Is this showing changes in arable land or changes in land dedicated to agriculture? Those are different things
I was wondering the same. The title and description say different things. Loss of fertile land is bad, but reduction of farmed area sounds like a good thing.
mimcraf
The scientific conclusion to be derived from this study is that the author has a potential passion for the game of Minecraft combined with a sense of humor to include subtle harmless references.
Further study is encouraged but logical expectations are that the authors neurological state may fall within the boundaries of autism spectrum disorder and that they have a high chance of being consider my friend, regardless of any non existing formal introductions between us.
No idea why we were studying this however.
I needed an example of a convolution on a pixelated image for my bachelor's thesis, so i used the texture of an iron ingot. This guy is me in the future :)
This isnt a reference to minecraft
Its a reference to minecraft education edition
Mimegraph
Look at this mine graph
Deleted
Yet here in Canada, we pave over our farmland to build McMansions and strip malls. Sure we can feed our own country and then some still, but is this really the best use of such high quality arable land?
That's always been the way of it. Cities start where people settle, and people settle on the best land they can find. Then the city expands into the farmland surrounding it. This happened in Europe and Asia, and then NA. This isn't a Canada Bad thing.
Can you really call a sea of single family homes and overgrown backyards a city? I get that cities get bigger, but if we are going to pave over farmland lets fit more than 5-10 people per acre.
Is this a bad thing? I always heard that here in France we have increasing forest coverage.
The graphic mentions that a decrease in land area on the graphs might also imply increased density of farming, less commercial farming for economic reasons
No, it's not a bad thing.
Denmark being at 60% is horrible. It is land used by less than 0.1% of the population.
They don't even contribute to the GDP. Tthe entire business model relies heavily on EU susidies and couldn't exist without it. Always moaning about the weather, pricing and competition, fixing the papers to always show a net loss, yet still driving massive luxury cars because apparently Mercedes is the only brand that can drive on the paved roads between the fields.
However, politically, these thousand people who own or rent all the farm land have way too much power, because they have somehow managed to convince everyone living in the vicinity of this manure desert called agriculture that they somehow also benefit from the success of the business, even if they don't.
Fuck farming. It's a dirty industry.
Fuck farming. It’s a dirty industry.
That's kind of a wild takeaway... Personally I like not having to grow my own food. And a huge amount of efficiency is gained with large scale farming compared to small farms or personal growing.
Unsustainable subsidies aren't okay, and we should strive for more environmentally friendly farms, but farming itself is not one of our problems.
Why does Ireland have such a small sliver of areable land? I thought it was "the green island"?
The infographic says crop farming. Ireland is green because of the grass which goes with animal farming.
The chart is lazy nonsense that ignores most of the farming in Ireland.
Same story in Canada. A big decline in total farmland (decline of 13.1 million acres or 7.9%) but an increase of 3.6 million acres in crop land. This represents an increase in intensity and density of farmland and a decrease in farmland used for non productive applications.
One of the big differences recorded in this report is a 62% decrease in the number of people living on farms from 1971-2021. A decrease in the amount of farmland used for living spaces (farmhouse, garden, garage) may be a big factor in the above crop:farmland ratio changes, as would a consolidation of farms (total number of farms decreased from 246K to 189K from 2001-2021).
What this all says to me is that economies of scale play a huge role in North American farming, and that our subsidy structures do not favour small farms.
Germany looks like a dead straight line, yet the text says it could see a large drop by 2030. Sure, it could also see a large rise in arable land, no reason or context is given.
Go Netherlands
Not really though, farmers keep too much land occupied and are bad for actual wildlife etc. Also it makes it impossible to build houses.
Also overly intensive farming, especially cattle farming, is destroying the little bit of nature we have.
flexes in Danish 😛
Damn, why then is Danish food basically just cream and pork.
Because "traditional" Danish cooking is mostly from before we had that many foreign food influences and there's only so many things that grow naturally this far north 🤷
Nowadays only 80+ year old racists subsist only or even primarily on traditional Danish cooking, though. The rest of us tend to love foreign stuff too, especially Italian, Greek, American, and various Asian cuisines lol
Edit: also, we have ridiculous amounts of dairy cattle and pigs, because apparently that's just what our farmers are good at 🤷
Netherlands is the only one that's increasing.
Line go up :(
