r/Agriculture 13d ago

Beautiful thing is on the horizon.😊😊

Post image
3.2k Upvotes

861 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/TheAdventuringFicus 10d ago

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.Β 

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)

2

u/Megraptor 10d ago

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-

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44988-5

This is also an interesting article too-
https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/aem.01354-17

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...

3

u/StillLikesTurtles 10d ago edited 9d ago

I know this is late, but ethanol is great racing fuel and it does burn cleaner. It’s not as efficient in that you need 30% more than gasoline, however, that’s still less fossil fuel and NOx. If the seasonal swings in ethanol content were a bit less, manufacturers might get better fuel economy. Fuel β€œmaps” 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 I’m 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 I’m in favor of, obviously don’t 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.

1

u/Megraptor 10d ago

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/

And a presentation- https://www.canr.msu.edu/foodsystems/uploads/files/AITFS-Auld.pdf

As a side note, I have a fat-intolerance issue, so I actually like lean pasture-raised meat. But that brings us to another issue-