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
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.
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.
I acknowledge that it’s a wild take, and I want to stir up shit.
However, in Denmark m, we do not benefit from a domestic production at all, because it’s mostly shipped out of the country for feeding livestock elsewhere.
Most of the food available to me is from Ukraine or Spain. I do not have the option to eat donestically produced foods, yet 60+ of the land around me is used for farming.
I absolutely apploud the few farmers who do have local distribution, but those only account for very few percentages of our land.
Is this a bad thing? I always heard that here in France we have increasing forest coverage.
It doesn’t mean anything, it only looks at crop farming area, that’s it
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.
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.
I acknowledge that it’s a wild take, and I want to stir up shit.
However, in Denmark m, we do not benefit from a domestic production at all, because it’s mostly shipped out of the country for feeding livestock elsewhere.
Most of the food available to me is from Ukraine or Spain. I do not have the option to eat donestically produced foods, yet 60+ of the land around me is used for farming.
I absolutely apploud the few farmers who do have local distribution, but those only account for very few percentages of our land.