‘Land sparing’ or ‘land sharing’? More intensive agriculture better helps farmers fight climate change

| | August 10, 2018
Advantages and disadvantages of agroforestry
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Farmers face a growing dilemma …. How do you feed …. people without harming the environment? [G]rowing as much food as possible in a small area may be our best bet for sustainably feeding the [world] ….

Farmers who wish to minimize their carbon footprint have traditionally held two philosophies, says David Williams, the lead author of a paper published [recently] in the journal Current Biology.

“[L]and-sharing,” involves maximizing the amount of carbon stored on farmland. “[P]lanting trees in a field, or maintaining little patches of non-crop habitat on your farm,” explains Williams.

But land-sharing has a cost.

“You almost certainly lower your agricultural yields,” says Williams ….

The other philosophy for agricultural carbon mitigation called “land sparing” maximizes the per-acre yield without worrying about carbon storage.

Related article:  Viewpoint: Why GMOs? 1950s farming technology cannot feed the world in 2050

Since yields are higher, less land is needed to produce the same amount of food …. uncultivated land can then be preserved as natural habitat.

Williams …. wanted to know which strategy was best for storing carbon …. [his team] measured the amount of carbon stored in farms and natural areas from three agricultural regions in Mexico, Ghana, and Poland.

“We found that the least damaging strategy was the land-sparing strategy,” says Williams.

Read full, original article: Which Vision Of Farming Is Better For The Planet?

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend