3 ms·
Without digging into the topic in depth, ten will get you twenty it is primarily a question of diet rather than technique. Maybe less food waste. The lessons
by saalweachter 7y ago
Without digging into the topic in depth, ten will get you twenty it is primarily a question of diet rather than technique. Maybe less food waste. The lessons from the diet will be ones you probably already know (eat less meat, especially beef), and not all good. The reasons for less food waste aren't particularly useful, unless you want to adopt the hyperlocal production implicit in subsistence farming.
- ailideex 7y ago> unless you want to adopt the hyperlocal production implicit in subsistence farming. Will it have better crop yields than modern farming techniques? Then maybe? I mean for that efficiency it may be worth it. I still find the claim astounding and I would love to see some citation for it though rather than some anecdotes on waste less.
- saalweachter 7y agoThere are easily three major reasons you could find for why the statement in the BBC article (per person, fewer acres are used growing food for a subsistence farmer than a city-dweller): 1. Diet (subsistence farmers probably eat less meat, beef in particular; beef has an absurd environment footprint in on basically all metrics). 2. Food waste (the transport of food and delay between production and consumption of food is a major source of food waste; food doesn't spoil in the grocery store waiting to be bought if it is never in a grocery store). 3. Better per-acre yield (which would be surprising, given that for major crops, per-acre yields increased by 3-10x over the last century of industrial farming). I'm saying I don't think 3 is the case at all, and that mostly 1 and maybe 2 explain the difference adequately.