4 ms·

I speculate that as corporations take over farming, their operations become more efficient providing greater yields per acre and for the amount of fuel consumed

I speculate that as corporations take over farming, their operations become more efficient providing greater yields per acre and for the amount of fuel consumed. If true, this is net positive for humanity as a whole as more people can get fed and there are less carbon emissions doing so. There is the problem that corporations tend to trend toward becoming sociopathic entities unless carefully managed, so it's not all win.

mrpopo 7y ago
> there are less carbon emissions doing so. Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. It is more profitable to practice intensive till-heavy farming since it takes advantage of the nutrients already stored in the soil. The disadvantage is its unsustainability. After few decades of soil-tilling, it becomes quite poor in nutrients, and will have reduced yield. Corporations can afford to destroy land and move on to the next one, until nothing is left. This is opposed to regenerative/conservative agriculture. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agricul... https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agricul...
- halbritt 7y ago
  > Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. Relative to what? What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? My point about reduced carbon emissions is specific to corporate farms using modern equipment which is more precise, thanks to auto-guidance via GPS, more efficient, as a result of the diesel engines being more modern and also as a result of other technologies that allow the tractors to have larger implements, travel faster, and consume less horsepower and finally lower emissions as a result of being compliant with more recent emissions standards.
  - 6510 7y ago
    https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-10-03218/article_deploy/sustainability-10-03218.pdf https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainabil...
    - halbritt 7y ago
      This is fascinating, but also somewhat orthogonal to the argument, assuming there was nothing I missed when skimming that paper. The paper itself describes farming practices that are more sustainable, and possibly more efficient after introducing a new formula to measure efficiency. I'm not sufficiently well-informed to critically assess the formula given, although on the surface it seems fine. To clarify my original assertion, modern farming equipment with the latest technology as employed by corporate farms increase the efficiency of industrial farming methods vs. farming equipment being used that's 30-40 years old. There are a few common metrics that I use to base my assertion on, that is gallons of fuel used per cultivated acre, as well as yield per acre. From those, one can derive yield per gallon of fuel and subsequently carbon emissions as a result. I'm not suggesting that represents a lifecycle analysis of the entire crop, but I think it's still sufficient to evaluate the impact of modern equipment vs. aging equipment.
      - 6510 7y ago
        For the most part I just thought it was interesting. You asked in relation to what modern farming is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. I suppose that merits a comparison to other know ways to grow food? Most of the crops "we" grow use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) To add a funny: We wont optimize the Nodejs to the point it changes into ERLANG. It takes a whole new approach.
        halbritt 7y ago
        I agree that the comparison deserves merit, but it's a lengthy discussion. I'd presented a simple dichotomy. > ...use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) There are a couple of constraints there. We have a limited amount of arable land to feed the world's population and a significant amount of the carbon emissions in modern farming practices comes from harvesting and transport. I can't see any way to harvest and transport agriculture products without carbon emissions today.
knockout9461 7y ago
I'm not sure whether or not corporate farming leads to less emissions, but the environmental impact should not be the only factor evaluated for whether or not corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. What may be lost in efficiency is gained in good jobs for middle class people to make a living. If we're talking large scale change for the environment, why not electrify farm equipment, expand our solar and wind capacity to meet the demand, and allow for small farmers to still carve out a solid living and make the Heartland a place with thriving communities?
- halbritt 7y ago
  I'm not suggesting that corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. I'm suggesting that there is a benefit to using modern farming equipment. Fundamentally, I believe that corporate farming consolidation is a risk to the global food supply. ADM is proof of how terrible that can be.

mrpopo 7y ago

> there are less carbon emissions doing so. Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. It is more profitable to practice intensive till-heavy farming since it takes advantage of the nutrients already stored in the soil. The disadvantage is its unsustainability. After few decades of soil-tilling, it becomes quite poor in nutrients, and will have reduced yield. Corporations can afford to destroy land and move on to the next one, until nothing is left. This is opposed to regenerative/conservative agriculture. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agricul... https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agriculture https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/conservation-agricul...

halbritt 7y ago
> Intensive farming as practiced by corporations today is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. Relative to what? What are the CO2 emissions per bushel of grain for the practices you've described? My point about reduced carbon emissions is specific to corporate farms using modern equipment which is more precise, thanks to auto-guidance via GPS, more efficient, as a result of the diesel engines being more modern and also as a result of other technologies that allow the tractors to have larger implements, travel faster, and consume less horsepower and finally lower emissions as a result of being compliant with more recent emissions standards.
- 6510 7y ago
  https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-10-03218/article_deploy/sustainability-10-03218.pdf https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainabil...
  - halbritt 7y ago
    This is fascinating, but also somewhat orthogonal to the argument, assuming there was nothing I missed when skimming that paper. The paper itself describes farming practices that are more sustainable, and possibly more efficient after introducing a new formula to measure efficiency. I'm not sufficiently well-informed to critically assess the formula given, although on the surface it seems fine. To clarify my original assertion, modern farming equipment with the latest technology as employed by corporate farms increase the efficiency of industrial farming methods vs. farming equipment being used that's 30-40 years old. There are a few common metrics that I use to base my assertion on, that is gallons of fuel used per cultivated acre, as well as yield per acre. From those, one can derive yield per gallon of fuel and subsequently carbon emissions as a result. I'm not suggesting that represents a lifecycle analysis of the entire crop, but I think it's still sufficient to evaluate the impact of modern equipment vs. aging equipment.
    - 6510 7y ago
      For the most part I just thought it was interesting. You asked in relation to what modern farming is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. I suppose that merits a comparison to other know ways to grow food? Most of the crops "we" grow use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) To add a funny: We wont optimize the Nodejs to the point it changes into ERLANG. It takes a whole new approach.
      - halbritt 7y ago
        I agree that the comparison deserves merit, but it's a lengthy discussion. I'd presented a simple dichotomy. > ...use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) There are a couple of constraints there. We have a limited amount of arable land to feed the world's population and a significant amount of the carbon emissions in modern farming practices comes from harvesting and transport. I can't see any way to harvest and transport agriculture products without carbon emissions today.

knockout9461 7y ago

I'm not sure whether or not corporate farming leads to less emissions, but the environmental impact should not be the only factor evaluated for whether or not corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. What may be lost in efficiency is gained in good jobs for middle class people to make a living. If we're talking large scale change for the environment, why not electrify farm equipment, expand our solar and wind capacity to meet the demand, and allow for small farmers to still carve out a solid living and make the Heartland a place with thriving communities?

halbritt 7y ago
I'm not suggesting that corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. I'm suggesting that there is a benefit to using modern farming equipment. Fundamentally, I believe that corporate farming consolidation is a risk to the global food supply. ADM is proof of how terrible that can be.