|
Post by davidm on May 3, 2012 2:23:27 GMT 9.5
Dr. Vandana Shiva, who is among other talents an environmental activist with a focus on organic farming and village agriculture confronts the problem of industrial fossil fuel based farming.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 3, 2012 7:47:18 GMT 9.5
Dr. Vandana Shiva, who is among other talents an environmental activist with a focus on organic farming and village agriculture confronts the problem of industrial fossil fuel based farming. Yes, she promotes technology which has already been shown to be a failure (there's a reason most of our food is no longer grown using certified 'organic' methods). So-called 'organic' farming is really just a restriction, if a conventional farming thinks that a method they use would be a good idea there is nothing stopping them from doing it, they can even go all the way and produce something that would be certifiable as 'organic' if they think that is better (thus so-called 'organic' farming can never do better than conventional farming but all a conventional farming needs to beat 'organic' is find a synthetic fertiliser (not allowed by the 'organic' standards, there's no apparent reason for them) or GM cultivar which can allow for growing food better than the 'organic' method). But economy strayed from ecology, forgot the home and focused on the market. An artificial "production boundary" was created to measure Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The production boundary defined work and production for sustenance as non-production and non-work - "if you produce what you consume, then you don't produce". In one fell swoop, nature's work in providing goods and services disappeared. The production and work of sustenance economies disappeared, the work of hundreds of millions of women disappeared. It almost sounds like she likes the idea of being only one bad growing season away from starvation (at least for other people). To the false measure of growth is added a false measure of "productivity". Productivity is output for unit input. In agriculture this should involve all outputs of biodiverse agro-ecosystems - the compost, energy and dairy products from livestock, the fuel and fodder and fruit from agroforestry and farm trees, the diverse outputs of diverse crops. When measured honestly in terms of total output, small biodiverse farms produce more and are more productive. They feed less people for the amount of resources put into them. Inputs should include all inputs - capital, seeds, chemicals, machinery, fossil fuels, labour, land and water. The false measure of productivity selects one output from diverse outputs - the single commodity to be produced for the market, and one input from diverse inputs - labour. Actually I'd go with land area as that is what is the real limited factor in how much food we can grow (of course it turns out that her favourite technology doesn't do very well on that). Thus low output, high input chemical, industrial monocultures, which in fact have a negative productivity, are artificially rendered more productive than small, biodiverse, ecological farms. Never mind that per unit of land those high output industrial 'monocultures' (on an individual farm there may be a monoculture but on the whole we try not to rely on just one type of food as the Irish did back in the Potato famine years, modern farms also tend to rotate crops around) produce more food than the low tech hobby farms she likes. It's also worth noting that most 'organic' food is actually produced on large-scale industrial farms. And this is at the root of the false assumption that small farms must be destroyed and replaced by large industrial farms. If those farms can't compete with more efficient larger farms then they should be replaced (though what's stopping a small farmer from buying some superior GM seeds?).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 3, 2012 8:47:48 GMT 9.5
I'd go with land area as that is what is the real limited factor in how much food we can grow And what do we do? We keep building over agricultural land. I think one of Shiva's points is that the small organic farm is more self-supporting and good for the land and doesn't require depleting the surrounding biosphere and throwing small farmers off their land to be agriculturally successful.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 3, 2012 9:08:42 GMT 9.5
And what do we do? We keep building over agricultural land. We're managing to reduce the amount of agricultural land we need in the developed world while increasing food production. I don't see anything evil about diverting some of the excess agricultural land we no longer need to urban and suburban development as well as to nature. I think one of Shiva's points is that the small organic farm is more self-supporting and good for the land and doesn't require depleting the surrounding biosphere and throwing small farmers off their land to be agriculturally successful. You don't need to throw small farmers off their land, though those who can't compete will end up having to find other work (and we need to be careful about idealising farmers too much, we are better off having less farmers and more people doing other things (thus why labour efficiency of farming is still quite important)). The claims of so-called 'organic' farms being better for the environment don't appear to add up and many of the things that the 'organic' farms do have negative environmental impacts (e.g. introducing insects to control pests). The fact is that so-called 'organic' farming is not based on science (inflammatory statement removed)(we need nitrogen fixation to feed the worlds population, maybe we could do without it with enough genetically modified crops, but the 'organic' farming movement is completely against genetic engineering).
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 3, 2012 11:32:08 GMT 9.5
Anon You are getting a little heated in your exchanges. Please desist from making inflammatory statements which will be edited.
Much of your commentary is unsupported opinion. Please try harder to back up what you claim with refs - as required on BNC, which strives to be a science based forum.
In this initial start up we have relaxed the rules a little but please read over the Comments Policy and abide by it in future. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 3, 2012 16:05:11 GMT 9.5
David M and Anon You are both getting a little heated in your exchanges. Mr. Moderator, just so I know what you are referring to would you please show me where I engaged in a heated exchange. As for the reference I was offering my interpretation of comments by Vandana Shiva which I had earlier linked to. What more do you want?
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 3, 2012 16:18:57 GMT 9.5
David M - You are right - Anon was the focus of both remarks. I have edited my comment accordingly.
BTW it is Mrs Moderator ;D
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 7, 2012 10:36:40 GMT 9.5
When trying to compare industrial agriculture with local organic agriculture to determine which is better it's all about how you frame the issue. Industrial agriculture gets you more yield per acre. But it is more dependent on inputs from the outside, particularly fossil fuel based fertilizer and pesticides. It also results in high nitrogen runoff leading to ocean dead zones. Then one has to consider which one is more inevitably devoted to calorie inefficient animal feed and biofuels like ethanol. Finally there is the matter of who gets the benefit of our government's research funds. And of course in specific reference to the thread title the question of which is more sustainable should be obvious. Organic is for the most part in house.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 7, 2012 12:18:41 GMT 9.5
Actually it depends on whether you want to feed everyone on the planet or not, only if you are willing to let billions starve can you say that 'organic' agriculture is better. Industrial agriculture gets you more yield per acre. But it is more dependent on inputs from the outside, particularly fossil fuel based fertilizer and pesticides. Not that again. Europe used to be fed with the Haber-Bosch process running off hydrogen produced by electrolysis (and it was sufficiently economical with hydroelectricity) so there's no need to worry about that part (should the methane run out we can very easily replace its role in fertiliser production). It also results in high nitrogen runoff leading to ocean dead zones. Any so-called 'organic' farm using fertiliser (yes, even the 'organic' certified stuff) could have that problem (whether the fertiliser is manure or synthetic doesn't mean it can't cause problems). But really, any farmer should be testing their soil (or sending it off to a lab which does it for them) to find out what is in the soil so they know what they need to add. Besides, using fertilisers and pesticides you don't need costs money for no benefit, no sensible business person would do it. Genetically modified crops can reduce the need for chemical inputs quite a bit as well (and guess which is allowed to use them?). You pretty much need genetically modified crops to do no-till farming well. Then one has to consider which one is more inevitably devoted to calorie inefficient animal feed and biofuels like ethanol. People who buy so-called 'organic' meat would really like them to have been fed 'organic' grains (many 'organic' certification standards in fact demand that at least in part). On the issue of biofuels those are only grown because of stupid subsidies, had those biofuel subsidies required 'organic' methods then they'd be 'organic' farms (the fact that they aren't certified 'organic' should tell you a lot about how productive 'organic' farms are). Finally there is the matter of who gets the benefit of our government's research funds. Yes, 'organic' farming can not feed the worlds population while conventional farming can, I really don't see a contest for which should get most of the money (I personally think that organic should be legally defined by what the IUPAC thinks it means). And of course in specific reference to the thread title the question of which is more sustainable should be obvious. Organic is for the most part in house. If it can't feed the current world population it isn't sustainable, no mater how much it may appeal to you. The fact is that so-called 'organic' agriculture is a restriction on what methods a farmer can use, that basically means that it can never under any circumstances no matter what measure you use outperform conventional farming. If you want to compare the two you'll end up comparing no-till farming with GMOs (which don't need as much fertiliser or pesticide) with the 'organic' farm. It's also worth noting that these days 'organic' farms aren't the small local farms of 'organic' farming propaganda but are actually on about the same scale as conventional industrial farms (once the big companies realised they could charge so much more for it they got into it in a big way).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 8, 2012 7:56:38 GMT 9.5
Putting the Haber-Process into some perspective there is this to consider. As your link also shows(In a bit of contradiction with its thesis), methane, a fossil fuel, continues as critical in the ammonium production process. And with the low price of newly accessed natural gas it doesn't look like water as a source of hydrogen is going to be a major player soon. The grazing cow or goat would seem to provide a more sustainable fertilizer, if ghgs and run off are considered. Employing the temporary greater yield argument ignores the role the unsustainable industrial mega-state system plays in artificially pumping up population and how it ultimately is going to drive things to their limits with disastrous consequences. Every hominid except us has gone to their evolutionary grave. We aren't nearly as robust as say cockroaches. We simply can't afford to wander too far from home base which is what we are doing. A couple of additional thoughts, small organic farms wouldn't have the political clout to distort the politics of badly focused government subsidies. Also an organic focus is more vegetarian.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 8, 2012 10:29:41 GMT 9.5
Putting the Haber-Process into some perspective there is this to consider. As your link also shows(In a bit of contradiction with its thesis), methane, a fossil fuel, continues as critical in the ammonium production process. But could likely be replaced relatively easily and without increasing food prices too much. And with the low price of newly accessed natural gas it doesn't look like water as a source of hydrogen is going to be a major player soon. If a hydrogen economy ends up happening it probably would be. The grazing cow or goat would seem to provide a more sustainable fertilizer, if ghgs and run off are considered. Could that scale to feed 10 billion people? I'm pretty sure that electrolysis or a thermochemical hydrogen production process could but I'd be very surprised if you could scale that up to where you need (and you've also grow to grow grains to feed the livestock). Oh and cows are pretty good at making methane. Every hominid except us has gone to their evolutionary grave. We aren't nearly as robust as say cockroaches. We simply can't afford to wander too far from home base which is what we are doing. More likely because we sent them there (and our civilisation seems to be pretty robust, we're probably the most robust species on the planet). A couple of additional thoughts, small organic farms wouldn't have the political clout to distort the politics of badly focused government subsidies. No, but big ones do (as do supermarkets which profit from selling overpriced 'organic' food). Don't kid yourself, 'organic' food is very big business.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 8, 2012 18:05:03 GMT 9.5
Not if you are grazing them or harvesting natural grasses, ex. wild oat hay or using cow fertilizer in a carbon free recycling pattern. That's where the sustainability comes from.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 8, 2012 19:16:32 GMT 9.5
But then you need the land for the grasses (which is likely to be a lot more than for grains optimised for maximum crop yield).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 9, 2012 4:19:23 GMT 9.5
But then you need the land for the grasses (which is likely to be a lot more than for grains optimised for maximum crop yield). You can use the cow manure on the grains maximized for crop yield. Touche.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 9, 2012 13:44:18 GMT 9.5
Yes, assuming you have enough cow s*** (and you'd still likely need quite a bit more for other agriculture).
Besides, the composition of cow s*** may not be ideal for what you're growing.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 10, 2012 4:31:49 GMT 9.5
Mix it in a compost pile with grass, organic garbage, worms etc. Adjust it until it meets your specifiications, ph, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 10, 2012 7:19:07 GMT 9.5
What about trace minerals?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 10, 2012 11:34:19 GMT 9.5
Plants include them quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 10, 2012 18:55:00 GMT 9.5
Provided the soil has them (and some plants include more than others).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 2, 2012 12:30:35 GMT 9.5
Bruce Sundquist takes modern industrial farming to the wood shed. It's a very comprehensive site, hitting the matter from all sorts of angles. The author goes into some detail on the matters above and also discusses related matters like desertification, deforestation and fisheries and other stuff. It looks like a good resource even if one has problems with some of his views.
|
|
|
Post by dan tesic on Jul 2, 2012 15:50:39 GMT 9.5
I tend to disagree with Dr. Shiva (at least with what was quoted in the OP). It's a simplistic approach which completely glosses over the fact that the "small diverse farm" can be and usually is extremely labour intensive. My own grandparents lived on precisely one such farm, and the next generation (my father with all his siblings) couldn't get away from that "small diverse farm" quick enough. In reality, the whole conflict between organic and industrial farming is overblown and in effect unnecessary. Good farming practices that integrate across different farm operations have been known for many decades, and they are being implemented gradually over an increasing area of farmland. The public most often hears about these two "extreme" options (organic vs. industrial), whereas systems such as Integrated Production (see www.fao.org/prods/index.asp ) , which is a scientifically-sound and validated sustainable agricultural system seem to have difficulties getting public recognition. Part of the blame lies with the farming sector and the agricultural industry, for not explaining loud and clear all the good things that they've been doing; the rest of the blame is on the overzealous organic (and even worse, "biodynamic") enthusiasts, who have generated a lot of press in the last decade or two, but have been driven mostly by a gut-feel, rather than evidence-based practices and experiences.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 2, 2012 19:33:21 GMT 9.5
It seems to me keeping the production close to home is a good thing. It fosters independence and it is more environmentally sound. In India small farmers aren't waiting to get out of there, they are committing suicide because their way of life is being destroyed. In Mexico small corn farmers can't compete with the American subsidized corn agribusinesses so they are abandoning their farms and coming to find work in the US. I guess its a question of what is more sustainable into the future. I think the small organic family farm, even with lower production in the near future is the ticket. It lends itself more to diverse integration, recycling, self-sufficiency the whole bit more than your factory farm - think pig farms despoiling the surrounding land.
The Amish are one example of success in farming and society in this country. Their self-sufficient approach to agriculture and use of low tech skill sets helped them sail right through the depression. I don't see any reason that way of life should be shut down to subsidize a factory farm nor do I think the tribes in the Amazon should have their self-sufficient hunting and fishing and gathering way of life destroyed to accommodate the big Brazilian cattle ranchers and loggers.
Perhaps I just don't get "progress."
|
|
|
Post by dan tesic on Jul 2, 2012 19:37:26 GMT 9.5
David M, I can't say anything that I haven't said already. The extremism of Vandana Shiva (who is not a qualified agricultural scientist, btw) would see millions (billions?) go hungry, I mean more than they are now. The rest would go back to the lifestyle of my grandparents, which I've seen for myself, and wouldn't recommend to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 2, 2012 19:51:24 GMT 9.5
The extremism of Vandana Shiva (who is not a qualified agricultural scientist, btw) would see millions (billions?) go hungry, I mean more than they are now. I wonder how much more. We know roughly a billion go to bed hungry right now and many more are malnourished and access to drinkable water is a big problem. And then there is the question of sustainability. Is profit driven factory farming following a path that undermines its future? I like Shiva's challenge to the traditional notion of productivity. And if the small family farms are forced to shut down, where do the families go?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 3, 2012 0:37:24 GMT 9.5
It seems to me keeping the production close to home is a good thing. Transportation is a relatively small resource user for agriculture and the problems it causes can be relatively easily solved (nuclear shipping and electric trains should be able to handle everything except the last few kilometres to the store). OTOH there is a lot of difference in productivity between different areas, to the point at which it is often better to get food from the other side of the planet than try to grow it locally. What happens when you get a bad harvest? With the current system you just don't export as much or you import some food, but if we insisted on everything being grown locally… and it is more environmentally sound. Actually it isn't, growing food where it can grow most efficiently and then transporting it usually turns out to be better than local production in a sub-optimal climate. In India small farmers aren't waiting to get out of there, they are committing suicide because their way of life is being destroyed. They are committing suicide because they don't have anything else to do (though I'd be surprised if it is all that many, a lot of them would probably just move to the nearest city and get a job there). It's worth noting that much of the progress of our civilisation involved the unemployment of farmers, starting when there was enough surplus for some people to not have to produce food full time (and thus able to devote time to advancing civilisation). I guess its a question of what is more sustainable into the future. In the long term, only progress has any hope of being sustainable, stagnation means extinction. I think the small organic family farm, even with lower production in the near future is the ticket. It lends itself more to diverse integration, recycling, self-sufficiency the whole bit more than your factory farm - think pig farms despoiling the surrounding land. There's nothing to stop a factory farm recycling or being self-sufficient. In fact I can easily imagine factory farms with crop land right next door to grow the grains the animals need (though they probably aren't the best idea, better to get the grain from a separate company which specialises in grain than try to do everything yourself). The larger scale of factory farms would also make pollution control measures unthinkable at a small-scale seem much more doable. The Amish are one example of success in farming and society in this country. Their self-sufficient approach to agriculture and use of low tech skill sets helped them sail right through the depression. They also don't seem to get many converts, almost as if the rest of the population doesn't want to live like them. I don't see any reason that way of life should be shut down to subsidize a factory farm nor do I think the tribes in the Amazon should have their self-sufficient hunting and fishing and gathering way of life destroyed to accommodate the big Brazilian cattle ranchers and loggers. The Amish will continue to farm their way so long as they exist (and I don't see any movement aimed at wiping them out) though they'll be using genetically modified crops (they already do, the Amish have actually been quite enthusiastic about GM crops). On the subject of the Amazon tribes, you'll probably find most of them would consider what we have to be better than their traditional self-sufficient hunting and fishing (which they'll probably still keep doing every so often due to tradition).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 8, 2012 2:29:03 GMT 9.5
It seems to me keeping the production close to home is a good thing. Transportation is a relatively small resource user for agriculture and the problems it causes can be relatively easily solved (nuclear shipping and electric trains should be able to handle everything except the last few kilometres to the store).One can hope. Transportation, storage and packaging must count for something, putting aside whatever distant future you have in mind. And then there are the advantages of going vegetarian which would seem to be more of a local thing. Here is an interesting discussion of these matters, not necessarily to either of our advantage. I like the exotic foods I get from far away but with some rearrangement of my diet and preparation and storage practices I don't really need them. What happens when you become overly dependent on foreign resources and the surpluses become used up? This is not even discussing the undermining of local agriculture by surplus dumping or the monocropping of 3rd world agriculture to satisfy the exotic tastes of richer foreign countries. They are committing suicide because they are being forced off their family farms which have sustained them for generations. Yes, the substitution of fossil fuel in driving technology and creating fertilizer and pesticides has lowered the number of farmers needed. But of course that is coming full circle. Factory farming like building cars seems to lend itself more to single food development. It's more efficient in the short term and profitable. Chickens and carrots just don't work together very well like say on a family farm. Take away the government subsidies direct and indirect of the factory farms and it might be a fairer contest. Maybe you should discuss that with the natives who are continually being forced off their ancestral land into degradation and squalor.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 8, 2012 4:29:04 GMT 9.5
One can hope. Transportation, storage and packaging must count for something, They do, just a relatively small one (15% or so, often less than the disadvantages of doing things locally). And then there are the advantages of going vegetarian which would seem to be more of a local thing. Of course even then there are some vegetables which have lower emissions if they are grown at a distance and imported (and then there's the issue of actually getting people to switch to a vegetarian diet). Here is an interesting discussion of these matters, not necessarily to either of our advantage. That meat has a higher carbon footprint isn't a surprise (much of it methane which could conceivably be captured and burned as fuel). Anything which requires an artificiality heated greenhouse I would also expect to be relatively high (this is one of the cases where transport from a distant location which doesn't need heating is better) though if the heat came from a carbon neutral energy source would not be so bad. I suspect their note about freight for the exotics may be air freight (hard to deal with, though if the food can survive long enough to take the ship then it should). What happens when you become overly dependent on foreign resources and the surpluses become used up? Supply and demand, if there isn't enough supply prices will increase thereby providing an incentive for additional production (some degree of government subsidy to ensure there always is a surplus probably is a good idea). It is worth noting that famines don't occur because there isn't enough food, but because governments screw up (or even deliberately starve their citizens). This is not even discussing the undermining of local agriculture by surplus dumping You'll usually find that it's over-subsidised agriculture which is causing that problem (some degree of agricultural subsidy probably is a good idea, but many places (the EU are particularly bad) go too far). or the monocropping of 3rd world agriculture to satisfy the exotic tastes of richer foreign countries. The exotic tastes actually discourage mono-cropping on an overall level (individual farms may be monocrops for ease of management, but even then they usually rotate crops). Widespread mono-cropping (of the kind which causes famines) tends to happen when there are very few things which can be grown in the soil of a given location. Yes, the substitution of fossil fuel in driving technology and creating fertilizer and pesticides has lowered the number of farmers needed. But of course that is coming full circle. There is no evidence that we can't replace fossil fuels for those purposes (and plenty that we can, we could run tractors, etc on electricity and hydrogen can be sourced without getting it from methane (though captured methane from agriculture might also be able to be used there, instead of just being burned)). Factory farming like building cars seems to lend itself more to single food development. It lends itself to producing large amounts of food for little cost. Chickens and carrots just don't work together very well like say on a family farm. A single factory farm would likely specialise and focus on only one or a few things, just as car companies don't build every model at every factory but instead have many factories (and many companies). Take away the government subsidies direct and indirect of the factory farms and it might be a fairer contest. Which subsidies did you have in mind? Maybe you should discuss that with the natives who are continually being forced off their ancestral land into degradation and squalor. Who by what you've just said aren't getting what we have in return (nor being given a choice in the matter).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 8, 2012 12:11:35 GMT 9.5
This lady pig farmer explains why paying more for pasture raised pork from a family farmer might ultimately be the better choice. Also it is easier to see the meat raising process and therefore the consumer can make more informed choices. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=x9KoO3dRF1c
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 9, 2012 2:48:56 GMT 9.5
The consumer shouldn't need to know how it was produced (and for the most part wouldn't care) provided the product is safe (why we have food safety inspectors).
The way to deal with externalities is to internalise them, not give the consumer information they don't care about.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 10, 2012 6:25:41 GMT 9.5
|
|