5 ms·

Industrial agriculture has plenty more problems than just cow farts and carbon dioxide released from disturbed soil. Still on the vein of CO₂ emissions there's

Industrial agriculture has plenty more problems than just cow farts and carbon dioxide released from disturbed soil. Still on the vein of CO₂ emissions there's the large amounts of industrial machinery, vehicles and other such things that are powered by fossil fuels and release large amounts of CO₂. Then on the vein of soils, we're actually running out of arable soil. Soil erosion is a huge problem around the world and industrial farming is a large part of the problem. Farm plots are never left to fallow and replenish, all nutrients and organic matter are stripped out and replaced with liquid chemical fertilizers, that run off the fields and pollute waterways. Not to mention, fertilizers, globally, phosphate reserves are beginning to deplete. At some point in the next 50-100 years, we'll have come close to completely running out. Industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on phosphorous. https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affects-our-soil/ https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affe... https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agricultural-pollution-101 https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agricultural-polluti... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

tengbretson 6y ago
You have almost all of this backwards. The more "industrial" the farm, the more likely they are to employ the precision methods to address the issues you raise. Talk to any major farmer and they will tell you all about how nutrients are managed down to the square foot or smaller to reduce waste application. The tech that makes no-till planting viable, which is one of the most important ways to reduce erosion and increase sequestration is being adopted by the biggest players first. Advances in no-till and pesticide technology are reducing the number of tractor passes per field per year dramatically.
- latch 6y ago
  Really? Source? One of the most comprehensive study on the topic (1), says: "Our food system has put the focus on short-term production and profit rather than long-term environmental sustainability. The modern agricultural system has resulted in huge increases in productivity, holding off the risk of famine in many parts of the world but, at the same time, is based on monocultures, genetically modified crops, and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides that undermine long-term sustainability. Food production accounts for 70 per cent of all freshwater withdrawals and 80 per cent of deforestation, while soil, the basis for global food security, is being contaminated, degraded, and eroded in many areas, resulting in long-term declines in productivity." USCUSA isn't in love with industrial farming either (2): "Monoculture degrades soil structure and leaves it more vulnerable to erosion, resulting in costs for soil replacement, cleanup, and lost farmland value." Maybe major farmers aren't the most objective not most qualified group of people to assess the sustainability and [unpaid-for] externalities of their output? (1) https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/GLO_Full_Report_low_res.pdf https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/... (2) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agriculture https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
  - donw 6y ago
    Both of the links you provided are to political action groups. It's like linking either the NRA or Everytown/Moms Demand/March For Our Lives (they rebrand a lot) "studies" on gun control. Both have very clear objectives, and are quite happy to twist -- or sometimes outright fabricate[1]! -- data and facts. [1] https://massshootingtracker.org https://massshootingtracker.org
    - latch 6y ago
      If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject (or, I'd guess any UN initiatives), you can provide your own sources?
      - donw 6y ago
        > If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject. Creationists have some of the most comprehensive bodies of work on evolution. Doesn't mean that they are right. The NRA is a political organization. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, because their job is to advocate for a specific set of policies. Bloomberg's various anti-gun groups are political organizations. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, either. For precisely the same reason. Personally, I think that climate change is a huge problem. But credibility is a scarce resource these days.
        plufz 6y ago
        All organizations are not created equal. Do you really distrust the NRA and farming studies from the UN to the same extent? For me that sounds very black and white.
    - hannob 6y ago
      You didn't just write that the UN is a "political action group" and compared it to the NRA?
      - 6y ago
- totetsu 6y ago
  Not everywhere https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.105#:~:text=Researchers%20warn%20that%20the%20overuse,fertilizers%20without%20compromising%20crop%20yields.&text=The%20cost%20for%20that%20increase,26.2%20million%20tonnes%20in%202005 https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.105#:~:text=Resear....
- donw 6y ago
  I’d be keen to see some supporting links for this?
rhinoceraptor 6y ago
> cow farts It's ironic because the way to build topsoil and reverse desertification (which captures carbon) is just well managed grazing.
- wlib 6y ago
  Glad to see this, a great related TED talk by Allan Savory that introduces why this is true can be found here https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
  - patchrickj 6y ago
    Note that many experts have serious reservations about Savory's claims. A couple good summaries: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/local_244566.pdf http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/... https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-0...
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It is weird that there is this symbiotic relationship between environmentalists and industry.
  - PaulHoule 6y ago
    Not at all. In the nonprofit sector, the term "sustainable" is a euphemism for "can keep doing it" or "financially sustainable." If a group wants to retain it's privileges (say the banks) it can feed back 1% of its profits to buy politicians off year after year. Campaign finance spending limits just make it cheap. Ordinary people who want to change the status quo to say, fight corruption or just simply survive the next century in the face of climate change, might expect to fight for 30 years to change the system and face the certainty of falling into despair in that time. If anybody can find powerful allies they make it much more powerful than they can accomplish "something" even if it isn't what they set out to do.
  - rhinoceraptor 6y ago
hanniabu 6y ago
It's not much and not helpful to industrial farming, but I'm doing my part on my own garden by creating healthy soil via composting.

tengbretson 6y ago

You have almost all of this backwards. The more "industrial" the farm, the more likely they are to employ the precision methods to address the issues you raise. Talk to any major farmer and they will tell you all about how nutrients are managed down to the square foot or smaller to reduce waste application. The tech that makes no-till planting viable, which is one of the most important ways to reduce erosion and increase sequestration is being adopted by the biggest players first. Advances in no-till and pesticide technology are reducing the number of tractor passes per field per year dramatically.

latch 6y ago
Really? Source? One of the most comprehensive study on the topic (1), says: "Our food system has put the focus on short-term production and profit rather than long-term environmental sustainability. The modern agricultural system has resulted in huge increases in productivity, holding off the risk of famine in many parts of the world but, at the same time, is based on monocultures, genetically modified crops, and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides that undermine long-term sustainability. Food production accounts for 70 per cent of all freshwater withdrawals and 80 per cent of deforestation, while soil, the basis for global food security, is being contaminated, degraded, and eroded in many areas, resulting in long-term declines in productivity." USCUSA isn't in love with industrial farming either (2): "Monoculture degrades soil structure and leaves it more vulnerable to erosion, resulting in costs for soil replacement, cleanup, and lost farmland value." Maybe major farmers aren't the most objective not most qualified group of people to assess the sustainability and [unpaid-for] externalities of their output? (1) https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/GLO_Full_Report_low_res.pdf https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/... (2) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agriculture https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
- donw 6y ago
  Both of the links you provided are to political action groups. It's like linking either the NRA or Everytown/Moms Demand/March For Our Lives (they rebrand a lot) "studies" on gun control. Both have very clear objectives, and are quite happy to twist -- or sometimes outright fabricate[1]! -- data and facts. [1] https://massshootingtracker.org https://massshootingtracker.org
  - latch 6y ago
    If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject (or, I'd guess any UN initiatives), you can provide your own sources?
    - donw 6y ago
      > If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject. Creationists have some of the most comprehensive bodies of work on evolution. Doesn't mean that they are right. The NRA is a political organization. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, because their job is to advocate for a specific set of policies. Bloomberg's various anti-gun groups are political organizations. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, either. For precisely the same reason. Personally, I think that climate change is a huge problem. But credibility is a scarce resource these days.
      - plufz 6y ago
        All organizations are not created equal. Do you really distrust the NRA and farming studies from the UN to the same extent? For me that sounds very black and white.
  - hannob 6y ago
    You didn't just write that the UN is a "political action group" and compared it to the NRA?
    - 6y ago
totetsu 6y ago
Not everywhere https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.105#:~:text=Researchers%20warn%20that%20the%20overuse,fertilizers%20without%20compromising%20crop%20yields.&text=The%20cost%20for%20that%20increase,26.2%20million%20tonnes%20in%202005 https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.105#:~:text=Resear....
donw 6y ago
I’d be keen to see some supporting links for this?

rhinoceraptor 6y ago

> cow farts It's ironic because the way to build topsoil and reverse desertification (which captures carbon) is just well managed grazing.

wlib 6y ago
Glad to see this, a great related TED talk by Allan Savory that introduces why this is true can be found here https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
- patchrickj 6y ago
  Note that many experts have serious reservations about Savory's claims. A couple good summaries: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/local_244566.pdf http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/... https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-0...
Spooky23 6y ago
It is weird that there is this symbiotic relationship between environmentalists and industry.
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  Not at all. In the nonprofit sector, the term "sustainable" is a euphemism for "can keep doing it" or "financially sustainable." If a group wants to retain it's privileges (say the banks) it can feed back 1% of its profits to buy politicians off year after year. Campaign finance spending limits just make it cheap. Ordinary people who want to change the status quo to say, fight corruption or just simply survive the next century in the face of climate change, might expect to fight for 30 years to change the system and face the certainty of falling into despair in that time. If anybody can find powerful allies they make it much more powerful than they can accomplish "something" even if it isn't what they set out to do.
- rhinoceraptor 6y ago

hanniabu 6y ago

It's not much and not helpful to industrial farming, but I'm doing my part on my own garden by creating healthy soil via composting.