Eco-farming can double food output by poor: U.N.

[Recursion]

Source: Reuters

Many farmers in developing nations can double food production within a decade by shifting to ecological agriculture from use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, a U.N. report showed on Tuesday.

Insect-trapping plants in Kenya and Bangladesh's use of ducks to eat weeds in rice paddies are among examples of steps taken to increase food for a world population that the United Nations says will be 7 billion this year and 9 billion by 2050.

"Agriculture is at a crossroads," according to the study by Olivier de Schutter, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in a drive to depress record food prices and avoid the costly oil-dependent model of industrial farming.

"Agroecology" could also make farms more resilient to the projected impact of climate change including floods, droughts and a rise in sea levels that the report said was already making fresh water near some coasts too salty for use in irrigation.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUSTRE7272FN20110308

---

Just a reminder that the "industrial agriculture is the only way to feed 7 billion people" argument is specious.

[WatsonT]

1. Didn't we already do that

prior to the industrial revolution? No chemical fertilizers, no pesticides, etc. Using whatever nature provided as best as possible to keep out weeds and insects and fungi.



And we were not able to support 7 billion people back then.

[Turborama]

4. There weren't 7 billion people on the planet prior to the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution started in the later part of the 18th century (late 1700s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

[WatsonT]

29. I wonder why that was . ..

perhaps the mechanics behind f*cking were well kept secrets until the 1900s?

Or did that population boom correspond with a move towards industrial agriculture with its high water/pesticide/synthetic fertilizer based methods?

[NashVegas]

30. Improvements In Medical Science

for starters. The opening of the new world was another factor.

[WatsonT]

31. All the medicine in the world won't feed anyone

we cannot grow beyond our food supply (at least not for more than a short period).

Consider the black plague. That was the single largest loss of human life due to a particular microbe in history.

Now check out this graph:

It's a blip.

The single most devastating disease in our history barely affected the total population.

It isn't medical care that led to us having 7 billion people. It's having the food supply to sustain (barely) that many.

[NashVegas]

34. Correlation, Not Causation

The supply of both people and food is naturally exponential. As there are more people to cultivate food, there is more food to feed a population.

Along with industrialization, mortality rates have doubled, especially for non-laborers. Meanwhile, the laboring population which supports the wealthier classes is expected and encouraged to keep pumping them out.

[WatsonT]

35. "The supply of both people and food is naturally exponential"

No, that is false.

The supply of food is *artificially* exponential. We did that. Nothing natural about farming in the first place, then we took it to a whole new extreme in the past century or so.

And the supply of humans remained constant for hundreds of thousands of years until we *artificially* increased the food supply.

"As there are more people to cultivate food, there is more food to feed a population"

Which would only matter if the limiting factor were the supply of cheap laborers. Instead it is arable land and yield per acre.

How do you suppose the population started that upward trend *prior* to the invention of modern antibiotics?


"Along with industrialization, mortality rates have doubled, especially for non-laborers"

Well that's just plain not true. Life expectancy is directly affected by mortality rates (particularly infant mortality rates) so one would expect a "doubling" or mortality rates to be accompanied by a major decrease in life expectancy right? Good, keep that in mind:

[WatsonT]

36. Let's play a hypothetical

I'm going to create two earth analogues.

One is entirely disease free, but only enough food is produced every year to sustain 100,000,000 people and nothing can change that.

The other is rampant with disease, but has unlimited food supplies.

After a few generations which do you suppose would have the larger population?

[NashVegas]

39. You May Know Ag Science. History, Not So Much

No, that is false.

The supply of food is *artificially* exponential. We did that. Nothing natural about farming in the first place, then we took it to a whole new extreme in the past century or so.

Yes, it is too, true, at least until we've completely sucked the nutrients out of everything. Except in severe times - drought, floods - man has pretty much always been able to spread out in search of readily available food in the hunter/gatherer societies.

Man continued to do okay post-hunter/gatherer through industrial times, when enclosure forced non-landowning, non-nobility to leave their homes and join the new, industrialized work-force and suddenly peasants were needed even more than they were needed to work the land. With this new need for peasants came the new need for increased supplies of storable food.

Peasants + factories = immobile population = larger families = increased need for steady supplies and storable food.

Now, you take all that and combine it with 19th century figures like Louis Pasteur and Florence Nightingale and you've got a population explosion.


Go find a timeline of famine and it will show you that famine was never really much of an issue until industrial times, in the first place.

Did you never learn a thing about the Irish famine that never was a famine - as long as you weren't native Irish who'd been forced off of your land.


Except for China, most of the famines that have ever been written about were not natural events, but political ones.

ps - in my previous post above, "life expectancy rates" should have been used rather than "mortality," but I suspect you know what I was getting at. Others seem to have.

[WatsonT]

40. I'm sorry but you are wrong

"Except in severe times - drought, floods - man has pretty much always been able to spread out in search of readily available food in the hunter/gatherer societies. "

That doesn't mean the food supply was exponentially growing. The food supply remained the same. Which is why the population remained the same.

There was a huge boom following the invention of agriculture (that is where we *artificially* increased our food supply and at the same time besot ourselves with a number of plagues that were previously not a problem).

"Peasants + factories = immobile population = larger families = increased need for steady supplies and storable food. "

So you believe being immobile led to them having larger families? Like farmers weren't immobile (hard to pack up the back 40 and move it with you)?

"Now, you take all that and combine it with 19th century figures like Louis Pasteur and Florence Nightingale and you've got a population explosion. "

No, wrong. Pasteurization was invented in the 1860s. The population began an upward trend in europe in the 1600s. By 1850 it was already well established. Here look:

I don't think Pasteur invented time travel as well. Besides which it wasn't immediately implemented the world over. It was rarely done in Europe at this time, and basically done no where else at all. So how does a rare practice in Europe have such a great effect on the worlds population growth that began spiking prior to it's invention?

[WatsonT]

41. Also

"Go find a timeline of famine and it will show you that famine was never really much of an issue until industrial times, in the first place. "

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

"Did you never learn a thing about the Irish famine that never was a famine - as long as you weren't native Irish who'd been forced off of your land."

So the existence of some politically driven famines proves that all famines are politically driven and thus food supply has no effect on population? I'm not sure I follow your 'logic'.

[NashVegas]

47. Showing Your Historical Chops By Pulling Up Wikipedia?

Wow. Two can play that game.



Gee, isn't really neat how, not only do the rise in human population and food supply seem to correlate, but famine correlates right with it, along with the Industrial Revolution and rise of Imperialism?

Of the most devastating instances on your Wiki list, where tens of millions died, two were Indian people under the rule of the East India Company, and famine was considered to be a direct effect of that political and economic situation.

Two others were in China. One of those is directly related to political events, the others (1810-11, and the 1840s) were times of political strife and still more adventures with the East India Company.


ps - helping humans avoid cholera and other diseases associated with famine makes a difference.

[WatsonT]

50. You seem to be mistaken

you believe this to be some personal grudge match to prove who is 'better'. Hence the 'showing your historical chops' quip. Wikipedia merely had a good list compiled.

Also I would need a source for that graph. It's y-axis isn't labeled and there is no source for any of it.

"Gee, isn't really neat how, not only do the rise in human population and food supply seem to correlate, but famine correlates right with it, along with the Industrial Revolution and rise of Imperialism?"

More people = more possibilities of famine, yes.

"Of the most devastating instances on your Wiki list, where tens of millions died, two were Indian people under the rule of the East India Company, and famine was considered to be a direct effect of that political and economic situation."

Larger populations will necessarily leave the possibility of higher death tolls.

"ps - helping humans avoid cholera and other diseases associated with famine makes a difference. "

Not really. Some of the countries hardest hit by cholera also have among the highest growth rates.

[NashVegas]

57. Eh, No

This is not a grudge match to show who is better.

This is pointing out which posts are full willful ignorance and bull.

[WatsonT]

60. I wouldn't be so hard on yourself

I don't think it was *willful* ignorance.

[Turborama]

37. According to that logic, people decided to have more babies because industrial scale farming started

You need to look at life expectancies (and improvements in medicinal science, as mentioned above) in correlation with population growth.



Where's Sherlock when you need him?

[WatsonT]

38. No people didn't just decide

they were able to support more people so more lived.

Is this really a debate? That limited food supplies prevent further growth?

The population boomed following the advent of industrial farming and even more so when artificial fertilizers/pesticides were introduced.

Whereas there was no particular spike in population following the discovery of penicillin.


And look at the places with the highest rates of population growth today: they are universally those places with the *least* access to modern medicine and the *highest* rates of disease.

[Turborama]

48. Yes, it really is a debate

You think people live longer because of industrialised agriculture? Look at the places with the slowest growth in population today, they are universally the places with abundant and (artificially) cheap food, out of season fruits in supermarkets, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5570070.ece">and even surpluses; which kind of nullifies your point, doesn't it.

Wow, ok.

Anyway.

Even if you're right, it's actually a strong argument against the kind of industrialised agriculture that's developed.

Please do me a favor and watch this short video to see what I mean: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=281267&mesg_id=281267

http://www.calloflife.org

[WatsonT]

49. Ok, so I guess some people *do* actually dispute the role

food plays in sustaining a population. huh.

"You think people live longer because of industrialised agriculture?"

I believe I said we have more food because of it.

And in fact we did live longer following the industrial revolution.

"Look at the places with the slowest growth in population today, they are universally the places with abundant and (artificially) cheap food, out of season fruits in supermarkets, and even surpluses; which kind of nullifies your point, doesn't it"

Ah yes, and what was the counter point? That medicine led to our population explosion? Those places with abundant food, they also have access to the best medicine right? The population growth rates are fastest in those nations with the *least* medical access.

Huh. You didn't think that through did you?

"Even if you're right, it's actually a strong argument against the kind of industrialised agriculture that's developed. "

Only if your goal is to starve people.

[Turborama]

51. No-one is disputing that people need to eat. You're saying that more food = more people

Are you really saying humans live longer because there's more food around and the advances in medical science have nothing to do with the massive exponential growth of the human population?

Really?

You: "And look at the places with the highest rates of population growth today: they are universally those places with the *least* access to modern medicine and the *highest* rates of disease."

Me: "Look at the places with the slowest growth in population today, they are universally the places with abundant and (artificially) cheap food, out of season fruits in supermarkets, and even surpluses; which kind of nullifies your point, doesn't it"

You: "Ah yes, and what was the counter point? That medicine led to our population explosion? Those places with abundant food, they also have access to the best medicine right? The population growth rates are fastest in those nations with the *least* medical access."

The counter point is that more food does not definitively = more people.

Also, medical advances (eradication of diseases like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Human_history">smallpox, surgical inventions and advances, reduction in child mortality etc) have led to longer life expectancy for humans. Globally.

As has increased education.

For example...

Study: Mom's education level is connected to child mortality

By David Brown
Friday, September 17, 2010

It turns out that pencils and books for mothers might be as important as vaccines and drugs for babies in reducing child mortality in the developing world.

That's because a mother's education level has a huge, if indirect, effect on the health of her children. That relationship, observed in many small studies in rich countries, turns out to be true everywhere on the globe, according to a new study.

Half the reduction in child mortality over the past 40 years can be attributed to the better education of women, according to the analysis published in the journal Lancet. For every one-year increase in the average education of reproductive-age women, a country experienced a 9.5 percent decrease in child deaths.

"The effect of educational expansion on child health has been enormous," wrote Emmanuela Gakidou, the lead author and a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091606644.html

I suggest taking a break from lobbying for industrial agriculture and watching the video I gave the link to.

If you do you'll clearly see why even if you're right it's actually a strong argument against the kind of industrialised agriculture that's developed.

[WatsonT]

52. You do realize that

life expectency and growth rates are not the same thing? Right? That while we live longer here in the west we also have a lower growth rate?

So your tack of proving that better medicine caused us to live longer and that also proves it caused population growth is inherently flawed. You get that right?

Consider: if I live to be a hundred but have no children I have a high life expectancy, but zero population growth.

Likewise if I die by the time I'm 20 but have managed to produce 50 children then I have a low life expectancy but high population growth.

You see this right?

"I suggest taking a break from lobbying for industrial agriculture and watching the video I gave the link to."

Ah yes the last refuge of the desperate: claim they are secret agents for the enemy!

I take it you're being bribed by the organic food industry?

[Turborama]

53. It's very simple. Less child mortality = longer life expectancy = more adults = more children

And on it goes.

Nice try at being funny but you know it's physically impossible to have 50 children by the time you are 20.

However, in the real world more children have been/are surviving to breeding age now than ever before due to medical advances and education.

Therefore more humans have been/are able to breed.

Hopefully I've made it simple enough for you to understood.


I don't have to be "bribed" to use common sense, it comes naturally.

[WatsonT]

54. Not at all

lower child mortality is one factor that affects life expectancy. But for your statement to hold true that must be the only factor. Which it isn't.

I suggest you read up on this subject before discussing it much further.

"Nice try at being funny but you know it's physically impossible to have 50 children by the time you are 20. "

For a woman, yes. For a guy, let's say he hits puberty at 15 (a little late but for the sake of argument) that's 5 years to impregnate 50 women, so ten per year or less than one every month. Quite doable actually.

"However, in the real world more children have been/are surviving to breeding age now than ever before due to medical advances and education. "

What vaccine requires that they not need to eat?

How does this explain the higher rates of child birth and growth in countries with virtually no medical supplies? Only a madman would claim that afghanistan is at the forefront of medical technology, and yet they're third in growth rate.

Also how do you explain the fact that there is no correlation to population growth and the widespread use of vaccines and anti-biotics?

Find on this graph any significant trend that correlates to some medical breakthrough:




"I don't have to be "bribed" to use common sense, it comes naturally."

So you deny it, like all agent provocateurs.

[Turborama]

55. You're still clinging to your logical fallacy?

If your theory was valid, the countries with the highest birth rate would be the ones with the most food. Right?

So, to use the country you cite as an example, Afghanistan must be a veritable breadbasket.

And Niger, Mali and Uganda must be the envy of the world for the abundancy of food, too.

Wrong.

I suggest you start looking at the statistics and comparing so you know what you're talking about.

Nationmaster are great, they provide maps along with the stats for those who find it easier to look at pictures...



Birth Rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_bir_rat-people-birth-rate&b_map=1

Infant mortality rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate&b_map=1

Children Underweight Rate (most recent) by country: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/hea_chi_und_rat-health-children-underweight-rate&b_map=1



Arable and permanent cropland (per capita) (most recent) by country: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/agr_ara_and_per_cro_percap-arable-permanent-cropland-per-capita&b_map=1

Arable and permanent cropland (most recent) by country: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/agr_ara_and_per_cro-agriculture-arable-and-permanent-cropland&b_map=1

[WatsonT]

56. . . . .

"If your theory was valid, the countries with the highest birth rate would be the ones with the most food. Right?"

Only if I said the only factor affecting birthrates is food supply.

I believe I said maximum population size and growth rate are dependent on food supplies, not that food necessarily makes one breed. Wealth, access to birth control, and education are also confounding factors when determining family size.

"So, to use the country you cite as an example, Afghanistan must be a veritable breadbasket."

It has enough food to feed it's population, yeah.

"And Niger, Mali and Uganda must be the envy of the world for the abundancy of food, too."

For your theory to hold true they must have the worlds best medical supplies. For my theory to hold true they must merely be able to feed most of their population an adequate amount to keep them alive for breeding.

"I suggest you start looking at the statistics and comparing the two so you know what you're talking about."

Sadly I've been doing that all along. You just don't like my statistics for some reason.

I notice you didn't point out an incidences of advances in medical technology/access actually affecting the world population.

I can show you on a world population chart where we developed agriculture, then the industrial revolution, then the heavy usage of artificial pesticides/fertilizers, etc and their near immediate effects on the population.

Do the same with penicillin, or plumbing, or vaccinations.

Also explain how the black plague had such a negligible effect on the world population.

[pitohui]

59. watson, you are trying to teach a pig to whistle, as the saying goes

people can't acknowledge that what you are saying is manifestly correct because then they would have to acknowledge that we're going to have to get a grip on this out-of-control population

7 billion miracles is too damn many, we are eating the entire world

techniques so that people can eat their own backyard and leave the last wild bird not even a perch to land on is not good or helpful techniques...but that's what is being proposed because the alternative is to stop all the willy-nilly breeding of random people who have no plan, no ability to earn, and no education or economic resources and they are allowed to continue to pop out babies

reality is considered unacceptable on every side -- on the right, because the right KNOWS that stupid people out breed people who can think and who can plan, and the right (esp. the religious right profits from ignorance and stupidity) ergo they benefit by having stupid people out breed the thinkers and the planners -- and, on the left, people oppose pop control because they fear that minorities, unpopular people, left wingers etc. will all be sterilized and only the rich/religiously stupid will be ALLOWED to breed

either way, the outcome is the same, stupid people breed and thinking people are very cautious about breeding, we need to have worldwide laws to encourage smart people to breed and to sterilize stupid people...but how can this happen? it can't!!! no one, but NO ONE, will support it when what needs to be done is put in plain crude english, you make everyone mad

we will eat the world because no one can accept what must be done

yes, by all means, let us teach people how to get a goat so that even the last thorn tree in kenya will be eaten, sheesh, actually they already know about that...what do they propose when the goat has eaten the last thorn tree and the duck has eaten the last weed in the dirty water? because it's pretty close to that as it is, some places

[NashVegas]

61. Sure We Can Acknowledge Overpopulation

But that would take away the "we need GMOs, etc to feed the growing population" argument out of the toolbox.

It's a fallacious argument, anyway, is what we are pointing out. Food technology alone is not responsible for the exponential population growth. For some people, that can't be admitted either, or someone might take away that medical miracle I'm counting on ....

[NashVegas]

58. Yep. Sure Is

[crikkett]

6. You need to learn more about the modern science of organic farming.

Weaning ourselves off of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and frankenseeds does not mean giving up technology altogether, nor does it mean abandoning centuries' worth of scientific knowledge.

[MedicalAdmin]

12. Yikes - so the only thing we didn't have before the IR was pesticides?

Is that it. We already had labor saving devices etc...

No one is advocating returning to the caves - just adopting less oil intensive, sustainable and cheaper to run (especially since peak oil has come and gone). I'm a member of a CSA - it's a small farm with 2 farmers, 3 kids and about 5 interns/employees every summer. They feed over 1000 people. This is not pie in the sky it is the application of real world actualy working practices that have been around and proven which also happen to use the aid of some mechanical means for plowing, planting etc.

What is missing is the industrial sized tanks of toxic oil byproduct that go by monthly to spray the hell out of everything living except the GMO crop that is only in existence to bump up sales of Roundup...

I am not a luddite and I think some use of GMO judiciously researched and tested before being released into general production (and placed on the GRAS list so they are exempt from litigation) is a good idea. But why not use the tools that nature already provides and help those in undeveloped become self sustainable?

[WatsonT]

26. I can see a difference here:

[LanternWaste]

27. Humanity did part and parcel of that...

Humanity did part and parcel of that, but not in the totality which is now being examined and envisioned. This, in addition to many of the positive aspects of the Green Revolution of the early 70's makes a much more complete whole than the simple farming practices of the seventeenth century.

[WatsonT]

28. The green revolution:

"The initiatives involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers."

So if we're to maintain the gains of the green revolution without fertilizers or pesticides we will have to rely heavily on GM crops to make it happen (and even then . . . ).

I suspect many would oppose such a move.

[FLPanhandle]

2. Downside is that may lead to a doubling of the human population

To me the issue in the statement "industrial agriculture is the only way to feed 7 billion people" isn't the industrial agriculture, it's the 7 billion people.

[crikkett]

7. Only as long as women continue to be subjugated, and denied control

of their own fertility.

[FLPanhandle]

9. Absolutely

But since this UN effort targets the poor, they are the ones least likely to have educated women and the ones most likely to deny birth control.

[crikkett]

25. Or the other way around....

...I've read alarming stories that accuse a Middle Eastern country of forcibly sterilizing its Ethiopian immigrants. (Google "forcibly sterilising ethiopian immigrants")

OTOH I've also read stories about teaching women in India how to use BC Pills.

[abqmufc]

3. And thus you have why it won't happen....

To give power to the people, especially the common man in a developing nation, goes directly against the mindset and intent of the military industrial complex and the capitalist model. Until both are overthrown the common man in a developing nation or in an industrial nation will never find true liberty or freedom.

[w4rma]

5. Only why they will fight it. Not why it "won't" happen. There are way more of us than them. (nt)

[abqmufc]

15. We've been speaken that HOPE since the dawn of the probelm...yet

Monsanto runs the world, growing in power and control. I once had "hope in numbers", but I've recently gotten very jaded. Most people in the first world nations have been given enough "things" to pacify them from ever really questioning the authority let alone acting to create a complete social and economic shift that is necessary. The Shock Doctrine, as one author puts it, has worked very well. I like to think of it as capitalism has allowed us all to find our very own Soma to tune out the real crisis we face.

We may out number them, but we are a divided population fixated on so many different causes that I am no longer sure what if anything will unify the masses. By the time we wake up, it will be too late. I fear that is the case with respect to an ecological crisis many still think is only true in a movie. In the end if we do outnumber them...they have bigger guns and in a post 9/11 world they have all the power of the law and economy. One only needs to read the Patriot Act to realize we are without power. Corporations are people by law....enough said.


"Here comes synthetic food
And their big time money
And they want to control
Our body and soul" - Ziggy Marely

[w4rma]

45. They are growing desperate and reckless. They are exposing themselves and will fall out of power. nt

[robcon]

8. Industrial agricluture is the only way to keep 7 billion people alive.

Free trade of agricultural goods will feed the world.

You'd have to try to deny that higher yields = more output to prove otherwise.

[Turborama]

10. I suggest reading this book... "Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth"

It's available free here: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/eco/eco_table_of_contents

[Kolesar]

11. Organic produce growers get higher yields than the non-organic farmers

It is a result of the intense amount of effort that the organic farmers put into their crops. Or so I read in a gardening book

[Turborama]

13. ecofarming projects in 57nations had shown average cropyield gains of 80% by tapping natural methods

The next paragraph in the article...

So far, eco-farming projects in 57 nations had shown average crop yield gains of 80 percent by tapping natural methods for enhancing soil and protecting against pests, it said.

It goes on...

Recent projects in 20 African countries had resulted in a doubling of crop yields within three to 10 years. Those lessons could be widely mimicked elsewhere, it said.

"Sound ecological farming can significantly boost production and in the long term be more effective than conventional farming," De Schutter told Reuters of steps such as more use of natural compost or high-canopy trees to shade coffee groves.

[MedicalAdmin]

14. The "only" way? You have conclusive proof of this claim?

Given that this very report seems to indicate that higher yields can come from sustainable practices, and given that industrial agriculture is completely dependent on oil and given that peak oil has come and gone ... connect the dots and think about what you have said in view of more than the next quarters stock report.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. only temporarily...

What modern ag does is strip mine the soil while killing off all the little micro-organisms that keep the soil alive.
Quantity does not trump quality in my opinion. Modern grown vegies are lower in most measurable vitamins and minerals than vegies grown in organically sustained soil.

Vegetables Without Vitamins
http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/0601.lemag/le%20magazine,%20march%202001%20-%20report%20vegetables%20without%20vitamins.htm
(disclaimer: while this is a well written article, and the sources checked out, I do not endorse the products they sell)

edit: to add link to original discovery
http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=107

[humus]

17. economically and ecologically

Biotechnology, variety patenting, and other agribusiness innovations
are intended not to help farmers or consumers but to extend and
prolong corporate control of the food economy; they will increase the
cost of food, both economically and ecologically.
Wendell Berry

What we have before us, if we want our communities to survive, is the
building of an adversary economy, a system of local or community
economies within, and to protect against, the would-be global economy.
Wendell Berry

From now on we should disbelieve that any corporation ever comes to
any rural place to do it good, to "create jobs," or to bring to the
local people the benefits of the so-called free market.
Wendell Berry

Our vegetable garden is coming along well, with radishes and beans up, and we are less worried about revolution that we used to be.

E. B. White

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110302/NEWS01/303020109/-1/GETPUBLISHED03/Wendell-Berry-receives-humanities-medal-from-Obama?odyssey=nav|head

[Recursion]

18. The problem is the definition of "yield"

Organic farming is more calories out per calories in. Industrial ag is more calories out per dollars in. The mismatch is the problem (Marx would have the energy value of a dollar be roughly constant; a lot of the progress and regress of the last century is based on the fact that it isn't).

[abqmufc]

19. Take away the dollar all together....(Precautionary Principle)

and base the decision on "what is best for human health, the "earth" (water, land, air), non human life (from beneficial insects to birds up the food chain)" and take out of the equation the profit margin of chemical companies, bio engineering companies, lobbying groups from these industries and you'll have a true answer.

Basic Capitalist models take many factors away from the equation or define them as not important. One is risk of health due to exposure of chemicals which are rarely tested in adequate, longterm studies. The profit always wins over human and non human health especially if the main risk is to a lower class (the working in the field).

Capitalism is not concerned with feeding the masses. Capitalism is only ensuring bottom line profits.

It starts with shifting to the precautionary principle when making decisions and no longer basing decisions on a Cost Benefit Analysis.

If you did this, organic farming would win out every time.

[bvar22]

20. "Free trade of agricultural goods will feed the world."

That is what "they" said to sell NAFTA to a gullible America in 1992.
It hasn't worked out that way.

"Free Trade" is a scam invented by The RICH so that Global Corporations could avoid regulation,
and milk more PROFIT from a starving World.

[AlecBGreen]

21. FALSE

I would tell you why but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears. If I am wrong about that, and you WOULD like to know how non-industrial agriculture is superior, just say the word.

[SpiralHawk]

23. But industrial mutant farming does not lead to higher yields

That's total crap - a BS line pushed by Big Ag.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Thanks for posting this

the k and the r

[xchrom]

24. recommend

[NashVegas]

32. Once The Japanese Make Robots to Do Farm Chores, We Won't Need Starving Poor in 3rd World Countries

Or anywhere else for that matter. They'll go in the die-off, but not until we're ready.

[underpants]

33. WOW people growing their own food.... was a concept

[GliderGuider]

42. There are two kinds of yield to consider.

As context, the world hit Peak Oil five years ago, and the world oil markets are already showing signs of decreasing export volumes. That means that the oil needed to fuel industrial farm machinery and transportation is going to be getting steadily more expensive from now on. One of the main ways of combating this problem is to switch to less oil-intensive forms of agriculture.

We may be able to maintain or even increase crop yields in the absence of cheap oil by using eco-agricultural techniques, but one thing that’s often overlooked is that there are actually two yield issues. One is yield per acre, which is what we usually mean by "yield". The overlooked issue is "yield per farmer". Eco-agriculture may be able to deal with the first, but without access to cheap oil we will need more farmers to produce the same amount of output, no matter what the growing technique is.

That’s where oil really changed agriculture – it increased the amount one single farmer could produce by a factor of 100 or more. As oil goes away, this is the area of agriculture that may see the most change – the need for more people to move from their jobs as project managers and stock brokers into farming…

[Recursion]

43. That sounds like my "calorie per dollar" vs. "calorie out per calorie in" distinction above

The fact that those two don't line up is another proof of how much we subsidize oil.

[GliderGuider]

44. Almost. The real problem is the loss of the concentrated energy we get from oil.

A gallon of gasoline can do the same amount of work as one person working hard for a solid month. The work one man can do on a tractor in one hour with a single gallon of diesel fuel would take four people a week to do manually.

That's the problem with Peak Oil in agriculture. If we want to make sure enough of our dwindling oil supply is available for agriculture, we're going to need to subsidize farmers' fuel purchases more and more as the price rises and they get out-bid and out-bought by hedge fund managers with SUVs. Otherwise yields really will start to fall, because we don't have all that many farmers any more - especially not farmers that can either use horses or pull plows by hand...

[humus]

46. you mean more sudsidies..

Intervention in global agricultural markets is widespread and costly. According to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the think tank in Geneva sponsored by rich-country govern- ments, farmers in OECD member countries received $279 billion in production-related support from their governments in 2004. That support represented 30 percent of total farm income. In effect, almost one-third of farm income in OECD countries comes from gov- ernment rather than markets.

no we don't have the farmers but we do have 1/4 million young strong people who are stationed around the world ln military bases.