12
example, to have negative effects on the environment, with significantly damages
for the economy and the health (Reynolds and Nierenberg 2012).
The fertilizers, in fact, are responsible for the release into the atmosphere of toxic
substances that, by spreading into the air, can also destroy or intoxicate organic
crops cultivated miles away from the fields were the toxic substance has been originally employed. In this sense, if it is true that fertile land is essential for food production, it is also true that often some inappropriate agricultural practices are at the
origins of the rapid declines in soil fertility and desertification. FAO studies indicate
that in many countries, less than 10% of all spray applications hit a sick plant, a
weed or a parasite, which means a waste of 90% of the product. The intensity of
tillage and grazing, the use of fertilization and the application of pesticides (FAO
2012, table 15, p. 105) have reached critical levels in some geographical areas,
where also the scarcity of water affects the production of food, calling for investments to promote a more efficient water management system.
No doubt that some technological innovations, such as the ones related to the so
called Precision Agriculture (PA), can play an important role in reducing agriculturerelated methane emissions. PA, in fact, is a modern management system using digital techniques to monitor and optimize agricultural production processes. It intends
to measure variations in growing conditions within a field and to adapt the fertilizing or harvesting strategies accordingly. Likewise, it assesses the needs and conditions of individual animals in larger herds and optimizes feeding on a per-animal
basis. But although the techniques of PA can serve to minimize the damages to the
environment, there is no doubt that the consumption of land linked to the production
of food and the breeding of livestock continues to grow at an unsustainable rate. The
negative effects associated with this large-scale food production can also be appreciated in relation to the loss of biodiversity (Crist et al. 2017).
Although it is said that the loss of biodiversity is, to some extent, an unavoidable
natural process, the contribution of humans to the extinction of species has improved
recently by at least 100–1000 times the natural rate (FAO 2007). The need to reduce
the variety of species used for food production and the expansion of genetic engineering, to increase the food production and to satisfy the economic interests of the manufactures and of the large multinational companies, has contributed to a progressive
use of the herbicides and others chemical products for the pest resistance. In that way
the loss of biodiversity endangers soil fertility and land productivity and is one of the
prime factors contributing to the current 6th mass extinction (Geballos et al. 2017).
What has been defined as “a creeping degradation of the land and water systems
that provide for global food security and rural livelihoods” (FAO 2011) is expected
to worsen as a consequence of the climate change (IPCC 2012; Easterling et al.
2007). Though the agriculture is one of the key drivers for biodiversity losses, a
leading source of this negative process is the livestock production, since the emissions from feed production generally exceed those of vegetable protein farming. A
2017 interesting study published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management—
based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Wolf et al.
2017)—highlighted that animal agriculture’s global methane emissions are 11%
higher than previous estimates.
V. Zambrano
example, to have negative effects on the environment, with significantly damages
for the economy and the health (Reynolds and Nierenberg 2012).
The fertilizers, in fact, are responsible for the release into the atmosphere of toxic
substances that, by spreading into the air, can also destroy or intoxicate organic
crops cultivated miles away from the fields were the toxic substance has been originally employed. In this sense, if it is true that fertile land is essential for food production, it is also true that often some inappropriate agricultural practices are at the
origins of the rapid declines in soil fertility and desertification. FAO studies indicate
that in many countries, less than 10% of all spray applications hit a sick plant, a
weed or a parasite, which means a waste of 90% of the product. The intensity of
tillage and grazing, the use of fertilization and the application of pesticides (FAO
2012, table 15, p. 105) have reached critical levels in some geographical areas,
where also the scarcity of water affects the production of food, calling for investments to promote a more efficient water management system.
No doubt that some technological innovations, such as the ones related to the so
called Precision Agriculture (PA), can play an important role in reducing agriculturerelated methane emissions. PA, in fact, is a modern management system using digital techniques to monitor and optimize agricultural production processes. It intends
to measure variations in growing conditions within a field and to adapt the fertilizing or harvesting strategies accordingly. Likewise, it assesses the needs and conditions of individual animals in larger herds and optimizes feeding on a per-animal
basis. But although the techniques of PA can serve to minimize the damages to the
environment, there is no doubt that the consumption of land linked to the production
of food and the breeding of livestock continues to grow at an unsustainable rate. The
negative effects associated with this large-scale food production can also be appreciated in relation to the loss of biodiversity (Crist et al. 2017).
Although it is said that the loss of biodiversity is, to some extent, an unavoidable
natural process, the contribution of humans to the extinction of species has improved
recently by at least 100–1000 times the natural rate (FAO 2007). The need to reduce
the variety of species used for food production and the expansion of genetic engineering, to increase the food production and to satisfy the economic interests of the manufactures and of the large multinational companies, has contributed to a progressive
use of the herbicides and others chemical products for the pest resistance. In that way
the loss of biodiversity endangers soil fertility and land productivity and is one of the
prime factors contributing to the current 6th mass extinction (Geballos et al. 2017).
What has been defined as “a creeping degradation of the land and water systems
that provide for global food security and rural livelihoods” (FAO 2011) is expected
to worsen as a consequence of the climate change (IPCC 2012; Easterling et al.
2007). Though the agriculture is one of the key drivers for biodiversity losses, a
leading source of this negative process is the livestock production, since the emissions from feed production generally exceed those of vegetable protein farming. A
2017 interesting study published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management—
based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Wolf et al.
2017)—highlighted that animal agriculture’s global methane emissions are 11%
higher than previous estimates.
V. Zambrano