The co-author of the report, professor of conservation science at Cambridge University, says the paper "is a stimulus to talk about how high-yield farming might be most effectively coupled, through policy, to land sparing."
The co-author of the report, professor of conservation science at Cambridge University, says the paper "is a stimulus to talk about how high-yield farming might be most effectively coupled, through policy, to land sparing."
The reality is that policy is far more important. A lot of the crops that are destroying the environment are not food crops. Many of them are fuel crops which have been encouraged for the wrong reasons.
The co-author of the report, professor of conservation science at Cambridge University, says the paper "is a stimulus to talk about how high-yield farming might be most effectively coupled, through policy, to land sparing."
note that many of the less rational environmentalist simplistically assert that more intensive farming, i.e. the very sort of farming required to boost food crop yields, is simply 'bad' for the environment. I know this because I have had personal talks with many of them. This is just one example of what is wrong with their typical over simplistic way of thinking that fails completely to take into account the full complexity of reality and leads to completely illogical sweeping generalizations from asking themselves massively simplistic and unanswerable questions that assume a totally black and white reality (such as "are chemicals bad or good?" or "is generic engineering safe or dangerous?" ) and then giving themselves totally black and white answers that don't ever stand up to proper scrutiny.
Originally posted by humy note that many of the less rational environmentalist simplistically assert that more intensive farming, i.e. the very sort of farming required to boost food crop yields, is simply 'bad' for the environment.
I have never heard that, but then I don't associate with the less rational environmentalists.
I do know that improved farming methods often increase yields while being better for the environment. This doesn't necessarily mean more 'intensive' farming (if such a word can be well defined).
The co-author of the report, professor of conservation science at Cambridge University, says the paper "is a stimulus to talk about how high-yield farming might be most effectively coupled, through policy, to land sparing."
The only problem with that concept is the explosive growth of human population. I am quite sure they will gen mod crops for more productivity in the next 40 years or so but with the population closing in on 10 billion by then, there will be no motivation to release land for the diversity thing. They will most likely ADD farm lands by then.
Unless the vertical farm idea takes off, a thousand foot high greenhouse basically with windows on the sides for crops to get sunlight.
A few million of those could make for bio-diversity.
Originally posted by sonhouse The only problem with that concept is the explosive growth of human population. I am quite sure they will gen mod crops for more productivity in the next 40 years or so but with the population closing in on 10 billion by then, there will be no motivation to release land for the diversity thing. They will most likely ADD farm lands by then.
Unless the ve ...[text shortened]... on the sides for crops to get sunlight.
A few million of those could make for bio-diversity.
Oddly, the article makes no direct mention of GM crops, instead referring to four mechanisms for land sparing that are currently used, three of which (according to the paper's authors) increase crop yield. Of course, I don't predict that GM crops won't continue to be used to increase yield.
I suppose that one thing to be gained by having this debate now is that land may get protected before it gets to the stage where it's wanted or needed for farming. It would then be harder to re-zone it for agriculture (I guess).
The vertical farm sounds truly fascinating. Are there any in existence, or perhaps any schemes with significant investment behind them?
30 Jan '16 01:00
Back to Top