Can you explain how and what you mean by the GHG emissions in relation to agricultural practice ?

Dear G A Rajanna,

The practices of ancient agriculture were also responsible for GHG emissions but far less than the practices of industrialized and chemised agriculture of our time. In the ancient agriculture, the major sources of GHG emissions came mainly from the livestock (CH4 emissions), followed by the emissions from the manure and waste composting (CH4, CO2 and NOx emissions) and, last but not least, from the nitrogen-enriched agricultural soils as a result of the use of nitrogen-based natural fertilizers (NOx emissions).

Agree with Carmen Mateescu that both ancient and modern industrialized agriculture have a carbon footprint but the traditional agriculture will be much less based on the absent of heavy fertilizer and pesticide use is avoided. In both the modern and traditional systems the biggest opportunity to counteract emissions and give better climate results is the focusing on improving soil Carbon and Nitrogen levels. Net Carbon and Nitrogen sequestration is the Sequestration Value in the Soil minus the Carbon/N footprint. Net sequestration would be the best way to objectively compare these approaches best done by designed long term experimental comparison from valid field designs.

Agriculture before the August von Liebig and the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation was a primary human activity that was much more in harmony with nature and the landscape. It must have had its footprint however, the agronomic techniques of more ancient times such as: crop rotations, fallow cropping, green manuring and higher diversity of crops being grown on each farms provided excellent ecological services (e.g.: increasing soil OM, pollination, biological control) that might have counteracted the footprint of agriculture, successfully, a step further.

Yeah in ancient Agriculture they also contribute the GHG through some agriculture practices but they also mitigate that through some other practices like transplanted tree, agrisilviculture, residual management, and in India some practices like holofarming, agnihotra and all. With the help of these practecies they mitigate the GHG

In terra preta the carbon in a hectare can exceed 300,000 kg per hectare in the surrounding oxisol the amount is less than 10,000 the increase of more than 30 times is related to stable carbon in the form of biochar. The significant addition of biochar can be particularly dramatic in heavily leached acid soils oxisol and ultisols which are limed from the addition of alkaline charred materials. The ability of harvesting syngases in the process allows the reduction of fossil fuel footprint while the big ticket is the stable sequestration as biochar does not readily decay giving significant sequestration. While traditional agriculture shows the way I believe modern technologies as in a renewable energy use using latest techniquez and technologies provide a best of both world potential.

La atmosfera en estado natural esta compuesta por 78% N, 20% de O, y el resto de porcentaje por otros gases estaba en equilibrio años atras, la agricultura se daba en forma natural, ahora todos los procesos industriales, la agricultura Modena, de monocultivo y la ganadería inetensiva y extensiva, la revolución verde, han generado la alteración de la atmosfera con cantidades de bioxido de carbono y metano, que ha dado como consecuencia la alteración de otros procesos como el aumento de la temperatura y cambio en el ecosistema, además la tala indiscriminada que se estan dando en los bosques en todo el planeta, restan a la función de las plantas de absorber el CO2, y por ende la proliferención de este, en resumen la agricultura las prácticas agrícolas antiguas No contribuyen con más emisiones de GEI, que la agricutura moderna

This is a myth perpetrated by the First World.

La practicas de la agricultura antigua No generan GEI, en cambio si la agricultura moderna si ha generado GEI

The answer is definitely no. Rather in modern agriculture we are increasingly using chemical fertilizer, ground water for irrigation, mechanization which contributing more to GHG emission. This is also true that without modernization of agriculture we will not able to feed the growing population.

Pre Colombian Indians were able to live in high numbers in the worlds worse soils and improve the soils in a massive way. Biochars have millennial longevity taking Carbon and Nitrogen as principal greenhouse gases and giving the potential for improved food production quality and environmental functioning. These dark Indian soils have been demonstrated on a area greater than modern day France in the Brazilian nation alone. We have massive potential to advance food issues which are most severe in depleted old tropical soils and to increase the global ability to counteract greenhouse gases. In the terra preta soils over 300,000 lb per Carbon have been demonstrated equivalent to over 1,000,000 pounds Carbon dioxide per acre. Enriched soils have demonstrated increased yield and quality while counteracting the greenhouse gas issues. Beside this amazing traditional agricultural capacity which can increase production over synthetic inputs the combination with char systems producing renewable energy resources is way solar energy can replace the unsustainable and environmentally devastating using of fossil fuels. Rather than putting our heads into sands related to the real issues with synthetically based agriculture system we need to improve our worst areas of soils and address the need to feed our planet improve our diets and to reverse the issues of environment and energy which are inter related.

Thank you all the researchers for expressing your views on GHG emissions in both modern agriculture and ancient agriculture.

Sure, but lets not forget neolithic people removed large swathes of forest in Europe and the Middle East when farming was first developed. This was accompanied by severe erosion in fragile areas such as the Mediterranean and permanent salinisation of soils in the lower river valleys of what are now Iraq and Pakistan. Terra preta soils are very much an exception. Evidence suggests that unless ancient people were very careful (meaning regular fallowing) or lucky with their soils, they had the same propensity as modern agriculture to degrade them and thus produce GHGs Of course a lot less people in those days but there is still some evidence also to suggest that their activities affected atmospheric CO2 levels and thus climate to a small degree.

According the Ruddiman Hypothesis our current global warming started with the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution some 7 to 8 thousand of years ago. The coming of the Industrial Revolution has worked to strengthen the warming in a period which otherwise was due for a cooling period. As mentioned both traditional and modern technologies can contribute to global warming but the reverse is also true they can also be redirected to aid in the resolution of the problem and issues. Both Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions will need to redirected if we are to address greenhouse gas elevation which is driving the real global warming we are experiencing.

1790 Malthus predicts end of world based on population growth! How is that one working Kenneth?

This is a myth.

Definitivamente No, se ha perdido muchos ecosistemas y se han degradado suelos, en nuestro país, por causas de las practicas de la revolución verde que representa la agricultura moderna

Ancient and modern agricultural practices which deplete top soil and cause the loss of organic matter contribute to global warming. Ancient and modern agriculture which charges the soil organic matter and builds soil profiles work to counteract global warming rather than cause it. While many ancient practices were the consequence of organic methods not having the modern agrichemicals the modern monocultures which are heavily fertilizer and pesticide dependent are not the best examples of conserving soils or counteracting greenhouse gases. The agricultural inputs are very high in carbon foot prints and many times negatively affect the soil condition.

There is also evidence for the opposite. The "great dying" which killed 10s of millions of indigenous North Americans in the 16th century (smallpox and influenza brought by the first Europeans) resulted in a drop in atmospheric CO2 as forests regenerated on abandoned farmland. This likely contributed to the little ice age that was occurring at the time.

Stick a plough in the ground and you'll get CO2 emissions, no matter what the farming system. You can mitigate this by regular fallowing but not much of that done these days. The only farming system which will almost certainly increase soil carbon (if done carefully) is pastoral grazing, although some organic cropping can achieve this too, if done carefully.

yes sir

In my opinion ancient agricultural practices were more conservative or have conservation approach towards natural resources and were environmental friendly compared to conventional one.

This is clearly a myth.