Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy

[Lurch]

but are the current agricultureal(sp?) practices of this country sustainable?

That's kind of the point of where we are going with the thread.
On the current model, no. In an organic model, no.
We need something new (I know not what) or less mouths to feed.

I agree with Lifthasir, population stabilization is not nearly enough. Boiling a little bit less in your kettle is spitting in the wind, toddling off down to the bottle bank is salving your concience.
The only way that the impact of human living on the environment can be reduced is by reducing the global population massively, in the order of billions.
Well meaning programmes to save lives in third world countries forget one vital thing which is that these saved lives will need food and drinking water - where are these to come from?
Not a terribly fashionable thought but one that really does need to be addressed.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ might be worth a read.

 

[Lifthasir]

That's a very good site, Lurch.

I do think that 'Global Warming' is a catch all marketing phrase. It's starting
to get people thinking - hence this thread. By taking small steps, we are starting
to do our bit, but as you reinforce Lurch, it's not going to mean much with
population control.

We will never revert to 100% organic. Living like Saxon settlers won't wash. There
is a huge difference btwn choosing to live like that and having no choice.

If tens of millions did their bit, there would be an impact. But not enough. It will
stretch out our resources and buy us some time. But with increasing longevity, it
will be years before the population falls even if birth rates decrease.

 

[Abbe Osram]

Here is a very good site too:

click here

cheers
Abbe

 

[Great Pebble]

I believe that at the last count, circa 1980 it was estimated that if every possible resource was used the UK could feed 40 Million souls without having to import any food.

This was considered rather depressing and they stopped taking the estimates

 

[Pappa]

Before I loose the will to live, I'll counter some specific points.

The FACT is this. Stop the use of fertilizers and pesticides over night and the result is apocalyptic starvation with a resulting collapse in society.

Nobody is sugestion stopping using chemical fertilisers instantaneously. Doing anything that suddenly would have a devestating impact. Organic agriculture isn't the same as agriculture was pre-synthetics, the technology has moved on significantly since then. Not only would farmers have to unlearn their current practices, they'd have to learn a whole host of new ones.

Your big quote also supports what I've been saying on this thread - that Global Warming and greehouse gases is largely bunkum...

No it doesn't, that's just twisting the interpretation. It suggest that nitrates pose even greater problems than global warming and greenhouse gases (as you yourself stated but in a slightly different way).

The OTHER problems with organic are:

1. yields are massively reduced

No they're not. Some studies have shown smaller yields while other studies have shown equal yields. No studies have shown that 'yields are massively reduced'. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity

2. it encourages massive weed growth which requires intensive labour to control

??? Are you pulling these out of thin air or something? Do you have any proof that organic farming encourages massive weed growth? Weeds are dealt with through various simple means like mulching.

3. it encourages pests which further decimate production

??? Again, are you just making these up? Organic farming is quite capable of managing pests.

4. whole crops can be lost because of a simple blight.

Good management and restistant strains. Resistant strains are one of the most important areas in organic research. There are hundreds of varieties of food crops which have been developed to be resistant to all manner of ailments, mainly through crossbreeding with heretiage seed varieties.

5. it is labour intensive - compare how many people worked the land a hundred years ago to how many do so today.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, organic agriculture now is not the same as agriculture pre-synthetics. They don't use the horse and cart any more. Even if it is more labour intensive, is that a bad thing? What's wrong with giving people jobs?

The other problem is the vegetarians (oh yes). They are the ones who want more cereals, more fruit and veg. How can we possibly live organically without having livestock to provide manure?

I'm not veggie and nor are the majority of people in this country. I don't think there's any chance that they're going to take over the world. I'm sure we'll have manure on this planet longer than crude oil.

Pappa

 

[Lifthasir]

OK..sorry to put 'liquid organic fertilizer' on the old bon fire. but:-

1Organic farming without horse/ox and cart - presume you mean we still need
tractors then? What's wrong with giving people jobs? I can only assume from
this that you are and always have been well-off and have never done hard farm
labour. I have, from the age of 11 until I was 17 and I'm glad to be out of it.
Of course, the harder people work, the more food they need so as not to go
hungry. Perhaps you mean 'everyone' else can do the labouring and you'll
just do the eating!

2. Science and technology has moved on inorganic farming. Science and
technology and organic - strange mix. Do you mean lab bound scientists
have cracked the secret code that thousands of years of agriculture couldn't?

3. Twisiting the interpretation - something the scientists do all the time in
order to secure funding.

4. The apocalyptic end of days that Global Waming and Climate Change that
we are force fed every day is actually a minor concern compared to the nitrogen
scare. What are we to believe?

5. Yields aren't that much smaller? Nonsense - ask any farmer. It's not just the yields, it's the predicatable forecast of yields. We need as close to guaranteed
yields as we can to ensure everyone gets fed. What about weeds which take
nutrition away from crops? A lot of farm land around thw world simply
couldn't sustain agriculture without fertilizers. You assume that ALL farm land
is perfect for organic farming. It isn't.

6. Assuming the Wikipedia article is correct and ignoring variations (such as
some farms are on such poor land they could never be organic), yields would
drop by 20%. That translates to 1.2billion people worldwide and 12 million people
in the UK would have no food. I take it you're not squeamish about so many
people starving? I guess 1.2 billion people and 20% is not massive. I wish I
could get a 20% pay rise!!

Taken from Smith et al. (1990):-
Average U.S. corn yield was predicted to decline by 41 percent[ without N fertilizer, or in other words N fertilizer was responsible for 41 percent of corn yield. The elimination of all pesticides and N fertilizer resulted in an estimated 53 percent decline in corn yield. Therefore, N fertilizer was responsible for the majority of corn yield among the inputs analyzed. The elimination of N in cotton production resulted in an estimated yield reduction of 37 percent, the largest of any single input group analyzed. The average estimated reduction in yield from elimination of N fertilizer of the six non-leguminous crops analyzed was 26 percent.

7. Weed growth - if you have a garden or a lawn you will be familiar with weeds.
If you have an allotment, you will know that unless you regularly weed your veggy
patch, weeds proliferate and starve crops of essential nutrients. This isn't
science - it's everyday fact. If we don't spray land with weedkiller, it has to be
weeded by hand. Then there are insects which devour nice fresh crops. Now,
the field at the back of me is about 45 acres. Have you any idea how many
people and how many days it would take to manually keep the weeds down?

8. You talk about resistant crops. I take it you mean either GM or other scientific
strains - both of which go against the 'organic' ethos. Any crop that 'repels'
insects is BAD for the ecosytem - no insects, no birds! These modern 'strains'
produce no seed - they are sterile. Experiements in India have led to local
starvation due to unforeseen crop failure - which when it's happened has been
total. So, it happens to both organic and 'modern strains'.

9. If you don't believe that organic fertilizer is poisonous I suggest you either
go to a local slurry pit, jump in and start eating, or have a wee on the same
square foot of grass for a few days and see what happens to the grass. All
fertilizers are bad if used in concentrations. If you put too much manure on
land and it washes off into the water course it's still a bad thing.

I'm all in favour of organic. I wish we could all have it but we can't. We can
introduce more and do things better, but it won't be enough. Technology isn't
going to go away. We we still need intervention. At best we will have a world
in which more produce is organic but we will have to rely on intensive farming
to keep us alive.

As much as I hate the French, they've got the closest to organic farming in
Europe and look how much it costs?

 

[Pappa]

Lifthasir, where to begin...

2. Science and technology has moved on inorganic farming. Science and technology and organic - strange mix. Do you mean lab bound scientists have cracked the secret code that thousands of years of agriculture couldn't?

This only confirms you don't know anything about organic farming and are pontification about it without any knowledge.

5. Yields aren't that much smaller? Nonsense - ask any farmer. It's not just the yields, it's the predicatable forecast of yields. We need as close to guaranteed yields as we can to ensure everyone gets fed.

Do you think organic farming is some slapdash affair that relies on luck for yields? And what exactly would qualify a conventional farmer to know anything about organic farming? The average conventional farmer would know as much as you about organic cultivation (which, it is clear to me now, is nothing).

You assume that ALL farm land is perfect for organic farming. It isn't.

One of the main points behind organic cultivation is improving soil fertility by the addition of organic matter (not necessarily high in nitrogen).

6. Assuming the Wikipedia article is correct and ignoring variations (such as some farms are on such poor land they could never be organic), yields would drop by 20%.

You have quoted only one out of three possible yields mentioned in the same paragraph; which were 100%, 80% and 95-100%.

7. Weed growth - if you have a garden or a lawn you will be familiar with weeds. If you have an allotment, you will know that unless you regularly weed your veggy patch, weeds proliferate and starve crops of essential nutrients. This isn't science - it's everyday fact. If we don't spray land with weedkiller, it has to be weeded by hand. Then there are insects which devour nice fresh crops. Now, the field at the back of me is about 45 acres. Have you any idea how many people and how many days it would take to manually keep the weeds down?

Again I can only resort to suggesting you know nothing about organic practices. As I have mentioned, mulching is an effective form of weed control and is used extensively. Also there are various mechanical and thermal methods of removing weeds; they don't have to be pulled up 'by hand'. It is also important to realise that complete eradication of weeds is not desirable in organic systems, as weeds provide various benefits of their own.

8. You talk about resistant crops. I take it you mean either GM or other scientific strains - both of which go against the 'organic' ethos.

There are no GM strains in organic cultivation, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe that strains produced through the science of plant breeding go against the organic ethos. Science and organic cultivation are not mutually exclusive. Modern organic methods rely heavily on huge advances made in the science of organic cultivation over the past 50 years.

Any crop that 'repels' insects is BAD for the ecosytem - no insects, no birds!

That would only apply in a monoculture. Under organic polyculture (the norm for organic cultivation) some plants may repel certain insects without harming the ecosystem.

These modern 'strains' produce no seed - they are sterile.

Unless you are refering to GM strains which are intentionally sterile, theat is not necessarily true. Some conventionally bred strains are sterile, but that is not the case with most/all strains.

9. If you don't believe that organic fertilizer is poisonous I suggest you either go to a local slurry pit, jump in and start eating, or have a wee on the same square foot of grass for a few days and see what happens to the grass. All fertilizers are bad if used in concentrations. If you put too much manure on land and it washes off into the water course it's still a bad thing.

I know all fertilisers are 'poisonous', but you miss the point of what I was saying. Organic fertilisers are part of the natural nitrogen cycle, synthetic fertilisers are not. Synthetic fertilisers add a huge ammount of nitrogen to a system which is unable to recycle it quickly enough. Organic fertilisers add nothing (although they clearly can be responsible for localised pollution in the same way as synthetic fertilisers).

Pappa

 

[Lifthasir]

Pappa, unlike you I've worked on a farm and in market gardening. I have several
acres of my own, grass, some trees, shrubs and a large allotment on which
I grow spuds, cabbage, carrots, sprouts plus fruit so don't tell I don't know
what I'm talking about. I don't use chemicals at all!!!Everything I grow is organic and I can't tell you how much gets eaten by birds, caterpillars etc..but there's
always plenty for me. My soil is heavy clay - it takes a lot of working. Lot's of
compost and manure and fingers crossed for some hard frosts over winter.

You've NEVER farmed so don't talk about farmers as though they are thick. They are infintitely more qualified than you or me about farming.

The principles of farming don't change. You obviously read a lot of fanciful
books but have no practical experience.

I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit into your cosy view of the world.

Fertilzer that is low in nitrogen is a rubbish fertilizer. You obviously don't understand the basic mechanics of how things work. If organic fertilizers add
nothing (as you say), then they add nothing i.e. they are not fertilizers. Synthetic
adds as much nitrogen as it does. If a farmer uses too much - it's too much. If
too little - too little (and yields drop).

Where are you going to find the mulch to spread over 100,000's of acres. There
isn't enough to go around!!!

Look, farmers don't have a conspiracy to poison the world. They don't get
together and decide to use chemicals just out of spite. They do it for a reason.

Here is perhaps the answer to the debate:-

The only organic source of food which people eat on a regular basis is - FISH.

The North Sea is just about fished out, not of one species but most. This
is repeated in many other areas around the world. We are talking about huge
things like seas and oceans. Not enough fish in the sea..

My advice to you is pop out and meet some local farmers. Ask them about their
soil types, profit margins and yields. Explain to them how you think it should work
and sit back whilst they call the blokes in the white coats.

Also, take a walk around the edge of an everage arable field. See how long it
takes you and then imagine popping out with your hoe, your fork and spade and
imagine how much manure it will take to cover it. How long it will take to break
down and how long to enrich the soil and how long it will last. Ask yourself
how much the livestock population will have to increase to supply the manure
and how many 1000's of extra acres it will take to grow crops to feed them.

Ask yourself why we import basic food items - not for a laugh - because if we
don't people will starve - the poor people first.

As I've said before...organic is great but you can't feed 6.5 billion people with it!!

 

[Pappa]

Pappa, unlike you I've worked on a farm

Actually I have worked on a farm.

You've NEVER farmed so don't talk about farmers as though they are thick. They are infintitely more qualified than you or me about farming.

I said they don't know anything about organic farming, not farming in general.

Fertilzer that is low in nitrogen is a rubbish fertilizer.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Not all plants require high nitrogen fertiliser. It can be derimental to many plants, producing unhealthy growth. That's a fact whether you're using organic or synthetic fertiliser. Many applications require the use of low nitrogen fertiliser.

Where are you going to find the mulch to spread over 100,000's of acres. There isn't enough to go around!!!

Non biodegradable mulch is quite common. There's quite a lot of it. It's even made in factories.

My advice to you is pop out and meet some local farmers. Ask them about their soil types, profit margins and yields. Explain to them how you think it should work and sit back whilst they call the blokes in the white coats.

As I've said, you don't know much about modern organic practice (otherwise you wouldn't have made all those wise remarks about science and organic being odd bedfellows), and modern farmers don't either. Farmers have to learn to grow organically.

I was at least having an intelligent arguement with Lurch (who I respect for his opinions), but you just seem to be attacking everything I have to say about organic practices without knowing anything about it yourself. You've pulled quotes out of context to suggest yields under organic systems would dramatically decline, and you've made some really daft assumptions about organic practice (as if it's a return to Saxon times). I don't mind people being ignorant about organics, but you're ignorant and opinionated about the subject. The only reason I've continued posting here is so other readers don't end up believing the drivel you keep spouting.

If you really believe organic farming is an imposibility, take a look at Cuba. Cuba is entirely self sufficient and synthetic fertilisers are banned. All cultivation is organic. Now, I'll admit our island is 2.4 times as densely populated as theirs, but we don't even know if Cuba is producing its maximum potentail yield, and it seems to feed itself quite well. I don't think there was a massive population collapse after Communism ceased in the USSR (and help from there stopped), they just became self sufficient.

Pappa

 

[Lithril]

I don't think we're actually making any progress here and the arguements are getting personal, everyone has their opinion and we have to accept that, we're also a LONG way off track from the initial opening.

I'm locking this thread, if anyone has a problem with it then PM me.

Matt