this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
375 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39333 readers
2970 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Grocery prices are expected to rise globally as soil degradation, driven by overfarming, deforestation, and climate change, reduces farmland productivity.

The UN estimates 33% of the world’s soils are degraded, with 90% at risk by 2050. Poor soil forces farmers to use costly fertilizers or abandon fields, raising prices for staples like bread, vegetables, and meat.

Experts advocate for sustainable practices like regenerative agriculture, cover cropping, and reduced tillage to restore soil health.

Innovations and government subsidies could mitigate impacts, but immediate action is critical to ensure food security.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 29 points 10 hours ago

Ahh yes. Our weekly once in a life time crisis. Right on cue.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

One of solution to this problem is veganic farming.

Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and biodiversity loss, mostly through deforestation for the cultivation of animal feeds; enteric fermentation from ruminants like cattle, fertilizers and manure; and soil degradation from intensive farming practices. There is currently a push to transform our farming systems to attempt to alleviate the almost-assured catastrophic burden of increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon. Many forms of agriculture claim they have evolved to follow a more regenerative form of agriculture by increasing soil organic matter (SOM), thus capturing said carbon in their soils. This study reports SOM results from one veganic agriculture (VA) farm from a study period of seven years. There was an observed increase of SOM from 5.2% to 7.2%, equating to an increase of 38.46% over the study’s duration, suggesting that VA is an effective farming mechanism for increasing soil organic matter utilizing 100% plant-based regenerative practices and materials to nourish the soil. The VA farm also realized respectable yields per hectare, reporting a 46% increase in total crop production. This was all achieved by growing a diversity of plant-based crops, implementing four-year crop rotations, building soil fertility through plant-based inputs, cover cropping, and leaving the farm’s fields covered as often as possible. Additionally, by its processes, the VA farm fully eliminated the industrial chain of animal agriculture and associated land use and methane emissions, suggesting VA to be a holistically regenerative form of agriculture, in comparison to animal-based forms of any other system.

Source

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

has not been peer reviewed.

Then I read their methods ... It should not pass peer review. Their variable control is shit.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

However all they appear to advocate for, are the things that historically we have done, and are mentioned in the article.

Veganic Farming? Its just Vegans trying to hijack a normal process of crop rotation and cover cropping so they can make some snide remark that apparently it is animal feed that's the problem.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 26 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Reduced tillage is a big one. There’s a massive misconception out there that the best thing you can do for your soil is go dig it up and turn it over. Soil is alive, and tilling disrupts microbial and fungal action that contribute to its health - by physical rupture of fungal colonies but also by exposing underground life to more sunlight and oxygen. As you kill the top several inches by physical disruption, it becomes dust much more easily washed away by wind and rain: erosion.

We do it to remove weeds before planting, and loosen soil to ease germination. Planting mixed crops or cooperative cover crops are good alternatives for weeds which are massively underused. And overall we may just need to accept some immediate productivity loss in order to ensure long term survival. Farmers are smart, but not smart enough. Too much emphasis on operating tools and fertilizers to optimize yield like land is a machine you can tune, and not enough focus on reducing the need for all this with a more subtle approach with increasing long term yield but perhaps lower yield next year. With farmers always one season away from bankruptcy, you can see why they make the wrong trade offs.

Soil depletion is at the bottom of a lot of civilization collapses in event history. The whole reason the Egyptians lasted as long as they did is that the annual Nile flooding replenished their soil with minerals brought down from higher ground by the flow of water. It wasn’t just the water itself.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

No till or low toll is pretty much the default on most soil types now, at least on North America and Europe. There some areas where its not the case but I wouldn't judge anyone unless I had many years of experience in their particular environment. Sometimes what looks dumb from outside isn't possible or feasible when you're in the middle of it.

One problem we've found with no till after 20 years is stratification compaction just from rainfall and equipment, even with tramlining. Its starting to seem like it needs a working up every few years, or planting down to forage and more active livestock action. The advantage with that would be better carbon sequestration but its not really profitable if land prices/rent are high in that area.

And yes, in a profession with millions of dollars on the line every season, its really hard to make changes if you're just getting by.

[–] Lag@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

And overall we may just need to accept some immediate productivity loss in order to ensure long term survival.

I see a massive issue in this plan.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Why? It's the next generation's problem. And what have they done for us!?

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 34 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

The best thing for the environment and soil health is to not farm it. There is no such thing as environmentally friendly agriculture. It is always destructive.

We farm the land we do because it's profitable.

Irrigated acres make up less than 7% of the land area used for agriculture but produce 65% of the total yield.

Protected culture (greenhouses, high tunnels, etc) produce 10x to 20x more per acre than open field production.

Increasing our water storage and transport infrastructure on a massive scale, combined with expansion of protected culture could reduce our agricultural land requirements by as much as 80%. All wiithout changing our diets.

Imagine 80% of the farmland rewilded? Massive stretches of native ecosystems rebounding without fertilizer or sprays.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 20 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There are ways to create sustainable farms. It’s about diversity of crops and cycling what crops are grown each year.

https://www.edibleforestgardens.com/

There is no environmentally friendly factory farming. There is no healthy market-conscious farming. There are absolutely ways to be kind to the earth and grow food for a small community.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We need food for billions not a small community.

Food forest = lower environmental impact per acre but a higher environmental cost per kg of production. It's also highly environmentally irresponsible to add in invasive species, disease, and pests into and established ecosystem. These are all spread by seed, soil, and plant tissue of the crops we grow.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

But…billions make up many small communities. That’s my point. Self-reliance, mutual aid. That’s the answer. Not globalized solutions.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

99% of us do non ag jobs and if we moved to everyone trying to farm a billion would starve and the worlds economy would implode.

Lack of resources would lead to both local and global violence as desperate people hurt each other.

Imagine a city of a million people abandoning all the work they do to all collectively invade rural areas to set up farms they have no idea how to run!

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But..... we don't have unlimited hectares of suitable land for people to fuck up. That's the point.... A food forest concept would require every last bit of ariable land on the planet and still not provide enough food for everyone.

The entire idea shows a complete lack of understanding what it takes to feed people at the scale of billions.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

If we quit beef our problems would be over.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 108 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

This weeks excuse for the billionaires to increase their take.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 47 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

It's no joke: conventional Ag is extremely tough on soils, and depletes soil organic matter, and reduces topsoil thickness though ploughing. Add on top of that contamination from various sources (not just Ag) and the picture is bleak.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

conventional Ag is extremely tough on soils

No shit. My daughter and husband bought a house built on the corner of a field in Ohio that was farmed for years. You couldn't get a shovel into the ground there because it was like cement.

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 38 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

conventional ag

Industrial farming is incredibly harmful to the soil. There are other methods that are far less harmful and can actually be beneficial to soil health, the problem is they don't scale well.

There is a great YouTube channel called No-Till Growers that really goes into some cool farming methods that are much less destructive

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hNyu4_RWGZo

Edit: this is probably a better video and I think it's in a playlist about soil health. But honestly all of his videos are great

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4aZhevnaLWw&list=PLGMgkMLKOtWv0efQXhQtuu01WfWL5yBDf&index=1&pp=iAQB

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

I have been doing no plow, no till gardening for over 20 years and it outproduces conventional gardening by a lot.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Soil depletion killed the Sumerians. It’s older than billionaires. If we attribute every single problem to class inequality, eventually we’re going to be wrong, because there are other problems in the world. If you think billionaires have power over us, nature is vastly more powerful.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 16 points 16 hours ago

Right?? My first thought was, another excuse to raise prices and shrinkflate even more. Because that’s the solution! 🤬

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

dammit i had "new dust bowl" on 2025's bingo, not 2024's

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

We haven't reached dust bowl levels yet lol

[–] vikingr@lemmy.world 62 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

"Here's how the millennials' love of vegetables is destroying the planet"

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

“Fewer Millennials are farming, and that’s bad for everyone.”

[–] vikingr@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago

"Here's why feudalism is the remedy for selfish, lazy millennials."

This is gonna happen, I guarantee it 😂.

This damn country.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

staples like bread, vegetables, and meat.

One of these is vastly different from the others in terms of planetary destruction.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I'm glad that deep distrust I've harboured regarding brussel sprouts has finally been validated.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 18 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

I know! Bread, right? It's bread. right?

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago

Of course it's bread. Just think about the energy required to bake them!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Well hopefully the world will figure this out, or population On a small scale it's so obvious that soil needs to be managed for a healthy garden or small farm. Big farms just throw down fertilizer (which was a world changing improvement to agriculture) and don't do enough to keep the soil alive and healthy. The headline "poor soil forces fertilizer use" is sort of backwards as it's the industrial farming that's sucked the life out of the soil.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The world will figure it out via mass migrations and war, unfortunately.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

With genocide and plagues, oh my!

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 44 points 18 hours ago

[Existential crisis threatening all human life] Oh no, the economy!

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

There’s also simply way too many people on earth as it is. My country - one of the smallest on earth- had 15 million people back in 1995. Right now, 30 years later, we’re at 18 million. And in 2037, they’re expecting 19 million.

Small numbers on a global scale, but definitely a lot of growth that’s causing issues. There’s a housing shortage, rising prices, healthcare and pensions are under threat, etc etc.

And there’s places that are much, much worse. For example, even India is encouraging population growth. When the country is still very poor. That’s going to help their economy in the short run, but it’s going to be a much larger problem down the line.

We need a controlled population decline, sooner rather than later.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Either we reduce our population in a controlled way, or nature is going to do it in a brutal one through famine, drought, and disease.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -1 points 6 hours ago

Yay pseudoscience!!

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

We’re going to top out around 12 billion according to demographers. And this is not some theory. Most developed countries are already seeing slowing birth rates and in cases like Japan it’s quite far along.

Given how inefficient and self-destructive most of our farming is, I’m quite optimistic that it’s possible to support 12 billion sustainably. I don’t like this talk of “too many people” because it leads us to generally devalue people. If we’re not actively planning for who to remove first then we’re at least shrugging when thousands die in a disaster.

We don’t have to cheapen ourselves this way. We just have to live and work smarter.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well you can also turn that around and ask: why do we need more people? What does another individual add?

One might argue that a baby born today might cure cancer or all known diseases. They might invent free, unlimited energy. They could be the greatest writer to ever live. Humanity’s best poet. He could bring about world peace.

But he could also be our next Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.

Earth is a finite planet. It’s not getting any bigger. So every human we add to it, takes up yet another square meter that consumes resources for an average of 80 years or so. I’ve seen my country get more crowded and the problems it causes.

We don’t need more people. At all.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Be the change you want to see in the world then, and leave it. After all, what do you add? Why even comment here? Do we need more people with more opinions?

I don’t mean any of that. I just say it aloud to show how petty and shitty it is. Of course if people are just numbers on a tablet then you don’t give a shit if it’s 2 billion or 3 billion. But I would hazard to guess that if you got out more, travelled more, talked to more people, saw where they lived, sang for their childrens’ birthdays and spoke at their funerals, held their hands in the ER, that you would appreciate the fact that everyone does add something. And that although there is no shortage of cruelty and stupidity in our world, it is also overflowing with love and ingenuity.

I think it’s beautiful. And I don’t presume to know what the “right” number of people is to make a world. Frankly I find that talk disturbing.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

You can absolutely mean those things. I’ve said them to others, so they don’t offend me.

I agree that everyone’s a unique individual. But when looking at problems on a global scale, you need to approach things objectively and dispassionately.

From a purely statistics standpoint, I and 1 sibling should be here. Because that’s the replacement rate for when my parents die. A life for a life, so to speak.

Problem is, my parents had three kids. So now we’ve already gone above that replacement rate. And globally, more people have kids above the replacement rate, hence the population growth.

I don’t have or want kids. That’s not for me, and I don’t want them to be born in a world that’s going to get rapidly worse to live in. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing or capable to make such choices.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Even the soil is quiet quitting these days!

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 12 hours ago

luckily we all have the excess given the low housing and health insurance costs.

load more comments
view more: next ›