3 ms·

Which use large amounts of pesticide and waste if the crops don't look pretty they are scraped. And in the UK allotments are a growing trend and of course popu

Which use large amounts of pesticide and waste if the crops don't look pretty they are scraped. And in the UK allotments are a growing trend and of course popular with Guardian readers. In the Uk there a duty for local government to provide land for alotments

gambiting 11y ago
Well yes, of course, but my point is that on mega farms you can use gigantic tractors which process a lot more crops than your tiny tractor or even what you can collect by hand. Just like transporting 50 people is a lot more efficient by bus, instead of having 50 cars. And mega farms don't have to use so much pesticide, and mega farms don't have to throw away ugly crops - this happens due to a stupid system around how we sell vegetables, nothing to do with farm efficiency.
- stumac 11y ago
  Unfortunately mega farms have issues with getting rid of pesticides and fertilizers. To ensure the soil has enough nutrients for a desired crop, other crops often have to be planted as well, no? Mega farms really only do monocultures well right now AFAIK, and that's a problem.
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    The fertilizers are actually the solution to (most of) the monoculture problem. Other problems remains, such as erosion, biodiversity, etc. but not efficiency.
    - stumac 11y ago
      The increased use of fertilizer tends to lead to the forced increase of pesticide use IIRC (Source is in my library at home atm, sorry). It also leads to a decrease in nutrient value from the food as well due to the increased pesticide use. From a pure efficiency note, pesticide and fertilizer use is the best solution in the short term. But I'm curious what the long term repercussions will be for both human and environmental health.
      - ucaetano 11y ago
        In the long term, we're all dead :) But I agree with your point. Sadly, long term is too long to have enough information to make decisions ex ante. And on your pesticide and nutrient value claims, I'd love to see data on that, sounds pretty dubious to be honest.

gambiting 11y ago

Well yes, of course, but my point is that on mega farms you can use gigantic tractors which process a lot more crops than your tiny tractor or even what you can collect by hand. Just like transporting 50 people is a lot more efficient by bus, instead of having 50 cars. And mega farms don't have to use so much pesticide, and mega farms don't have to throw away ugly crops - this happens due to a stupid system around how we sell vegetables, nothing to do with farm efficiency.

stumac 11y ago
Unfortunately mega farms have issues with getting rid of pesticides and fertilizers. To ensure the soil has enough nutrients for a desired crop, other crops often have to be planted as well, no? Mega farms really only do monocultures well right now AFAIK, and that's a problem.
- ucaetano 11y ago
  The fertilizers are actually the solution to (most of) the monoculture problem. Other problems remains, such as erosion, biodiversity, etc. but not efficiency.
  - stumac 11y ago
    The increased use of fertilizer tends to lead to the forced increase of pesticide use IIRC (Source is in my library at home atm, sorry). It also leads to a decrease in nutrient value from the food as well due to the increased pesticide use. From a pure efficiency note, pesticide and fertilizer use is the best solution in the short term. But I'm curious what the long term repercussions will be for both human and environmental health.
    - ucaetano 11y ago
      In the long term, we're all dead :) But I agree with your point. Sadly, long term is too long to have enough information to make decisions ex ante. And on your pesticide and nutrient value claims, I'd love to see data on that, sounds pretty dubious to be honest.