Agricultural practices

Agriculture uses over 70% of earth fresh water and over 40% of land is used. I wonder how much resources and carbon emission takes place. But as comes for solution we start blaming farmers for the environmental degradation. Is it really their fault ? Over 70% of food produced by small farm holder and rest 30% by big farm holders . Food is produced enough by farmers but 36% is used as fodder for live stock which are then eaten by us and this live stock 80% of land used in agriculture and yet produces 20% of world’s calorie. , 55% of f agricultural food is consumed by people and one-third of food produced for human consumption is wasted.

And where do you find mistakes
My suggestion is that if we decrease the consumption of non veg( people on costal area and in mountains are exempted) then we can give more land to agriculture (I mean for crops) then we can change the area used for livestock into area of agriculture where we are not forced to give more crops on small agriculture land. I think then we can grow crops organically .

My suggestion sure looks from dreamy world it sure has flaws like

  1. How can we decrease meat consumption, it depends on you people
  2. How can we convert livestock farming into crop farming
  3. What about population controls?
    I am sure there are more flaws please mention!

But if we are successful in tackling this problem then I am sure we can fight climate change
as we can make good use of 40% of earth’s land. I think less than 40% land is also able to feed to the earth population then we can turn left over agricultural land into forest .
What are your suggestions

2 Likes

Part of the reason why I am vegetarian.
If land becomes available, perhaps a compromise between subsistence farming, permaculture and wildlife habitat. We don’t want forest in our fynbos, or grassland / prairie.

4 Likes

if the primary goal is efficiency in human food supply, vegetables aren’t necessarily the most efficient thing. you have to be open to things like insects, fungi, algae, etc. you have to be open to lab-produced products, too.

5 Likes

Ground up dried crickets for protein, goes beyond what I will do.
Mushrooms and seaweed - yes, thank you!

1 Like

crickets might not even be the most efficient insect to produce. you could take a lot of agricultural waste or other food production / distribution waste and feed it to, say, soldier flies. the larvae could be turned into oil and protein powders (for human or animals), and the rest of the waste could go back to agriculture as fertilizer, or whole larvae could be incorporated into the food chain for, say, chickens.

5 Likes

yeah native landscape :+1::+1::+1:

2 Likes

A little of everything will be needed. One of the issues with modern farming is that we rely on such a small number of species for most of our food resources. And progress can be step by step. Those of us who eat beef, can eat less or switch to chicken. Those of us willing to eat insect protein can start supporting that industry. More vegetables, more fungi, more effiency in production. More locally produced goods to reduce travel emissions. You can’t pretend like one solution will be a silver bullet – try a little of everything, and accept that no solution is perfect or costless.

4 Likes

But their is also one problem with this situation of producing beef and chicken , like if we wish to save climate by not eating meat .
then their are 2 problems

  1. what will happen to those people who earn their living by producing meat or selling meat.
  2. What about milk then it is a one of the main source of protein can we replace it by something

That’s a little like asking what jobs will the telegram operators be able to get now that there are cell phones. We will help them find new jobs in the industry or in related industries. The change isn’t happening overnight, there is time to help people learn new skills that work in the modern world.

Milk is also slowly going to be replaced. With plant based alternatives or from local small farms, or even from other animals with a smaller carbon footprint.

Also notable that many farmers are already pushed out of their jobs by huge monoculture factory-farms. We can work together with independent and small farmers to farm responsibly and make new jobs for them.

2 Likes

Another thing to consider is that not everyone has the same metabolism. I am an ectomorph; as much as I love my vegetable curries more than anything else, only eating plants will not help maintain my health or my weight. My body cannot handle every plant-based product (it is not allergies), so solely eating a plant-based diet would be a terrible existence for me.

2 Likes

In some parts of the world, ranching animals is more efficient than farming plants. The plants that grow there naturally are ones that humans can’t eat, and growing human-suitable foods requires a lot of water. What DOES grow there is plants that animals can eat just fine. A cow is basically a machine to turn things we can’t eat into things we can.

Do you have any actual sources that 1/3 of food produced is wasted? Everyone involved in the chain is motivated by money to not waste food.

3 Likes

Not quite. What sells in the grocery store is perfect food. What sells is the illusion of plenty. It does pay to grow 3000 apples, put the 300 prettiest in the store, sell 150 and throw the rest away. And that is what every large grocery chain does.

3 Likes

I suspect that you could eat a plant-based diet if it was really well constructed and carefully thought out.

3 Likes

There are a few approaches that can be taken to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment. The first is using technology: greenhouses, vertical agriculture, hydroponics/aquaponics, etc., which can all drastically increase land and resource efficiency and increase yield. However, they tend to be prohibitively expensive. The second is just to change the current ‘conventional’ system of industrial agriculture for increased efficiency, but the system largely remains the same. New techniques and technologies can be adopted into conventional agriculture but do not significantly change it, e.g. row-style agroforestry, drip irrigation (instead of flood or overhead), cover cropping, no-till, polycultures, etc. This is probably the most viable method because it requires the least up-front input and change. The third is to drastically change industrial agriculture and adopt a system that mimics productive natural ecosystems. Many farms (mostly smallholder farms) are transitioning to permaculture, which can produce food with minimal resources and impact on the environment, and it can even sustain livestock production (though at significantly lesser production than factory farming/CAFOs). The main drawback of permaculture is that it’s not scalable unless large industrial agriculture is divided into many smallholder farmers.
The best solution is probably a mix of all three depending on the situation. In a small, densely populated country like the Netherlands, technological agriculture is probably the most viable, while in the United States, a mixture of conventional agriculture and permaculture principles will likely be the most effective (and attainable).

2 Likes

Yeah I think so
http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data)#:~:text=One%2Dthird%20of%20food%20produced,1.3%20billion%20tonnes%20per%20year.

I have a question We tend to plough our fields before seed are sown, which tend to kill beneficial bacteria . Then we add fertilizers to get back that nutrients that we lost by fertilizers , Is it really necessary ?

1 Like

And those who are not afraid of GMOs can eat “Impossible Meat.”

I am, too, but I still strive to get as close to vegan as I can. If I discovered that I was one of those people who cannot survive on a vegan diet, I honestly would consider it a disability.

I would rather be slightly on the skeletal side than slightly on the pudgy side, but maybe that’s just my esthetic sense.

Permaculturists pride themselves on their “no-till” methods.

2 Likes

This is an exaggerated thing. It does happen, but really what happens to a lot of the ugly fruit is it gets made into jams and the like. Since it makes more money to make ugly fruit into jam and sell pretty fruit in stores, than to throw away ugly fruit and sell pretty fruit.

As to body types (mentioned elsewhere), being underweight is much worse for you than being overweight.

people on costal area

Just so you know, oceanic fish populations are in dire trouble due to very long time of massive overfishing, and it’s not strictly coastal people who are eating those foods any more. The idea that it is mainly coastal people eating seafood is an idea left over from the 1800s and early 1900s.

Ocean fish numbers have been cut in half since the 1970s and they continue to decline rapidly.

The double impact of an extended period of overfishing as climate change have pushed marine ecosystems onto the end of collapse, and over in some cases, and that includes fish stocks.

6 Likes

Having horses in steppe is much better than making it a farmland, what we should do is turn to animal species that don’t degrade ecosystem around them so no more sheep, goats and cows. Living without meat is awful.

4 Likes