4 ms·
Who is "we"? Because that sounds like a highly localized problem specific to the North American continent.
by TheRealPomax 2y ago
Who is "we"? Because that sounds like a highly localized problem specific to the North American continent.
- goda90 2y agoHigher atmospheric CO2 is actually causing this all around the world. Faster, bigger plants with less nutrient density.
- hagbard_c 2y agoHow then did the Plioocene megafauna grow so large if the plants they consumed were 'faster, bigger [...] with less nutrient density'? https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2 https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400... The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago. Life on Earth was dominated by giant mammals; humans and chimps had shared their last common ancestor. Although the sun's force was about the same, the sea levels were 15 metres higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day. No, this is not yet another 'climate change' thing no matter how much you want to pull that concept into the discussion. It is a large-scale 'industrial' agriculture thing with crops which have been bred for fast growth on relatively mineral-poor soil using simple nitrogen fertiliser instead of manure from pasture-raised livestock.
- wcoenen 2y agoThe same amount of nutrients can be had from plants with lower nutrient density. One simply has to consume more of the plants.
- goda90 2y agoLower nutrient density isn't an issue when there's plenty of food to eat. There weren't 8 billion people to feed 3 million years ago, and back then they lived right alongside their food.
- serf 2y ago>There weren't 8 billion people to feed 3 million years ago, and back then they lived right alongside their food. sorta. there was more fauna/megafauna biomass then than now. the nutrient requirements were likely even greater.
- throwup238 2y ago> How then did the Plioocene megafauna grow so large if the plants they consumed were 'faster, bigger [...] with less nutrient density'? Herbivores are adapted to extracting nutrients from a food source that isn't nutrient or calorie dense. Compared to carnivores, they eat a massive amount of food relative to their body weight. If a food source is less nutritious, they just eat more of it.
- TheRealPomax 2y agoGreenhouses in the Netherlands would like a word, which are growing high nutrient crops fast using elevated CO2 concentrations. It's not the rate at which things grow that makes them less nutricious, it's selectively breeding for things that grow faster without bother to also select for "and taste good/have plenty of nutritional value". This one doesn't get to hide behind global climate change.