4 ms·

> these two items are mutually exclusive How? Why? > about 95% of manure right now is produced by animals that are fed "non-organic" corn That's not the only

• cyberax 3y ago
  > How? Why? If the world switches to a vegan diet, there wouldn't be any manure. > That's not the only way how to get manure, right? Nope. Not right. > Three field system, for example. And manure is not the only thing we could use, we have also compost and mulch and nitrogen fixing plants and companion plants etc. If you're talking about bilogical methods, then nitrogen-fixing plants are THE ONLY way you can get nitrogen. Animals don't fix nitrogen, they simply concentrate it in the form of manure. And guess what? Plants suck at nitrogen fixation. So overall yields would be around one tenth of the current ones for many important crops.
  • myshpa 3y ago
    > If the world switches to a vegan diet, there wouldn't be any manure. We could, and probably would still have the animals. There are vegan sanctuaries even in this day and age. But even without manure we'd still be ok. > So overall yields would be around one tenth of the current ones for many important crops. Yields were 2-3 times smaller before the "green revolution," not 10 times less. With better methods, processes, and with automation we could further improve yields. This would undoubtedly require more knowledge than the uniform methods we're currently using. Animal agriculture is so wasteful and inefficient that we could absolutely free 75% of the lands we're currently using for reforesting and rewilding and still have 2x more space than we have now for veggies, fruits, and nuts, while feeding everyone sustainably. We should even accept those lower yields than we currently have; the priority should be the restoration of soils and biodiversity rather than the maximal exploitation of natural resources. Soil depletion/erosion is a serious problem, and both industrial and animal agriculture are the culprits.
    • cyberax 3y ago
      > We could, and probably would still have the animals. There are vegan sanctuaries even in this day and age. But even without manure we'd still be ok. Without fertilizers? Nope. > Yields were 2-3 times smaller before the "green revolution," not 10 times less. It is close to 10x. I gave numbers for wheat already. Potatoes are similar: 60 bushels per acre in 1900, 500 bushels now. And so on, and so on. > With better methods, processes, and with automation we could further improve yields. Nope. They are fundamentally limited by nutrients. Primarily nitrogen. > This would undoubtedly require more knowledge than the uniform methods we're currently using. Sigh. Do you think EVERYONE around you is a moron? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people working in agricultural research are idiots and/or bribed into silence by large companies? > Animal agriculture is so wasteful and inefficient that we could absolutely free 75% of the lands we're currently using for reforesting and rewilding and still have 2x more space than we have now for veggies, fruits, and nuts, while feeding everyone sustainably. Once we perfect vat-grown meat, sure.
      • myshpa 3y ago
        > Without fertilizers? Nope. Look into syntropic and natural farming, for example. Syntropic Farming: - Concept: This approach is based on the principles of succession in natural ecosystems. It mimics natural processes to regenerate the land, creating a resilient system where various plant species support each other. - Yield: Initial yields might be lower than industrial farming, but over time, as the ecosystem stabilizes and soil health improves, yields can be sustained without much external input. - Advantages: Builds soil health, reduces the need for external inputs, enhances biodiversity, sequesters carbon, and can be more resilient to climatic fluctuations. - Limitations: Requires deeper understanding and observation of natural processes, may not produce as high yields initially, and might require more labor in the beginning stages. Natural Farming (or Do-Nothing Farming): - Concept: Introduced by Masanobu Fukuoka, this method avoids plowing, chemical fertilizers, weeding, and pesticides. Instead, it promotes the use of cover crops and natural fertilizers. - Yield: Yields can be comparable to conventional methods after the system stabilizes, but there might be fluctuations depending on environmental conditions. - Advantages: Low external input, builds soil health, encourages biodiversity, reduces erosion, and is less labor-intensive in the long run. - Limitations: There's a learning curve to understanding the balance of natural systems, initial yields might be lower, and it might not be suitable for all crop types or large-scale monocultures. > Potatoes are similar: 60 bushels per acre in 1900, 500 bushels now. Farming practices were less advanced, and there was a limited understanding of pest and disease management. The lack of resistant varieties meant that pests and diseases could cause substantial yield losses (potato blight for example). > Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people working in agricultural research are idiots and/or bribed into silence by large companies I believe we stopped developing new methods a long time ago, compromising biodiversity, soil, and human health. The entrenched belief that we need animal products for sustenance prevents us from exploring new, more sustainable methods. Furthermore, the current financial system does not accommodate experimentation, learning, and the adoption of sustainable practices. > Once we perfect vat-grown meat, sure. We may destroy all remaining biodiversity before we find ways to achieve that on the necessary scale.