Rice farmer here, here's why We much our rice back into the ground in winter instead of letting the crop self-propogate or ratoon.
Rotting stalks bring crop specific pests and diseases into the field.
A large portion of the crop is destroyed in the harvesting process, usually about 2/3rds just from getting cut too short or crushed.
The crop that remains after cutting is not uniform, some had only the uppermost stalks cut, some had all the upper foliage cut, flowering and setting seed will be all over the place for next harvest.
Nutrients can't be restored to the soil by rotating legumes or other cover crops.
The field can't easily be leveled or have earthwork/irrigation done with a crop in it.
The opportunity cost of saving a little seed is nothing compared to all the above. consider that 1 acre's harvest can replant as many as 2-300 more.
>A large portion of the crop is destroyed in the harvesting process, usually about 2/3rds just from getting cut too short or crushed.
Is harvesting usually mechanized?
That would mean less space for the grain to grow, reducing total yield, while also significantly complicating both harvesting of the grain and plowing under of the cover crop (I can't speak with certainty on this but it may potentially even be outright impossible on an industrial scale)
There are already some perennial grains like kernza but they do have some disadvantages over annuals, such as being more awkward to work into a rotation, having to save resources for the winter at the cost of annual yield, and using more water due to being in the soil all year around (though for that one it's possible that a reduction in soil erosion might negate it: I'm not sure what the exact figures are either way)
That just delays the timeframe, and when you have to rotate after 4-5 years, tilling soil fucking eight feet down is going to cost more than the entire farm is worth. The cost wouldn't even be linear, e.g. tilling eight feet vs one foot isn't eight times the cost, it's much more.
I mean, if it made sense economically, I'm sure someone would have done it already since agriculture is about maximizing profit margins just as much as any other industry. But alas, it is cheaper and more efficient to constantly re-plant (different) seeds.
single year species have bigger incentive to coom out as much seed as possible than multi year ones.
sounds hard to do
if you could do it, it'd be done
Why don't we grow chestnuts or acorns instead of wheat?
why isn't there watermelon icecream with whole fruits?
I dont know its harder to collect and mill maybe?
American chestnuts almost died out. And neither can be used to make bread without adding xanth or baking powder.
The companies that sell seeds want people to buy the seeds every year.
Rice farmer here, here's why We much our rice back into the ground in winter instead of letting the crop self-propogate or ratoon.
Rotting stalks bring crop specific pests and diseases into the field.
A large portion of the crop is destroyed in the harvesting process, usually about 2/3rds just from getting cut too short or crushed.
The crop that remains after cutting is not uniform, some had only the uppermost stalks cut, some had all the upper foliage cut, flowering and setting seed will be all over the place for next harvest.
Nutrients can't be restored to the soil by rotating legumes or other cover crops.
The field can't easily be leveled or have earthwork/irrigation done with a crop in it.
The opportunity cost of saving a little seed is nothing compared to all the above. consider that 1 acre's harvest can replant as many as 2-300 more.
>A large portion of the crop is destroyed in the harvesting process, usually about 2/3rds just from getting cut too short or crushed.
Is harvesting usually mechanized?
this is mechanized farming right? Not like hand planting and harvesting?
Also where can I go this? (in exchange for only bed and meals)
Indonesia
>Nutrients can't be restored to the soil by rotating legumes or other cover crops.
Can't you just plant them in between?
That would mean less space for the grain to grow, reducing total yield, while also significantly complicating both harvesting of the grain and plowing under of the cover crop (I can't speak with certainty on this but it may potentially even be outright impossible on an industrial scale)
They'd put more energy into roots and less into the grain.
What do perennial grass roots look like in compacted soil?
There are already some perennial grains like kernza but they do have some disadvantages over annuals, such as being more awkward to work into a rotation, having to save resources for the winter at the cost of annual yield, and using more water due to being in the soil all year around (though for that one it's possible that a reduction in soil erosion might negate it: I'm not sure what the exact figures are either way)
because you need to rotate crops lest the soil gets exhausted and yields go down
Not if the roots go down 8 feet.
That just delays the timeframe, and when you have to rotate after 4-5 years, tilling soil fucking eight feet down is going to cost more than the entire farm is worth. The cost wouldn't even be linear, e.g. tilling eight feet vs one foot isn't eight times the cost, it's much more.
>he doesn't have a hyperplow
I hyperplowed your mom last night.
We'd have a shack full of them if it wasnt for Lincoln.
I mean, if it made sense economically, I'm sure someone would have done it already since agriculture is about maximizing profit margins just as much as any other industry. But alas, it is cheaper and more efficient to constantly re-plant (different) seeds.