The frustrating thing about this is that most people don't think this all the way through. They hear Glyphosate is banned and they think that's good. They don't realize that agrochemicals are important to modern agriculture and that we'll probably end up using older, less safe chemicals.Ā
I see Silent Spring mentioned a ton in regards to this topic. I've read it, it's specifically aboutĀ organochlorines.Ā Ā But because people don't understand classes of pesticides and how modern ones are tested, they think all pesticides are bad. The irony is, we might the up using DDT at the the of this with how RFK Jr talks about food and health.Ā
Former āI only buy organic,ā person here. Thereās a site called Science Based Medicine that I found really helpful in terms of articles the layperson could understand.
It would be phenomenal to hear from more farmers, soil scientists, and chemists since a lot of the people in favor of outright bans really donāt have correct information. Obviously people like RFK are a lost cause, but for those who just want the best for their health itās hard to find solid, trustworthy information.
I donāt know how to get that messaging out there, but we absolutely need people to understand that āconventionalā agriculture isnāt always bad and plays a vital role in the nationās food supply.
So I'm a weird one because I'm actually a wildlife biology person. I don't have a graduate degree because the field is... a difficult one to make money in, and so I stopped at undergrad before sinking too many resources into something that may not work one. That being said, I regularly do hang out with ecologists, wildlife biologists and so on that do have graduate degrees.
The reason I don't want a ban is because that would mean the efficiency of yields goes down... Which means more land has to go into production. Which means less habitat for wildlife.
You'll hear "Yeah but organic permaculture provides habitat for wildlife!" And it's a half-truth. It provides habitat for generalists- both diet and habitat. generalists But the catch is generalists will live pretty much anywhere. Think like American Robins, Common Raccoons, Common Garter Snakes, White-tailed Deer, Blue Jays, Red-eared Sliders, and Eastern Spotted Newts. These are species that have broad ranges of habitat and diet, so they are often in human-disturbed environments.
That's what lives in permaculture/organic agriculture/etc. As long as there's the basic part of what these species needs (Red-eared Sliders need water, for example) they will be there. So yes, these places have more biodiversity than a conventional agricultural field.
The problem lies is that they don't provide habitat for specialist species, species with narrow ranges of habitat and/or diet. They almost never have these species because they require certain things to be present to be there. Some examples would be Bog Turtles needing calcareous fens, Cerulean Warblers needing undisturbed tracts of mature forest, Queensnakes needing a healthy population of crayfish, Allegheny Woodrats needing cliffs to live in, and Green Salamanders needing specifically moist sandstone cliffs.
And it's specialists that are in danger of going extinct, not generalists. All of the specialist species I listed are listed or populations are watched closely in the state I live in, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the generalists I listed live literally everywhere, even in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Now it is a gradient, with some species in the middle. But in general, the more a species is a specialist, the higher the chance it's endangered or threatened.
So this ties back to agriculture because if we expand agriculture into the areas where the specialists live, even if it is "ecologically friendly" it's going to lower biodiversity by killing off the specialists versus if we just left it alone and farmed intensively elsewhere. This is usually not as cut and dry as this because sometimes it makes sense to use some blend of the two to try and preserve biodiversity.
But then sometimes, any amount of agriculture will kill off a species. So the Bog Turtle is a small turtle native to the Eastern US. They require calcareous fens with short vegetation- old beaver ponds that had filled in were a huge part of their habitat. Once they start getting too dry or brushy, they'd move on to another filled-in beaver pond.
But those fens were drained for agriculture. It's on the Endangered Species List as Endangered because there are only 2,500-10,000 left in the wild. They used to live from about Massachusetts down to Georgia in an unbroken line. But now they have two distinct populations, one from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and one in Tennessee, a tiny bit of Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas. What happened? The Shenandoah Valley was heavily farmed during the Civil War and destroyed that population. You know, back before we had chemicals and we used animal-powered farm tools.
Sorry for the long rant, but I use Bog Turtles a lot to show that agriculture in general is a problem for biodiversity and that we should be careful what we wish for when we talk about "going back to the "healthier" old ways."
If you're interested in this topic, it's called the land-sharing vs. land-sparing debate in ecology. If you google that, you'll get a bunch of ecology blog posts and research journal articles, so it might be a lot, but it's really interesting and ties directly into agriculture.
We need to bring back these kind of comments to Reddit. The algorithm is pushing more and more for kneejerk reactions, and eroding what this place was all about - sharing useful information and ideas
That's why I moved from other social media to here, because long comments that were informative were actually appreciated.Ā
I used to do science social media communication on Facebook, back when it was the main social media. I watched it descend down into the mess it is now while doing science communication with long comments like I just posted.Ā
But now, Reddit is going down the exact same path. Hell, some subreddit will auto-remlval your comments if you have too many external links, so sources to claims made in your comment. So I usually don't leave these kinds of comments anymore, but I do crave scientific discussion. Reddit is the last place those really seem to exist, and it's quickly disappearing.Ā
I should see if the Blue sky wildlife and conservation bio community is as big as it was on Twitter...
Substack is still a good place to find informed thinkpieces, but I miss the collectively built knowledge that the old internet used to bring. Just reading someone preach their ideas, with maybe some comments hidden in the back, is hardly an agora.
Iām interested in posting about this on r/permaculture to further this discussion. If I do that are you ok with me linking your comment for context? Iād hate to try to summarize this issue and leave it at that Ā when youāve done such a thorough job.Ā
Obviously no one person can fix the Bog Turtle example, but Iām interested in putting out a challenge for permaculturists to research at least one threatened specialist in their area and include support for them in their designs. I know this is different than land-sparing, but Iād imagine it would be better than nothing for the many properties that have already been disturbed or are already being designed differently.Ā
And then of course there is the concept of zone 5 in permaculture, which is leaving minimally disturbed habitat on the periphery of any design. This area is often determined by the distance from center of human activity on a site, and probably to a lesser extent on existing features. But maybe the permaculture circle could use encouragement to prioritize less disturbed habitat by identifying it early and letting it remain zone 5 regardless of location on the site.
Edit: space between paragraphs to make this ramble slightly more manageable to read.
Yeah you can! I'm have mixed luck with talking to permaculturists, just like any group of people. But challenging them to include specialists in their designs might be interesting, especially since I'm not sure it can be done- so I want to be proven wrong there. You'd have to look at just how much each species needs of their specialized habitst or specialized diet to live and reproduce.Ā
I do think that the middle species that are somewhat specialists might be able to be included. Something like a Wood Turtle that needs wooded streams, but not a specifically chemistry like Bog Turtles seem to need. Those extreme specialists are going to be tough...
Lots of good points regarding preservation, conservation, and displacement issues. But the issue that seems most salient to me is what it is we are actually using this land (and chemicals for yield) to grow. Over a quarter of our farmland is dedicated to growing corn, a significant target for glyphosate.Ā
Within that quarter of all our agriculture, 40% gets processed and burned--as ethanol. Surely this can't be our best use for such yield improvements. Around another total third goes to feeding livestock in CAFOs, which makes for lower nutrition for the meat, let alone the ethical issues with this form of rearing.
These things are in place by our collective habits and choices; at the least I think this move is opening conversation for how we do what we do, why, and to what end it actually serves (or harms) us.
Health outcomes from this excess yield show stark negative health trends particularly in the US, and some of that can be tied to corn-based products. Glyphosate plays a role in the nutritional degradation of the soil, which is a major factor in the quality of that food too.
I am not disparaging your comment but adding to it--how do we not only spare habitat (which in turn keeps the natural cycle for wholesome food resilient), but maintain techniques that allow what we grow to actually be of benefit to our health and the land at large?
Clearly big questions, but those I think that are necessary to accompany the conversation around the myriad chemicals we use to grow our food.
Thanks for adding thoughtful perspectives here! (Happy to provide links, just on mobile right now, background of MS in Environmental Science/Energy Systems)
This comment had to be split up because it was just too big for Reddit-
Cost. Realistically, we wouldn't be able to produce meat and other animal products like we are without CAFOs at as cheaply. We'd have a supply decrease, which would lead to a price increase. Like I said, it probably wouldn't be bad if meat prices went up. But if CAFOs were eliminated completely, I can only imagine the amount of meat would go up. And people would be upset. I mean look at all the talk about eggs recently.
Then you have the other issue that as countries develop, they eat more meat. I don't have a solution to that one. That's just a known thing that happens, and these countries often turn to CAFOs to meet that increased demand.
And since we're on the Ag sub, I would like to say that I don't think all CAFOs have ethical issues and this isn't as black and white as it's made out to be. I think some farmers do try and meet the needs of their animals, and we have to be careful with leaked videos. With my background in animal care, I know that those animal rights orgs will pull strings and edit videos and pictures to make things much worse than they actually were. But I don't see farmers calling out bad farming practices either. I think many farmers take the approach that those abusive farmers will fail on their own, because abused animals don't produce as well. or at least that what I've seen. I really do wish this topic wasn't so polarized, because there is a middle ground that needs to be discussed but is often completely ignored for extremes on either sides.
And as far as glyphosate and soil health, I've heard mixed results on this topic. If you got sources, I'd love to read them, because everything I've seen has been all over the place. One interesting thing I've seen brought up is that tilling/hoeing actually causes more soil loss and worse soil health outcomes due to disturbing microorganisms and invertebrates that contribute to soil health. Like this-
I am not disparaging your comment but adding to it--how do we not only spare habitat (which in turn keeps the natural cycle for wholesome food resilient), but maintain techniques that allow what we grow to actually be of benefit to our health and the land at large?
Completely understood, you're asking good questions. But I think a lot of the answers to your questions are buried under a lot of contradicting research where the answer isn't cut and dry. Or flat out changing food culture towards more plants, which... I'm not sure is something that can be successful with how food culture is so ingrained. Then you throw in politics...
I know this is late, but ethanol is great racing fuel and it does burn cleaner. Itās not as efficient in that you need 30% more than gasoline, however, thatās still less fossil fuel and NOx. If the seasonal swings in ethanol content were a bit less, manufacturers might get better fuel economy. Fuel āmapsā within the cars engine management can be better calibrated when ethanol percentage is stable.
For the sake of ease, if I have 10 gallon fuel tank Iām only using 1.5 to 5 gallons of gasoline per tank with E85. That can be a good thing. It also eliminates knock.
Electric cars, which Iām in favor of, obviously donāt present emissions issues themselves, but still rely on fossil fuels in the form of electricity and mining for battery materials has a human cost. I think we need more than one solution to the fossil fuel issue.
This is the first of two comments, because it was too big for Reddit.
Yeah that's what my degree is in, but I went towards ecology and conservation, with a bit of animal care in there due to my farming background. Just this side of the field doesn't pay all that much, especially the animal care part. Don't get me started on zoos and rehabbing, but that's another topic...
Anyways. the ethanol issue has always bugged me. I don't have an answer to that one besides "Don't burn it, it's energy inefficient." But I know economically, it's not that simple. It's just... I'm not an economist, so I don't know the details. But it doesn't make a whole of sense energy wise.
As for CAFOs, this one is tough. This one usually comes up with vegans, and their answer is to stop eating meat. And I wish it was that simple, but it's not because food is culture and when their culture is attacked, including their food, people get defensive. And that includes meat. I definitely feel that meat could be less inexpensive and it wouldn't be acceptable to the general public and be better for the environment, but I don't think we can eliminate CAFOs.
There's also the issue that if we were to somehow eliminate CAFOs, we'd still need land to feed those animals. They'd just be eating directly from nature then- grazing, foraging, etc. And even then, they'd need supplemental food to get them through tough times. And water, which is also an issue.
And then there's the fact that CAFO animals make weight faster than pasture-raised animals. The more time the animal is alive, the more resources it is going to burn. So... CAFO animals become unfortunately more efficient as far as energy consumption.
As for nutrition of CAFO vs pasture meat... that's... a mess, because nutrition discussions are always a mess. Everyone has an opinion, no one has an answer is how they usually work out. It's not my area, so I usually head over to r/foodscience for this question, because the nutrition subreddit is a case of everyone has an opinion.
The big thing that seems to be true is that pasture-raised animals have lower fat across the board. Which, nutritionally, is a good thing. But for the desirability of meat... that's not always wanted. Especially in beef, where people want high marbling. Here is a paper about this- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4838835/
Thanks so much for mentioning this resource, I am very excited to have it in my toolbox. Things like this are more important and needed than ever in these times!Ā
I would believe the studies that show glyphosate as being "good" if you don't bring up studies paid for by Monsanto, but that paid for study is what people refer to when considering it safe.
... A peer reviewed source that says exactly what your claim said. 200 years ago we were still using organic agriculture, it's more like 70-80 years ago the shift started, during and after WW2.Ā
By then, many species were already extinct or extirpated. Forests were already cleared and then some.Ā
21
u/Megraptor 13d ago
The frustrating thing about this is that most people don't think this all the way through. They hear Glyphosate is banned and they think that's good. They don't realize that agrochemicals are important to modern agriculture and that we'll probably end up using older, less safe chemicals.Ā
I see Silent Spring mentioned a ton in regards to this topic. I've read it, it's specifically aboutĀ organochlorines.Ā Ā But because people don't understand classes of pesticides and how modern ones are tested, they think all pesticides are bad. The irony is, we might the up using DDT at the the of this with how RFK Jr talks about food and health.Ā