|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developing O |
|
|
We must take a serious look at how we shall feed ourselves in the
future and how we will organize societally to insure our subsistence.
To deny the reality of what is the future of food production is simply
naive. We, in the *developed* world, have become far removed from the
actual production of our basic food, unlike those in *less developed*
parts of the world.
Manual labor, especially in the area of food production, is unknown to
most of us in the *modern* world. We may enjoy our gardens and reap the
benefits of limited food production, but few of us produce all we
consume. Or are able to do so, for any number of reasons.
We would be well advised to follow the advice of this article, and many
others I have posted... in order to develop our skills, soils,
preservation methods, inventory, etc.
Mankind is poised to take steps backwards and many will step into
oblivion, though many may be able to survive if they position
themselves and develop the mindset and knowledge to do so. *They* are
not going to take care of us. We must take care of ourselves and each
other.
Care
Charlie
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
----------------------------------------
Excerpt: Full article........
http://countercurrents.org/goodchild220907.htm
Agriculture In A Post-Oil Economy
By Peter Goodchild
22 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The decline in the world’s oil supply offers no sudden dramatic event
that would appeal to the writer of "apocalyptic" science fiction: no
mushroom clouds, no flying saucers, no giant meteorites. The future
will be just like today, only tougher. Oil depletion is basically just
a matter of overpopulation — too many people and not enough resources.
The most serious consequence will be a lack of food. The problem of oil
therefore leads, in an apparently mundane fashion, to the problem of
farming.
To what extent could food be produced in a world without fossil fuels?
In the year 2000, humanity consumed about 30 billion barrels of oil,
but the supply is starting to run out; without oil and natural gas,
there will be no fuel, no asphalt, no plastics, no chemical fertilizer.
Most people in modern industrial civilization live on food that was
bought from a local supermarket, but such food will not always be
available. Agriculture in the future will be largely a "family affair":
without motorized vehicles, food will have to be produced not far from
where it was consumed. But what crops should be grown? How much land
would be needed? Where could people be supported by such methods of
agriculture?
WHAT TO GROW
The most practical diet would be largely vegetarian, for several
reasons. In the first place, vegetable production requires far less
land than animal production. Even the pasture land for a cow is about
one hectare, and more land is needed to produce hay, grain, and other
foods for that animal. One could supply the same amount of useable
protein from vegetable sources on a fraction of a hectare, as Frances
Moore Lappé pointed out in 1971 in Diet for a Small Planet [12].
Secondly, vegetable production is less complicated. The raising of
animals is not easy, and one of the principles to work with is, "The
more parts there are to a machine, the more things there are that can
go wrong." The third problem is that of cost: animals get sick, animals
need to be fed, animals need to be enclosed, and the bills add up
quickly. Finally, vegetable food requires less labor than animal food
to produce; less labor, in turn, means more time to spend on other
things. A largely vegetarian diet is also the most healthful, but that
is a separate issue.
With a largely vegetarian diet, one must beware of deficiencies in
vitamins A and B12, iron, calcium, and fat, all of which can be found
in animal food. Most of these deficiencies are covered by an occasional
taste of meat; daily portions of beef and pork are really not
necessary. Animal food should be used whenever it is available, but it
is not a daily necessity.
Of vegetable foods, it is grains in particular that are essential to
human diet. Thousands of years ago, our ancestors took various species
of grass and converted them into the plants on which human life now
depends. Wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye, oats, sorghum, millet — these
are the grasses people eat every day, and it is these or other grasses
that are fed (too often) to the pigs and cows that are killed as other
food. A diet of green vegetables would be slow starvation; it is bread
and rice that supply the thousands of kilocalories that keep us alive
from day to day.
In general, the types of crops to grow would be those which are
trouble-free, provide a large amount of carbohydrates per unit of land,
provide protein, and supply adequate amounts of vitamins and minerals.
Most grains meet several of these requirements. Winter (not summer)
squashes are also high in kilocalories. Parsnips rate high in
kilocalories, whereas carrots, turnips, rutabagas, and beets are
slightly lower on the scale. Beans (as "dry beans") rate fairly well in
terms of kilocalories, and they are the best vegetable source of
protein, especially if they are eaten with maize or other grains with
complementary amino acids.
HOW MUCH LAND? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
JoeSpareBedroom Guest
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
<Charlie> wrote in message
news:on7cf3174tq281jd9cqnpdapfa00to65d8@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
Manual labor, especially in the area of food production, is unknown to
most of us in the *modern* world.
|
Just for laughs, try suggesting to a 17 yr old kid that a good summer job
would be harvesting broccoli at a nearby farm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Billy Guest
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
In article <XVvJi.17340$ya1.16588@news02.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Charlie> wrote in message
news:on7cf3174tq281jd9cqnpdapfa00to65d8@4ax.com...
Manual labor, especially in the area of food production, is unknown to
most of us in the *modern* world.
Just for laughs, try suggesting to a 17 yr old kid that a good summer job
would be harvesting broccoli at a nearby farm.
|
What you are saying is that no one will work like that unless they have
to. Us pessimists think that in the very near future, we will have to.
Of course we could pay farm workers a living wage and, perhaps, raise
the beds to reduce stoop labor. That would cost money. Maybe its time to
reduce subsidies on corn and soybeans that are making everyone fat, and
start subsidizing the cost of growing fruits and vegetables, that can
make people healthy.
--
FB - FFF
Billy
Get up, stand up, stand up for yor rights.
Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.
- Bob Marley |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Hare-Scott Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
news:46fc41be$0$4583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| Quote: | As a producer of beef cattle, I really disagree strongly with what he
wrote
about the need to be vegetarian. His view is very restricted as it
relys
on
the belief that all animals are lot fed and that therefore one must
have
land to grow hay and grain. Balderdash I say. Such a concept only
applies
in farming areas of full snow cover over winter and even then in the
dark
ages, few beasts were kept over winter - just enough to breed stock for
the
next year.
Are you talking about smaller animals here or cattle? If cattle I have
problems with this paragraph.
Since you have divorced what I wrote from the context of the article on
which I was commenting and have also snipped any mention of small animals,
then clearly I'm writing about cattle.
|
OK then how does reducing stock over winter relate to raising beef? What
proportion of your stock go to market at less than 12 months? I don't see
what you are getting at.
| Quote: | To put it back in context. The author of the article assumed that all
cattle are fed on grain. You and I boht know that is not the case
although
it may be the case for most of the time in the US (although God knows why
given the falvour of grain fed beef).
|
OK
| Quote: | Also the inefficiency in land use and water consumption of taking
vegetable
calories and feeding them to animals (which you eat) instead of eating
them
yourself is quite clear. I don't mean to say we could eat grass but the
same land and water will feed more people if turned to vegetable food
production instead of pasture.
It IS possible in limited circumstances most of which don't apply across
the
breadth of drought ravaged Australia where animals will be able to forage
and survive where a vegetaive food would shrivel to a crisp. The animals
won't in general be prime killing stock for frying/grilling but they will
certainly be edible in casserole/stew form. I suspect you must live in a
water rich area to write what you did.
|
My comments were not restricted to Australia and there are many places here
and overseas where a crop could replace pasture.
Are you claiming that if things get tough as in our doomsday scenario we
will be able to go right on eating as much meat as we do now? This
paragraph and your later comments suggest that you will answer no. In which
case we agree.
| Quote: | Having said that I would much prefer to remain an omnivore. I hope it
doesn't get to the point where meat becomes a luxury but it's possible.
Haven't you been to a butchers recently? It's already getting to that
level.
|
Not to the level where it's feast days only.
| Quote: | In
the dark-ages meat was a luxury, the commoners (that's me and I assume
you)
only ate meat on feast days and holy days.
Yep. You got my point there.
|
Once again we seem to be coming to agreement.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FarmI Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
<someone@somedomain.com> wrote in message
| Quote: | Before we run out of oil and/or are affected by the prices cause due to
high oil one has to consider the reason why resources are going higher and
US buying power lower. This is one of the first major problems that will
be experienced by Americans and rest of the world secondly. This main
problem is devaluation of US dollar.
As a reserve currency most goods are priced in US dollar so looking at oil
at $80USD doesn't mean that oil went up that much in other currencies -ex.
Canada, Euroland.
As this seems to be done by design America will suffer first and most
likely drag the rest of the world down with it.
|
Sorry, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but what
you have written is wrong. Fuel has gone up world wide and that price hike
is about the scarcity of the resource (as China and India boom) and not
about America suffering first.
America has VERY low fuel prices at the pump in comparison to the rest of
the world, where taxes and surcharges are massively higher than in the US.
The US is only now catching up with what has been happening in the rest of
the world for decades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FarmI Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
"David Hare-Scott" <compost@rotting.com> wrote in message
| Quote: | "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
As a producer of beef cattle, I really disagree strongly with what he
wrote
about the need to be vegetarian. His view is very restricted as it
relys
on
the belief that all animals are lot fed and that therefore one must
have
land to grow hay and grain. Balderdash I say. Such a concept only
applies
in farming areas of full snow cover over winter and even then in the
dark
ages, few beasts were kept over winter - just enough to breed stock
for
the
next year.
Are you talking about smaller animals here or cattle? If cattle I have
problems with this paragraph.
Since you have divorced what I wrote from the context of the article on
which I was commenting and have also snipped any mention of small
animals,
then clearly I'm writing about cattle.
OK then how does reducing stock over winter relate to raising beef? What
proportion of your stock go to market at less than 12 months? I don't see
what you are getting at.
|
I knew that :-)).
Remember, I was commenting on the article - this is not about the age at
which we sell our beasts.
The author of the article wrote that the best thing (and I'm paraphasing so
you see what I'm on about) post oil would be to be a veggie because
"vegetable production requires far less land than animal production. Even
the pasture land for a cow is about one hectare, and more land is needed to
produce hay, grain, and other foods for that animal."
and "of animals is not easy"
and "The third problem is that of cost: animals get sick, animals need to be
fed, animals need to be enclosed, and the bills add up quickly. Finally,
vegetable food requires less labor than animal food to produce; less labor,
in turn, means more time to spend on other things"
Basically most of that is rot and/or assumes that animals are fed on
grain/hay or 'other foods'.
If we were immediately tossed into a post oil world, I'd keep our cattle.
They are easy to raise (unlike his thoughts on that - occasionally one will
meet its maker through natural causes but that is seldom). They can be
raised purely on grass because we don't like in a climate where they have to
be put in a barn and fed over winter (thus no need to grow food for them)
and they'd be a good thing to own where syntheic products like vinyl and
plastic is no longer available. And sometimes they'd also be 'meat' but
really they'd be too useful to just be 'meat'.
My real quibble with the article was that the guy seemd to have a very
limited view of what would happen in a post oil world. He, and many other
people, don't seem to know where event he most basic things that would make
life worth living (like soap and light) would come from in such a scenario.
I've always been fascinated by how people lived pre electricity and pre oil.
I think the worst thing would be getting proper clothing.
| Quote: | To put it back in context. The author of the article assumed that all
cattle are fed on grain. You and I boht know that is not the case
although
it may be the case for most of the time in the US (although God knows why
given the falvour of grain fed beef).
OK
Also the inefficiency in land use and water consumption of taking
vegetable
calories and feeding them to animals (which you eat) instead of eating
them
yourself is quite clear. I don't mean to say we could eat grass but
the
same land and water will feed more people if turned to vegetable food
production instead of pasture.
It IS possible in limited circumstances most of which don't apply across
the
breadth of drought ravaged Australia where animals will be able to forage
and survive where a vegetaive food would shrivel to a crisp. The animals
won't in general be prime killing stock for frying/grilling but they will
certainly be edible in casserole/stew form. I suspect you must live in a
water rich area to write what you did.
My comments were not restricted to Australia and there are many places
here
and overseas where a crop could replace pasture.
|
Yes it could BUT most countries these days are becoming less and less
capable of supporting themsleves in food production. Oz is still one of the
lucky ones but if we keep going the way we are with appallingly cheap
imports then it won't be long before we are in the same boat as much of the
rest of the world.
| Quote: | Are you claiming that if things get tough as in our doomsday scenario we
will be able to go right on eating as much meat as we do now? This
paragraph and your later comments suggest that you will answer no. In
which
case we agree.
|
Yep we do agree on the fact that there will be reduced meat eating. But if
we had rabbits then that would be a different thing altogether. I still
remember pre battery hen days when chook was a feast day food and I was born
and raised on a poultry farm.
| Quote: | Having said that I would much prefer to remain an omnivore. I hope it
doesn't get to the point where meat becomes a luxury but it's possible.
Haven't you been to a butchers recently? It's already getting to that
level.
Not to the level where it's feast days only.
|
:-)) Yeah but it's heading there.
| Quote: |
In
the dark-ages meat was a luxury, the commoners (that's me and I assume
you)
only ate meat on feast days and holy days.
Yep. You got my point there.
Once again we seem to be coming to agreement.
|
Yep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FarmI Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
<Charlie> wrote in message
| Quote: | On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:16:44 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given
wrote:
As a producer of beef cattle, I really disagree strongly with what he
wrote
about the need to be vegetarian. His view is very restricted as it relys
on
the belief that all animals are lot fed and that therefore one must have
land to grow hay and grain. Balderdash I say. Such a concept only
applies
in farming areas of full snow cover over winter and even then in the dark
ages, few beasts were kept over winter - just enough to breed stock for
the
next year.
I agree.
Grass fed beef, slow to maturity, is some of the best I have eaten,
along with bison, which is available locally for us. Harvesting and
storing winter feed is certaily doable, on a limited scale, though work
it is. Most of the time here, snow cover is not total through the
winter.
Also, depending upon your location, deer, elk, etc. are there for the
harvesting, at least for now. I used to hunt, and eat whitetail deer.
Still eat some every year, as the boys both hunt and I always help them
butcher. I haven't killed for about ten years, but am able and
prepared to do so.
Same for all sorts of wild meat here in the u$.....fish, frogs,
squirrel, rabbit, wildfowl, upland game and some critters that I have
eaten years ago, such as raccon and some that I haven't been hungry
enough to try yet, such as possum. Depends upon your locale. Have I
read that 'roo is eaten in your country? Should be plenty of them to
go 'round!
|
Yes it is eaten but I have never mastered the art of cooking it and don't
want to do so. It is a very low fat meat and as you would know, marbling in
meat makes it tender. I'd rather eat less top quality beef than try to eat
any of the roos round here, or buy roo.
| Quote: |
I'm currenly looking for some sheep (mainly for fleece) but I will have
any
surplus killed. Sheep/goats/poultry (chooks, ducks, pigeons etc)/rabbits
would be the sensible stock for non vegetarians to keep and these could be
kept in smaller areas with a bit of effort.
Rabbits are simple to raise, and the old idea of having individual
hutches, breeding boxes, etc., is not necessary. We've raised rabbits
in a shed with straw bale shelters, free to roam about the shed, and
they did great and gave us a great harvest.
|
And are delicious! Also have good fibre if one chooses the right breeds.
| Quote: |
Another thing which really irritated me about this article is that the
author didn't even mention the need to use old fashioned non hybrid
varieties of seed. All gardeners should know abut the need to be seed
savers if they want to have a self succient garden.
I've been raising only heirloom garden produce for ten years and saving
seeds. This is *essential* if we want to survive a downturn.
Absolutely essential. I continually recommend heirlooms to people.
|
That is why I was so surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the article. I'd
hate to see what hybrids would produce when/if the manure hits the fan -
might be OK for the first year at a pinch, but then knowing about the need
for distances between crops and true to type seeds would be vital.
| Quote: |
I try and maintain a selection that produces in dry climates and in
normally moist years. COvering bases. People alos need to research
what the native peoples rased before modern methods took over......such
as in the u$, where Native Americans raised much maize, beans. and
squashes, all good storage items.
|
Ummmmm. I don't think I ever want to eat anything the Aboriginal people ate
except honey from native bees. Roo doesn't appeal to me so snake and lizard
is right off the agenda. Hunter gatherer lifestyle would not be my first
preference for native peoples food.
| Quote: | There were a few other things about the article that I thought he missed
but
enough for now.
I agree, but the overview and the exhortation to thik about doing for
oneself when the tide turns is the true value of the article.
|
Yes it is. I'm always amused when I read posts from the boys (and I do mean
boys) in the survivalist ngs. I always think to myself that they probably
don't own a handkerchief between them and the thought of owning a metal
buket would never cross their collectivley small minds. It all about who
has the biggest and best weapon.
| Quote: |
Maybe, just maybe, some of us will make it. Hope it doesn't go all Mad
Max on us.
|
I dunno. Mel Gibson in his younger days was very easy on the eyes. With my
luck, I'd only come across the mutants.
I read a very interesting article today about the predictions for Global
warming.
It wasn't online but I have looked up a cite which may possibly interest
you.
In brief, the article says that climate scientists agree that a raise in
temperatures should be confined to a max of 2 degrees but most scientists
had now recognised that this figure was already beyond what could be
achieved - more likely a rise of 3 degrees or more was most likely. Even a
1 degree rise would result in loss of a third of fresh water from the
earth's surface and Australia's Barrier Reef was doomed to die. A rise of 2
degrees would result in Greenland losing its ice and thus raising sea levels
and more heat waves in Europe where the 2003 heat wave cost 35K lives and
loss of production in the order of $12B. A 3 degree increase would result in
carbon sequestration that currenly happens in the soil would be thrown into
reverse and carbon dioxide would be released into the air. 2-3 degrees
would result in loss of most of the Amazon rainforest and so it went
on......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Hare-Scott Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Agriculture and the Importance of Developi |
|
|
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
news:46fcadf8$0$4577$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| Quote: |
Yep we do agree on the fact that there will be reduced meat eating. But
if
we had rabbits then that would be a different thing altogether.
|
Not practical, the catcher refuses to hand them over without lots of holes.
I still
| Quote: | remember pre battery hen days when chook was a feast day food and I was
born
and raised on a poultry farm.
|
Roast chicken was what you had at Christmas or your birthday if you were
lucky.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Usergroups
Featured Site: Free Antivirus and Antispyware Info
Powered by p|-|pBB
Usenet and forums posts belong to their respective authors. Everything else is (c) 2004 - 2006 Web-S-Sense Pty. Ltd. Terms and Conditions of Use
|
|
|