Are you monitoring methane levels as well? Because decomposition without oxygen crates methane CH4 instead of CO2 which is much worse for the greenhouse effect and climate change in general.
I found this interesting . It's great that this farmer is trying on his own to do this . Someone in the comments mentioned the traditional way they grew food in Mexico on the lakes . The chinampas could be used in places like Ireland that is predicted to get even more rain in the future . We need to experiment with all these ideas
Honestly, our whole farming system needs a dramatic overhaul. For instance: did you know that rice doesn’t actually need a crazy amount of water? The reason we typically grow rice in deep standing water is simply because it’s very water tolerant so this reduces the amount of weeding that we need to do….but this is at the cost of nasty methane emissions. Some farmers have found that simply draining the water at a certain point during the growth cycle cuts the methane emissions almost to zero! Of course, we could also just replace some of our rice consumption with quinoa as well which solves a similar issue…
I agree that most cases don't specifically need alot of water but there is a form of aquaponics that grows fish along with the rice. In that case I'm all for flooding. Free fish fertilizer and free fish!
@@hawks9142 yea, there’s rarely a perfect one-size-fits all solution. I believe that what you describe also reduces the methane emissions because the pond is kept permanently flooded in order to keep the fish alive. During normal farming, the water is drained after the harvest which leads to the emissions. Side note: your comment is exactly why one of my pet peeves is how much environmental groups fight over which solution is better. I’m actually working on a video right now which essentially says “stop fighting over which renewable energy is perfect because they’re all better than fossil fuels. So just go freaking build them already!”
In a rice cultivation system called SRI (system of rice intensification) rice is cultivated with no stagnant water it has been found that the yield is comparatively higher than the usual way of growing rice. The only con of the system is that it requires lot of manual labour to pull out the weeds .
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I think why people fight over which one is better is because they want to do it the cheapest and be producing the most electricity out of it while protecting the ecosystem. An example would be dams, dams block fish from going up and down stream, which can limit the numbers of that species. Though I do agree we should probably just start building renewable energy sources.
@@notsobreadd there’s definitely a portion of the people who have good intentions and start like how you describe. But there’s also a segment which is just fossil fuel companies “fanning the flames” in an effort to increase confusion. They figure that more confused people will make it harder to really follow through on any decisions which will enable them to make money off of fossil fuels for longer. There’s actually a study which was conducted not long ago and concluded that we’ve moved past “climate denial” into “climate misinformation.” I found it really enlightening to read through their various examples. And this act of “fanning the flames” which I describe was one of those examples.
Combine this with agro-forestry, especially with trees that are good in wetter soils. 2 bonuses, wind breaks and water retention allow the water table to become less extreme. Willows have unique properties, they're sources of the base for ASA pain reduction, the trees produce a natural rooting hormone, and when used to make living barriers reduce the need for fencing materials. There are other species that like to grow in soggy soils like cranberries. Why rely on dry dirt? Multiply the income streams and diversify the ecology too.
I just learned that Germany lost most of Its peatland due to agriculture while lecturing SEA countries not to use theirs for palm plantation. Discrediting CPO is not about protecting the planet. It is about protecting EU farmers who also take the most of EU budget.
Well, yeah. But it’s less lecturing more begging. We’ve already made that mistake. We should be willing to pay for keeping peat lands and forests though. It’s to all our benefits, while costing people economic opportunities. This has to be paid for.
@@rumo893 well what we at SEA want is they pay for their own damages. We'll settle our own ourselves. Hypocrisy is the last thing we want here. Actually we don't want it at all
I remember video about african guy who built his farm from a dryland to wetland that can grow tropical fruits such as banana, mango etc. He did it traditionally with water manipulation and it takes 20 years tho.
Although it is not the primary cause of peatland destruction, the vast majority of potting soils contain peat / sphagnum moss from peat bogs. If you can, use peat-free potting soil for your plants and buy bare root plants or grow your plants from seed/cuttings instead of buying potted plants!
This is where selling CO2 offset tokens is very very useful. If he can sell his offset CO2 he can use that money to reinvest into wetting more wetlands. Buying CO2 offset isn't a solution in the long term, but in this transitional period where the costs of being sustainable is very expensive it should be really pushed to help these smaller scale projects pick up momemtum and being able to reach the scale needed.
The government has to offer incentives of some type with the startup cost being so great. But it is pretty good at all so it is worth subsidizing the equipment.
This is interesting. A lot of people are taking the initiative to reduce CO2 emissions, unfortunately, Countries and major companies are dragging their feet on reducing greenhouse gasses.
We need to do more? At what cost? People are facing a cost of living crisis (and soon to be food crisis from the Nitrogen reduction initiatives), from the unintended blowback of the current raft of green policies that promised us abundant, reliable, cheap green energy. How many people need to suffer and/or die to usher in your glorious green utopia? It's grotesque.
6:55 Jürgen Kreyling Haha, When I studied in Bayreuth he showed me cultures of different plant species in some study. when he tasked if i had listened I could recite everything he said. In my heart I am a true plant ecologist 🥺🥺
It's strange how precise we are in other fields but when it comes to our earth we could care less. It's really an extension of us, idk why we dont treat it like the delicate living organism that it is. It dies we die simple as
Hey Marton, good question! This paper looked at different emissions of peatlands and came to the conclusion that there are two options: either peatlands stay drained and emit CO2, or they are rewetted and then would emit CH4. (🔗 www.greifswaldmoor.de/files/dokumente/Infopapiere_Briefings/202211_Fact%20sheet_GMCUR_Methan_English.pdf)
In my view, this will not reduce CO2, but only capture back the carbon that was released when the area became dry. New CO2 from fossil fuels will not be captured unless you make more land wet than before, or you make a higher water level area. Any thoughts?
Fossil fuels are derivation of decomposed organic matter so you are wrong. Planting trees, rebuilding forests etc will bring all healthy air back. Trees capture carbon in it so they are made of carbon and more carbon can be turned to fossil fuel by nature.
Paying farmers money or raising/lowering taxes or subsidizing to make it more lucrative then conventional farming is the only way i think. If you as a consumer have to pay more for the conventional product in no time you'll have the this is the standard.
Big question - Can you say what is the minimum level of CO₂ before life above the surface is irretrievably compromised? Hint: Where only low level transition photosynthesising species can survive and complex life cannot? Find out and lock it in because responding in terms of CO₂ is the wrong tactic, it is as much anti-Science as AGW. The principal greenhouse gas is H₂O, end of. Regenerative Agriculture is the key. A: 150-170ppm, Patrick Green, ex-Greenpeace.
The amount of taste per square meter will be the same or more on peat meadows, while the amount of cheese per square meter goes down. This means equal or more taste, over less cheese so you get cheese which you can sell for more money. There must be a profitable business model for wetland cheese. For people with less sensitive palates you can allso sell the idea that you can have a negative impact on global warming by eating meat and dairy products.
I saw something about rice grown in submerged fields emitting methane. Does this mean that organic matter in ricefields decomposes anaerobically and thus creates peat and binds carbon?
How do farmer pitch a win-win investment to sustain in a profitable model drive the industry doing the right thing easier than subsidy prone to politicians meandering and catering
I do not share the conclusion that intensive farming is economically better. What is exactly tha value of a good live for your grandchild. Cheap bread?
Umm this is cheap like come on a basic equipment like that in America would run you $500,000 and definitely can go up more. California use to have lots but over 80% is gone ok 97% is gone no really California of all places use to have some but now its all farmland and very little has homes on top the majority is farmland. Oh California had lots of mangroves now 98% are gone and 1 spices was edible and still not cultivate it like come on these trees can grow in 100% ocean water good god people.
over 80% of the Netherlands was'nt ever a swamp, it was part of the Ocean and the process of building the polders locked up ALOT of carbon in the process.
@@DenSchimmige there are parts of the Netherlands that were very swampy not unlike the area around England but a majority of the Netherlands was created artificially through a system draining the sea, planting sea grasses (high salinity tolerance) for I believe 5 years, applying the manure from animals that eat the grass and then turning it into a pasture for many years before it can actually be used for crop production.
@@chunkmen aaah that. Yeah that is after germanic times.. If i remember correctly monks started doing that in the middle ages. The province 'Flevoland' is a good example of what you say. And thx for correcting yourself. Sea is correct. Ocean was not ^^
There's never a way to do both. It is always a price to be paid. Only thing is that in some cases the price us hidden. We need to make hard choices for climate change mitigation. We better do them now or else we have to settle for We orse choices in the future. If peatlands absorb carbon, just allow them to do that. Trying something e o se when one can never model planet scale effects accurately is just creating a new problem from a old one.
It's nice to have something like this pop up and break the pattern of "PANIC PANIC PANIC" that most of my recommended videos have... It would be really interesting to see paludiculture combined with permaculture
Politics and regulations are a much bigger problem for Farmland. Wetland farming can be more productive than dry farming on those soils. there are very protein rich wetland plants in northern Europe that could outproduce corn and soy for animal feed in europe. the issue is that you only get any help from the government to invest if you go organic.
.........JUST........PLANT RICE THERE..........BEST CONDITIONS FOR GROWING RICE IF TO CONSIDER THE WARMING.... ....AND RICE IS PERFECT FOR BOTH HUMANS AND CATTLE AS GIVING JUST LOTS OF BIOMASS
Higher CO2 is good for plants and there is no correlation between climate in atmospheric CO2! Of course using biology in the soil for farming is also good and allows us to get away from synthetic fertilizers.
Wouldn't it be faster, more effective, and have a far further reaching benefit to start by reining in China and India's emission levels? Or to crack down on over fishing the oceans? Not saying this isn't beneficial. Just seem like a paltry gain vs 2 immensely destructive powerhouses.
Yalls per capita qualifier is an ignorant intentionally misleading way to attempt to shift blame away from the 2 worst offenders on the planet. Bulk emissions is the only important measurement. The fact China and India have so many people is just another damning tic on the list of ways both those countries are destroying not only their local ecosystems but the earth.
Unfortunately you can't produce food directly for humans on these wet peatlands. Only crops suitable for animals grows in these conditions. It would be wonderful if wheat or barley could be grown like this. This video is very misleading and over simplifies problems. This won't be a solution on a large scale
Despite what vegan extremists say, this is why meat should always remain part of our diet. The best type of agriculture is the one that's adapted to the local environment and soil. We need to consume LESS meat than we do now, but not to all become vegans. Since chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides were invented a few decades ago, agriculture started being done the same way everywhere no matter the condition of the soil. This has extremely negative impacts on ecosystems and will eventually destroy our entire societies and way of life if we keep working this way. Thus, using peatlands sustainably to feed cattle or sheeps is actually a very good way of feeding ourselves. And so is feeding goats with the waste from vegetal farming, using chickens to eat bugs in the soil on an organic farm, using geese to eat weeds in an apple orchard, and so on.
Interesting, fist time I hear about palludiculture. I guess rice is not covered under palludiculture despite being planted in water because it is soild draining?
It will become profitable eventually, once farmers will find techniques to improve the way they work. You can't magically switch to a new type of agriculture in one day... What's for sure is that climate change will eventually destroy "conventional" farms which rely on monocultures and chemicals (and such monocultures are themselves responsible for the destruction of the environment)
You can pay people to read the scripts written in English but you can't pay someone to read the translation of other languages? Really? Some people only listen to news. Some people can ONLY listen... it's a small portion of the video compared to the English speaking narrator. Get with it....please? It seemed like a good topic but was sullied by this error.
How should we use our peatlands in the future?
Are you monitoring methane levels as well? Because decomposition without oxygen crates methane CH4 instead of CO2 which is much worse for the greenhouse effect and climate change in general.
Why you should care about peatlands 1838pm 26.8.22 erm no..... they dont want us to respond to these clips for some reason...
Germany lost most of their peatland. So others peatland become "our" peatland. How about restoring your own first.
Hello
After another timewheel turn we could use it to rebuild Sumer-type civilization
I found this interesting . It's great that this farmer is trying on his own to do this . Someone in the comments mentioned the traditional way they grew food in Mexico on the lakes . The chinampas could be used in places like Ireland that is predicted to get even more rain in the future . We need to experiment with all these ideas
Honestly, our whole farming system needs a dramatic overhaul. For instance: did you know that rice doesn’t actually need a crazy amount of water?
The reason we typically grow rice in deep standing water is simply because it’s very water tolerant so this reduces the amount of weeding that we need to do….but this is at the cost of nasty methane emissions. Some farmers have found that simply draining the water at a certain point during the growth cycle cuts the methane emissions almost to zero!
Of course, we could also just replace some of our rice consumption with quinoa as well which solves a similar issue…
I agree that most cases don't specifically need alot of water but there is a form of aquaponics that grows fish along with the rice. In that case I'm all for flooding. Free fish fertilizer and free fish!
@@hawks9142 yea, there’s rarely a perfect one-size-fits all solution. I believe that what you describe also reduces the methane emissions because the pond is kept permanently flooded in order to keep the fish alive.
During normal farming, the water is drained after the harvest which leads to the emissions.
Side note: your comment is exactly why one of my pet peeves is how much environmental groups fight over which solution is better. I’m actually working on a video right now which essentially says “stop fighting over which renewable energy is perfect because they’re all better than fossil fuels. So just go freaking build them already!”
In a rice cultivation system called SRI (system of rice intensification) rice is cultivated with no stagnant water it has been found that the yield is comparatively higher than the usual way of growing rice. The only con of the system is that it requires lot of manual labour to pull out the weeds .
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I think why people fight over which one is better is because they want to do it the cheapest and be producing the most electricity out of it while protecting the ecosystem. An example would be dams, dams block fish from going up and down stream, which can limit the numbers of that species. Though I do agree we should probably just start building renewable energy sources.
@@notsobreadd there’s definitely a portion of the people who have good intentions and start like how you describe. But there’s also a segment which is just fossil fuel companies “fanning the flames” in an effort to increase confusion.
They figure that more confused people will make it harder to really follow through on any decisions which will enable them to make money off of fossil fuels for longer.
There’s actually a study which was conducted not long ago and concluded that we’ve moved past “climate denial” into “climate misinformation.” I found it really enlightening to read through their various examples. And this act of “fanning the flames” which I describe was one of those examples.
Combine this with agro-forestry, especially with trees that are good in wetter soils. 2 bonuses, wind breaks and water retention allow the water table to become less extreme.
Willows have unique properties, they're sources of the base for ASA pain reduction, the trees produce a natural rooting hormone, and when used to make living barriers reduce the need for fencing materials. There are other species that like to grow in soggy soils like cranberries.
Why rely on dry dirt? Multiply the income streams and diversify the ecology too.
I just learned that Germany lost most of Its peatland due to agriculture while lecturing SEA countries not to use theirs for palm plantation. Discrediting CPO is not about protecting the planet. It is about protecting EU farmers who also take the most of EU budget.
Well, yeah. But it’s less lecturing more begging. We’ve already made that mistake.
We should be willing to pay for keeping peat lands and forests though. It’s to all our benefits, while costing people economic opportunities. This has to be paid for.
That's common theme of all western country.they destroyed entire world to lead luxurious life and they lecture everyone else
@@rumo893 well what we at SEA want is they pay for their own damages. We'll settle our own ourselves. Hypocrisy is the last thing we want here. Actually we don't want it at all
Don't be such a hater. You plant palm trees cause you want. Don't plant it.
Exactly
I remember video about african guy who built his farm from a dryland to wetland that can grow tropical fruits such as banana, mango etc. He did it traditionally with water manipulation and it takes 20 years tho.
Although it is not the primary cause of peatland destruction, the vast majority of potting soils contain peat / sphagnum moss from peat bogs. If you can, use peat-free potting soil for your plants and buy bare root plants or grow your plants from seed/cuttings instead of buying potted plants!
This is where selling CO2 offset tokens is very very useful. If he can sell his offset CO2 he can use that money to reinvest into wetting more wetlands.
Buying CO2 offset isn't a solution in the long term, but in this transitional period where the costs of being sustainable is very expensive it should be really pushed to help these smaller scale projects pick up momemtum and being able to reach the scale needed.
as a developing country's citizen, it's so mindblowing to see a farm use xray...
The government has to offer incentives of some type with the startup cost being so great. But it is pretty good at all so it is worth subsidizing the equipment.
This is interesting. A lot of people are taking the initiative to reduce CO2 emissions, unfortunately, Countries and major companies are dragging their feet on reducing greenhouse gasses.
We need to do more? At what cost?
People are facing a cost of living crisis (and soon to be food crisis from the Nitrogen reduction initiatives), from the unintended blowback of the current raft of green policies that promised us abundant, reliable, cheap green energy.
How many people need to suffer and/or die to usher in your glorious green utopia?
It's grotesque.
6:55 Jürgen Kreyling Haha, When I studied in Bayreuth he showed me cultures of different plant species in some study. when he tasked if i had listened I could recite everything he said. In my heart I am a true plant ecologist 🥺🥺
Nerding out over their overhead farm scanner. That’s so cool
Der Landwirt ist einfach so ein Boss, respekt! Von ihm kann man einiges lernen
Surface water is minimal, so as peat land....
Raising water table would raise salt level as well !
0:52 Trigger Warning: German Humour
Hoog also made a video about peat recently, especially in Ireland
Field of high peat quantity just been dried to improve grazing. Next home. The work cost a lot more than return on grass return
Never ever new the advancement of technology this deep in agriculture !!!!!!¡¡!
I know there being peatlands where I'm from in Malaysia, Florida too?
Please make a video on emissions from rice cultivation and alternatives to water intensive system of rice cultivation.
Let's use ecosia 👍🌱🌳
It's strange how precise we are in other fields but when it comes to our earth we could care less. It's really an extension of us, idk why we dont treat it like the delicate living organism that it is. It dies we die simple as
Make chinampas in the wetter parts of the peatland. They act as both water reservoirs and can be used for traditional agriculture.
Is this the country that doesn't have electricity this winter talking about how green the world could be
I am wondering about the wildlife biodiversity in these paludiculture or whether they are introducing invasive species for the sake of carbon capture.
Well, water buffalo aren't native to Europe...
What about CH4 emissions? I would expect it to be higher, and it's also a potent greenhouse gas.
Hey Marton, good question! This paper looked at different emissions of peatlands and came to the conclusion that there are two options: either peatlands stay drained and emit CO2, or they are rewetted and then would emit CH4. (🔗 www.greifswaldmoor.de/files/dokumente/Infopapiere_Briefings/202211_Fact%20sheet_GMCUR_Methan_English.pdf)
This is genius, and so so beautiful to see.
Even cadavers get preserved in them like they just died
Ngl, I thought someone was holding a piece of turd in the thumbnail
Very clever reuse of that snow grooming machine. Totally preposterous to narrow it.
You can't contrast harvests, but you can compare calories over area.
Let's fix ourselves first because cooperation is better than obedience.
In my view, this will not reduce CO2, but only capture back the carbon that was released when the area became dry. New CO2 from fossil fuels will not be captured unless you make more land wet than before, or you make a higher water level area. Any thoughts?
Continuous harvesting of the vegetation can increase the amount of biomass produced.
Fossil fuels are derivation of decomposed organic matter so you are wrong. Planting trees, rebuilding forests etc will bring all healthy air back. Trees capture carbon in it so they are made of carbon and more carbon can be turned to fossil fuel by nature.
A tree to grow absorbs carbon
Well the rots, don't come out of the ground so the ground gets a little bit higher. And it is all carbon
@@jonybe5854 The problem is that we currently burn too much fossil fuel for the amount that can be absorbed by nature.
Important and brilliant video! Good work!
The co2 emissions going up should verbalize crops - planting the right crop at the right time.
11:10 man, those water buffaloes look so mean.
Very informative video, thanks a lot for your invaluable work ♥️
Essential!
Paying farmers money or raising/lowering taxes or subsidizing to make it more lucrative then conventional farming is the only way i think. If you as a consumer have to pay more for the conventional product in no time you'll have the this is the standard.
I hope this farmer recieves subsidies for this work. He should not have to bare the cost all on his own, when the benefits are shared by many.
10:09 bad idea. farmers will spill manure all over your roof and chant witch hunt songs.
😆. . . What?
Great to finally see an active solution to the climate problem that's also profitable! 🌷
I often try to buy palm oil free food as this ingredient worsens deforestation. Palm Oil plantations destroying peat bogs is another good reason.
Big question - Can you say what is the minimum level of CO₂ before life above the surface is irretrievably compromised? Hint: Where only low level transition photosynthesising species can survive and complex life cannot?
Find out and lock it in because responding in terms of CO₂ is the wrong tactic, it is as much anti-Science as AGW. The principal greenhouse gas is H₂O, end of. Regenerative Agriculture is the key.
A: 150-170ppm, Patrick Green, ex-Greenpeace.
The amount of taste per square meter will be the same or more on peat meadows, while the amount of cheese per square meter goes down.
This means equal or more taste, over less cheese so you get cheese which you can sell for more money. There must be a profitable business model for wetland cheese. For people with less sensitive palates you can allso sell the idea that you can have a negative impact on global warming by eating meat and dairy products.
I saw something about rice grown in submerged fields emitting methane. Does this mean that organic matter in ricefields decomposes anaerobically and thus creates peat and binds carbon?
yes!
Makes more sense than grains and vegetables. ( which I don't eat)
No veggies?
@@tefinnegan5239 Not to worry, gout will make him regret his choices.
The music is too loud and poorly chosen.
I Love Planet A
How do farmer pitch a win-win investment to sustain in a profitable model drive the industry doing the right thing easier than subsidy prone to politicians meandering and catering
A artificial swamp is a great solution.For C02 reduction in the close community of cattlefarms.But maby also in other envirements??TOP!!!!!
I do not share the conclusion
that intensive farming is economically better.
What is exactly tha value of a good live for your grandchild.
Cheap bread?
Profitability vs sustainability
Most westerners want immediate gratification, inexpensive food, and lots of cheap "stuff''.
Well, starvation is a pretty bad life for grandchildren.
@@tefinnegan5239 Why do you say "westeners"? Most people in China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and so on live exactly the same way.
It's very new thing to know . In India we are loosing rapidly . Is there anything is being done in India. please answer . please guide what can we do
India already has more than 50 internationally recognised wetlands,
Just wait a second, farms feed cities, people need food!
Dit is echt geniaal!! Fantastisch!!
Umm this is cheap like come on a basic equipment like that in America would run you $500,000 and definitely can go up more.
California use to have lots but over 80% is gone ok 97% is gone no really California of all places use to have some but now its all farmland and very little has homes on top the majority is farmland.
Oh California had lots of mangroves now 98% are gone and 1 spices was edible and still not cultivate it like come on these trees can grow in 100% ocean water good god people.
What do plants breathe? What are plants made of?
What is the point you're trying to make? It isn't so clear.
Plants breath O2 (oxgyen) even spinach produces oxgyen.
Time to turn the Netherlands into a swamp again..
over 80% of the Netherlands was'nt ever a swamp, it was part of the Ocean and the process of building the polders locked up ALOT of carbon in the process.
@@chunkmen oooh back in the germanic times it used to be germanies swamp.
Or do you mean before the Pangea times?
@@DenSchimmige there are parts of the Netherlands that were very swampy not unlike the area around England but a majority of the Netherlands was created artificially through a system draining the sea, planting sea grasses (high salinity tolerance) for I believe 5 years, applying the manure from animals that eat the grass and then turning it into a pasture for many years before it can actually be used for crop production.
@@chunkmen aaah that.
Yeah that is after germanic times..
If i remember correctly monks started doing that in the middle ages.
The province 'Flevoland' is a good example of what you say.
And thx for correcting yourself.
Sea is correct. Ocean was not ^^
@@DenSchimmige yeah I forget that the north sea isn't part of the Atlantic sometimes 😅
They don't suck up lots of carbon they suck up a little carbon at a time over thousands of years i.have heard.
There's never a way to do both. It is always a price to be paid. Only thing is that in some cases the price us hidden. We need to make hard choices for climate change mitigation. We better do them now or else we have to settle for We orse choices in the future. If peatlands absorb carbon, just allow them to do that. Trying something e o se when one can never model planet scale effects accurately is just creating a new problem from a old one.
Now tell that guy to re-forest his flat land. I read that big trees could capture CO2 more
Meters of peet are skimmed for soil. Peet grows only 1mm a year. For every meter peet soil destroyed takes 1000 years to regenerate.
Should use carbon offset to pay for it.
It's nice to have something like this pop up and break the pattern of "PANIC PANIC PANIC" that most of my recommended videos have...
It would be really interesting to see paludiculture combined with permaculture
And the cost of food with farmers making none?
I think there are better ways at storing carbon.
Politics and regulations are a much bigger problem for Farmland. Wetland farming can be more productive than dry farming on those soils.
there are very protein rich wetland plants in northern Europe that could outproduce corn and soy for animal feed in europe.
the issue is that you only get any help from the government to invest if you go organic.
Loved this!
and it's mess all about 1.3 percent co2 emission
Peat will become coal later after years of compression.
Maybe when Humans are eradicated from Earth, the next people will be smarter.
@@cobaltno51 You'll have to wait a few million years until it becomes coal, so it's not so much renewable.
.........JUST........PLANT RICE THERE..........BEST CONDITIONS FOR GROWING RICE IF TO CONSIDER THE WARMING....
....AND RICE IS PERFECT FOR BOTH HUMANS AND CATTLE AS GIVING JUST LOTS OF BIOMASS
then guts a machine of poops not extracted?
Yeah god forbid we grow food.
Peatlands like here
*slap slap slap slap*
Good informative content
Somebody fund his machines get these fixed
By his I mean anybody else who is the farmer who has land we need to Pete to regrow
Read it as "petland". Had images of people keeping pieces of that in their homes collecting carbon.
Am I going to have to develop a taste for bulrushes?
Yes
And now we find out palm oils are the worst thing in the world besides Chitin for us to consume
Bravo.
Nope its the most eco-friendly seeds oil in the world
I wonder if a hybrid rice 🌾 or sugarcane would grow in peatland?
Higher CO2 is good for plants and there is no correlation between climate in atmospheric CO2! Of course using biology in the soil for farming is also good and allows us to get away from synthetic fertilizers.
A potential good father 🤔
Norman Petri?
Nominative determinism strikes again!
Very good on paradise earth. :)
Thus neat amazing self 3d printed objects are the best sinks.......YA Trees!
Wouldn't it be faster, more effective, and have a far further reaching benefit to start by reining in China and India's emission levels? Or to crack down on over fishing the oceans? Not saying this isn't beneficial. Just seem like a paltry gain vs 2 immensely destructive powerhouses.
By all means, give it a try
Compare the percapita carbon emissions of Europe, China , India, you will know who is largest polluter.
Typical westerner. How about carbon per capita, who is the worse?
Yalls per capita qualifier is an ignorant intentionally misleading way to attempt to shift blame away from the 2 worst offenders on the planet. Bulk emissions is the only important measurement. The fact China and India have so many people is just another damning tic on the list of ways both those countries are destroying not only their local ecosystems but the earth.
Unfortunately you can't produce food directly for humans on these wet peatlands. Only crops suitable for animals grows in these conditions. It would be wonderful if wheat or barley could be grown like this. This video is very misleading and over simplifies problems. This won't be a solution on a large scale
Despite what vegan extremists say, this is why meat should always remain part of our diet. The best type of agriculture is the one that's adapted to the local environment and soil. We need to consume LESS meat than we do now, but not to all become vegans.
Since chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides were invented a few decades ago, agriculture started being done the same way everywhere no matter the condition of the soil. This has extremely negative impacts on ecosystems and will eventually destroy our entire societies and way of life if we keep working this way.
Thus, using peatlands sustainably to feed cattle or sheeps is actually a very good way of feeding ourselves. And so is feeding goats with the waste from vegetal farming, using chickens to eat bugs in the soil on an organic farm, using geese to eat weeds in an apple orchard, and so on.
♥🌱🌱🌱
Interesting, fist time I hear about palludiculture.
I guess rice is not covered under palludiculture despite being planted in water because it is soild draining?
It would be great of they could cultivate wheat that grows on peatland
Governments giving out money to paludiculture farmers doesn't make paludiculture more profitable, do you not use your brains
I'm serious, this channel is one of the lowest intelligence channels on youtube
It will become profitable eventually, once farmers will find techniques to improve the way they work. You can't magically switch to a new type of agriculture in one day...
What's for sure is that climate change will eventually destroy "conventional" farms which rely on monocultures and chemicals (and such monocultures are themselves responsible for the destruction of the environment)
Eat more fruits to stay healthy and more tree growing support y
The most preoductyve Technologie is found nearly only in Germany XD nerlay every video i see is something in germany
Peat
You can pay people to read the scripts written in English but you can't pay someone to read the translation of other languages? Really? Some people only listen to news. Some people can ONLY listen... it's a small portion of the video compared to the English speaking narrator. Get with it....please? It seemed like a good topic but was sullied by this error.
Awesome, a farm that produces hay. So that hay is bought by other farmers that feed their cattle that produce methane 😂
Comment.
👏👏👏👍😃👏👏👏
you lost me already at "how it supposed to work". Welcome back to reality where nothing works as it should be...
I think we’d all starve ! Growing grass is all well and good, for horses ! What about food for HUMANS !
You can always eat the horses! 😂