Dana wrote: >Yes Keith we disagree on many things I suppose but >probably not as many as we agree upon.
Probably true, but some of the points of disagreement are critical. First would be that I've provided references and resources to support whatever point I'm making. You don't, just unsupported opinions. It's also apparent that you don't really read the refs provided, though you say you do. >The scale of serious production farming for food or >energy simply does not lend itself to very integrated >farming techniques...though perhaps my understanding >of these techniques is different from yours. You're apparently married to the idea of efficiencies of scale in agricultural production and can't see past that. You haven't checked the references: 'Economies of scale might work in a factory, but on a farm it's just an illusion: agricultural economists now accept there's an "inverse relationship between farm size and output". '"Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases." -- "Are Large Farms More Efficient?" Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. 'Industrial farming as a whole is based on an illusion: factory techniques are a poor substitute for nature's excellent arrangements. There's simply no need for them.' "If we are concerned about food production, small farms are more productive. If our concern is efficiency, they are more efficient. If our concern is poverty, land reform to create a small farm economy offers a clear solution. The small farm model is also the surest route to broad-based economic development. If the loss of biodiversity or the sustainability of agriculture concern us, small farms offer a crucial part of the solution." -- Peter M. Rosset, Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture", FAO/Netherlands, September 1999. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html Condensed version: On the Benefit of Small Farms: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1999/w99v6n4.html >Interplanting, succession crops, organic nutrient, >pest and weed control and mulching as opposed to >irrigation are some of the techniques I am aware of. >Are there others that come to your mind? While these >farming techniques are certainly viable for small >scale and specialty production as well as subsistence >farming they are not realistically applicable to most >large scale farming operations. Large scale farming operations are not appropriate to efficient production of agricultural products. > >any illiterate peasant can do it without problems, >and facing every disadvantage, and millions of them >are doing it, with >great success.< Without problems? I disagree...and for >most great success means survival not significant >energy or food production. Again, you haven't checked the references: "The Greener Revolution", New Scientist, 3 February 2001 -- It sounds like an environmentalist's dream. Low-tech "sustainable agriculture", shunning chemicals in favour of natural pest control and fertiliser, is pushing up crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more. A new science-based revolution is gaining strength built on real research into what works best on the small farms where a billion or more of the world's hungry live and work. For some, talk of "sustainable agriculture" sounds like a luxury the poor can ill afford. But in truth it is good science, addressing real needs and delivering real results. "An Ordinary Miracle", New Scientist, 3 February 2001 -- In the world's largest study into sustainable agriculture, Jules Pretty, professor of environment and society at the University of Essex (UK) analysed more than 200 projects in 52 countries. He found that more than four million farms were involved -- 3 per cent of fields in the Third World. And, most remarkably, average increases in crop yields were 73 per cent. Sustainable agriculture, Pretty concludes, has most to offer to small farms. Its methods are "cheap, use locally available technology and often improve the environment. Above all they most help the people who need help the most -- poor farmers and their families, who make up the majority of the world's hungry people." See: "Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence" Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/ SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm See: "47 Portraits of Sustainable Agriculture Projects and Initiatives" Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/ SAFEW47casessusag.htm This is not just a bunch of paper, I've done it, I've seen it being done in many places. Subsistence? Increased crop yields of 73% average is subsistence? These are millions, literally, of mostly illiterate peasants. Sure, illiterate does NOT mean stupid, but, indeed, they achieve this without problems, it's spreading like wildfire. >Lets' suppose for a moment >that even just 10% of all farmers in the us switched >to strictly organic fertilizer (and I am a strong >local supporter of organic farming) where would this >fertilizer come from? You don't understand sustainable/organic farming at all if you think the organic "fertiliser" (wrong) would have to come from anywhere else than within the farming system itself, NOT just imported from off-farm at the expense of soil fertility elsewhere. >Not enough animals to produce >it. Again, you don't understand organics. Please refer to the Journey to Forever Organics, Small farms, and Composting pages. >Nearly all manure is now used by the folks whose >animals produce it to support the feed production part >of dairy and meat operations. On the contrary, huge lakes of it cause vast nuisance and abuse of the eco-system. >And it would still tend >to drain into the Gulf just as its' synthetic >counterpart does to some extent. There is no run-off from a properly managed organic farming system. You're thinking nutrients, Liebig's view, it doesn't work that way. Even Liebig rejected his theory in the end. Organic farmers do not spread manure on their fields (or shouldn't, generally not allowed to). Their cattle might, but that's a very different matter and works quite differently. > >Sustainable agriculture, Pretty concludes, has most >to offer to small farms. <I agree completely! > >I disagree that comparing British farming "costs" with >those of the Midwest US is valid. Very, very different >situations. Different situations, very similar approach, very similar set of externalities. > >In the US Mid West, for instance, which claims to be >"feeding the world", it's at the expense of a dead >pool in the Gulf caused by nitrogen fertilizer >run-off, and anyway it turns out there's very little >"feeding the world" going on in the Mid West, the >facts would indicate it's rather the other way round. >Etc etc etc.< I would be very interested to see those >"facts" which indicate otherwise. The view from here >(Midwest US) is that the average farmer grows and >ships from 500 to 40,000 times the amount of >foodstuffs he consumes. ... And buys his food at the supermarket, right? Check the refs provided - you say below you did read this, but apparently not. - The US and the other industrialised countries are the world's major food importers, importing 71% of the total value of food items in world trade (Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics 1994 (New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1995), table 3.2). - The US imports about $1.5 billion worth of beef a year (Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO Trade Yearbook 1995, vol. 49 (Rome: FAO, 1996), 160, table 12). - The US imports 54% more in farm commodities than it exports (FAO Trade Yearbook 1995, table 6), much of it from countries where the majority lack a healthy diet. The US is in fact the biggest food importer the world has ever seen. * For every one ton of US corn exported in 1996 to one of the 25 countries with the world's most serious malnutrition problems (Category 5 countries, with at least 35 percent of the population undernourished), 260 tons were exported to a wealthy Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. * 20 percent of the total US corn crop is exported; two-thirds of these exports go directly to the 28 industrial OECD countries, where it is mostly used for feeding animals. * 76 percent of the corn used in the US is used for animal feed. * Less than three-tenths of one percent of total US corn exports went to the poor Category 5 countries in 1996. * Less than three percent of total US corn exports in 1996 went to the 24 Category 4 countries (where undernourishment affects at least 20 percent of the population). * More US corn goes to make alcoholic beverages in the US than is exported to feed the hungry in the world's 25 most undernourished countries combined. * About one-third of the total US soybean crop is exported; 70 percent of US soybean exports went to 28 industrial OECD countries in 1996. * No soybeans were exported to Category 5 countries in 1996, while 17.8 million metric tons went to OECD countries. * In 1998, a year of record-low soybean prices, the 25 most undernourished countries received less than 0.027 percent of total US soybean exports. See "Feeding the World?" http://www.iatp.org/foodsec/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Feeding_the_Wo rld_The_Upper_Mississippi_River_.htm Not a marginal opinion, there is a large amount of data to support this, whether or not some Midwesterners prefer to turn a Nelson's eye to it. > >As I said, factory farming is not the way of the >future. It's not efficient, it's not economical. It's >a dinosaur, the sooner it's dead >the better. Not the solution to energy crops either.< >I fear it will have to do unless we are willing to see >mass starvation on a global scale rather that in the >relatively small areas of the world which exist now. :-) It's obvious that you're not about to consider anything that counters this utterly erroneous view of hunger and what causes it. It's thoroughly debunked in the references you say below that you've read. Clearly not. >And by the way, although this was not your meaning I >am sure...dinosaurs were the most efficient and >enduring form of life on the planet to date. Nope. Bacteria were, and still are, they're the most important form of life by far, much more so than we are. Plants. Insects. But you're right, I don't refer to dinosaurs as being unfit, merely as being dead. A living dinosaur is something that ought to be dead but isn't. >Point taken on China though. They are unsurpassed at >local food production through necessity. Through an unbroken 4,000 years of tradition. That's what "sustainable" means. They've fed a growing and now-vast population off a rather small amount of rather poor land for forty centuries without any loss of soil fertility and without wrecking the joint, and fed the growing hunger of their factories off the same small resources (apart from mining) for nearly a thousand years to boot. They're not the only traditional society that's done this. Will the US succeed as well? Very doubtful, the omens are not good, certainly not by following the current path. History is littered with the bones of societies that tried it, none ever succeeded. >We COULD >learn a lot from them...but much would simply not be >transferable to large scale non-labor intensive >farming. Indeed not, quite right too - but you back the wrong winner, and again you're wrong in thinking that small-scale integrated sustainable farms must needs be labour-intensive. Read the refs! Or not, as you wish. In fact there are many Chinese farms in the US, but they're Chinese farms, run by Chinese, not American farms that have adapted Chinese farming principles. Many Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Lao et al farms too, variations on a common theme. Technology transfer is no simple matter, and if it's to be successful it doesn't start with the technology, it starts with the receiving end: the people, the socio-economic-ecological context. Would you say that the transfer of capital-intensive, input-intensive technology to US farming has been successful? Millions (literally) of displaced US farmers might not agree. Many boardroom members would agree. How about the society at large, has it benefited? Many say not. The environment? Many say not. Were the displaced US farmers "dinosaurs", mere casualties of Darwinian law? How about this? Free-range poultry is a sustainable and profitable system. It was the norm in the US until it was superceded by industrial agriculture and confinement systems in the 1960s. It didn't fail because the new systems were better (they're not), but because of industrial pressure: the slaughterhouses and processing plants, owned or controlled by the same people owning and controlling the new confinement systems, refused to accept birds from the free-range systems. Within a couple of years there were no free-range systems left. Darwinian law of a different ilk, eh? People call it capitalism, but that's not capitalism, it's economic despotism. It's as well to know the difference between the two. > >"In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable >agriculture farmers now have higher yields than >conventional farmers< Come on Keith...look at this >statement. I cannot disagree with it but comparing the >"top quarter" is skewing at its worst. And I am sure >that they meant "higher yields per acre" which puts it >in a different context if the goal is total >production. It's exactly in total production that monocropping falls short. Again, you're chipping away at an excerpt without going to the source provided. Please read the reference provided. > >Cuba Leads the World in Organic Farming < Yes but >they certainly don't "feed the world" do they? Not a >major exporter and again subsistence farming borne of >a total lack of any alternative. READ THE REF!! > >Organic farming is THE fastest growing agriculture >sector in the US and throughout the West. Consumer >demand is growing even faster and is well ahead of >production.< I agree. And it is because of consumer >demand that it is growing. Demand leads to higher >prices and tips the balance sheet so to speak when it >comes to small farmers deciding to go organic. It also >limits the consumption of organic food to the upper >middle class since the cost is beyond the budget of >most. And again it certainly has limited potential as >a major food or energy producer. READ THE REF!! MILLIONS of peasants are doing it, increasing yields, producing marketable excesses, without buying any inputs - but you insist it's more expensive? It might be more expensive in Western countries at the moment, but that'll change - and what it is that'll change is the system of subsidies, open and hidden, for the entire factory-farming, distribution and processing industry, which is heavily rigged against small-scale, local, organic production. Unsubsidised and accounted for in the price, factory-farmed food externalities add at a minimum 16% to the cost of food, organic externalities just 3%, and that could be reduced to zero, and often is. In fact very much organic food is sold at the same price as the chemical stuff, not all organic farmers go to the special markets - they say their costs are lower and yields the same. > >I think you didn't read the reference I provided in >my original response< I have actually. It contains a >bit of misleading information which I would be happy >to help you correct if you are willing to look at your >sources more critically. I'd be more than happy if you'd be willing to look at my sources at all, let alone critically - critically meaning in toto, not just picking on a little bit here and there that you think you can get at while ignoring the rest. >As a "food or fuel" treatise >it seems to contain a inordinately large amount of >anti-US/anti-corporate/anti capitalism slanted >statements...with which I mostly disagree...but not >entirely. The vast majority of food-vs-fuel objections stem from the US and usually move on to saying that energy farming would lead to mass wordwide starvation because the US Midwest would no longer be feeding the world. As said above, it doesn't - virtually no Midwest corn/soy goes to feed hungry countries, whereas the US imports a great deal of food from those same hungry countries it doesn't export food to. This information is not "anti-US", most of it comes from US researchers. It does attack a widely held set of US myths, which don't do Americans any good. Neither is it necessarily anti-corporate, but it does attack the particular corporate interests that promote these myths, also at great American cost. It certainly isn't anti-capitalism, though that might depend on your view of capitalism. I'd agree with this: "Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers." As for "inordinately large", I think you only see it that way because you object to it. You say you disagree, but that just doesn't cut any ice unless you offer at least some sort of basis for all your disagreements, but you don't, just more opinion, not useful. I don't "slant" information. It means deliberately biasing it by giving extra weight to some aspects while suppressing others in order to give a false impression in support of a prior agenda, and I take exception to your accusing me of it. "Slant" used as you've used it here is itself slant. What you say is slanted is well-considered and well-referenced - you've just chucked a bunch of labels at it, none of which withstands the light of day, and a pejorative, which I'll thank you either to substantiate or withdraw. >As for fuel cells...they are commercially available >NOW which indicates that they are definitely not at >the level of development that existed 20 years ago. >No longer in the same category as say...cold fusion. Yes, but you still say "four years", and I've been hearing that for much longer than four years. >Please don't take my often opposing point of view as >disapproval of your goals or actions. I admire the >obvious effort that you put into contributing to the >"good" future the average earth inhabitant might have >and support anyone willing to do so. I personally know >the cost(s) of doing so...and the rewards. Thankyou. Pity I'm so misguided though, eh? :-) >Besides agreeing to disagree we might be able to >benefit from each others point of view. Well, I'd hope so, but really, if you're going to respond as you have up to now, with just opinions, no references, while ignoring and cutting much of what's been said, then I'll despair of it and probably won't respond. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ >Dana ><snip> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ujOgTC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
