Sustainable Agriculture.

[Day Brown]

First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

We put traces of iodine in the salt and floride in the toothpaste for
well known physical health reasons. And we see where traces of lead and
mercury have devastating effects on childhood development. Recently,
they have realized that some of the 150 neurotransmitters interact with
traces of iron, copper, zinc, & manganese in the diet to promote healthy
mental development, most especially in the laying down of new neural
pathways in the brain during learning.

It didnt usta be a problem; analysis of living stone age people, bone
middens, and stomachs of bog bodies, reveal that hominids evovled with
over 100 different wild plants in the diet. Diamond worries, pointing
out that agribusiness devotes 80% of land to just 5 crops: cotton, rice,
soybeans, wheat, & corn. And when you look in the supermarket, rather
than finding the diversity hominids evolved to eat, 70% of what is there
is made of some combination of the last 4 crops.

Which, as noted above, dont even contain the nutrition our forefathers
enjoyed while growing up. The result is a dramatic increase in the risk
factors for Autism, ADD, ADHD, depression, and Ritalin dosing.

I was lucky, born on a Minnesota farm in 1939, I saw the transition from
draft animals to tractors. Its claimed that organic methods are not at
all feasible, but I beg to differ. I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown
with what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can
get 110 bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive*
dosing of the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields
every 3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots,
that plant brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for
subsequent crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness
dont let land like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces
declines over time.

The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits. The first Shogun, Tokugawa realized that
clearcutting the forests was making money for the loggers, but the
floods that resulted was bankrupting farmers. Since the loggers would
not stop, he had them butchered, and then told the farmers to go into
the forests to rake leaves to put on their land. This *compost* not only
dramatically restored the fertility of the land, it also made the crops
healthier and more resistant to pests, as well as adding the same trace
minerals referred to above that were brought to the surface by deep tree
roots. This also improved the mental capacity of the population which
resulted in a long period of peace and stability.

It seems to be a matter of national security, that even if grain
production is reduced with organic methods to 1/3, simply cutting back
on red meat consumption by 1/3 would more than make up for it, while at
the same time the reduction in obesity, cardiac, blood pressure, and
other health problems would dramatically reduce the cost of health care
and insurance.

Furthermore, the farmer receives such a small share of the cost of the
food on the shelves, that tripling it would have little effect on the
cost to the consumer. Which could be further reduced by cutting down on
the processing. Sure, giving kids real fruit juice is more expensive
than soda, and would cut into the profits of the transnatioal beverage
outfits. But that would dramatically cut the consumption of fructose at
the same time that it cuts down on the consumption of beverages. Since
the soda doesnt have any of the trace minerals or micronutrients
referred to above, it does not trigger the neurotransmitters in the
brain that nutritional needs are being met, with the result that the kid
wants to eat or drink more of it.

Which is good for profits, but bad for kids, as we see with obesity,
ADD, ADHD, allergies, and any number of other mental and phsyical
pathologies. Lest you doubt the connection, surf the results seen in
rural schools that have lots of kids raised on family farms. Whereas
other kids flop on the couch with a remote in hand, farm kids get the
exercise they need for proper mental development doing chores, while at
the same time they see with their own eyes the value of work. Teachers
accept much lower pay to teach kids who want to learn.

Look at the school test results. In my neck of Ozark woods, where all
the schools are small with lots of farm kids, the violence rate it *0%*,
with dropout rates in the single digits, graduation rates in near 90%,
and college remediation rates in the teens.

Yes, organic agriculture needs lots more people on the land; but is that
such a bad idea? *HALF* of the Green Berets grew up on family farms. No
agribusiness produces a healthy crop of kids every year; au contrare, it
destroys the health of millions of other kids in the suburbs. Look at
the class photos of the white affluent suburban kids, then look at the
photos of the classes from these small rural schools. The lack of
obesity is obvious.

When I was a kid on the farm, I didnt have 'self esteem' issues. I was
out in the fields helping with the harvest which made clear to me that I
was making a contribution. We never saw illegals; starting at 12, kids
were let out of school every summer to help harvest veggies in the
fields at the same time that we got the exercise we needed, made some
money, and learned the real value of the dollar. Is there a problem with
all this? Or is it part of a solution?

 

[JoeSP]

First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing this,
all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has risen, the
net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in "Collapse"
notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had 22% protein;
now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

Exactly true.

I was lucky, born on a Minnesota farm in 1939, I saw the transition from
draft animals to tractors. Its claimed that organic methods are not at all
feasible, but I beg to differ. I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown with
what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can get 110
bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive* dosing of
the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

Organic farming is feasible today, but only if a few are doing it to serve
the small portion of market willing to pay a premium for it. The other 90%
of the market demand the cheapest price possible. The only way to serve
such a market is to raise the food as cheaply as possible, with chemicals
and fertilizers used on large, highly mechanized farms.

If the rest of the 300 million people in North America were to suddenly want
to go organic, it would require nothing short of a massive revolution.
Existing farms have no feasible way to convert to organic farming quickly.
The vast grain growing areas of the plains are too far from sources of
natural fertilizer, and lack of chemical weed control would negate any sort
of realistic economic yield.

A hundred years ago, it was a lot easier to raise food organically, even
though it wasn't called that at the time. People paid a much higher
percentage of their incomes for food. There were many more farmers at that
time, numbering in the millions, not thousands. The land was more
productive, as it hadn't been mined for nutrients as much as today. Animal
fertilizers were generally more close at hand. Chemical herbicides were
generally unused, although the ones that existed at the time contained
mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals, something almost unthinkable today.

Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields every
3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots, that plant
brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for subsequent
crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness dont let land
like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces declines over time.

Yes, it creates a massive surplus of food, which depresses the price to the
farmer, making it more neccessary to produce more and more, making the
problem worse and worse.

Furthermore, the farmer receives such a small share of the cost of the
food on the shelves, that tripling it would have little effect on the cost
to the consumer. Which could be further reduced by cutting down on the
processing. Sure, giving kids real fruit juice is more expensive than
soda, and would cut into the profits of the transnatioal beverage outfits.
But that would dramatically cut the consumption of fructose at the same
time that it cuts down on the consumption of beverages. Since the soda
doesnt have any of the trace minerals or micronutrients referred to above,
it does not trigger the neurotransmitters in the brain that nutritional
needs are being met, with the result that the kid wants to eat or drink
more of it.

When the consumer buys a loaf of bread, the farmer gets about 8 cents of the
total. If the price of the bread were increased another 8 cents, and given
back to the farmer, his income would double. But the consumer demands that
8 cents, and will drive many extra miles to a large supermarket to get it.

When I was a kid on the farm, I didnt have 'self esteem' issues. I was out
in the fields helping with the harvest which made clear to me that I was
making a contribution. We never saw illegals; starting at 12, kids were
let out of school every summer to help harvest veggies in the fields at
the same time that we got the exercise we needed, made some money, and
learned the real value of the dollar. Is there a problem with all this? Or
is it part of a solution?

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

 

[Gordon Richmond]

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got

rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

I listened to a short radio piece that touched on this very subject. The source was "Call
of the Land" an ag news and information program sponsored by the Alberta Department of
Agriculture, and carried on Alberta public radio CKUA and some commercial stations.

There was a report on a consumer survey conducted in several urban areas to determine the
demand for non-intensively raised chicken. It was found that up to 40% of the respondents
would be willing to pay up to 40% more for chicken so raised, and indeed, some die-hards
would be willing to pay double for that product, as opposed to battery-raised poultry.

There does appear to be a growing market for "free-range" and/or organically-raised meat
and crops.

Gordon Richmond

 

[Harry Chickpea]

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

This is such a common misconception that it deserves rebuttal. The
rhetoric of the statement is a classic over-simplification.

Commercial farms are bigger because the market is bigger, not only in
numbers of people being fed life-sustaining meals, but in the
consumption by the more affluent customers. The efficiency of larger
scale growing of crops has been a salvation for millions. The simple
fact is that there are many more people in north america and the world
than there were in pre-McCormick reaper days. Even with the large
numbers of people, fewer are dying of starvation and deficiency
related disease - except in areas like Africa, where small farms and
home grown food are still the rule.

The complaint about reduced yields and poorer quality is laughable.
While it might have had some validity in the 1980s, crop analysis has
gone high-tech on big farms in recent years. Farmers are using such
techniques as satellite imagery to determine specific areas of crops
that suffer from deficiencies or insect damage, and target correction
just on those areas. Harvesting is done quickly, and the vegetables
are flash frozen or processed so fast that the canned and frozen foods
often contain more nutritional value than the fresh food in the
supermarket bins.

Individual commercial farmers still suffer huge losses from unstable
weather conditions, but the farms in those "countries when you don't
want to drink the water" act as a reserve capacity, so consumers are
never totally out of a crop, as in years past. The price might go
higher, but you can still get rice, even though Katrina ripped through
Louisiana. You can still get tomatoes when frost kills the Florida
crop. Famine doesn't happen, except when the political situation
promotes it.

The average U.S. consumer is quite aware of quality, and willing to
pay within reason. Look at the produce on store shelves and you'll
find it hard to find blemished, bug infested, or rotten fruit. It
didn't used to be that way. When you open up a bag of cornmeal or
flour, do you see bugs? When these items were ground at local mills
without supervision, bugs were common.

Now, let's examine the "trace minerals." As we learn more, we realize
that the difference between food and medicine is a lot thinner than
drug companies would have us believe. Our grandparents and great
grandparents relied on foods and herbs to cure disease and stay well.

Some of us are going back in that direction.

The fear has been, within the organic community, that the "trace
elements" in mass produced foods will be lost and the value of these
foods and herbs diminished. The comparison between a crop grown in
organic humus and a chemically fertilized and denuded field is
commonly used to demonstrate the increased size and vigor of the
organic crop, and the statement made or implied that it is the trace
elements that are vital to this.

The real story is that crops love a regular supply of humidity around
the roots, and there are soil organisms that thrive in humus that make
nutrients more available to plants grown in it. Trace minerals are an
entirely different issue.

It no longer makes sense to depend on getting a proper mix of trace
minerals from food. If a mineral is not in the soil, it won't get
into the food, and you don't commonly see organic or agribiz farmers
spreading copper, zinc, or chromium on their fields. We know what
trace minerals we need, and the relative proportions. Rather than
paying triple the cost for an organic carrot, it makes more sense for
the consumer to occasionally take a trace mineral supplement.

I regret the loss of the family farm as a viable life style, but there
were thousands of kids who made the choice to move on to a better life
than working 18 hour days in the hot sun, or slopping hogs, or milking
at 4 AM long before agribiz became prevalent.

Organics have their place, but the real solution to the problems of
massive agriculture has to include having a world population that
remains stable or decreases, rather than continues to over-run the
planet.

Maybe in that sense, you are right. The crops from agribiz are the
only way to feed the masses of people that depend on them. Remove the
large farms, go back to organics and home grown crops and let more
than half the population of the world starve, and have a good portion
of the rest spend their money on food rather than cars or consumer
products, or vacation trips to "unspoiled" places that will become
home to a McDonalds and a strip mall in the rainforest within twenty
years. It could work.

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.

(nonsense, snipped)

Its claimed that organic methods are not at
all feasible, but I beg to differ.

I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.
And what's worse, there is a waiting period between
beginning organic farming and being able to legally claim I
have organic products for sale, during which I could be
wiped out, without any compensating higher prices to justify
the risks.

I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown
with what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can
get 110 bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive*
dosing of the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

True, but the bottom line is that modern methods are more
profitable. Last year my cotton had all kinds of problems
due to the unusual growing season. I had more weeds, more
bugs, and more irrigation costs than ever before. I gritted
my teeth and put out the money and work necessary to handle
the problems. The result? Very good yields which, combined
with the high prices available last year, resulted in the
best financial results I have had since about 1975. If I
had been using "organic" methods, or if I had stuck to a
pre-set budget for crop inputs, as some of my neighbors did,
I would have had disastrous yields, as some of them had, and
would now probably be looking for other work.

Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields
every 3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots,
that plant brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for
subsequent crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness
dont let land like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces
declines over time.

The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits.

My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.

(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

 

[Mary Fisher]

This is such a common misconception that it deserves rebuttal. The
rhetoric of the statement is a classic over-simplification.

Commercial farms are bigger because the market is bigger, not only in
numbers of people being fed life-sustaining meals, but in the
consumption by the more affluent customers. The efficiency of larger
scale growing of crops has been a salvation for millions. The simple
fact is that there are many more people in north america and the world
than there were in pre-McCormick reaper days. Even with the large
numbers of people, fewer are dying of starvation and deficiency
related disease - except in areas like Africa, where small farms and
home grown food are still the rule.

Those last facts aren't related.

The complaint about reduced yields and poorer quality is laughable.
While it might have had some validity in the 1980s, crop analysis has
gone high-tech on big farms in recent years. Farmers are using such
techniques as satellite imagery to determine specific areas of crops
that suffer from deficiencies or insect damage, and target correction
just on those areas. Harvesting is done quickly, and the vegetables
are flash frozen or processed so fast that the canned and frozen foods
often contain more nutritional value than the fresh food in the
supermarket bins.

They are, to many of us, uneatable.

Now, let's examine the "trace minerals." As we learn more, we realize
that the difference between food and medicine is a lot thinner than
drug companies would have us believe. Our grandparents and great
grandparents relied on foods and herbs to cure disease and stay well.

Some of us are going back in that direction.

The fear has been, within the organic community, that the "trace
elements" in mass produced foods will be lost and the value of these
foods and herbs diminished. The comparison between a crop grown in
organic humus and a chemically fertilized and denuded field is
commonly used to demonstrate the increased size and vigor of the
organic crop, and the statement made or implied that it is the trace
elements that are vital to this.

I haven't heard that and I'm passionate about good food, well grown. So
passionate that I grow most of our own - but not because of trace elements.

The real story is that crops love a regular supply of humidity around
the roots, and there are soil organisms that thrive in humus that make
nutrients more available to plants grown in it. Trace minerals are an
entirely different issue.

The real story, throughout the world, it political and financial.

It no longer makes sense to depend on getting a proper mix of trace
minerals from food. If a mineral is not in the soil, it won't get
into the food, and you don't commonly see organic or agribiz farmers
spreading copper, zinc, or chromium on their fields. We know what
trace minerals we need, and the relative proportions. Rather than
paying triple the cost for an organic carrot, it makes more sense for
the consumer to occasionally take a trace mineral supplement.

LOL! I don't. Do you? Do you feel better for it if you do?

Organics have their place, but the real solution to the problems of
massive agriculture has to include having a world population that
remains stable or decreases, rather than continues to over-run the
planet.

So when shall we see fewer Americans?

Maybe in that sense, you are right. The crops from agribiz are the
only way to feed the masses of people that depend on them. Remove the
large farms, go back to organics and home grown crops and let more
than half the population of the world starve, and have a good portion
of the rest spend their money on food rather than cars or consumer
products, or vacation trips to "unspoiled" places that will become
home to a McDonalds and a strip mall in the rainforest within twenty
years. It could work.

As I said, politics and finance.

It stinks.

Mary

 

[zatoichi]

JoeSP wrote:

<snip>

TOTALLY agree with you Joe

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

What quality?Nobody cares for that.People are happy eating garbage.
They have forgotten the way the food should taste.
Every god damn ingredient,whether it comes from the ground or from
animals now days is w/o any favor and savor.
You name it,tomatoes,corn,paprika,spinach,lemons,oranges,cherries
,chicken,turkey,lamb.Painfully tasteless.I don't know why
but veal is not so bad,even when bought at local butchery.
I don't have the means to grow the food myself,but am lucky to have
cousins and friends who do.Yummy meal w/o friends (LOL and w/o desert)
doesn't taste quite so good as it should.
My best bet,by far,is fish,octopuses,squids,all kinds of seashells and
crabs...Anything that comes from sea.And by anything, I mean just
anything.Certain algae,urchins(mmm eggs),anemones,LOL you can even
cook a rock if you know how to find good one. I don't think
jelly fish is good though.
When the season is right we go out and gather snails,mushrooms,
asparaguses,fruits,and some wild plants that we know how to cook or
use otherwise(LOL nettle is universal herb).
I also use lot of garlic and olive oil

Forget about any govt support for so called healthy or organic food.
Not gonna happened.Aside from some esoteric $$ products you may find
on shelves,expect bigger ratio of GM food on your table.Even EU has
loosen its grip on GM food producers,as of 2004 the EU has ended 6
years moratorium on approving new GM products. ATM EU regulations
require labeling and traceability of all (even animal) food containing
more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients.
Not so in U.S.

For example,British Food and Drink Federation claims that UK food
industry does not use GM ingredients for its products.
On the other hand the Grocery Manufacturers of America says that 70 to
75 percent of food sold in US may contain genetically engineered
ingredients.Apparently people in U.S. are not too much concerned with
this issue.

As of yet, there is no scientific proof that GM food is in any way
harmful to human consumption,but there is also no consensus that it isn't.

In the meanwhile I'll stick with the sea as much as I can (as God is
my witness that I don't know much about agriculture),and would suggest
you do the same if you have the opportunity.Take any chance you got to
go primal.Not *that* way,silly.You know what I mean.

 

[Day Brown]

As I said, politics and finance.
It stinks.

Agreed; agricultural policy now is set by senators who have ranches,
like Bush, where they get to play cowboy with real horses. Thus, they do
what they can to minmize the cost of these hobby operations. At the
expense of family farmers.

Nor does modern family farming have to be the drugery of the 19th
century. Sure, I was out in the field in august to help with the oat
harvest... for 5 days a year. And if we got the kids off the couch and
replaced the remnote with farming tools, they'd get some of the exercise
they so badly need to improve their 'self esteem' and intelligence.

Trying to compare modern agribusiness with 19th century farming is not
the issue. However it'd be stupid to ignore the lessons from the past.
Taking supplements is not nearly as good as getting them from the food
in the first place, which is how the hominids *evolved* to receive them.

The crop rotation we did with alfalfa was better for the land than
simply dosing it with chemicals every year. Alfalfa sends down deep
roots that deliver trace minerals from the subsoil to the surface...
which are gradually hauled away by continuous cropping. And now we have
the lab reports to show how important they are to maximal mental
development, and can see how the lack resulted in the alarming rise of
autism, ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions. And while my critics dont
know it, organic farmers have picked up on this, and thus you will see
greensand and other such mineral supplements bought by us.

But I am not here to argue with my critics, but to point out that this
will become more widely known, and that parents in particular will be
cutting back on junkfood and soda pop and looking for real nutrition.
The satellite images agribusiness uses to identify threatened crops is
*ONLY* concerned with the tonnage/acre. Not the nutrition/ton.

Its unfortunate that the poor make their kids stupid by ignoring the
effect of nutritional deficits on mental development. When I was a boy
on the farm, we fed the horses oats cause we wanted strong smart horses.
We fed the pigs corn cause we wanted fat stupid pigs. The preponderance
of corn in traditional black and hispanic diets... well soul food may
feed the spirit, but it dont do jack schitt for the brain. There is a
recent analysis of the Mississippian culture to show that the expected
lifespan of the warriors went from 26 to 19 when they started growing
corn. And if you wanna make ethanol, switchgrass works much better.

If the economy keeps on rolling along, there will be a vast market for
alcohol and butanol fuel (see http://www.butanol) that can be derived
from crops like switchgrass that dont need the petrochemical imput of
corn. And if it crashes, there will still be a *local* market for
anything you can run an engine on, most especially that which wont
degrade the soil its grown in- ie, with organic methods.

I can see that the powers that now be in politics and finance dont care
for this at all; it *disperses* power away from the centers they
control- like refineries that require vast investment that your IRA
cannot benefit from until they've already skimmed the cream. It would
also dramatically reduce their ability to tax consumers if every farmer
down the road had his own operation to sell fuel.

Furthermore, the mash left over after fermentation and distillation can
be fed to livestock to raise beef that the farmer *knows* cannot have
'mad cow disease' because he knows the source of every atom that went
into his cows. He's not dependent on Cargill or the other transnational
feed mills. This is also an example of how nobody in agribusiness is
personally responsible for what is in the food; that's the way that
corporations are setup. Family farmers, OTOH, raise kids, and can feel
the effect of what they do on other people's kids.

What you raise your kids on is your business, but the smart sociable
well adjusted kids will be raised on what family farmers grow. There's a
lotta money in providing that service.

 

[Day Brown]

<2 cents>
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?

I think horse and oxen powered farms are the way to sustainable
agriculture, and a peaceful stable society. Grow hay and oats to feed
the animals, rotate the fields with alfalfa and rye, and use the
composted manure for fertilizer. The "cities" which would form under
these systems, would be small and surrounded by the feeder farms.
They would act as trading centers.

But with today's population, this type of lifestyle is taxed out of
existence. How can you afford to pay taxes on 40 acres used solely
for growing animal feed? And how can you prevent developers from
giving that farmer a million for his land, and building a golf course?
You can't. The evil greed spawned by the many wars and the
military-industrial complex, has made the world a city-based economy.

Sure, you can say that we can switch to alcohol powered tractors, or
something similar, but that assumes that a big city-industrial base
exists to make the tractors...... and once that military-industrial
complex comes into existence......it puts the cities first, and the
farms second. So really you need a society without metals. Like I said,
Po Pot tried it, and look what happened.

The world's population is going to keep climbing till it hits the
breaking point. Huge cities full of ghettos are appearing, and the
best that can be done is to get the local people to grow gardens in the
cities. They are not going to be relocated to rural life, not because
they wouldn't want it, but because the current land owners don't
want to give up their vast tracks of land which they accumulated during
the previous industrial-capitalist period. There is some ruler in
Africa, who is forcing the rich white land holders to redistribute
the land to the people, but he is portrayed as a horrible butchering
despot in the Western media.

The problem is all being compounded now by the push for agri-fuels.
So now farms will grow soy and corn for bio-diesel and
ethanol--car-fuel, further raping the land. I can see basic food prices
going up because of this, and it may even reach the point where people
will be allowed to starve, in order to put bio-fuel in some rich man's
car.

Hydrogen?? Yeah, it's all being touted as the cure-all fuel. BUT there
are huge problems which are not being talked about. First, it will need
massive nuclearization to produce the electricity needed to make it.
Second, as with any widely dispersed technology, managed by dim-witted
people, there will be alot of hydrogen leakage. Back yard mechanics
dumping fuel to work on a system, accidents, and just the basic leakage
from the millions of high-pressure pipes needed. Well, hydrogen will
float upward, and f**k up the Ozone layer. This will further cause
deterioration in the planet's crops, as they are pounded by UV rays.

Will people give up cars, to ride bikes, walk, and build sustainable
villages? No! They will risk it all for easy personal mobility, which
by the way is one of the most unatural things about modern civilization.
It is not natural for people to be so mobile! It also burns off alot of
oxygen. A car uses ~25000 times the O2 as a bicyclist peddling.

The net result of all this, is a future where people are further removed
from a "natural life". Bottled air, bottled water, food concentrates
make in stainless steel tanks by genetically engineered bacteria, and
pressed into "protein bars". Everyone will be on some sort of pill for
various ailments. Lifespans for the rich will be increased by organ
transplants, various genetic breakthroughs, etc.

I'm waiting for the point where the ocean stops producing enough oxygen,
and the weather reports start tracking air masses with low O2 levels, as
a health hazard. They are already selling bottled oxygen at the corner
stores in the smog-choked cities in Japan. It is supposed to help you
think more clearly...............

Some planet-wide catastrophe may occur, and send us all back to
the stone-age, otherwise we are heading for a very un-natural future.
</2 ccents>

Well, I havta get back out to the garden, but- I was born on a farm in
1939, and saw the transition from draft animals to tractors. A mix of
the two is very profitable from a long term sustainable standpoint. You
can grow sorghum, switchgrass, Jerusalem artichoke, or other grasses
that are not as highly hybridized as corn and do well without chemical
fertilizer as well as being more resistant to drought.

You can cut, crush the stalks, ferment the juice, and distill alcohol;
100-150 gallons/acre. It only takes 6 gallons/acre to plow. You can feed
livestock on the mash and produce beef that you *know* dont have mad cow
disease cause you know every molecule that went into it. Your profits go
up cause you aint buying feed from Tindle, Cargill, or feed mills which
sell stuff that is not well documented.

I've done hay the old fashioned way with horses, and with balers. Horses
are quiet; you can mow all day without rattling your brains. After it is
cut, you dont havta bale it. You can use dump or other rake to put it in
rows, and then rather than picking it up, use horses to drag a conveyor
belt up each row, which dumps the loose hay on a hay rick... that has
ropes laid across the floor. When you get to the barn, you hook up the
ropes to a trolley crane that runs just under the ridge, the horses pull
on the ropes, and the whole wagon load is dumped in the barn.

The horses are the only ones that are sweaty. You need a bigger barn
this way cause loose hay down pack down that much. But kids love to play
on it. However, once you build the barn, you dont need to be buying the
tractor fuel every year to bale the hay.

I'm lucky; my neck of Ozark woods is too steep for agribusiness, so it
is all family farms separated by woods in the hollows. My taxes on 20
acres is 72$/year. There's enough family farmer voters to keep it that
way. The big shift really is to cut back beef consumption by 1/3, which
makes 5 times as much land available to raise human food. Its doable.

 

[zatoichi]

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.

(nonsense, snipped)


I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.
And what's worse, there is a waiting period between
beginning organic farming and being able to legally claim I
have organic products for sale, during which I could be
wiped out, without any compensating higher prices to justify
the risks.


True, but the bottom line is that modern methods are more
profitable. Last year my cotton had all kinds of problems
due to the unusual growing season. I had more weeds, more
bugs, and more irrigation costs than ever before. I gritted
my teeth and put out the money and work necessary to handle
the problems. The result? Very good yields which, combined
with the high prices available last year, resulted in the
best financial results I have had since about 1975. If I
had been using "organic" methods, or if I had stuck to a
pre-set budget for crop inputs, as some of my neighbors did,
I would have had disastrous yields, as some of them had, and
would now probably be looking for other work.


My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.

(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

You are one angry farmer,ain't you Robert?

 

[Mary Fisher]

(nonsense, snipped)

'nonsense' is a subjective opinion.

I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer

And how is that chicken manure generated? To collect pure chicken maure you
have to have intensive ('factory') chicken 'farms'. That's not organic.

It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.

And why is that not possible? And, come to that, why do you NEED 2 or 3
times the price?

True, but the bottom line is that modern methods are more
profitable.

And there's the rub.

Last year my cotton had all kinds of problems
due to the unusual growing season. I had more weeds, more
bugs, and more irrigation costs than ever before. I gritted
my teeth and put out the money and work necessary to handle
the problems. The result? Very good yields which, combined
with the high prices available last year, resulted in the
best financial results I have had since about 1975. If I
had been using "organic" methods, or if I had stuck to a
pre-set budget for crop inputs, as some of my neighbors did,
I would have had disastrous yields, as some of them had, and
would now probably be looking for other work.

Not necessarily. Many of us insist on organically grown cotton. We are
prepared to pay high prices for it - and for your extra work.

Perhaps you don't want the extra work though ....

My bankers and accountants decide.
Ah!

Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre.

And you are rules by bankers and accountants?

You mean you can't make your own decisions?

And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.

I think you would have money - just not as much as you want.

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

<2 cents>
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?

I think horse and oxen powered farms are the way to sustainable
agriculture, and a peaceful stable society. Grow hay and oats to feed
the animals, rotate the fields with alfalfa and rye, and use the
composted manure for fertilizer. The "cities" which would form under
these systems, would be small and surrounded by the feeder farms.
They would act as trading centers.

But with today's population, this type of lifestyle is taxed out of
existence. How can you afford to pay taxes on 40 acres used solely
for growing animal feed?

Why should you?

And how can you prevent developers from
giving that farmer a million for his land, and building a golf course?

The problem isn't the giving but the receiving.

You can't. The evil greed spawned by the many wars and the
military-industrial complex, has made the world a city-based economy.

Sadly, you're right largely. But there still are some of us with integrity.

The problem is all being compounded now by the push for agri-fuels.
So now farms will grow soy and corn for bio-diesel and
ethanol--car-fuel, further raping the land. I can see basic food prices
going up because of this, and it may even reach the point where people
will be allowed to starve, in order to put bio-fuel in some rich man's
car.

Not yours of course ...

Will people give up cars, to ride bikes, walk, and build sustainable
villages?

Some of us are doing.

No! They will risk it all for easy personal mobility, which
by the way is one of the most unatural things about modern civilization.

Does that include you?

 

[Mary Fisher]

But I am not here to argue with my critics, but to point out that this
will become more widely known, and that parents in particular will be
cutting back on junkfood and soda pop and looking for real nutrition.

I'm not sure about that. They like it themselves (a LOT of customer
research) and it's easy.

The satellite images agribusiness uses to identify threatened crops is
*ONLY* concerned with the tonnage/acre. Not the nutrition/ton.
True.


Furthermore, the mash left over after fermentation and distillation can be
fed to livestock to raise beef that the farmer *knows* cannot have 'mad
cow disease' because he knows the source of every atom that went into his
cows. He's not dependent on Cargill or the other transnational feed mills.
This is also an example of how nobody in agribusiness is personally
responsible for what is in the food; that's the way that corporations are
setup. Family farmers, OTOH, raise kids, and can feel the effect of what
they do on other people's kids.

What you raise your kids on is your business, but the smart sociable well
adjusted kids will be raised on what family farmers grow. There's a lotta
money in providing that service.

Ah - finance again.

But it might just tempt some into getting real.

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

I've done hay the old fashioned way with horses, and with balers. Horses
are quiet; you can mow all day without rattling your brains.

Ah but men don't have that feeling of POWER which they do when sitting on a
tractor pulling handles and pushing pedals and feeling the vibration under
their bums.

The horses are the only ones that are sweaty. You need a bigger barn this
way cause loose hay down pack down that much. But kids love to play on it.
However, once you build the barn, you dont need to be buying the tractor
fuel every year to bale the hay.

I'm lucky; my neck of Ozark woods is too steep for agribusiness, so it is
all family farms separated by woods in the hollows. My taxes on 20 acres
is 72$/year. There's enough family farmer voters to keep it that way. The
big shift really is to cut back beef consumption by 1/3, which makes 5
times as much land available to raise human food. Its doable.

You're my generation - exactly. I'm English and not a farmer but my
godfather was and changed to a tractor when I was ten, it was the first
vehicle I drove. Yes, I loved it because I was a child with childish
excitements but I was sorry when he got rid of the horses.

Perhaps most farmers now wouldn't have the skill to plough and other
processes with horses.

Mary

 

[JoeSP]

JoeSP wrote:

<snip>

My best bet,by far,is fish,octopuses,squids,all kinds of seashells and
crabs...Anything that comes from sea.And by anything, I mean just
anything.Certain algae,urchins(mmm eggs),anemones,LOL you can even cook a
rock if you know how to find good one. I don't think
jelly fish is good though.
When the season is right we go out and gather snails,mushrooms,
asparaguses,fruits,and some wild plants that we know how to cook or use
otherwise(LOL nettle is universal herb).
I also use lot of garlic and olive oil

Nevertheless, I don't enjoy eating things that come from the final sewer,
the ocean, much less any creature you can catch from there. We wouldn't
want to eat just any living thing that crawls, flies or grows on land, so
why do we do that with the ocean?

 

[Mary Fisher]

... We wouldn't want to eat just any living thing that crawls, flies or
grows on land,

Why not?

Mary

 

[JoeSP]

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.

(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago. The alternative is to keep using supplements, which few of us
know how to do properly, nor often enough. The other disadvantage is that
it costs far more to supplement our food with minerals and vitamins than to
have them naturally occurring. Besides that, the food tastes better when
they're naturally occurring..

I had a chat earlier this year with Dr. Ross Welch from Cornell University,
who pioneered the research that showed that serious nutrient deficiencies
are common in our population due to improper nutrition. It's nothing short
of a national crisis, if his research is to be believed.

Other countries, such as Finland have instituted higher standards for food
nutrition years ago, mandating things like minimum levels of selenium in
wheat, and the decline of some diseases like cancer since that time has been
nothing less then startling.

 

[JoeSP]

'nonsense' is a subjective opinion.

And how is that chicken manure generated? To collect pure chicken maure
you
have to have intensive ('factory') chicken 'farms'. That's not organic.


And why is that not possible? And, come to that, why do you NEED 2 or 3
times the price?


And there's the rub.

The biggest problem with organic agriculture is that it's still not playing
with a full deck. The concept is right, but its still a rough mix of fact
and fiction. Until science sorts out the myths from the reality, it
shouldn't be codified in law, or even adopted on a large scale, until the
real risks and benefits are known.

 

[JoeSP]

Why not?

Mary

We simply don't like to eat night crawlers, rats, grasshoppers, crows, stray
cats and slugs. If the same attitude applied to life on land, all those
things would be in the supermarket alongside crabs, mussels and sardines

That's all.

 

[Mary Fisher]

We simply don't like to eat night crawlers, rats, grasshoppers, crows,
stray cats and slugs. If the same attitude applied to life on land, all
those things would be in the supermarket alongside crabs, mussels and
sardines

I care very much about what I eat.

You say you don't like to eat those things. That suggests that you have
experience of eating them. Have you?

If you haven't you can't speak with authority.

I've eaten crow, it's very good. I've eaten grasshoppers, they're good too
when candied.

Many people in Europe in the war were kept alive by eating rats and cats.

Convention makes taboos which don't make sense.

I don't eat meat from supermarkets because I don't know how the animals have
been reared or slaughterd and it's important to me. I rarely eat chicken
because I refuse to support the horrible intensive rearing of poor birds,
the same applies to eggs. When I eat chicken it's culled cockerels from a
daughter's farm.

The only eggs we eat are from our own two bantams. They are recycled slugs,
snails, worms, woodlice, centipedes and goodness knows what else.

Do you eat eggs?