[toss1]

Thank you for your work as an ecologist!

I was really struck on a recent trip to Minnesota. Flew into the MSP airport, got the rental car and drove out to a smaller city. At first, we thought 'what nice countryside'. Then as the drive went on for hundreds of miles of nothing but plowed fields, with hardly even a shrub-row between fields, it became nightmare-ish — literally wondering "Where could any creature live in this wasteland?", and nevermind the pesticides & herbicides. And then considering that such habitat destruction visible from an airliner can often extend horizon-to-horizon from 36,000 ft altitude, it is horrifying.

Industrial farming may be "efficient" by some parameters, but it really is destructive, and also evidently responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Something's gotta give.

[epistasis]

This sort of farming is not new to the area, and it has been that way since European immigrants settled in Minnesota. This land was nearly all plains, so the trees you see around farm houses are actually European settler additions.

There has been a drastic increase in wildlife since I was a child there in the 90s, however. Whatever is happening over all with regulations, it's definitely improving.

But I have never, not once, understood the people that think that farming, be it industrial, organic industrial, or artisanal hard-labor small scale, is somehow environmentally positive. A lot of people who don't understand farming think that just buying organic produce is somehow healthy for the ecosystem. But any form of mono-crop farming destroys the existing ecosystem, organic or round-up drenched.

Solar farms are far better for the ecosystem.

[beambot]

The insect apocalypse is even more pronounced. In the 1980s and 1990s, you couldn't drive through Minnesota without your windshield being absolutely covered in bugs. I remember driving through the state & being forced to pull over to literally scrape the bugs off the windshield. That just doesn't seem to exist today...

[midasuni]

Of course solar farms don’t produce the food we require, which leads to mass starvation, which I guess ends up being good for the ecosystem eventually - but the wars and damage caused before then wouldn’t be.

Or we could go for less economically efficient methods, which would mean more expensive food.

[epistasis]

There is an over abundance of farming on the great plains, and nearly none of it goes to feeding humans. It's corn, soybeans, and sugar beets in Minnesota. A lot of it is used for industrial purposes, for creating ethanol for vehicle fuel, and for feeding livestock.

If we took even a fraction of the fields that are used for ethanol and did solar farms instead, we could power our entire transportation energy needs. It's hard to overstate the inefficiency of using farm fields for ethanol. We just have such a huge over abundance of farmland that this inefficiency doesn't really matter.

Honestly, it would be best to pay farmers to restore a lot of farmland back to plains, instead of subsidizing such huge amounts of overproduction of inedible crops and sugar.

[1234letshaveatw]

Do you prefer drilling for oil over ethanol? it isn't overproduction if it is being utilized for livestock or fuel. Nobody (besides maybe Jeremey Clarkson) is out there farming for fun.

[sleepydog]

> Do you prefer drilling for oil over ethanol?

This comes off as a rhetorical question, but to me it's not obvious that burning ethanol derived from corn supported by fertilizer made from fossil fuels is less detrimental for the environment than burning fossil fuels directly. I expect there are many sets of criteria that make one or the other worse.

At least, the efficiency of ethanol vs gasoline seems to be a controversial topic, as I can find lots of studies and opinion pieces favoring each position. If anyone could help shed some light I'd appreciate it.

[toss1]

Ethanol contains only about 67% of the available energy of gasoline on a gallon-gallon basis [0]. So mixing ethanol gasoline into gasoline will result in a noticeable loss of mile-per-gallon efficiency.

Agree that both are effectively releasing CO2 from either deep in the earth or from the soil, so replacing them with solar power generation on the fields would be a net plus, and probably a greater energy density. We could also use the new-ish practice of installing vertical solar panels between tractor rows of crops, which doesn't reduce the solar yield too much and allows both 'crops' to yield something.

That said, returning a lot to natural ecosystem may be necessary to our survival.

[0] https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/properties

[epistasis]

A lot of people are out there farming for the subsidies, however.

I dont know whether ethanol or oil extraction is worse for the environment, but solar panels instead of corn for ethanol seems like a huge win.

[hutzlibu]

"A lot of people who don't understand farming think that just buying organic produce is somehow healthy for the ecosystem"

Yes it is. Not using industrial pesticides and herbicides is already a huge deal. And not using them actually requires a different approach to mono-crop farming. E.g. planting shrubs to attract birds, who will then help control pests. And in general, smaller fields and more diverse.

[epistasis]

Do you have any studies, review papers, or other evidence of this?

There is no increase of organic farming on these fields in Minnesota, yet wildlife is coming back. Other interventions around habitat preservation and restoration, and decreased runoff, seem far more crucial. Even organic farms use fertilizer, the runoff of which is far bigger contributor to ecosystem destruction than pesticides, at least according to everything I have seen. Algeal blooms and water ecosystem destruction are caused by excess nutrients, not from death by pesticides, for example.

I would love to see soemthing new that I have not yet been able to find with regards to this evidence!

[pvaldes]

I think that there is plenty of evidence that all pesticides kill animals, and that some in particular can do serious damage on humans. I can't see why this should be controversial at all. The less we'll need to use to obtain our goals, the better.

Of course there are other million ways to harm birds. Don't make me start talking about Malta or Lebanon hunters. Maltese poachers kill or capture up to 200,000 migratory wild birds every year

And is much worse. The ciphers of illegal hunting are sobbing. Between 11 and 36 millions! of migratory birds could be killed on the entire Mediterranean each year: raptors, storks, falcons, herons, anything with feathers, protected or not

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

... but the problem here are the farms, sure.

> Even organic farms use fertilizer, the runoff of which is far bigger contributor to ecosystem destruction than pesticides

So it is a tie? Organic farms use fertilizers, bad. Other farms use fertilizers, equally bad.

The difference is that hedges and nature tolerated around organic farms acts as a buffer in part eating part of this effluent. This may not apply necessarily in other farms.

[hutzlibu]

"There is no increase of organic farming on these fields in Minnesota"

I was not speaking about Minnesota, but the isolated claim denying that "buying organic produce is somehow healthy for the ecosystem".

Buying organic rises demand for organic farming - and organic farming is better for diversity (do you need papers about this?) - but obviously only where the farms are located and not in the supermarket. And if the land you mean has no organic farming yet still increases wildlife, well, there are of course also many things conventional farming can do different (just using a different or less of herbicide/pesticide can have drastic effects).

[MeImCounting]

Some forms of farming may be marginally less apocalyptic in their effects on the ecosystem, but that is not even close to having a positive effect. Aside from the dubious requirements needed to obtain the "organic" label, "organic" has long been recognized as a buzzword used by well-meaning, misinformed people who, understandably, would like to feel good about the produce they eat.

There have been numerous cases of fraud and corruption in relation to the "organic" label in the US. Perhaps it is different in the EU.

[hutzlibu]

"There have been numerous cases of fraud and corruption in relation to the "organic" label in the US. Perhaps it is different in the EU."

Well, I actually only know about the situation in the EU and there surely is and was also fraud - but overall it is working. Organic farmland is way more diverse and alive compared to the conventional counterparts.

[mistrial9]

LOL - this is amazingly biased and fact-free assertion here!

The Organic standard in the USA is a crown-jewel of US food production. Yes of course there is cheating, like there is cheating on pesticide reporting and dozens of other things. I find it really off-kilter to loudly decry the entire Organic Standard effort in short terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Foods_Production_Act_o...

[soperj]

Organic farms still use pesticides and herbicides, they're just organic ones, like Nicotine.

[dylan604]

> and also evidently responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Where does this connection come from? I've never heard of this linking of industrialized farming to obesity. I've definitely heard of the linking of processed food to obesity, but farming techniques is one that I'm definitely going to need to see some supporting evidence for this claim.

[toss1]

Industrial farming is the required feedstock for industrial food production, which is optimized primarily for shelf life and near-addictiveness.

The "you can't eat just one" advert line is a real goal of the food developers. The requirement for long shelf life causes inclusion of unhealthy chemicals,e.g., high amounts of Omega-6 oils (linked to cardio issues, inflammation, etc.) instead of Omega-3s, which should have a far higher ratio vs Omega-6s in a healthy diet.

[_y5hn]

Check out the new Netflix documentary series "You are what you eat - A twin experiment". It's quite informative and comprehensive, plus do a few new studies / experiments on identical twins.

[Goronmon]

I watched a bit of that in passing while my wife was watching, even in the few minutes I watched, it spent more time cheer-leading for veganism than anything that sounded like an "experiment" or providing useful information to someone who hasn't already bought into veganism already.

[graphe]

Garbage propaganda. I already know their conclusion by the title and it's a documentary style shilling of vegan food. The only interesting thing is how they dress their lies against serious studies.

[hombre_fatal]

This comment is indistinguishable from the one you would write if you simply didn't like the result of the experiment.

[graphe]

You don't need to tell me you're vegan, yours is indistinguishable from someone who likes the propaganda.

Merit why it and other fake diet documentaries like super size me are legitimate. They are all grifters and propaganda, from the full carnivore to the full vegetables, most of them are vegan and vegans are commonly known to die of malnutrition.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

> the vegan influencers are commonly known to die of malnutrition.

Can you provide some backing for this statement? A quick search shows a ton of news articles about one specific influencer who died last August, but I didn't find much that suggested a trend as you indicate.

[graphe]

Sorry let me amend my statement, I am against a diet that promotes malnutrition which is caused by influencers that don't know about nutrition. Deaths are commonly attributed to vegans from this propaganda, and they are common not a trend of influencers but a trend in general. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/ve...

Anyone who promotes this unhealthy propaganda should be treated with suspicion. The mockumentary propaganda was shot in the style of a documentary funded by vegan companies. So surprised by what we saw though fake science.

[octopoc]

Not influencers, but I personally know a couple vegans who have brittle bones and one who is going blind (albeit she is in her 60s I think). Also these are vegans who cook almost everything from scratch and probably could qualify for a PHD in nutrition based on the amount of research they are continually doing.

The reality is you can have a somewhat healthy diet for a single generation on a vegan diet, if you source ingredients from all over the world and basically stretch the variety of plants you eat to the maximum, but if you lived 100 years ago you would have quickly become severely malnourished. And we don't yet know what the impact will be over multiple generations.

[mytailorisrich]

We need to feed people. Globally 8 billion now and probably a peak at 10 billion.

Ultimately there is no magic recipe to ease our pressures on the environment: more people means more resources needed.

[dylan604]

What do you think is going to cause a peak to occur? Will it be a plateau or a decline? If decline, will be be slow or sharp. Sharp as in our attempts to sustain 10 billion people leads to total collapse of the environment causing the planet to be much less habitable? Putting a number seems arbitrary even if you do use the word probably in your statement.

[mytailorisrich]

I am simply using the well-known UN population forecast here...

[wannacboatmovie]

These people have deluded themselves into thinking the guy at the farmers market that shows up with 12 ears of 'organic' corn on the back of his cute old pickup truck is somehow going to feed the world en masse.

Organic food is a scam enjoyed by rich people whose emotions are granted more relevancy than practical thinking. It is not sustainable large-scale. People would go hungry and die.

[voakbasda]

Worse, the food produced by Big Ag from such practices borders on poison.

My wife suffers inflammation when eating most any food from the grocery store, with the exception of raw organic ingredients that we can prepare ourselves.

Most people do not react at a noticable level, but she has autoimmune issues that make her sensitive to trace amounts of pesticides, preservatives, cooking oils, and more. After only a few bites, her hands will swell up and prevent her from removing her rings. Sickness follows if she doesn’t take heed.

We cannot go out to eat anywhere that uses an inexpensive oil; she reacts to most popular varieties. She cannot even eat simple table sugar beyond a bite or two.

Without exception, the common denominators are those ingredients produced at industrial scales.

[carlosjobim]

I think there's another common denominator as well...

[graphe]

What do you think are the causes? I heard the us has more mold in their food normally.

[wannacboatmovie]

Have you tried taking her to a doctor?

This sounds like an immense burden and impact on quality of life for which modern medicine has likely already found a solution.

[toss1]

Yeah, no.

My wife has some similar autoimmune issues (thankfully less severe than GP), and these have stumped the best doctors in the world that we can find. The trips to Minnesota were to go to Mayo Clinic in Rochester for these issues.

Yes it is a burden and impact on quality of life, and No, there is no good solution yet. I wish there would be, but it's not there.

And yes, the food supply is poisoned by these monoculture and industrial food practices. While most of us are not poisoned to this degree, all of us are some. We started a garden and my diet has definitely changed, and I notice all kinds of subtle improvements. So, avoiding any kind of processed food, almost anything with a long artificial shelf life (this means using really good olive oil and no shelf mayonnaise or oils found in most products; Omega-3 vs -6), will be to your long-term benefit, and you'll feel better.