What Would You Do With 3 Acres of Land?
Cue an incredibly long list of answers to this question – suggestions of raising goats, of harvesting mushrooms, of digging a hole to hide your firearms, of starting your own solar farm, of building an in-ground swimming pool.
But the less obvious benefit of taking a plunge into a topic like this is not the answer to the question what, but rather the reminder that there are so many reasons why.
Why might someone devote attention to their three acres of land so deliberately? Most landowners, after all, leave their yards practically empty. Many of us are engaged in a constant struggle to keep up with mowing the lawn, much less raising cattle. So why bother? And for the minority who do – why is it important, on a personal level, to be mindful of your relationship with the land?
Why is it important in a larger context, if at all?
In many ways, it’s the question “why?” that helps us discover the most interesting stories – stories about why a self-proclaimed patriot from the Midwest prepares for the possibility of nuclear disaster, or about why an off-the-grid lifestyle defined by self-sustainability offers more spiritual fulfilment to some, or about why you should unlock the six-figure earning potential of less than three acres.
Or perhaps, as is the case in this story, why your personal relationship with the land holds major environmental significance.
The Bigger Picture: Global Uses of Agricultural Land
According to data compiled by the World Bank in 2015, just over 37% of the world’s total land area is agricultural land: “the share of land that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent pastures.”
According to the same World Bank data, approximately 44% of the United States land mass is agricultural land. The Dominican Republic comes in at just under 50%, and Uruguay tops the list with more than 82% agricultural land.
How is it being used, and by whom? Consider your position within some of the larger trends that follow. Or, as may be the case, consider the ways in which you’ve lost touch with your position.
More than ten years ago, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published its landmark report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” In it, FAO claims that 1/3 of the world’s potential cropland is being used exclusively for animal feed. There have, however, been many questions raised about the report’s methodology and a great deal of subsequent criticism suggests that FAO’s estimates are far too conservative. This includes the former lead environmental advisor to the World Bank Group, Robert Goodland, who points out partnerships between FAO and such vested interests as the International Meat Secretariat and the International Dairy Federation.
You might be wondering why agricultural land usage for animal feed is important, particularly as it relates to your personal land use. The answer has everything to do with the comparative efficiency of conventional agriculture, or rather its inefficiency. Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba, Vaclav Smil, cites USDA statistics which highlight the inefficient conversion of energy and protein in livestock; the most extreme example is beef, in which 97% of gross energy and 96% of protein contained in feed is not converted to the beef you might buy at your local grocery store. Likewise, figures compiled by the U.K.’s Vegetarian Society suggest that cattle require 7 kg of grain for every 1 kg of beef.
When so much of the world’s agricultural land is being devoted to feed livestock, it’s only fair to ask whether the world is getting a reasonable return on that usage. The short answer, when it comes to caloric efficiency (and we haven’t even got into the tremendous cost in regards to water, erosion, deforestation, and methane emissions), is absolutely not.
“Feeding meat-producing animals rather than feeding humans directly means we lose upward of 90 percent of the calories otherwise available for our consumption.” (Whole, p. 173)
Perhaps the world’s agricultural land doesn’t belong to the world after all?
What Could You Do With 3 Acres of Land?
By way of contrast, consider the potential closer to home.
Farmland LP, a California-based sustainable farmland investment fund, suggests that a single acre of land is enough to feed someone for an entire year. Of course, there’s quite a bit of variation in that estimate, depending on one’s diet. A similar post, and infographic from treehugger.com, suggests that a family of four could live off only 2 acres of land, including 375 square feet devoted to electricity.
You should know that subsisting off your land doesn’t necessarily equate to a radical plant-based diet. While the work required and the dramatic shift in perspective is undoubtedly radical, the food you consume doesn’t have to be. Both of the above estimates, for example, are based on omnivorous diets.
Likewise, the enterprise itself is one of great variety and there’s a very wide spectrum of applicability. Not everyone is equally interested or able to grow their own wheat and grind it to flour, and that’s okay. Not everyone lives in the perfect climate or has a yard (much less three acres).
The question, for those interested but limited by other factors, should therefore be reevaluated. Return once again to why you’re interested in this question to begin with.
If your interest is to reduce your ecological footprint, why not start by being more mindful of the products you’re already consuming – make it your mission to know what they’re made of, where they come from, how they’re disposed of, etc. If your interest is to ease your way into self-subsistence, but you don’t have as much space, maybe try experimenting with vertical solutions. Even if you’re living in a studio apartment in Brooklyn, there are plenty of creative indoor projects you might find interesting.
Let the full range of possibilities empower you.
Side Effects May Include:
Non-compliance with a system of agribusiness that contributes to 80% of deforestation in the tropics. Deforestation in turn destroys biodiversity and causes catastrophic erosion.
Less wasted water – one kg of traditionally reared beef requires more than 50 times more water than one kg of potatoes. Conventional agriculture is rapidly depleting groundwater resources such as the Ogallala Aquifer.
Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – estimates suggest that up to 51% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to conventional farming practices.
Alleviating animal cruelty – even if you do raise your own livestock, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which you would treat your animals as poorly as those in CAFOs (which in turn adversely affect disproportionately-impoverished, neighboring communities).
Final Thoughts
Just as there are many ways to leverage the land you own, there are also many reasons to do so. But at the end of the day, the discussion here calls for an examination of our most fundamental, low-cost responsibilities.
Too few activists seem to want to acknowledge that the responsibility for ineffective agricultural practice is a shared responsibility. Although that certainly includes large scale factory farm operators, it also includes the greater population’s collective demand for unsustainable food, certain government policies, and dominant economic principles. Activists who bemoan the evil of mid- to large-scale farms largely come across as out of touch with the many conditions which gave rise to the present state.
The alternative, then, is to embrace personal responsibility and educated awareness. Not everyone can afford solar panels, a fruit orchard, and a chicken coop; but neither can we afford pandemic apathy or a belligerent disregard for how our land is being used and the consequences of that use.
For my part, I will return to the basics:
What’s my part in all this? Am I satisfied with my place?
Comments