• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    291·
    24 days ago

    Is it efficient land use, though?

    Keep in mind, we have to be able to feed 10 billion people. Homesteads like this are of course better than just plain grass, but compared to a farm, the output per area is probably really low. So there’s still land being “wasted”.

    • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
      222·
      24 days ago

      You can’t compare this sort of thing to actual farming though, because that’s not the point of it at all. The point is supplementing from other sources like farms, reducing the need for intensive agriculture, and potentially (with enough people shifting to home gardening) reduce the size of farms needed for veg growing, freeing that space for other things.

      It doesn’t have to be as efficient as a big farm to be good for the people consuming it as well as the environment (grass is worthless and veg have to be shipped if not grown locally)

      We can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
      14·
      24 days ago

      Homesteads like this are of course better than just plain grass, but compared to a farm, the output per area is probably really low.

      I would’ve thought that as well, but, at least according to some studies referenced by the Edinicity project, small urban farming apparently results in significantly higher yields compared to industrial farming. If the figures referenced are correct, then it would seem small urban farming could be quite viable as a source of food for significant amounts of people.

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      9·
      24 days ago

      I think the idea is that is an alternative to lawns, patios, driveways etc on already residential land, not a replacement for crops on already agricultural land. In fact, if all farmland was replaced with plots like this I don’t think there would be enough people on the planet to live on them!