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) 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. ;-)