How good is your cunt's soil?
>>196397867i live in the most fertile land on earth (big ass women)
>>196397867wtf how is Morocco so fertile?
>>196397867
>>196397867This country is truly blessed. Just the Midwest has more green than all of Africa, Australia, Europe, and Asia combined lol.
>>196397867well there is a reason why the vikings were a thing
>>196398322We are fat for a reason
>>196398322>all that elite soil>uses it all to farm corn syrup
Image saved.
>>196398379It's criminal really
India many ppl mystery solved.
>>196397867is high soil resilience good or bad
>>196398379>>196398442Corn is very tough on the soil, but has high yields. It’s great to plant it on such stable, rich soil.
>>196397867Iraq was more fertile in antiquity and the Middle Ages until the Mongols destroyed the irrigation system.
>>196398509Good, low resilience implies sandy or rocky soil that will erode with wind
>>196398379And then that corn syrup can be used to create everything possible
>>196398643is high performance low resilience soil better than low performance high resilience
>>196398634I'm pretty sure most of Mesopotamia was quite arable and fertile at some point it's the birthplace of agri civilizations for a reason
>>196398643But high resilience seems to occur only in frozen places that aren't known for fertility, unlike Ukraine for instance
>>196397867New England always sucked. Poor, stony soil and low crop yields which drove a lot of people out west.
>>196398607>>196398677its also shit food for humanslook at the natives, they lived on that shit and look what a fucked up dysgenic race of manlets they are that nearly went extinct from the flu
How can Pakistan sustain such population with such bad land.
>>196398751least racist Swede
>>196398761Map can be deceiving. Look at Egypt, which has a high population and known for its fertility, but it's all concentrated around the Nile so it doesn't look good on the map
>>196398854So, you mean its basically like hydroponics?
>>196398854During the Roman period Egypt suffered pretty badly as most of their grain was sent to feed Rome/Constantinople and the locals frequently starved. Conditions improved after the Islamic conquests.
>>196398802but am i wrongnative americans are a fucking mess across the board except for the few that supplemented or primarily ate fish
>>196398976No, I mean the land around the Nile is very fertile>>196399014Yeah but it was still very fertile
>>196398738>>196397867A lot of the red areas are crappy post-glacial soil.
>>196399045My dude, if some alien race were to introduce a disease that has never existed on the face of the earth, it would wipe out everyone. Ever heard of the bubonic plague? Apparently, our immune system is really shitty at combating diseases unknown to it. This is how vaccines work, you know.
>>196397867I'm in the red zone.
>>196397867The mid cropfields of Castile, home
>>196397867The tropics have awful soil; it's not the sun-kissed paradise some think it is.
>>196398712High performance low resilience is great up until you get a drought at which point it promptly becomes dust and flies away, or until you get a flood that turns it into mud and carries it away, or until you run a tractor over it too many times and compact it into brick.Low performance high resilience is mostly stone.
>>196397867I live in a #2 spot.
>>196399332Basically high performance low resilience land is land that demands you set your whole operation up to maintain the land, and as long as you do that, it's great. Usually that means it's good for only one or two crops whose properties support the integrity of the land, like orchards or perennial crops whose roots remain all year.
>>196399332basically low resilience is more sandy soil
>>196399051I still don't get it. Unless the fertility of the soil along the Nile or the Indus is order of magnitude higher than the other places, shouldn't they have to be a decently large size of lands comparable to other bread baskets?
>>196399513The land within five hundred feet of the Nile banks is the most fertile in the world. The land six hundred feet from the banks, where the floodwaters don't quite reach, is completely barren.
>>196399513The Nile is a fertile strip in the middle of a barren desert.
>>196399559>five hundred feet>six hundred feet How many Minnesotas per square eagle is that?
>>196399599Roughly three Rhode Islands if you cut them into strips two football fields wide.
>>196399599it means 182 meters from the banks of the Nile is where everything turns to parched desert
>>196398257Saharan winds blow north and west, depositing nutrients in North Africa, Europe, and Brazil. The Atlas mountains prevent encroachment by the Sahara, and they enjoy a temperate climate, so they don't experience much runoff.
>>196399559You mean that narrowly shaped land sum up to be comparable with other bread baskets?
>>196397867We have grass
>>196399686Yes. The Nile is hilariously powerful as a fertility tool. There's a reason Egypt beat every other nation on earth to cosmopolitan population density by millennia.
>>196399675Thx
>>196399686Yeah. Take all the soil in tropical East Africa, and imagine how much you could grow across the whole of it if it weren't a rainforest.Now take all of those nutrients and put them in a river so Egypt can have them instead. That's the power of the Nile.
>>196399675>The Atlas mountains prevent encroachment by the Sahara, andMorocco/Algeria/Tunisia is quite fertile due to the Atlas mountains and in the Roman era it was also an important granary. In fact the real reason for the Roman conquest of Carthage was to gain access to its farmland to feed the city of Rome.
>>196397867oh yes and Ukraine's soil is also a historical reason why it has historically been fought over so much
>>196399770I don't get the calculation.Suppose the width of the fertile land along the Nile is 360m (180*2) as you claimed above, and the length something like 1000km, will create only 370km^2 of land.In comparison, Japan for example with similar sized population is sustained by the size of 23660km^2 of rice field.And you say the Nile yields 64 (23660/370) times the productivity of Japan?
>>196399675>Saharan winds blow north and west, depositing nutrients in North Africa, Europe, and Brazil.What? Brazil has mostly shit tropical soil outside a few patches in the northeast. Wasn't even self-sufficient in food until after WWII.
>>196400498Brazil is, for the most part, a rainforest. The kind of negates the benefit.>outside a few patches in the northeast.This is the key beneficiary.
>>196400457welcome to the rice fields, motherfucker
>>196399212>The tropics have awful soil for agricultureftfy the sun-kissed native flora is doing just fine
>>196399770>There's a reason Egypt beat every other nation on earth to cosmopolitan population density by millennia.Because it's the best possible setup for a hydraulic state?
>>196400625Most vegetation native to the tropics has very light nutrient requirements. It's mostly quite bad clay soil there. Things like corn that suck nutrients won't grow.
>have shit soil>be top exporter of food AND have biggest tropical forest in the worldKneel.
>>196400898Only works because you import fertilizer.
>>196399770>The Nile is hilariously powerfulI checked out the per unit productivity of rice in Egypt.Australia:9.8t/haEgypt: 9.3t/haUS:8.4t/haJapan:6.7t/haIt seems pretty fertile actually, but is it "hilariously" high?https://www.jetro.go.jp/biz/areareports/2019/b08cfbba6c02890f.html
Green countries are god's chosen
>>196400947As see previous. Brazil had to import most of its food until modern chemical fertilizer arrived in the 1950s. Staple food crops weren't grown much and almost all agriculture was cash crops for export.
>>196400964Why do Japs think rice is some yardstick for crops? Literal walking stereotype.
>>196397867gud
>>196401115no wonder everyone and their dog has invaded you at some point
>>196400726There is a huge density of nutrients in a tropical rainforest, just not as much in the soil. Different conditions. Not good for sustainable farming. Tropical with dry season (common) have adapted to scarce resources like anywhere else that has scarce resources.
>>196401106Because rice is one of the main crops in Egypt as well?
>>196401191Proofs?
>>196401225https://www.jetro.go.jp/biz/areareports/2019/b08cfbba6c02890f.html
>>196398854Pretty sure they import grain from us
>>196399332I mean, the Dust Bowl proved that...yeah people used to be retarded about soil management and didn't know to plant cover crops to keep soil in place and not blowing away over the winter months.
>>196397867You see the South historically always grew cash crops and not much staple foods because the soil is meh.
>>196400947we have our own fertilizer industry and top tier seed technology>>196401028this sound like bullshit since we have a lot of traditional foods from local crops. The elites probably ate imported stuff, but the poor people had to make do with what the land gave them
>>196397867>south Ukraine has bad soil >biggest food producing region has huyna soil Yeah i call this map bullshit
>>196401352California was admitted as a non-slave state because in 1850 they just thought it was desert useless for plantation agriculture and didn't know productive the Central Valley was.
>>196401438...
>>196401191Plus, rice has higher yield than wheat and maize, so it helps assessing the smallest filed size scenario along the Nile.
>>196401106Plus, rice has higher yield than wheat and maize, so it helps assessing the smallest filed size scenario along the Nile.
>>196401438yeah that makes no sense, also while new england has mostly shitty soil it's more mediocre than unusable, and this doesn't highlight anything like the Connecticut River valley, northern maine, etc
>>196398751Only Meso and South American natives were manlets thoughever, the North American natives were tall as fuck>Catlin believed the Osages “ to be the tallest race of men in North America, either red or white skins; there being few indeed of the men at their full growth, who are less than six feet in stature, and very many of them six and a half, and others seven feet.”
>>196401807As I understand the white areas are what's considered unusable soil.
>>196402054The tropics are a horribly unhealthy environment full of deadly diseases, wildlife, and other hazards.
If we ignore the "500ft each side of the river" claim and suppose that the average width is 20km, then the Nile will create a descent sized land. Or, just think that the Nile and the majority of the land is concentrated in the 20000km^2 Nile delta.These two cases seem to make sense.Either way, 20000km^2 of the land cannot be seen clearly in this map, so I'm satisfied with the original question.
bump
>>196397867they were good, but were stolen by decisions in Yalta
>>196397867>Florida I don’t know how anything grows here. The soil is literally sand. Maybe it’s saving grace is the water table is only 1-5 feet below ground.
>>196398751are you dumb?united statian natives aren't the short ones
>>196403384The red and orange suggests quite a few areas of stony soil with south Florida being purple and yellow indicating sandy soil.
>>196397867It could have been worse, there is enough productive soil for the population and cattle can live on low quality soil for export. I think only the Netherlands produces more yield per hectare so that is probably good.https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG?view=map
>>196402162a lot of that red area in Canada is the Canadian shield, new england soil is much better than that even if it's not great
>>196398607>It’s great to plant it on such stable, rich soil.Too bad Khrushchev didn't know that and tried to plant corn in the white areas of Siberia on the OP map.
>>196397867>Saudi Arabiakek
>>196398751Plains Indians were always described as tall and red
>>196397867light green reporting in
>>196397867What we have is enough for our population, some regions like southern ostrobothnia has strong agriculture sector and its just farmlands.
>>196405668red new england feels bad man
>>196397867This map is a bit deceptive because certain areas like Brazil and the Canadian prairies with poor soil are made artificially productive with chemical fertilizer.
>>196397867>Scotland It's bad
>high soil performance and low soil resistance looks like thiskek what?
>PennsylvaniaMostly medium soil, a few good spots around.
>>196401438>biggest food producing regionIs it?
>>196397867Its a frozen swamp.Just had another snowstorm this morning.
>>196397867>that mapChina really isn't that good it seems.
>>196405849Do you have greenhouses? We have fennoswedish town that grows all tomatos for us in winter
>>196406410>>196405881>>196401438Is that another region that was useless until modern farming techniques?
>>196405932Just the Highlands where nobody lives anyway.
>>196406460You can say this for pretty much all pontic steppe
>>196397867>ArizonaNot very.
I mean yeah, Iraq was also much more fertile in antiquity than today.
>>196397867i think its meant to be largely ok but on the few non industrialised patches of land in the country the main farming technique seems to be 'how many sheep can we cram onto this foggy crag'
>>196407334well livestock can be raised on areas where the soil is too poor for staple food crops
We have many different zones to grow all manner of foods.
>>196397867>americans get giant plains of pristine landIts not fair
>>196397867we have the best soil but shit rain so overall agriculture is meh
>>196397867I was under the impression that the prairies had really good soil hence why we have so much farming there
>>196408017Romania is not in a favorable position to get a lot of moisture while Ukraine gets the flow of moisture out of the Black Sea.
>>196408074I believe it's a case of the land wasn't very useful prior to chemical fertilizers.
>>196408145looking at it now I can see there's a fair bit of light blue in the region which is high resilience and medium performance. which is decent
>>196398751>dysgenic race of manletsOnly the Mesoamerican ones were mantels and that's because they barely ate meat.
>>196397867We have the shittiest soil in the planet and the shittiest infrastructure and we still beat the USA, the country with the world's best soil, navigable rivers and infrastructure, in exporting a non-tropical crop (soy). Remember that whenever someone posts OP image.
>>196410546>Brazil's soy dominance is a recent phenomenon>Competing with a country that undermines itself to keep its currency afloat
>>196410546Reminder that soybeans feminize you by eating them as they contain estrogen (that's bad btw).
>>196410546TOTAL SOY SUPREMACY
>>196410630>we're feminizing China and making them weakWtf? You should thank us
>>196399014Egypt had way more fertile land in Roman times, so much fertile land that the province alone could feed the whole empire and still have a surplus.By the times Arabs came there, the conditions already changed, and Egypt was in a process of desertification that made the region how it is, right now. And some studies say the Arabs focusing on goats as their main cattle didn't help things thanks to the kind of grazing these animals did in the soil.
>>196397867What the hell is soil resilience? resilient to pests? disease? I'm neither a farmer nor a biologist.
>>196410546Uh huh. And how many other crops do you beat them on?Production, by the way. Export doesn't mean shit.
>>196410546>We have the shittiest soilJust bring back the "Terra Preta" and terraform Brazil the same way your ancestors did.
>>196410768Resistance to erosion. The more resistant, the more rocky or clay the soil is and the less resistant, the finer/sandier it is.
>>196410546Scandinavia is worse and you also have year round growing season while theirs is like 4 months.
>>196411356>Scandinavia is worse and you also have year round growing season while theirs is like 4 months.I've lived in Hawaii and technically the growing season in the tropics is six or seven months because plants stop growing and go dormant during the dry season. So in the Northern Hemisphere the dry season is October to March and the wet season is April-September (reversed in the Southern Hemisphere).
>>196397867India has the best soil in the world
>>196411608True, that's why a shitload of people lives there.
>>196411429Also in a lot of the Sun Belt like SoCal it's frost-free year-round but plant growth still stops in mid-winter as the days are too short. Plants won't grow at all if it's less than 10 hours of daylight.
>>196397867>Baja CaliforniaHoly shit, I knew they had it bad, but not THAT bad.
>>196412873https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_California#ClimateThe north has some agriculture but Baja California Sur is mostly desert that only adapted plants survive in.
>>196412983Well, that state is basically run by seafood and expats.
>>196398761
>>196398854>>196402429I mean, they can always flood the Sahara.
>>196398257Allah
>>196398322yes, now keep eating
>>196402054He was talking about corn, why are you changing the topic to indians who hunted bison for food?
>>196410546to be fair you people just ooze soy
>>196398379Mostly for cows actually, and a lot gets wasted, corn get subsidies so it is guaranteed cash for farmers whether or not they sell it.
>>196398677>to create everything possibleLike goyslop?
>>196397867Define soil performance. This map has our soil having "poor performance" but somehow it still gives plenty of produce desired in places with a better soil perfomance level so this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I'm also not willing to accept that jungles have poor soil performance.
>>196410768>>196411124That's not what it means. Soil resilience is the soil's ability to renew itself. Low soil resilience means it can easily turn into a lifeless wasteland (or is one already) because the soil lost all its nutrients.
>>196400964What you fail to realize is that Egypt's current yields are high despite millennia of soil damage from primitive agriculture AND Ethiopia building a dam on the upper Nile that causes a third of the sediment to settle out instead of heading downriver. That's like a dude with no toes placing second in a footrace.
>>196417820>I'm also not willing to accept that jungles have poor soil performance.Jungles are widely known to have shitty shallow soil, their biosphere is entirely oriented around nutrients cycling aboveground with very little new plant growth. Everything happens up in the trees and stays there rather than dropping to the soil.
>>196397867iirc, even red areas manage 4 years plant1, 4 years plant2, 4 years rest
>>196417820>somehow it still gives plenty of produce desired in places with a better soil perfomanceShitty soil with the right climate can grow things that won't grow in great soil with the wrong climate. Or, alternatively, those areas grow the only thing that land can grow and surrounding regions elect to grow something else instead.
>>196413473Hi, thanks. Very informative. Seems like they manage to cultivate decent portion of their land despite of there soil disadvantage.
>>196418351The trees get their nutrients from the soil. There can't be so many trees if the soil has low performance. A lot of the nutrients currently being in the trees doesn't mean the soil has poor performance. Isn't performance supposed to mean exactly that? The more the soil is able to transfer its nutrients above ground into growing things the higher its performance is.
>>196418479You can pile fertilizer anywhere.
>>196418493Trees manage by penetrating farther into the earth than most crops can. They have stronger roots that have more time and range to work with. Cutting those trees down makes the land usable for a handful of years, but soon, the nutrients get washed down and you have to move on to a new plot. This is "Slash and Burn agriculture", and it's how Bantus have been living since ironworking began.
>>196418493>The trees get their nutrients from the soilActually no, they get their nutrients from decomposing secondary/parasitic growths in their canopies and carcasses left in their branches. Almost all carnivorous plants are jungle plants precisely because the soil is so weak they need to find nutrients elsewhere. Also those trees are old as fuck and reproduce maybe once or twice a decade, their resource needs once mature are low. Typically, the main canopy trees of a jungle can't even survive to maturity alone even in a clearing, the soil simply doesn't have enough. They're instead nourished by the explosion of vines and creepers that grow rapidly in any clearing then are culled en mass by the following boom in insects that eat their root systems. Without both vines and bugs, the tree dies.
>>196418289Hi, thanks, but my interest is in quantifiable matrix. Not really interested in junior high level knowledge.
>>196418591This makes absolutely no sense. If there aren't any nutrients for the trees, where do the vines get the nutrients? If the vines get nutrients from the ground with their roots, which the insects eat, there are nutrients in the ground, which then supposedly are transferred through vines and insects into the trees. Nutrients don't come from thin air. They are there and their origin is always in the soil, regardless of where they currently are. The soil doesn't have poor performance if it supports so much life.
>>196418289DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/aada50
>>196418766>The soil doesn't have poor performance if it supports so much life.Performance is rated based on its ability to support pre-modern agriculture, not its ability to support jungle ecosystems. See >>196418586
>>196418766>If there aren't any nutrients for the trees, where do the vines get the nutrients?They require different nutrients.> If the vines get nutrients from the ground with their rootsThey don't, they're parasites. They suck nutrients from the trees surrounding the clearing.>Nutrients don't come from thin airHilariously, in the specific case of south America, they do. Most of the biomass in the Amazon originates in west Africa and is blown over the Atlantic as fine dust due to a couple very conveniently shaped valleys and a stable wind pattern.The general state of being for all things in a jungle is hovering on the edge of starvation while preparing to explosively capitalize on any windfall. The jungle is a ceaseless cycle of recursive murder.
>>196401262Yep, turned out Egypt still suffering despite the "power of the Nile" thing unlike Pakistan.DOI:10.1029/2019EF001213
>>196401262
>>196401003True
>>196419016It makes even less sense if the trees get their nutrients from parasites that suck those nutrients from the trees themselves, although said parasites require different nutrients so they shouldn't have the nutrients the trees need but they get them from the trees and the trees get them from the parasites.
>>196403384Terraforming, perhaps?
