Intensive farming 'least bad option' for food and environment
Intensive, high-yielding agriculture may be the best way to meet growing demand for food while conserving biodiversity, say researchers.
But their study says the approach makes sense only if it is linked to more wilderness being spared the plough.
Intensive farming is said to create high levels of pollution and damage the environment more than organic farming.
However, this report suggests that contrary to perceptions, this is not necessarily the case.
Organic groups though have rejected the report's findings.
Around the world sales of organic produce have boomed over the past 20 years as consumers have bought into the idea that the approach is good not just for their health but for the good of the planet, as well.
However, this study takes issue with that view.
The researchers measured the environmental costs - including what they term "externalities", such as greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer and water use - of producing a given amount of food on both high-yield and low-yield farms.
Working with scientists in 17 organizations from around the globe, they analyzed information from hundreds of investigations into four large food areas - Asian paddy rice, European wheat, Latin American beef and European dairy.
While the data available is limited, the researchers concluded that many high-yield systems are less damaging to the environment and use less land.
"If we are serious about keeping most of the species with which we share the planet, we are going to have to make the best use of the farmland we've already got rather than continue to expand," said lead author Prof Andrew Balmford, from the University of Cambridge.
"And that means we are going to have to get smart about high-yield agriculture."
The authors say the world needs to reduce consumption of beef and other high-impact foodstuffs if we are to have a sustainable future - but they believe their study shows that producing these materials with less land may be the best way of making space for nature and may also have fewer environmental costs than lower-yielding systems.
"We are certainly not pro conventional agriculture business as usual," said Prof Balmford. "'We're just pro looking at the numbers, and the numbers tell us that most biodiversity can't survive on any sort of farm."
Full article here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45520399
Tags
Who is online
297 visitors
This article ought to draw fire.....
We have 8-billion people on this rock and growing. We have to find better ways to feed them while we find ways to leave things like rainforests alone. Either that or we are going to need a pandemic to greatly thin out the heard. One way or another, Ma nature is going to have the final say if we stay or if we go if our technology can't keep up with changes that are evident all around us.
The drip-technology system created in Israel would at least help limit agricultural water use.
By the way, welcome back FLYNAVY1 - you've not been around for a while.
We had better fine a way to stop destroying the earth. Here is a good article and photos of the destruction of the Amazon rain forest by illegal gold mining.
We need to look at that "8 billion and growing" thing.
no leader wants to touch that and it is the biggest problem there is
China tried and it was a total fail. The thing about population control it that it can have unexpected outcomes, even in a restrictive environment like China. That being said, we have to get our numbers under control but this does not negate the need for high yield foods. Even if the population stays right where it is, the production of food produces a ton of waste. The beef and dairy industry methane is insane and we are fishing our oceans to death (if our plastic garbage wasn't bad enough). Here on Long Island, where we have both agriculture and fishing, our fishermen are having to go out further and further to make a living at fishing. 40 years ago you could go into one of our marinas throw a string into the water and catch one. It's kind of sad and scary at the same time
I wouldn't advocate for restrictive methods. But I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of couples in the world, especially the female halves of those couples, who would have fewer children if they were given the choice. Making contraceptives easily available globally and working to make them culturally acceptable would go a long way, IMO, toward reducing population growth.
But yeah, even so, we need to find better ways to feed ourselves. Less meat would be a good place to start - sorry, all you carnivores. FWIW, I like meat, too, but we'd probably all be healthier if we ate less of it, and so would Mother Earth.
China a little while ago tried to increase the limit from one child to two (there always were exceptions, like children of farmers), and now are opening it up even more - the reason being that they have discovered that supporting the aging society while limiting the younger tax-paying workforce was a losing concept.
What I have seen as a result of the changes is a fantastic boom in private preschools and kindergartens, clothing and accessory stores for children, and other such services for kids.
Having had a very large garden for many years myself, I am familiar with natural ways to control pests. And being in So Calif, where water shortages and conservation is always a concern, I learned creative ways of watering that can help save water and yet make sure the plants are getting the amount of water they need based upon the type of vegetation. Some types of fruit and vegetables take more water than others, so the watering system can be designed to cater to the needs of the various types of plants.
Also, some types of gardening/farming are conducive to a drip irrigation system with a timer, which can conserve water, yet, endure the plants are getting what they need with less waste. Other types of crops make take a wider range of water system, such as a more expanded irrigation system.
And frankly, I am not a fan of Organic foods at they are marketed today, as many operation that claim their products are organically grown are rip offs, as they are not fully organically grown. The only real difference in them is the price for the use of the term 'organic', not the true organic quality. While the Feds are starting to deal with these operations and their false claims, there is still a long way to go.
And indeed, Mother Earth and the various species that call her home must be preserved in a healthy manner and stable number, as that is the only way all species here on earth can manage to survive.
Man cannot survive, even with all the food in the world, without the other species that both Mother Earth and Man's survival depend on.
Just my own thoughts and opinions.
Check out this video. This is a way to reduce land use while producing more food.
There are so many empty warehouses sitting around that could be adapted for this.
Excellent!! This should be a seed.
I'm talking to these guys to see if they will train me as a grower. I have done some aquaponics but the lighting is the key to this system. The lighting in that system is still being tested and tweaked. 30,000 sq. ft. in 8 levels. They are testing tomatoes and other vegies too.
What do you think of aquaponics?
I have done some on a small scale. I'm working on a greenhouse now, plumbing, tanks, ect. Hoping to get it going next year. I have a friend who does experimentation on tilapia for Purdue and who has a set up in the area. He grows thousands of tilapia every year for the Indianapolis and Chicago market. I can get fingerlings from him. If only I liked tilapia.
I'm thinking about perch, which I like and can grow with less temperature control. The vegies that I grew were beautiful. Used an old washer to spin the greens. I'm going for sustainability over marketing but will look into farmers markets if I get excess produce.
The thing I like is that it's truly organic. Hydroponics really aren't as much as they want to claim they are. HOW can something be 'organic' when synthetic chemicals are part of the nutrient? Here is another video on where I want to get to:
I completely agree that it's much more sustainable and natural vs. hydroponics. While I've seen a few videos of somewhat large aquaponic farms, I'm not sure why it's not being done at a much larger scale.
I'm still in the planning stage. I love gardening and recently decided that aquaponics was the way to go. I feel you on the tilapia, not my favorite either. I was thinking catfish, with the weather we have down here water temp would only be an issue with colder water fish like trout.
Btw best of luck with your system.
The Aussies have been doing it for decades. Check this out:
BTW, trout need moving water, a current, so it's more complicated and takes more room.
I buried my tanks to take advantage of the insulation. My greenhouse is on top of my septic field, it stays warmer in winter. I am installing a wood burner and making a copper hot water coil/tank to help to keep the water temp up in the winter.
Here's another company doing the same thing. They're called Aerofarms . This is a photo from their company website:
I think they're based in New Jersey. I seeded an article about them once on Newsvine, but nobody seemed to notice at the time. Their website says they use self-contained aeroponic modules (or arrays of them). They only have to prepare them once (clean the trays, sow seeds or transplant seedlings, fill with nutrient solution), and then they stack them up, plug them in, and if all goes well they don't have to mess with them again until harvest.
Here's a short video in which they say:
Very cool stuff. Not exactly a replacement for huge fields of staple crops like wheat and potatoes at present, but if I put my sci-fi thinking cap on for a minute I can kind of imagine giant facilities in inhospitable places like deserts (if we want to preserve the more hospitable places for wildlife diversity), or maybe even at sea, with stack upon stack of wheat trays, assembled and harvested by robotic tenders (similar to how some vertical, automated warehouses operate today).
This is also a fantastic knowledge-building exercise that could be extremely useful in future space stations, or even a Mars colony (you know it's going to happen someday).