ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- A recent study suggests that food grown in cities produces more CO2 than conventional farming. Is this really true? Is carbon the whole story? What would it mean for sustainable cities?
Learn more about ecological urban design at / @edenicity
To download the Edenicity Reference Design and get periodic announcements: www.edenicity....
Sources:
Hawes, J.K., Goldstein, B.P., Newell, J.P. et al. Comparing the carbon footprints of urban and conventional agriculture. Nat Cities 1, 164-173 (2024). doi.org/10.103...
Jason K. Hawes et al., theconversatio... January 22, 2024
David G Fisher, The Efficiency of Home Gardens Compared to Industrial Farms, Unsustainable Magazine, December 18, 2021, www.unsustaina...
David R. Montgomery, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. University of California Press (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 2007). Page 159.
www.technology...
Young Americans for Liberty: / pfbid035wczgx7uhgwvjmv...
climatefeedbac...
Atlas Society: / pfbid029jhtj1jxxtjdvby...
Rogan: www.instagram....
Written and narrated by Kev Polk. Selected images courtesy Pexels and the White House.
It's not rural or urban or industrial, it is conventional vs agroforestry. If we set up city design gardens with cyclical nutrient and energy cycling you reduce carbon footprint, increase produce quality, and decrease pesticide and fertilizer needs
💯 Yep, that's the idea!
Clickbait worked. Was ready to be angry, but was pleasantly surprised with the thoughtful content. We run a small, market garden using only hand tools. Our neighbor is a conventional farmer with no less than 15 large tractors that mostly sit idle in view of our thriving garden beds. Our customers see the difference, clear as day.
Thanks, I'm trying not to feel too guilty. Glad you're growing real food. Quality shines through in so many ways. When I grew for market, customers were shocked that our lettuce could last 3 weeks in the fridge (vs. 3 days from the supermarket).
@DutchGrassLily Great point! I wish more of us would eco-analyze the environmental opportunity costs of our hobbies!
Those tractors are wasting good growing land!
This comment worked. Dredd style Mega cities suck. Peanuts in parliament globally.
Small farms in fact currently produce most of the food consumed in the world. Industrialized farming produces only a minority of it.
@abuttandahalf Facts! grain.org/e/4929
(Forgot to include)
Dung, and an irrelevant comment when virtually all the world’s grain production is mechanised and large scale.
I mean I would say that's just BS or the study is setup to be bs
@@seanlander9321 most are soybeans produced in Brazil to feed pigs and cattle in China... In Brazil, the big land properties, like dozens of thousands acres, detain 75% of the land, but produces 25% of the food that feeds the country's population. Otherwise, the family properties, with 50 acres or less, detain 25% of the land but produces 75% of the food.
very well done exposition on the incompleteness of the study. From your report, it seems like there are quite a few additional things left out. One is, alternative uses for the land. (ie growing trees on those megafarms while focusing on local urban ag). Another element left out from what I saw was the impact of perennials in urban gardens. As you said, planting with stacked functions is a major game changer. Similarly, designing over time & not just space has major impacts as well. I like to tell people permaculture is advanced farming, whereas conventional farming is actually very novice.
Solid observations, thanks.
I’m only 3 minutes in. I can already tell that this study it utterly lacking in scientific rigor. Just looking at soil disturbance alone, the amount of stable carbon and stable nitrogen that is lost from soils due to large-scale disturbance from conventional agriculture is DRAMATIC. There’s almost no way that a small-scale farm could create this intense level of disturbance, even if they use heavy machinery and classical management (ie. Tilling, fertilizers, etc.). The nature of large-scale mono-cropping requires heavy disturbance, relative sterilization of topsoil, and usage of fertilizers derived from fossil fuel intensive processes. At a small scale, these types of management practices are not financially sustainable, meaning that small-scale management is intrinsically less damaging on the soil. I doubt this “study” even considered the impacts on soil and instead focused entirely on “above ground” impacts.
EDIT: LMFAO 😂 The fact they focused so heavily on infrastructure shows just how propagandized this entire “study” is from top to bottom. Sorry but a couple raised beds with woodchip paths is not even remotely comparable to large-scale grain/corn processing plants, the storage/refueling zones for heavy machinery, giant silos for storing and treating your produce… not to mention the ridiculous amount of fuel used to move produce across the country, or the vast amounts of essentially barren land created from mono-cropping. Do roads count as agricultural infrastructure? Guess not… Don’t even get me started on fallowed land. Having a 1000 acre corn field that technically doesn’t have infrastructure is not somehow better than raised beds. That is an insane claim. The utter destruction of habitat and soil generated in mono-cropped conventional agriculture is astronomically worse than any amount of infrastructure dedicated to small-scale ag. Conventional agriculture is quite literally creating deserts, which is fine I guess, so long as they don’t build raised beds 😂😂😂 What a joke.
Great video!!!
Source: Am a soil scientist. Worked on regenerative farms for years.
@kylenmaple4668 Thanks for the added perspective. I hope you’ll weigh in on future episodes. I had a sinking feeling when I realized the study used outside data for the industrial farms. Actually, I just keep thinking of more things I could have mentioned: the 99% loss of soil biodiversity in big farms, various sources that document how small farmers still feed most of the world on a tiny fraction of the land.
About the only way a small farm could produce more CO2 is if they have to truck in soil/compost year after year. The backyard gardens most people have really are not that intensive and a lot of that infrastructure built would likely already exist in a lot of yard or the onus to build them would happen anyway. Ex. a shed, a patio, etc.
You missed on major point.
Alternative Uses/combined uses
If my garden wasn't a garden, it wouldn't simply not exist. It would be lawn. I would still mow that, so mowing my garden is LESS mow time than if the garden wasn't there, not MORE. All the decorations and decor that are in the garden are not part of the carbon of the GARDEN. I would have a path there regardless. So the pavers, that's beautification of my yard not carbon from the garden. I would be watering the lawn, so no real change in water use. The study really seems to ignore the fact that if my garden wasn't a garden, it would be my lawn.
The comparison is to some idealized "natural state" that does not exist in urban environments. If you strip out all the infrastructure carbon costs for infrastructure that would exist regardless of if there is a garden there or not, most home gardens would be dramatically lower than corporate farms. Is the shed I store my tools in part of the "garden" or is it part of the other 4/5 of my property that still needs maintained?
Good point!
Some people cite books with a little citation in the corner, others in the description. This video features the best version, which yes-ands previous citation methods with _holding the book up_, which is so great because it sells the idea that these references aren’t cynically sourced from Wikipedia citations
Thank you for being a voice of reason amongst a sea of outrage.
Good channel ☝️😊
It depends on how many resources you buy in. When we set up our home veg garden we used a lot of recycled wood, we made our own compost using garden waste from the neighbours, we made our own fertiliser through vermicomposting etc. Definitely lower impact than industrial agriculture
Personally not a fan of the AI art used in background, but I liked the content of the vid. It's an interesting question and a good nuanced take. I think biodiversity is a huge thing to not include in the impacts of the different farming designs. Always important to keep in mind that all of this about how we grow out crops is small beans compared to WHAT we grow for. SOOOO much of the food we grow goes to supporting animal agriculture and if we reduced out consumption of animal products we would cut impacts down to a very small fraction of what we have now.
Fair enough, and good point about food choices. Edenicity’s compact footprint is only possible at significantly lower trophic levels (
You're absolutely right. If we magically ceased all fossil fuel burning today, we'd still exceed our 565 Gigaton CO2 limit by 2030 just from the meat, dairy, and egg industries.
@@ObamaoZedongJoel Salatin.
I like to think my garden is less carbon intensive than traditional ag.
All my mulch is gathered from neighborhood lawn waste, picked up on my commute to and from work.
Beds, trellises, and glass hot houses are 90% built from recycled construction waste i picked up at the end of a work day, and simply hauled home during my normal commute.
My garden is mainly in ground, about 3000ft² bed space. Only hand tools are used.
Some outside fertilizers are used sparingly. I start my seeds under grow lights inside.
Im able to grow about 10 months of the year, and this is only my fourth year gardening.
I put in about 12 to 20 hours a week.
Sounds lovely!
❤❤❤
My biggest problem with urban farming is, that it could help urban sprawl.
Every space you use in the city, makes the infrastructur of the city bigger. You need longer roads, more pipes, more cables, more parking, more car trips,.......
In the Netherlands, you have much more compact citys. You can do nearly everything by walking and biking. And that is a big part of the reason, why the Adipositas problem in the netherland is shrinking. It wouldn't be possible with big gardens, like in the US.
Thank you for being level headed and not jumping to conspiracies like most people do nowadays. Most regular gardeners comments sections are filled with conspiracy posters and irrational actors. It's refreshing to not see that here.
From cities to decentralized urban ecovillage confederations (the commune)
Take Jason Hawes PhD away. I do LCA’s and this was slipshod job. As an urban gardener, neve use cute buildings of pesticide/herbicies. Great video!
Great job putting this together. The idea that a community garden, run by volunteers and kids is going to be as productive as a farm, isn't that likely. We just need to look at Cuba for how to make low emissions efficient urban farms.
Thanks! Cuba's a great example; I just ran out of time before I could squeeze it into this episode.
Having been to Cuba I wouldn´t recommend using it as a reference.. because Cuba struggles with foodsecurity. Badly.
@@MisterJingo93
That's because of brutal USA sanctions and an effective blockade that has been in effect for decades. Cuba has done well not to starve.
@@user-zj9tl5tr2o on the one hand: yes. The sanctions are even against international law, and I do acknowledge that and their deep impact. On the other hand you have horribly inefficent commutes (people litteraly take multiple hours to get to their jobs), or they bike 40 kilometers (one way) to the farms.. And that is not made up. They also have (or when I was there) barely any markets where non-tourists can afford food. There are tons of resturants, but eating there requires a months salary for a cuban. It´s basically the worst of two worlds.
@MisterJingo93 I agree sanctions were originally justified, but that is not the case anymore.
Lack of investment in transport, leading to long commuting l, as well as expensive food, because of reduced access to labour saving agriculture equipment is also the result of sanctions.
No part of Cuba economy is untouched by sanctions. The fact that Cuba life expectancy is higher and it has higher literacy rates than USA, despite the sanctions, is remarkable.
Institutionalized Agri 'research' is universally 'altruistic' and has our best interests at heart. Thanks to it we have saved biodiversity, soil and gut health. Along to state obvious hunger is a thing of past. All is well and healthy in spray till and urea agriculture
Until encountering Edenicity I used to think of gardens as just something that provides quality of life to a gardener (and most people appear not to be gardens - given the small amount of gardening that is done by those who have gardens). Actually growing food on roofs is an interesting idea. (And ask the world's biggest food exporter - the Netherlands - if it's possible, and I think they'd say "yes"?)
Another "greenhouse" use I imagine might be possible for roofs - reducing emissions, and reducing cooling bills - would be to have a "laundry greenhouse" on some roofs. Put your washlines under glass, maybe pump solar heated fluids up there, and dry clothes when it's raining. (I come from a place where sometimes it wants to become a rain forest, and drying things outdoors is out of the question. As for using a drier, well that just goes against the grain somehow. I suppose that's just because I originally lived somewhere dry enough to never need one.) Anyway, rather sketchy idea that probably won't fly - not least because there's no way to deal with all that humidity in it.
As far as the health/social/happiness gardens where the point is just digging around and watching slow miracles transpire, I think those should be somewhat attached to home tenancy or ownership, where by living in the city you have an automatic latent right to go and "soil your hands" if that makes you happy, that you can expand by doing a lot of this. (I've mentioned this before again, so sorry about the obsessiveness.)
To activate your "garden ownership" (for people who like things expressed as "ownership") - or to take up your place in the collective, if that's what floats your boat - go to a garden association that has available land, and show that you live in an associated set of dwelling units. For this, you get a "front doors worth" of dirt to plant whatever you like in. Roses are fine. In places where it's allowed, so is dope. Or grape vines for your wine press. Use that for a certain time, without letting it turn all sad and neglected, and you can ask for more. And then more. And then more again. (I believe that there's potentially enough land for the most active gardeners to be able to maybe not quite farm it, but to landscape a lot. That's because very few people are truly gardeners, even if a lot of people love the idea.)
As always, I enjoy your design thinking.
@@edenicity Thanks. Great video as usual, so I got inspired. :D
That figure of grain milling taking 10 x the energy in the grain seems a bit odd. Is this related to how finely ground it is? This would suggest that grain was never ground before the development of water-wheel based mills, since the energy usage of doing it by hand couldn't be repaid by consuming the grain, which doesn't seem right.
Yeah, Pollan was writing about *wet* milling for things like high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and the like, which involve centrifuges, fans, heaters, etc. I missed a word🙄.
Grass fed oxen turning a millstone, or a windmill turning a millstone. Before we baked bread grains were cooked whole, barely processed. Revisit the concept of added value, and making a product easier to store/use/digest.
I'm glad you did this. You're spreading some of the thoughtful, investigative critique I haven't seen the media perform and I know most readers don't have the time for.
When I saw the article's title and the copy/paste "journalism" propagating it, I had a pretty good idea of the outrage around it. I looked into the original article as well and found nothing methodologically disingenuous - perhaps hazy and brief on the methods - but the writing is so misleading about how conclusive or comprehensive their data can be. Having done broad-scale research in spatial ecology and fused data from different sources with mismatching methods, I can attest that you have to be so careful about the assumptions you make, the blindspots your data embodies, and the limits of what you can know from a broad-yet-shallow study like this. I completely respect the feat the research they did was; I think it was well-intentioned and no small task despite its limits. But the published article, in title and content, is WAY too conclusive in its language for what they had to work with. Also, when did research papers start placing the results and conclusion sections before the methods? I always thought you go through your methods - including the disclaimers I mentioned - in a formal write-up before the results.
Originally, I thought it was the journalists cherry-picking that awful title and was genuinely surprised to see that the researchers went with that name. Part of me wonders if someone else at the University or review board of the article compelled the researchers to go with that title; the cute video they posted around it demonstrates that their disposition to urban ag is positive, and the tendrils of Big Ag propaganda are so active these days. I would not be surprised if this was editorial spin by someone with ties to industry groups.
Again, thank you for this. From another Permie, an urbanist, researcher, and farmer.
Finally. Someone who's vocalized everything that I've been thinking for awhile now. We need the urbanist and permaculture movements to team up, because they are almost totally disconnected from each other right now, but thet go hand-in-hand. Embracing one without the other is only a glass half full.
I couldn't agree more!
Perfectly stated! 👌
The other aspect i didn't hear considered in the calculation for home gardens is removing the environmental cost of infrastructure for homes that do not have have a home garden: reseeding, watering and mowing grass; equipment like lawn mowers, weed wackers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers; patios, pathways, pools, privacy fences, pergolas... People spend a lot of money and resources for only appearance with no edible or ecological purpose. It's incredibly misleading to call home gardening carbon wasteful without considering the common alternatives.
Excellent example of ecological opportunity cost! I'm dropping a somewhat related Short tomorrow.
I was thinking the same things but you stated it so much better.
In any case I think the press did it’s job the way they hyped the study. So many people respond with fear panic and paranoia. Which is what the press wants today.
Especially when carbon footprints are a bull crap metric to begin with
You had me in the first half, but if we didn't have large factory farms we'd still be having 50% of the population farming... instead one 1 to 2%. 2000 lbs? of what?
yeah we could also all live on a primarily potato diet and take up half that space... with a small amount of this and that... doesn't mean that its a solution. I think you have some great points, but without further explanation extremely flawed.
Watch for more food episodes in a few weeks. The first Edenicity developments might have up to 14% of residents farming until automation closes the gap. I'll also explain why there won't be a labor shortage, even early on.
I live in a fairly affluent small city. A family donated land for a series of park uses. One aspect is a community garden. I believe it has been in place for roughly 15 years. It is fully utilized, in fact over the winter months it was expanded to what looks like double its previous size. Every spring an army of men, women, and children descend upon it, and the variety of things that are grown bring joy to my heart. The community that results is likely more impactful than the food produced. I myself have my own garden, I hope to share it with a little girl who will turn four this summer. She might need another year. Last year I gifted her with a small French pumpkin, and various weird shaped tomatoes that I glued google eyes to. She had so much fun with them. One reason that people react strongly to this sort of stud and its conclusions is past experience with government overreach, based on equally faulty studies. 💕
Great video! I personally mill my own grain, which is so much healthier and I grow 75% of my yearly food in my home garden. Learning to preserve foods was a game changer. I control what is in my food.
Infrastructure...My infrastructure is almost entirely made from reused items.
My raised beds are made from heat treated pallets.
At end of their useful life the pallets are turned into biochar.
The soil in the raised beds is mostly leaf mold.
I build more soil every year, can the conventional farms say that?
My chickens eat produce pulled from dumpsters and produce excellent compost.
I capture rainwater for irrigation, lowering, rather than increasing the load on the city's infrastructure.
I start seeds in reused containers.
Anyone can spend a lot of resources to accomplish very little.
Using fewer resources with greater knowledge is the goal.
Give me the subsidies that a commercial scale farm get's and see what happens.
As things stand, urban growers face fines and restrictions instead of societal support.
Compare urban gardening to urban landscaping and tell me which is better.
🌻Your garden sounds awesome! I'll be dropping a Short that indirectly touches on gardening v. landscaping tomorrow.
They've equated "good for the environment" with low CO2 emissions. That's deceitful and it's the media's fault. Did they try to quantify the diversity of species per square meter or anything like that? I'm not too impressed that massive monocultures require less carbon inputs.
Agreed, it's not all about climate change and biodiversity is the more meaningful metric.
It really depends on how you garden. If you're growing organically in your own backyard and making your own inputs (compost, wormcastings, etc) and not using commercially produced beds and such, it can be a much lower footprint.
Actually, urban agriculture is prohibited due to zoning laws in most areas. Sure, you can grow fruit and vegetables for yourself, but any commercial element is a strict no-no.
Good point!
As a dairy farmer i have too say this video was quite good! the only concern I have with the study you showed would be the lack of accounting for other environmental factors as carbon emissions are not the only thing too consider, the additional soil erosion and soil microbiology loss of large scale monocultures must surely have some sort of additional impact that by only focusing on carbon emissions is sort of swept under the rug.
Thanks for the kind words and well-earned perspective.
If we have learned anything over the last three years is it’s that scientists will prove whatever the people paying the money says is true
I have mixed feelings about this study, but in fact there's too much alchemy in urban farming. People don't need those greenhouses, raised beds, paved paths and other high tech stuff. What's more they can use green mulch and grow permaculture, because they're better than machines at harvesting such crops. And the last, but not the least important - seeds grow better if you just toss them into the soil and not use a dozen of pots for the purpose. Imo there should be more zero waste publications on gardening.
But if you compare a gardener planting low-maintenance fruit trees and other edible plants in their garden, which results in no need to transport it from a producer, it's harvested by hand and packaging is 100% recycled, then it's quite obvious who has a lower carbon footprint. Also the more the plants, the less need for watering and a proper food forest will have a negative carbon footprint
Spot on!
First time I’ve come across this channel and thought this video was brilliant! Subscribing
Thanks-and welcome!
The study may do it's best to appear neutral, but the oversights in the calculations are careless at best. Is the equipment and infrastructure calculation used to come up with the "urban" figure justified in any way? Seems like they almost took the absolute worst case scenario for "urban" (which is really also suburban and kind of sub-rural). The headlines, the top-line spins, are what reveal an agenda imo. As does the recent run on farmland by major corporations and tech billionaires.
I think some other things left out is the link an urban gardener gets to food production. I think a huge benefit to combat global warming and sustainability is reconnecting with nature. Urban gardening does that. It instills the importance of pollinators and how the food in grocery stores gets there. It may also reduce the use of pesticides in general. If a person has a non-native monoculture in their backyard, they may spray it with all kinds of chemicals. If they start a garden, they are likely not going to want to spray on their garden. You also have to look at the cost of maintaining that non-native monoculture and remove those costs from the urban farm. The report mentions mowing grass, but people already do that in their backyards without urban farms, so it’s moot to count that against urban farms
Great points!
Even though the study wasn't good, there was definitely an important take away with how we should repurpose old construction material ✓
Science measures simple things like carbon. Social benefit is not so simply measured. Gardens bring us to work together locally and educate us all in the requsites of life. Thank you for your video.
Of course your community garden, balcony garden or Schrebergarden doesn't compare to the urban sprawl of the american suburb (european suburbs are much better in this regard, for more information of this I would recommend ppl watch "not just bikes" and "Adamsomething")
The thing is you can provide people with community infrastructure and teach them how to compost etc.
Economic and other newspapers and think tanks jumping on this just seems like an attempt to prevent people from growing their own food and not participating in the market. It already blew my mind that in america it is very common that you can not use your own lawn the way you want to like you have to make it a literal lawn and can't grow anything form it. The constant attempts to ban people from growing food in their own place is also crazy to me.
I would feel like I'm in a bad movie if I lived in a place like that.
Thank god these rules do not exist in Europe (I live in Austria)
And Greta for sure recognizes thar this is nuts. Her most biting criticism goes against giant conglomerates that do more environmental harm than several countries and their people but you can't expect this level if nuance and relevance from some tabloid paper or right-wing twitter account.
It comes from experience… they start little by an article and step by step, at the end, it comes the ban.
It's an utterly pedantic point, but yes, small scale gardening and small scale agriculture PER POUND OF PRODUCE is significantly more polluting than large scale, economized agriculture. Economy of scale is in fact a thing, even if you factor in the far greater potential for environmental impact of large scale ag- it's just that the impact per unit of food is diluted.
You decide to garden a little in your backyard. Great! Multiple trips in your car to the hardware store, to buy items in minute scale that had to be trucked to the garden center, rather than getting direct truck deliveries by the ton. Buying plant starts grown in an energy intensive nursery, rather than planting seed in the ground by hundreds of pounds. Tilling with a gas or even electric tiller, which itself took a lot of energy to make, and the energy to effect the ground turnover is greater for the area than a tractor pulling a plow.
Sure, you can turn everything back into the soil and through great effort and a little imagination make a nearly closed loop in your little backyard garden. But the energy and materials required to make a few pounds of lettuce, carrots and beans is massive when compared to what an industrial farm can produce with the same calories and materials.
The real issue is, that we have these little tyrants among us. Big minded people with perfectly clean cuticles, who live in a world of numbers and theory. To them, efficiency by scale is a virtue. Why a dozen individual homes in suburbs when you can have a single apartment building. Why widely distributed communities with room to breathe, when you can cram everyone into a dense city. A small grocery every couple blocks? No, one huge grocery centrally located, and the ultra-dense housing built around it.
Real life is not efficiency focused, it is quality focused.
Studies like this are a tool of propaganda, used to bully people into accepting a s**t-tier quality of life, because a tiny number of number obsessed nitwits have an efficiency fetish.
Those headlines were dirty, im glad i read the research when i saw the headline
Really good discussion on a potentially violital subject. Will Allen said as much in his, "Grow Power" book based on his farm in Northern Milwaukee, WI.
I think what should be taken into account with home gardens is that something WILL be built in that backyard. If it's not a vegetable garden, it will be a purely aesthetic one with landscaping and it won't produce anything. So I wouldn't put that much weight onto the resources needed for making raised beds and pathways.
You're absolutely right. This is the FIRST thing the study should have considered.
@@edenicity especially considering that the alternative to a large field is NATURE that provides habitat to wildlife and actually sequesters CO2. Whereas the alternative to a home garden is usually just a grass lawn or a pool or a slab of concrete.
„Never trust a statistic, you have not forged yourself“
- Winston Churchill
I knew from the top, that the title must be clickbait, but what do I say, it worked :D
But I’d really like to know, who paid for that study in the first place 🤔
excellent vid. rescued materials, reused water, exactly as it should be in an urban garden.
buying verything new = bad for packet and bad for planet
let's do it better guys and leave a habitable planet for future generation, with love
Even if that ridiculous study was true I’d still garden. It helps my mental and emotional health and I feel soooo much better after eating home grown foods.
Plantung a few pecan trees in the permaculture part of the garden will offset any carbon emmissions from a back yard garden. Plus provide food for your family and the wildlife. Common sense is all it takes. Not to mention with the exceptions of cyrstals all life is carbin based and therefor everything as a carbon foot print. Trees and perrienals recycle it year after year.
Community gardens in most cities has very very little impact on a housing crisis. The 2-4 houses you could fit in most community lots are a tiny drop in a bucket of that problem.
@lewisrobinson3380 it's not houses neighbors don't want, it's apartments.
@@edenicityhow often are development companies actually looking into putting in apartment complexes in at old locations that's surrounded by single family homes in your area? I've literally never experienced it so it's kinda hard to imagine a developer actually doing that.
Keeping nitrates out of water is not rocket science. Mechanical, slow the run off down create holding pits. Biological processing, microbes and vegetation. Works on all scales.
Excellent discussion.
Nice explanation of the study and it's holes. I'm excited to look more into your channel!
Great deconstruction of the study. Thank you!
Thanks for this great content, keep it up! Well done, from Italy
I'm not going to sit here and argue we can sustain the worlds grain supply in our backyards, but I don't see how backyard gardens are a negative given people plant sensibly.
I guess cross pollination could be an issue for large farms, over crowding of a particular plant could also cause diseases that could spread, but as long as people aren't mono cropping every square inch of there backyards, composting while using locally sourced mineral amendments like limestone? I mean, it's a remarkably small footprint if it's even measurable.
However I do see how the average indoor home grower is using alot of carbon. Pumps to keep the nutrient solution mixed, buying small amounts of nutrients all the time, the lights, intake and exhaust or Air conditioners for climate control, constantly buying growing media, constantly using cleaning products to clean surfaces, if they're using reverse osmosis it's a huge waste of water... I mean all for a 4x4 grow space? Don't get me wrong the turn over and being able to run all year long is much better under those conditions, but it is excessive with the shipping and energy.
There is a happy medium though where even the indoor home grower by maximizing there space and fully understanding the timeframes and considerations for VPD and PAR can simply add shelving for the seedling/teenaged crop and separate there maturing crop, then move the immature plants into the maturing greenhouse thus shortening the time between each harvest. You can even move the teenaged plants into the maturing greenhouse every two weeks to maintain harvests that are two weeks apart, granted needs some thought regarding fertilizer concentrations along with par, but it can be done with a high turn over in a well kept greenhouse and the right crop. micro greens farmers have the right idea in maintaining the flow of production, but depending on the plant species and the space available? You can make fairly small indoor growing situation profitable and basically carbon neutral.
I don't think big ag is inherently bad either in the sense of necessity, ethically we could improve and sanitation may also be an issue in some facilities, but we have animal rights laws and pretty good methods of sustaining it that we work on everyday. We need food, we'd like it to be ethically sourced.
The garden itself is not a problem, it is that space and systems are not being 'optimized' in the view of petty tyrants with a spreadsheet. 'Stop liking what I don't like' isn't just a cute meme, it's a real mindset for some people.
I remember seeing this headline a few weeks ago and just going straight to the study and read that
What about the millions of acres devoted to ethanol production and confinement animal farming. I live above the Ogallala Aquafer a finite resource being wasted on both ethanol and confinement operations including potato production.
Yep, that, too.
In spite of what the climate alarmists continue to bellow out, CO2 is not the control knob for climate change. Even the IPCC agrees (deep down inside).
May be clickbait but just you wait. This will be the next control that they try to push.
Isn't it funny how fresh/raw vegetable strait of the plant taste so much better.
So true. One of my first memories was the sweet taste of carrot thinnings straight from a garden.
Yes, but small farms require a lot of labour. Yes, their output is 'greater', but scaling that productability up would be neigh impossible without an immense amount of people labouring the area. I'm very pro-personal-farm, but I'm also realistic. Because sustainability requires more than feeding a small number of people. Because MOST people don't want to farm, and those people who don't farm are the ones who provide every other service we need. So large industrial farms, though less efficient per acre, are more practical in terms of ability to feed a large amount of people without a pre-industrial level of workforce. The reason our collective societies spiraled forth into the future during the industrial revolution (which includes the industrial-scale farm) is because hands were freed up to do something else and minds were freed from minute personal tasks (like hand-weaving on a loom at home to make the fabric to make a shirt) to break past their previous confines of a bare-bones education-and-straight-to-work-at-the-age-of-10 society.
U of M needs to put out a clarificaitionas It was erroneous article title. This is all over the internet seemingly guilting little home farmers. I looked at the study, it is flawed. Ask the wrong question get the wrong answer. That was from a lazy researcher at highy rated U of M.
This channel is fantastic, thank you!
As everything to do with the environment it's complicate and more than often our preconceived opinions are completely wrong. I've been luckier enough to see many different sides of the problem. My Grandfather played apart in the green revolution, my father was Min of Ag and a frustrated farmer/practical environmentalist. Then I have worked in quite a few industries in quite a few countries, from horticulture to the nuclear industry. At present I'm back in intensive horticulture and setting up a home garden/food forest although when asked what sort of gardening I follow I say my own sort of chaos gardening taking bits from all sorts of theories then playing it by ear. I see the issues with intensive agriculture and to the disgust of many sides using advance tech is the way to make it environmentally far better. At present it is so wasteful and true cost's environmentally are often ignored ie flying workers in from other countries (I'm not against this been an immigrant myself many ties over). But then I see with setting up my garden which is on very sandy soil the costs are high, financially and environmentally. The amount of driving I've done to get plants, materials and horse manure is high for a start. Once the system is running inputs will be minimal, ie nutrient and compost will come mostly from the land we have with the septic tank water growing plants for composting down, but I will still need man made fertilizer and other chemicals to a certain degree.
Everything we do has an environmental impact but it's looking at the over all outcome. Although the CO2 impact is high and will take many years to even up compared to industrially produced foods other plusses for the environment and for my family have to be taken into account. Already biodiversity after just one year has bloomed compared to the surroundings, the joy of eating our own chicken eggs and so on. One of the main reasons why I'm setting up my garden as I am is an insurance for food availability. In no way am I a preper but having a fair understanding of where technology is heading, how disruptive this will be and how farmers, truck drivers will react (ie strikes and disruption to the supply chains I see been prepared is worth a certain amount of cost in money and time. Luckily I now live in a first world country and I don't see us ever starving but fruits and other fresh veg could be hard to get for certain amounts of time. My garden will run mostly at a very low crop per square meter but will be capable to ramp up production quickly if required.
I had a feeling that study was a mess.
I just have to say, these headlines and posts are in fact often coordinated. Conservative media organizations usually preselect narratives in back rooms and cooperate to spread them simultaneously.
@josephk.4200 The Big Myth, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway describes how this long game has been in play for a century and counting.
0:20 often the problem
one type of data that i was not able to find, was the amount of people, one garden farmer can feed. in one of my calculation, if one farmer can feed only three other for their work, then we would need 8 people out of 10 to be farmer. which mean a job divercity similar to the one europe had in middle-ages.
Early stages (rooftop/landscape gardens): nutrition for 30, calories for 7. Long term (add farm belts-see reference design at edenicity.com): nutrition and calories for 30+. I’ll do an episode on this before long.
@@edenicityThanks, because i could not in good conscience tell other people that this political/societal choice is a good one (up to probably your videonext video)
Right now, I have the regenerative farming (basically standard modern farm, but without till, no pesticide, no external suplement, and rotating crops)
Keep in mind, that is working full time or even triple time in-season, assuming miniscule loss to pests and weather and perfect preservation of harvest. A garden large enough to feed a person all year (in variety mind you, not just potatoes) is measured in acres. Doing the math is sobering, and you will probably shift quickly to the idea of growing quality-of-life produce rather than staples.
Well done.
Well done!
Excuse me... But the claim that milling grain takes 10 times the energy we get from it is beyond idiotic even at the most basic examination. How would our ancestors benefit from their main food staple if milling it by hand cost them more energy than they got out of it?
If you are the kind of man to regurgitate such idiocy everything else you say has to be put into question.
On this channel, we keep the discourse civil. If you rephrase your concern without ad hominem attacks and derogatory labels, I will address it.
.....few things have been left out from these comparison studies such as : QUALITY OF FOOD.......nothing important, let's move on. lies, more lies and utter lies
Shame on you for adding fuel to this fire!
Great job. Thanks
Great video! Thanks for sharing :)
Big Ag is worst for the environment.
Agreed!
Good work
Thanks!
Hedgerows last a very long time if it wasn't for idiot vehicle owners but, they take a long time to repair after damage from idiot vehicle owners.
Thanks for the insight!
Always vote in your LOCAL ELECTIONS.
urban is better. They are full of crap.
Clickbait
Also Carbon footprints is a fallacy invented by the fuel companies.
4:45 I thought the couple were fighting over the cabbage !
Urban Agriculture is surrounded by more pollution then natural farms as natural farms have big fields and actual trees and very little vehicles around them.
Unfortunately, meat is BY FAR the healthier diet, proven by all but the sugar industry bought and paid for propaganda. And there were VAST amounts more of mega-fauna buffalo in America than there are now cows. The issue is how we handle all the things, from crops to livestock. We should ALL be gardening, and there should be MASSIVE herds of wild animals that we can ALL harvest from, rather than densely packed, hormone injected, antibiotic riddled and poisoned livestock, and rather than enormous fields of mono-culture that is also just as poisoned.
This is all intentionally done by terrible people who want us all sick, weak, and stupid, and dependent on the system for every aspect of our lives. Small scale farming and livestock, and wild harvest of plants and animals is the way to go. Living in homeostasis with our environment, as it wants to be, rather than bashing it into these disgusting wide open fields which are nutritionally lacking and riddled with poisons.
And another thing, with even a BASIC level of biology and botanical knowledge, you can very very clearly see that plants are themselves, pretty wildly unhealthy for human consumption, and should not ever be a significant portion of our diet. We are clearly biologically carnivores, and plants clearly contain many many harmful chemicals. Animals are for food, and plants are both medicines and poisons, depending on dosage, and a high school understanding of biology without bias shows this.
capitalism is worse for the enviroment, local/large scale collective projects, socialist ones, are not.
Tell that to the Ural sea.
Do people have anything else better to do than come up with this bullshit. Leave my garden alone.
Watch the video, he is in favour of your garden.
Urban Farms is irrelevant
who says you can't mill with renewable energies?