Hello all,

 

I was looking at a corn field not long ago and thinking about the optimal shape of the field's surface to maximize yield. Why do we keeps fields flat ? If instead one were to shape them with hills and valleys, say as a sine wave, the net surface area would be much more than the surface of a flat landscape - that would make for more space to grow cucumbers, salad, carrots ...

 

Of course the wavelength of the sine wave should be greater than the average size of the plants grown, so the vegetable themselves wouldn't "fill the holes".

Although, the hills shouldn't be too steep so they wouldn't cast too big a shadow.

 

What do yo think ?

 

McCrunchy

Planting, watering and harvesting are probably all easier with flat land.

disclaimer: not even remotely a farmer

 

I doubt you could increase yield that way. Farms are basically solar power plants that produce edible calories instead of electricity, and there's only so much sun per acre, no matter what the topography. And if plants are all growing vertically anyway, sloping the land isn't going to let you fit any more in, it's just going to require more space between them.

In a non-flat field it is considerably more difficult to prevent soil erosion. Whatever process you use to artificially shape a field to your desired shape is going to have negative consequences to the soil fertility (i.e. erosion, compacting, damage to the soil ecology, etc.). The fertility of the soil is vastly more important to assure a good harvest than the very small increase is field size this creates.

 

On top of soil fertility, its going to be expensive to shape a field. Disregarding the soil fertility questions, how soon do you think your very slightly increased yields will be able to pay off this landscaping?

disclaimer: not even remotely a farmer

 

I doubt you could increase yield that way. Farms are basically solar power plants that produce edible calories instead of electricity, and there's only so much sun per acre, no matter what the topography. And if plants are all growing vertically anyway, sloping the land isn't going to let you fit any more in, it's just going to require more space between them.

 

As far as the solar aspect goes, there is more solar if you tilt the surface, and make the sun normal to it. It will vary as I*cos(theta), i.e. you do get less solar power in the winter, at the same time of day, because the sun is lower in the sky This is why people tilt their solar panels.

 

But … some plants track the sun by themselves, so I don't know how much you would gain from this.

Sisyphus hit the major problem.

 

plants rely on the sun, sunlight intensity and duration is key.

 

with an undulating arrangement, you will get some area where growth is better, but also other areas where growth is poorer. it'll all average out so you have the same yield as before.

 

although along with the other issues in the thread will probably result in you having less yield than before.

Ok, thanks to you all for the interesting answers, I'll postpone the patent procedure

 

McCrunch

Water is the big killer of this idea. If you make the soil properly permeable for growing, then you will end up - within a few irrigations - with a bunch of mud and drowned young crops in the valleys, and not much growing soil left on the peaks (and what's left is too dry anyway). A few more irrigations later and you're back to a flat field.

 

If you tier the mounds to avoid this, well, you end up with the exact same amount of usable space as a flat field.

 

 

 

_____EDIT_____

I'm thinking of some radical undulation here, tough. It occurs to me late (as usual) that something like hilling doesn't have this problem.

Edited October 21, 200916 yr by JillSwift

i think you've been beaten to it by nature anyway. there are plenty of fields on undulating terrain already. you could possibly look for studies on field productivity and try and relate it to orientations of the fields.

i think you've been beaten to it by nature anyway. there are plenty of fields on undulating terrain already. you could possibly look for studies on field productivity and try and relate it to orientations of the fields.

 

And in a lot of places, they make tiers that are level when faced with (originally) uneven terrain.

Others have already addressed this issue quite admirably for not having been a farmer (common sense I suppose ).

Erosion would be your major problem here. The very first time you got a heavy rain, it would create ditches and these ditches would not only wash away the plants, but also any fertilizer you happened to apply within the past two weeks.

 

Corn ISN'T as dependent on sunlight as most other crops, so that isn't a primary concern. It is, however, INCREDIBLY prone to losing a good foot in height with a lack of water. Most fertilizer is activated through rain, so a drought hurts it by not allowing it to get rain, and not allowing the fertilizer to act.

 

You can see how sloping corn fields would be kind of a terrible idea.

 

Also, with corn, you really don't want some plants to be higher than others. You want them all to be level, almost every single time.

While most farmers don't have advanced degrees in physics and engineering, they do have their occupation down to an exact science. There is little about maximizing growth and yield that they haven't thought of.

I'm an Engineering major, and I still feel stupid every time I read my father's "Progressive Farmer" magazine where they talk about crazy new techniques that I can't even begin to comprehend.

Edited October 21, 200916 yr by A Tripolation

As far as the solar aspect goes, there is more solar if you tilt the surface, and make the sun normal to it. It will vary as I*cos(theta), i.e. you do get less solar power in the winter, at the same time of day, because the sun is lower in the sky This is why people tilt their solar panels.

 

But … some plants track the sun by themselves, so I don't know how much you would gain from this.

 

Right, but that's not really increasing the sunlight per acre, it's just intercepting the sunlight headed for other areas and concentrating it on a smaller surface, i.e. casting a bigger shadow. You could build a huge wedge shaped hill and get more sunlight per square foot on the southern (or northern if in southern hemisphere) face, but you'd just be casting a proportionately large shadow on the north face, and hill + shaded area would get the same total light per acre. Why not just use that land, instead, and leave it all flat? I suppose in certain circumstances it might make sense (if the northern land is unavailable for agriculture, or if you just want to spite your northern neighbor), but farmland in general just isn't that scarce.

What Sisyphus said, plus it would be a bitch to drive a fully loaded silage wagon across wedge-shaped hills. It would make harvesting that much more time-consuming and difficult.

Right, but that's not really increasing the sunlight per acre, it's just intercepting the sunlight headed for other areas and concentrating it on a smaller surface, i.e. casting a bigger shadow. You could build a huge wedge shaped hill and get more sunlight per square foot on the southern (or northern if in southern hemisphere) face, but you'd just be casting a proportionately large shadow on the north face, and hill + shaded area would get the same total light per acre. Why not just use that land, instead, and leave it all flat? I suppose in certain circumstances it might make sense (if the northern land is unavailable for agriculture, or if you just want to spite your northern neighbor), but farmland in general just isn't that scarce.

 

I agree — you are using less surface for the same amount of sun. The only way this wins for you is if the crop yield not only increases with more sunlight, but the increase is a greater factor than the area loss. But, as I said, if the plant already naturally tracks the sun, this is moot — all you've done is decrease your area.

the sloping of the surface would get the roots to clutter too..

the sloping of the surface would get the roots to clutter too..

 

Not really.

Not really.

 

how come?

Because corn roots aren't like tree roots. They go deep relative to what they are, but they don't extend for very long.

And even if they did, it wouldn't harm the plants any. Lots of crops are in such close proximity to each other that roots are bound to intertwine once in a while, but no harm done.

that an the curvature isn't going to be all that great. probably a wave length on the order of 10 meters. not going to cause too much problems, if it was on the order of 50cm or so then you might have a case but that would still be fine.