5 ms·
There's also the "classic" option, discovered some 200 years before synthetic fertilizers - crop rotation that includes some form of legumes. IMO with the curre
by cesnja 6y ago
There's also the "classic" option, discovered some 200 years before synthetic fertilizers - crop rotation that includes some form of legumes. IMO with the current state of agriculture and food production we went into a local maximum that is very unsustainable and bad for the environment.
- 1234fdsazxcv 6y agoThere's a reason we had to switch away from that. The crop rotation cycle isn't an efficient use of land. Synthetic fertilizers exist for a reason -- the human race wants and needs an excess of food. No one wants to switch to a model of food scarcity.
- tarsinge 6y agoThe point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.
- ekianjo 6y agoClaiming it does not make it so.
- tovej 6y agoEvery addition of a new consumer in a food chain brings with it a high rate of energy loss. The cow will need to use its energy to live, only a small portion of the energy is left in the steak you eat. 75% is a good approximation. In general, the shorter the food chain, the more efficient it is. This is a universally known fact. I will drop some helpful links for you if you doubt this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_pyramids https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_...
- tarsinge 6y agoSource: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use The figure given is 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock
- tremon 6y agoThat land use figure includes grazing areas, not just crop fields.
- fidrelity 6y agocitation needed. This is an all too easy narrative. Synthetic fertilisers might simply have caused an arms race for short term, higher efficiency which destroyed less efficient production techniques. That does not make it long term efficient, see research on sustainable farming[0]. [0] https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/RI-FST-Brochure-2018.pdf https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/RI-FST-Brochu...
- tremon 6y agoPlease define "efficient". Most arguments I've seen against crop rotation hinge on manual labour-type efficiency, not land yield-type efficiency.
- bluGill 6y agoThat doesn't provide the same value as manure. Don't get me wrong, crop rotation is important because it provides different things.
- fit2rule 6y agoAbsolutely true. We can definitely be treating the land better. The only reason we need industrial fertilisers, is because its packaged so well and easy to distribute. But if we weren't raping the soil in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. Industrialized farming needs to be revolutionised by the same technique that computing went through: a DIY revolution. If you don't have a garden, now is the time to start. Everyone should have a garden.
- belorn 6y agoA garden and a few chickens. Getting 4-6 eggs per day is simply fantastic, and the hens are great at eating up harmful insects and weeds that would otherwise harm the output of the garden. They also fertilize the land in a very natural way.