Environmental impact from a loaf of bread

Forums: Environmental Woes, News, Carbon Footprints
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From NPR, comes this bit of information which let's everyone know just how making a simple loaf of bread is gradually killing the sustainability of life on planet Earth.

www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/27/517531611/whats-the-environmental-footprint-of-a-loaf-of-bread-now-we-know

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 2,769 • Replies: 46
Topic Closed

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

making a simple loaf of bread is gradually killing the sustainability of life on planet Earth.

It doesn't actually say that.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Uh oh, I'll have to read that.

Tomorrow.

0 Replies

@centrox,

Quote:

It doesn't actually say that.

Perhaps not in those words. It does however indicate the chemicals used in growing wheat which are deadly to many and which often end up in rivers and oceans after rainfall, as well as in the ground. Not just that, nitrogen from fertilizers goes into the air which, in and of its own is a contributor to greenhouse emissions.

The article also states how some 30% of greenhouse emissions are thought to be attributable to agriculture. Not just from chemicals used and machinery used; but, also from deforestation in clearing land that's been decided fit for farming.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't actually say that.

Perhaps not in those words. It does however indicate the chemicals used in growing wheat which are deadly to many and which often end up in rivers and oceans after rainfall, as well as in the ground. Not just that, nitrogen from fertilizers goes into the air which, in and of its own is a contributor to greenhouse emissions.

The article also states how some 30% of greenhouse emissions are thought to be attributable to agriculture. Not just from chemicals used and machinery used; but, also from deforestation in clearing land that's been decided fit for farming.

I don't think this is any new information. And it should be common sense that if you tear down forests for farming you are hurting the environment. Most of this is just stating the obvious or known - obvious if you use chemicals it is going to harm the environment and not be as healthy for you.

the above is why organic farming is getting more and more popular - for your personal health and better for the environment.

1 Reply

If I remember right, the Romans did a lot of deforestation, in the south at least.

ah, bread and circuses..

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Quote:

the above is why organic farming is getting more and more popular - for your personal health and better for the environment.

Much of the popularity of Organic produce is pseudo-science. It is not sustainable or affordable for most of the world population. Organic is mostly marketed to wealthy people in first world nations.

Organic farming requires more land to produce the same amount of food. So, organic farming increases the need for desforestation. The fact that organic food doesn't rely on nitrate fertilizer is probably a plus for the evironment. But I don't believe there is any valid science to say that organic farming has a smaller carbon footprint.

And... there is no valid scientific research from reputable sources that suggest that organic food is any healthier than conventionally grown produce.

Organic is mostly a marketing gimmick for White people with extra disposable income and a desire to feel like they are doing something special.

3 Replies

@Sturgis,

The obvious question from this (since this particular thread is suggesting a staple as a problem) is what should humans eat? I think there is an argument that if humans stop eating beef, it would be a good thing for the climate. But bread???

Or is the argument that humans should stop eating?

(I have been cutting down my consumption of red meat for both health, and evironmental considerations. But, bread seems like a basic food... and with a far lower carbon footprint.)

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
the above is why organic farming is getting more and more popular - for your personal health and better for the environment.

Much of the popularity of Organic produce is pseudo-science. It is not sustainable or affordable for most of the world population. Organic is mostly marketed to wealthy people in first world nations.

Organic farming requires more land to produce the same amount of food. So, organic farming increases the need for desforestation. The fact that organic food doesn't rely on nitrate fertilizer is probably a plus for the evironment. But I don't believe there is any valid science to say that organic farming has a smaller carbon footprint.

And... there is no valid scientific research from reputable sources that suggest that organic food is any healthier than conventionally grown produce.

Organic is mostly a marketing gimmick for White people with extra disposable income and a desire to feel like they are doing something special.

Max this is exactly what I would have said but got voted down for saying it.

0 Replies

Don't have a cow.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote:

killing the sustainability

Naturally, most consider grass to be the precursor, the gliding light, the flame that led to the tragedy.

If tweren't for grass decimating all quarters of primeval forest then hominids would never had had cause to wander, to say nothing of tree shrews shrewdly if not eponymously limbering up.

Does a seed kill? Or should we blame those that first trample upon, then use seeds in their own agenda? Is the seed to blame?

1 Reply

It makes sense ...what goes around comes around. The chemicals we use to get higher yields will all brings consequences

2 Replies

@Eian Mcneely,

Not getting those higher yields will also have consequences.

0 Replies

I knowed this woman once't who baked this bread which could have a real environmental impact--specially if someone throwed it at yer head. We left it out back in the crotch of a tree, and the birds and the squirrels wouldn't eat it.

0 Replies

@nacredambition,

Quote:

If tweren't for grass decimating all quarters of primeval forest then hominids would never had had cause to wander

grass is merely a consequence of low rainfall resulting from changing ocean currents caused by drifting continents. Ya really want to be yelling at continental drift

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Much of the popularity of Organic produce is pseudo-science.

Much of which can be blamed on Robert Rodale and his often nutty(almost Trumpian) views of stewardship.

"Saving turds" to plant with our corn is almost laughable. I have a "limited chemical use farm" . I do, however, use some chemicals in preparation and pasture maintenance. Limiting chemical use in animal care is laudable, but full on "organic" often wstes lives of stock. Use of things like "Fullers or Ditomceous earth" toact as anti-helmenthid (anti worm) meds jut DONT WORK. tudy after study after study has shown that organic raising of stock is inefficient and is really not good land (and animal life)stewardship.
The mot one can do as a stock raiser is to try to let our herd animals live a good free-range life with good care and monitoring.
Our beef are all grass an hay -fed and I see no real advantages .All our sheep are raised with grass/hay/grain. It requires a closer care so that we dont overload the animals with any one feed component (thir stomachs cannot handle quick diet changes)

0 Replies

@Eian Mcneely,

Eian Mcneely wrote:

It makes sense ...what goes around comes around. The chemicals we use to get higher yields will all brings consequences

This is nonsense. You can't grow plants without using chemicals.

Water is a chemical that is crucial for the growth of plants. Plants require carbon dioxide (taken from the air) and Nitrogen and Potassium to grow. Since the beginning of agriculture 8,000 years ago humans have been adding animal dung (filled with chemicals) and other substances to increase their yields by adding necessary chemicals to the soil.

You can't cultivate food without using chemicals. Using knowledge of plants and science to increase yield isn't a new thing. It has been a part of human development since the Stone Age as humans realized that they could cultivate food rather than just finding it.

The consequences have been that humans thrived, and cultures blossomed. When agriculture was developed, we no longer had to spend 16 hours a day hunting and gathering. This was important to the development of civilization since when humans didn't spend most of their time surviving, they had time to develop math, and literature and art and science.

Agriculture is a pretty good thing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

And... there is no valid scientific research from reputable sources that suggest that organic food is any healthier than conventionally grown produce.

It's healthier for the soil.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

It's healthier for the soil.

What does that even mean "healthier for the soil"?

As a consumer, I want broccoli that is tasty, gives me nourishment at a reasonable price. As a humanist, I want the land being used to be productive over the long term (meaning that is produces a lot of food per unit acre) so that we can provide the food that people need at a low cost with minimal land use.

The conventionally produced broccoli I enjoy is just as nourishing as organic broccoli at a significantly lower price. And the conventionally produced brocolli means more food being produced (over the long term) per unit acre.

I don't see where "healthy soil" comes in to the equation.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRn0bL0zJ-BEv99Zxs0bNlh4sP-ZH3J5G8Hzh_x80wcRlEJ08ZZ

It's got what plants crave.

1 Reply

Forums
» Environmental impact from a loaf of bread

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Environmental impact from a loaf of bread

Quick Links

My Account

able2know