It doesn't, but then neither does rotation. Rotation diminishes the problem but considering modern agriculture of any appropriately-scaled quantity is heavily dependent on intensive practices and petroleum-based enrichment, supplementation is a given.
Who mentioned rotation? Did you read the UN report? Exactly, scale is part of the issue. More farmers and people growing more in their own back/front yard is part of the solution. Until we figure out a way of creating a closed loop of nutrients, supplementation will always be an issue. Some even argue that we've broken the nutrient look by flushing human waste down the toilet. But that's a whole different discussion that brings up its own issues.
Me, more than 4 months ago: "it's not that simple." You, yesterday: Me, yesterday: "it's not that simple." You, yesterday: "how does your simple solution address this complex problem I bring up?" Me, yesterday: "it's not that simple." You, today: "did you read this study I linked in response to your dead comment from four months ago?" Dude - It's not that simple. And you know what? I'm not your audience. And you know what else? It's impolite to pick a fight with 4 month old comments so you can bludgeon me into reading a UN report. You can now officially fuck off.Decentralizing the production of food and encouraging more local, sustainable land management and agriculture is the way to feed a growing population
Haha, that has obviously hit a nerve. My audience?! You seemed to be so self-assured and knowledgeable in the subject of food production that's why I engaged with your conversation. I'm not sure what the age of the thread has to do with anything. It sounds like a cop-out to avoid the discussion. I'm sorry to hear that you confused a grown up discussion of facts with "picking a fight".
As for your last comment, it says all I need to know about you. Take care.