As every farmer knows: it's not the weight that matters but the soil compaction, and that's a function of weight over surface area of the contact patches of whatever drive train your tractor has. That's also why tractor tires are so wide, and high flotation tires are commonly used.

Another way in which farmers combat soil compaction is by aeration and tilling.

It's true though that tractors are getting larger and heavier, but farmers are pretty knowledgeable about these things and usually take them into account when deciding what kind of machinery (on what kind of tires) to use for their soil, after all, if they get it wrong they may end up negatively impacting the yield of their land.

Finally, crops tend to be planted in rows for convenient mechanical processing, and while walking behind a tractor you can actually see the soil rise again after the tractor has passed, usually because the soil acts as a sponge, the tractor squeezes the water out and once it has passed the soil will spring back. It's a bit strange to realize that the ground you walk on is so springy because you normally don't notice it.

On our farm we would use an attachment called a ripper. It was a series of blades that would reach down 18 to 20 inches to break up the soil. Behind each blade was a 3.5 inch diameter bullet shaped slug (called a mole) that would create an underground tunnel, not unlike what an actual mole creates. We grew carrots, so it was imperative that soil compaction was limited or it would stunt the length of the carrots.

When you destroy/squeez fungus in the forest it takes centuries to recover[1]. In Prussia when they started with scientific forestry, productivity of the forrest dropped significantly after around 100 years[2].

Good times to come. I wonder why we look the other way, even when we have all the knowledge on our hands.

Two great books: [1]: The Hidden Life of Trees [2]: Seeing Like a State

I think one of the reasons to get bigger and bigger is to save human time.

If we get to a place where it's all AI, is there a chance that many smaller machines will become more effective than a few enormous ones?

Reading articles like this always amaze me, not so much for the problem itself but for the existence of the problem and millions like it that I never even consider in my day to day. The more you know the more you realize there is so much you don't.

This article is total BS, they could actually research the yields/soil between farms that use Steiger/John Deere 50,000lb tractors tractors (or smaller) versus farms that use Big Bud or other insanely large tractors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bud_747

Truthfully ballast limit on most normal machines is around 60,000lbs for many years now which I am guessing is the realistic maximum the soil can handle and manufactures have already figured this out.

I recently read a fascinating book about trees. It was called The hidden Life of Trees.

One study they talked about in the book, tried to find out why pipes were often destroyed by tree roots. Most people assumed it was from water leaking or condensation around pipes. However, the study found that it was actually because the soil was far looser and less compact around the pipes.

It is almost impossible to really gauge all the ramifications of any choice within the analog system we live in.

It feels like there should be a more direct way to grow stuff. AppHarvest is doing something interesting. Why plant in dirt outside and rely on lossy transmission of fertilizer and water to the plant? Plus fungus, parasites, etc. A controlled environment where you can get the nutrients and water directly to the plant seems a lot more efficient. I know the capex is huge but still. We probably should all be eating less (and wasting less) food here in the US.

I like the design of the article viewer on PNAS. Does anyone know anything about the stack they use?

Can it be addressed by changing the platform of farming vehicles? Hexapod walkers, for example?

If you're making the case that heavy farm machines reduce soil function, why would you throw the sauropod analogy into the mix to complicate things? I guess it would be a bland paper without that bit...

I read this “research” and the quality is laughable. Farmers, paleontologists and soil researchers will all find hilarious passages that make it seem like a high school project.

> [...] chronic soil compaction [...] negatively impacts various soil functions (9, 26). These are manifested by a persistent decline in crop yields (13, 27, 28), limited water infiltration capacity (8, 10), and a decline in other soil ecosystem services (29, 30).

It is a pity the article calls these effects as "well known" and does not explain them deeper.

Could this be mitigated by detonating small quantities of high explosives a few meters below ground in a 2D grid?

Yup, it is NOT just the pressure/surface area (which does apply to the top layers of the soil), but the total weight supported by the soil (which compacts the also-critical deeper soil layers).

This is just one of the problems of massive monoculture farming.

It is insanely destructive and unsustainable.

On a recent-ish trip to the midwest US, driving away from the airport/city seemed lovely as the landscape turned rural. Then, it started to get really troubling as we'd realize that the fields were so endless and unbroken, creating vast areas with essentially zero habitat for anything other than the farmed crop - from the lowly soil fungi to top predators - nothing. In many ways, far more unnatural than many paved cities.

Elon Musk and his ilk are 100% wrong about the "need" to continue increasing human population. We survive literally by extracting yields from the excess carrying capacity of the biosphere. At some point, we can exceed that capacity, and the result will be collapse.

This will occur like with any other population that outgrows its resources - arriving at a state where the population's needs exceed resources by 10-20% does not result in 10-20% deaths, but 80-90%, because the shortage is spread throughout the entire population - they don't just say "we're 10% over so you 10% take one for the team and die this month, sorry", but everyone is undernourished to the point of unsurvivability.

This is merely one example of how the entire system is unstable.

Disclaimer: I didn't read the article.

Why are farm vehicles so big anyway? Is one very large vehicle more efficient than multiple smaller vehicles, or are human operators the main constraint, i.e. because of labor costs it's cheaper to hire one guy to drive a bigger tractor than 3 guys to drive 3 small tractors? Maybe this is a problem that will be solved in the next few decades by driverless tractors, or just tractors that are autonomous enough for one operator to "drive" several at the same time.

I could see other advantages to having multiple small tractors: redundancy (one breakdown doesn't stop the whole show); easier transport; easier scaling (can increase or reduce capacity in smaller increments; buying one tractor no longer requires a huge equipment loan)...

Although wheels are much more efficient than flight, I wonder if low cost solar charged and battery powered fleets of drones will be deployed for seeding and harvest in our lifetimes.

So stop using big engines carrying fuel in the machines? Just run electric wires to poles and then run a retractable wire to the machine.

I wonder if you could fill up a cavity on a farm vehicle with some lifting gas and reduce weight without reducing mass?

Add more axles and wheels to spread out the load. Or even tracks.

Industrial farming is a wrong idea.

Interesting

Haha PENIS!

"cloudflare enable javascript plz"

...

those "ppl" are still bullying noscript/basic (x)html browsers.