4 ms·

> Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides s

by YellOh 4y ago

> Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides spread all over it is inefficient, and killing our environment + natural diversity. Industrial farming (single-plant fields, though hopefully with crop rotation) is actually much more efficient[0]. Pesticides, (artificial) fertilizers, and irrigation drastically increase yield, both per unit land and per unit labor. It's generally worse for ecosystems and long-term sustainability, but that doesn't mean it's inefficient. As far as growing things locally - I don't see why this would matter much. Transporting food usually accounts for <10% of its carbon footprint, while for foods like beef it's more like 0.5%[1]. Local food makes the supply more resilient to foreign political/environmental issues (for obvious reasons), but I doubt it's the biggest issue or should be a priority. Trying to switch to local organic food is mostly just going to serve to make food less affordable to the average person. Alternatively, we could change what we eat and subsidize, and therefore make more meaningful changes while also keeping core nutrients affordable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

callamdelaney 4y ago
Hydroponics produces much higher yields given the same area of land, according to this study [0] yields of tomatoes are at least 6x higher given the same growing area as soil, so if less land is needed growers could be local - the benefits of this aren't only environmental but there are communal benefits too. Ripping out hedgerows to create bigger fields in the name of 'efficiency' is driving down bird populations across the continent [1][2] - and I'm sure birds aren't the only type of animal affected. So why don't farmers switch to something like hydroponics? People can effectively operate small systems from home, which wouldn't cover all of their needs but a not insignificant portion. Fresher, better food with less impact on the environment. [0] https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-acre-of-hydroponic-crops.html https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farming-policies-bird-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farmi... [2] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-can-help-birds/where-have-all-the-birds-gone/is-the-number-of-birds-in-decline/ https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-ca...
- YellOh 4y ago
  Interesting! Thank you for the links. I was thinking of intercropping; hadn't properly considered hydroponics. It does seem like hydroponics is drastically superior for space and water efficiency, though the comparison study I'm looking at claims it takes 82x the electricity[0] (though it's from a different climate). No disagreements on birds. Industrial farming may be efficient, but it's extraordinarily destructive to the local system. In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects (and therefore it was difficult to get local flora/fauna to return, even when making an active effort). A lot of the effects of industrial agriculture last longer than I naively expected. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/
  - jwestbury 4y ago
    > In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects The effect you may be referring to here is the "plough pan," and it's not just a result of heavy machinery, but also specifically of plough design which features a mouldboard, which drags along the ground creating a layer of heavily compacted soil. Heavy machinery can cause this, too, but ploughing is much more effective at ruining land! This is being somewhat mitigated recently by the increasing use of chisel ploughs, fortunately!
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  That first link seems dodgy, in the sense of having something to sell. The yield increases are hard to believe also: one ton of peas per acre turning into nine tons, hmm. And how much would it cost to hydroponic-ify an acre of land, how much to run it, and what about issues such as sterilisation etc also if you want to maximise yields then you probably head towards monoculture again, and I guess we both agree that's a bad thing. As far as I know the only thing worth growing at home with hydroponics this actually makes commercial sense is Mary Jane, and that uses a lot of electricity. And radiates a lot of heat that can easily be picked up by helicopter with a thermal camera.

by YellOh 4y ago

callamdelaney 4y ago

Hydroponics produces much higher yields given the same area of land, according to this study [0] yields of tomatoes are at least 6x higher given the same growing area as soil, so if less land is needed growers could be local - the benefits of this aren't only environmental but there are communal benefits too. Ripping out hedgerows to create bigger fields in the name of 'efficiency' is driving down bird populations across the continent [1][2] - and I'm sure birds aren't the only type of animal affected. So why don't farmers switch to something like hydroponics? People can effectively operate small systems from home, which wouldn't cover all of their needs but a not insignificant portion. Fresher, better food with less impact on the environment. [0] https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-acre-of-hydroponic-crops.html https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farming-policies-bird-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farmi... [2] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-can-help-birds/where-have-all-the-birds-gone/is-the-number-of-birds-in-decline/ https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-ca...

YellOh 4y ago
Interesting! Thank you for the links. I was thinking of intercropping; hadn't properly considered hydroponics. It does seem like hydroponics is drastically superior for space and water efficiency, though the comparison study I'm looking at claims it takes 82x the electricity[0] (though it's from a different climate). No disagreements on birds. Industrial farming may be efficient, but it's extraordinarily destructive to the local system. In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects (and therefore it was difficult to get local flora/fauna to return, even when making an active effort). A lot of the effects of industrial agriculture last longer than I naively expected. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/
- jwestbury 4y ago
  > In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects The effect you may be referring to here is the "plough pan," and it's not just a result of heavy machinery, but also specifically of plough design which features a mouldboard, which drags along the ground creating a layer of heavily compacted soil. Heavy machinery can cause this, too, but ploughing is much more effective at ruining land! This is being somewhat mitigated recently by the increasing use of chisel ploughs, fortunately!
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
That first link seems dodgy, in the sense of having something to sell. The yield increases are hard to believe also: one ton of peas per acre turning into nine tons, hmm. And how much would it cost to hydroponic-ify an acre of land, how much to run it, and what about issues such as sterilisation etc also if you want to maximise yields then you probably head towards monoculture again, and I guess we both agree that's a bad thing. As far as I know the only thing worth growing at home with hydroponics this actually makes commercial sense is Mary Jane, and that uses a lot of electricity. And radiates a lot of heat that can easily be picked up by helicopter with a thermal camera.