New findings suggest that more intensive agriculture might be the 'least bad' option for feeding the world while saving its species -- provided use of such 'land-efficient' systems prevents further conversion of wilderness to farmland.
There is mounting evidence that the best way to meet rising food demand while conserving biodiversity is to wring as much food as sustainably possible from the land we do farm, so that more natural habitats can be "spared the plough."
Scientists have put together measures for some of the major "externalities" -- such as greenhouse gas emission, fertiliser and water use -- generated by high- and low-yield farming systems, and compared the environmental costs of producing a given amount of food in different ways.
Their results from four major agricultural sectors suggest that, contrary to many people's perceptions, more intensive agriculture that uses less land may also produce fewer pollutants, cause less soil loss and consume less water.
However, the team behind the study, led by scientists from the University of Cambridge, caution that if higher yields are simply used to increase profit or lower prices, they will only accelerate the extinction crisis we are already seeing.
"Agriculture is the most significant cause of biodiversity loss on the planet," said study lead author Andrew Balmford, Professor of Conservation Science from Cambridge's Department of Zoology. "Habitats are continuing to be cleared to make way for farmland, leaving ever less space for wildlife."
