects.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday April 08 2019, @09:13PM (1 child)
You mean the disruption has not been vast yet. You are apparently assuming that things will continue to change at the same slow linear rate as applied from the early 1960's to now, instead of the increasing rate of change which has been occurring, especially since the turn of the century.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:01AM
Which isn't much different from said linear rate. How many centuries will we need to wait?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:56PM (2 children)
When people don't have money having lost their crop, do they still pay your "well positioned for global warming" company?
Or is the company targeting only the "people who always have money" market segment?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:53AM
They do not. But guess what, the economy is bigger than some farmers in the western side of the Midwest. And those farmers will still have good years, even in the era of climate change.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @06:56AM
To further add to Mr khallows arguement, one million acres is an area of 25 miles by 64 miles. Draw it on a multi-state map and you would have trouble finding it again.
The area will also likely be better for farming after the water goes down, further reducing the impact of a very small crop loss. On a personal level for the farmers involved it may be anywhere from annoying to devastating, and they have my sympathy, but on a society level it amounts to blip.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:35AM (9 children)
Why don't you just say you work for Xanterra?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:39PM (8 children)
Nobody else says who they work for.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:41PM (7 children)
Nobody else is sufficiently specific about their employer that identification is trivial -- except for Ethanol-Fueled, but then I am skeptical about his employment claims.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:45PM (6 children)
I disagree. It's not trivial, if you still have to google it. And I bet other people have done the same over the years. I will continue with my policy of not mentioning my employer's name, because as I noted, it's everyone else's policy as well.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:16PM (5 children)
I didn't have to Google it.
Following a stay in Yellowstone a couple of years ago, your employer continues to send emails to me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @08:00PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @10:02PM (3 children)
No need for action, I haven't tried unsubscribing.
It's not a problem. I would like to go back to Yellowstone some time, so the emails really are not an issue, plus gmail dumps them in the "Promotions" bucket.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)
Going back to the thing, I doubt many people do business like you do with my company so it isn't really that much additional exposure. No direct mention of the company by me, no potential HR drama. That's the theory.
As to the subject of discussion, if you know something bad is going to happen, you can prep for it. I know of at least one Soylentil who thinks sea level rise from climate change is going to accelerate fairly quickly in the near future and yet they still own land near the coast. Sorry, I doubt most of the world would under that scenario (that is, assuming their assumptions are correct) respond in time to protect their assets. They need to do some thinking about the future IMHO.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:15AM (1 child)
My house is relatively close to the coast, but about 50 ft above sea level. Even in the worst case scenarios, I don't think it is going to be under water until long after I am dead.
I would be more concerned if I owned a house that was merely a few feet above sea level.
Then, we all need to worry about the super-volcano under Yellowstone. Or earthquakes. So many things to worry about.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:34AM
The less you have to worry about, the more you have to worry about. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:27AM (3 children)
On an individual basis, how would it be different preparing for a GW catastrophe as opposed to some other civilization threatening event? Secure a food supply, water supply, etc.
It might change where you would go to avoid coastal flooding and might change the plants you'd grow for food. It possibly could change the carrying capacity of the land you are on. You could get shifting of desert regions and expansion.
But then again, I doubt most of the preppers planned to be heading towards the coasts or the tropics/deserts etc. anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:40PM (2 children)
http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/Main_Page [iceagefarmer.com]
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday April 01 2019, @01:18AM (1 child)
Well, they certainly aren't heading to a hot desert if that's what they're going to grow. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 01 2019, @07:03AM
Not sure what you mean, if they were headed to a hot desert it would be because they expected the climate to change to something else. The plan wouldn't be for the current climate there.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @01:18AM
Wonder if Mother Nature is angry at all those "Red States"?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:03PM (1 child)
You city slickers know nothing about farming. Just start up some diesel powered pumps and move the water to an irrigation ditch. Then complain about the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:30PM
While snarky. This is just about 100% what will happen. They will also pick crops that have a shorter growing season to sell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:25PM (1 child)
href tag looks like it failed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:26PM
fixed, thanks
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by doke on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:38PM (1 child)
Did they consider turning that land into rice paddies? I doubt it would work for multiple seasons, but maybe for this one? They could rent the equipment for one season.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 31 2019, @10:06AM
That's just not how they do things [youtube.com] around those parts.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:39PM (2 children)
Googled the flood areas, found the obituary for my Uncle Bill. He died last month, was mom's older brother (mom died 5-6 years ago). He was 83 so no surprise, just sad.
Dad died last year, turned out mom had all the phone numbers stored somewhere we couldn't find. Googling, turns out Bill's wife died the week before. Never did find his phone number, it was evidently unlisted.
It's sobering to realize all your grandparents are dead, and you're down to 1 aunt (mom had 5 siblings, dad 12-13, mom was youngest, dad oldest) who is only 10 years older than you. Like the passing of a generation or something.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by martyb on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:53AM
My heart goes out to you.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 31 2019, @05:08AM
Let's put it straight: it's sobering to realize we are next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Shire on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:34AM (11 children)
Fun fact: There are over 250 million acres of cropland in the US. The temporary loss of 1 million acres is not only statistically insignificant but also completely normal. Droughts, floods, fire, blight... there are always large swaths of cropland lost each year.
The agricultural and cattle industries have never operated at 100%. 1% losses are not out of the ordinary. Local impact is often high, but overall this is business as usual.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @01:21AM (2 children)
Not to the people who work or live on those 1 million acres.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @01:29AM
That's why there is insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_insurance [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:49PM
But it sure is to the people who work or live on the 250 million acres not affected. Again, perspective is needed here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:08AM (6 children)
Indeed! Your fun fact is so utterly true it even appears in TFA:
Amazing to find out facts that are stated in TFA!
Here's where you begin to lose me a bit. Large-scale floods are a bit different from droughts and most of the other stuff you mention, as the loss of the land may not be as "temporary" as these other causes. Floods can erode topsoil and carry away the useful bits requiring years or even a decade to rebuild good soil, whereas a drought one year may not have a major impact on the next year, certainly not ten years later.
So, I certainly agree that this loss of crop may not be that significant for this year, but I'm not quite sure flooding and erosion on this scale is "completely normal." Do you have any citations with more info on that?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Shire on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:36AM (5 children)
You would be amazed how many don't actually read TFA or realize that TFA makes it clear how trivial this flooding really is to the nations agriculture biz.
As TFA clearly points out, this is not permanent damage. And erosion is not the issue with these flooded areas, in fact it's a lack of drainage that makes the affected lands unplantable. If anything the flooding is replenishing the aquifers such that when the next drought period occurs they will have the water to get through it. Where erosion is an issue, and there have always been places where this is the case, it's offset by the areas that have been rebuilt. Flooded rivers don't make topsoil vanish - they meander, pulling soil from one area and depositing it in another. It's an ongoing process. And remember the dust bowl era in the 30's? Yea, that's all been recovered.
This story isn't as important as the author would like it to be. It's essentially pointing out fluctuations that have been occurring since man first took up the plow.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by redneckmother on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:18AM (3 children)
After the dust bowl, there were serious (and expensive) reparations to farmlands to avoid recurrence.
For instance, beaucoup bucks were spent on windbreaks. With the advent of farm / cropland consolidations by large corporate farming operations, many of those windbreaks have been removed to facilitate "plow for miles and miles" for "efficient operations".
We'll have to redo the windbreaks the next time the dust bowl repeats itself. Ass u me -ing we have a chance to do so.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:05PM (2 children)
We might not have a chance why? It's not a hard problem and they figured it out last time without a lot of extra drama.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday March 31 2019, @05:38PM (1 child)
Have you ever tried to grow a stand of trees in the Texas Panhandle, during a drought?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @07:56PM
Yes, that was before I made Carhenge Two and after I straightened the Rio Grande for a day.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:56PM
Read TFA? I don't even read your posts.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:51PM
Shhh! You're contradicting the Narrative.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:48AM
Just plant water hungry crops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:09AM (2 children)
It strikes me that there are a great many farmers that we pay to mow the fields. Produce nothing, just keep the land in a farmable state. Ya know, in case a disaster happens.
Is this such a disaster? Should we be telling those farmers to get to work? (From the other comments, it sounds like now, just keep mowing.)
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:43AM (1 child)
When a farmer "mows the fields" there's usually a purpose: they're cutting hay so they can feed their livestock come next winter.
But the grasshopper wouldn't know that.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @07:01AM
I'm guessing the gp is referring to those ridiculous subsidies where farmers are paid not to grow crops in order to keep prices 'stable' (higher than market).
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 31 2019, @01:16PM (1 child)
From TFS:
It will be interesting to see if this prediction is borne out. Our NWS station still can't get a prediction right seven days out; I'm a little dubious of something this specific 2-4 months out. It verges on climate rather than weather.... but feels more like a weather prediction to me.
Will be paying attention for sure.
--
It's only when a mosquito lands on a man's testicles
that he realizes violence is not always the answer.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday April 08 2019, @09:36PM
A "fuzzy" long term prediction is probably easier to get somewhat right than a necessarily more accurate and precise short term forecast. Ocean temperatures and atmospheric moisture, the wind patterns , El Niño or La Niña patterns, all contribute to trends. If they are piling up high altitude snow the snow melt can be added to the mix. If predicted it's likely there will be heavy spring rains in the region, whether they combine with the other factors to create unprecedented floods is still a matter of chance, but it will not hurt to be prepared.
I don't know, I think I would prefer a gentle slap to the balls (it does not take much force to kill a mosquito) to a week's embarrassing and torturous itch...