I grow plenty of my own organic produce, there is no question it is higher quality, my only point it that only some humans can live in such a way, if there are to be 7 billion humans some must live off of foods grown with fertilizers derived from natural gas. This is where my statistic came from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
The Haber process now produces 450 million tonnes of nitrogen fertilizer per year, mostly in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, and urea. Three to five percent of the world's natural gas production is consumed in the Haber process (around 1–2% of the world's annual energy supply).[3][15][16][17] In combination with pesticides, these fertilizers have quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land:
With average crop yields remaining at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land and the cultivated area would have claimed nearly half of all ice-free continents, rather than under 15% of the total land area that is required today.[18]
Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's 7 billion.[19] Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process
Thanks for that link, I was not aware of the fine points of that situation.
I notice, though, that the nitrogen availability from the Haber process i 'credited' with causing the population explosion!
So it is not really valid logic to say that the process is needed, when it is the cause of the evidence for it's own need. This is a bit like a heroin addict saying that he absolutely needs heroin because heroin has changed his makeup/balance - when in truth the alleged need is only present due to the heroin.. It is a circular reasoning.
I still suspect that it is possible for the many billions of people to grow food without such industrial nitrogen generation, but I suspect a wiser outcome is for us to recognise the effect our lack of balance is having on life here and making intelligent decisions to reverse the situation.
it would be more like an alcohol addict saying he needs alcohol, because in fact alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. now that we have 7 billion people, with half of the tissue made from natural gas, not using that anymore would be fatal to having that many people.
The lack of nitrogen is one major problem the other problem is with soil erosion, traditional farming and organic farming uses tilling to various degrees, over time this leads to a loss of topsoil which threatens the productivity of the land. No till farming doesn't till up the land and destroy the soil structure, there is far less soil erosion, deeper roots that need less watering and less runoff but to do it they have to use herbicides. People are trying to develop organic no till techniques but so far have not had much success.
We have had a ton of success with agroforestry. Many polyculture methods are not included in scientific research because of the difficulty in keeping track of so many variables.
There are solutions, and I have every confidence that we will be able to continue to develop them.
Greetings! By 'agroforestry' are you referring to the kind of 'food forest' ideas found in permaculture schools? Or something else?
Well, yes is the easiest answer, we have been working so hard to put scientifically what permaculture says poetically. Agroforestry is a recognized agricultural technique in science, whereas permaculture is mostly viewed as 'feelings' and handwaving.
When you start getting four or more different yields out of a plot of land (we have plots with 12+) it takes a lot of extra work to keep all the relevant data recorded, and data entry is suddenly not an entry level position.
We have the most success with a nitrogen fixing tree and handful of nitrogen fixing ground covers being used around modified commercial croppings.
The point is, there are people working to solve these problems, and the math of what is being done doesn't always apply to what can be done.
I see, ok, so it is a formal definition of the ideas that permaculture provides a less scientific definitions for already, perhaps.
Yes, I am clear that the problems of this kind are solved by simply realising that we need to operate as natural humans which live in harmony with nature - which means understanding and respecting nature's intelligence and balance. Learning what combinations work best can be fun and exciting - which is an entirely opposite approach to that of the death/greed machine that pollutes and exploits at every opportunity.
Can you explain further what you mean by:
?
Thanks
Absolutely, I love permaculture, and when I found it I was so excited but quickly got ridiculed by many more 'scientific minded' practitioners. Agroforestry is only one concept among many that permaculture provides. And the marriage of the efforts continues, obviously we all want to build an abundant future (or at least I assume the best intentions by all ;)
I guess, in terms of 'the math', its not the first time that the current math has been used to explain how something 'has to be done', when in reality the future has a whole new calculus. The original Malthusian calculations assured us that we couldn't get to where we are today, but obviously here we are. And math and science tend to simplify so many things, can it even account for the change if everyone started growing in pots on their window sills or if we start growing meat in laboratories or a million other unforseen technologies and possibilities?
Love and Light to you!
I think it is a great option for certain applications but it is not a replacement for commercial scale production, how many acres per farmer are you cultivating?
I think that someone will figure out how to do organic no till farming but the amount of nitrogen required to grow a certain amount of plants is also a math problem to some extent and so is how much can be fixed naturally and how much can be derived from other natural sources. I am sure you can make good money growing hardwood and mushrooms but that won't produce the amount of corn, soy, wheat and oats that humans need and if everyone did it then the prices of hardwood and mushrooms would plummet and then it would be much less profitable. I would like to grow hardwoods, ginseng, mushrooms honey and maple syrup at some point but if everyone did that then it would ruin it as a money maker.
Yes you make very good points, luckily there are lots and lots of different species to grow ;p
We start by fixing as much nitrogen as we can, growing lots of forrage and grazing sheep to keep the weeds down. I know all about erosion, in the Colombian Andes we deal with some of the steepest cultivated slopes in the world!
And we must take every solution available, I think lab grown meat might have an important place in the future even though I have only read about it and am working on other solutions. I think a lot of urban spaces need more green, window pots, green roofs, whether or not they are growing food or just flowers, they reduce energy costs (more natural gas left for fertilizers, if need be ;p).
My idea is to go for everything, I can only do so much but I know that others are working on a lot of other stuff. So if I say that we are increasing output with less input by going '4d', [the third dimension is vertical (agroforestry) and the 4th, time (rotational)]. We fix as much as we can and do bring in rice husk, saw dust and some chicken manure.
Even if this generation can only achieve less artificial nitogen per calorie, we know that the right direction is mimic-ing natural systems more not further increasing global economies of scale with monoculture.
Our micro region has 8 families on 80 acres but we are cultivating less than 40 and have a vision that will lead to many more famies and a sustainable community in our area. It will take probably longer than our lives to do everything that we dream of doing ;p
I agree with all that but it also brings up another important problem, the average American farm is over 400 acres and we have a serious shortage of farmers now, in fact the government will pay and support anyone willing to get into farming because of the shortage.
So true! I noticed you grow a bit of your own food - Do you consider yourself a 'farmer'?
In a sense it is more like alcohol, yes - though as with alcohol there is a tried and tested process for ending the dependency.
In System Engineering we have the concept of parallel systems, whereby the legacy system is replaced with a new approach, but the old system is run in parallel for a while to make sure the new system works as intended. If we allow the chemical corporations to be absolutely required for survival DUE to their OWN previous effects, it would be like allowing us to be dependent on alcohol or heroin dealers for our survival.. Not good at all. If we look at the polluting effects of the situation it is likely that death will be the outcome anyway if no changes are made.
I am aware that soil erosion is a problem. In terms of effective replacements for herbicides, there are several ideas here: 1. living mulch - whereby plants are deliberately allowed to spread that prevent other plants from gaining roots (e.g. strawberries or less dense plants). 2. A completely different approach is used, such as is found in permaculture - e.g. food forests. 3. Wood chip mulch - which can be a by product from food forests. All of these will prevent soil erosion.
Soil erosion is specifically worsened by having large open fields with no wind breaks - again, this is an effect of the greed driven farming methods in use today, whereby ancient and natural forests are completely removed.
or we could learn to use alcohol responsibly and have a great time and not blame the alcohol dealer if we abuse it.
Those things are all great for your garden or for a hippie commune, permaculture is great for gardens it's just not practical for commercial scale agriculture, hippies tiptoeing through their food forest can't produce the sort of output per acre and requires massive amounts of labor compared to no till farming. One farmer can literally farm thousands of acres by himself. The average American farmer feeds 155 people.
No till farming reverses soil erosion. But it also requires roundup. Indeed farmers are driven by a profit motive, farming is a business and farmers choose to do that which makes them the most money, they choose no till farming because it is profitable.
Windbreaks are important but erosion happens in farmer's fields as a result of tillage breaking up the soil.
In America we cleared to forests for agricultural land long ago, if you want there to be less land used for agriculture then there needs to be more productive methods used, switching to less productive methods would require much more land to be used for agriculture. There are far more trees than there were in 1900 in America.
I have a video somewhere from Hawaii where a farmer has converted his whole farm to use the methods I am describing and has had great results.. I tired to find it earlier, but the video creator has 1000s of videos.. I will look again.
I have no doubt that such farmers exist and that they get great results, but that does not mean that all farms could be replaced by organic farms, not without there being several billions fewer mouths to feed. I use only organic methods in my garden and they work great but I am not trying to feed 155 people like the average American farmer.
The methods he is using are sustainable as far as I am aware, but I need to rewatch it.