History of Farming in the 20th & 21st century
Archimedes Plutonium
to be written by a scientist of large stature such as myself. I can
start the book and hope that my future followers will fill-in the
details.
(1) Farming before the 20th century was great farming because it was
based on human and animal muscle power. The mathematical relationship
was that for every 50 calories of food produced by 19th century
agriculture that 1 calorie of food was spent in order to gain that 50
calories.
(2) The history of farming as it entered the 20th century and 21st
century is more akin to a spoiled kid who enters his relatives summer
cabin in the Rocky Mountains with a freezer loaded with good things to
eat such as chocolate ice cream and then begins to devour all the good
food. Likewise, farming for the 20th and 21st century with the
appearance of oil and machinery to farm, that farming has lost almost
all connection with land management and has become merely a job of
driving heavy machinery. It is hard to recognize that a modern day
farmer is anything different from a truck driver on the expressway. I do
not believe that farming as a profession ever meant to be a so much a
tractor driver and tractor mechanic.
(3) Like the kid who finds the summer cabin full of good things to eat
and becomes sick of eating those good things. So too has farming found
PETROLEUM in the 20th century so very abundant and cheap and allowing
farming to become so utterly mechanized.
(4) There is a Math Equation that defines Farming in past centuries and
in Future centuries. Defines farming even in the 20th and the 21st
century. This math equation is able to forecast the Farm Crisis and the
farm hardships of the 20th and 21st century.
(5) Math Equation for Farming: in muscle based agriculture 50 calories
of food energy are produced from 1 calorie of muscle energy spent to
produce those 50 calories. In Petrol based farming, for every 50
calories of petrol spent yields but 1 calorie of food.
(6) That equation above would have forecast and predicted a Farm Crisis,
that the price of oil fluctuates wildly and that oil based farming will
push farmers into larger and larger fields and push farmers into
surplusses of crops. And all of those crops created from the equation
that they spent 50 calories and reaped only 1 calorie. How fast will it
take for people to go bankrupt when they spend 50 dollars to get 1
dollar back?
(7) You cannot fight facts and science. You cannot dismiss the 50 to 1
math. What does happen is that the Farm community goes through many
Crisis. And eventually the US Government bankrolls the farmer as if the
farmer is some sort of serf to the government.
Only the Government can bankroll an operation that spends 50 units to
produce 1 unit.
(8) So, the history of Farming in the 20th century was that of becoming
familiar to the petrol driven tractor and thus the farmer seeing that
farming is now easier goes and buys up surrounding farmland to become
bigger and bigger. Failing to ever realize that the farmer is selling
his soul to oil/petrol. Failing to realize that the 20th century is a
oil bubble,
like the spoiled kid entering a stocked summer cabin full of goodies to
eat.
(9) And that as the 20th century rolled on with its Oil price rises,
more and more farmers went bankrupt in the Farm crisis of 1980s. Then
the US Government stepped into farming and that from 1980s to 2001,
farming is more and more a Government Dependency. If the government were
to get out of farming altogether-- most farmers could not afford the
petrol
to operate their farm. Farming in the last decades of the 20th century
became almost totally subsidized by the USA Government. As it was easily
predictable and forecastable since petrol based farming spends 50 units
of energy to produce 1 unit.
(10) SOME HOPE: there is alot of glimmering hope. Many farmers have
scaled down to small farms where their energy costs are muscle power by
themselves or hiring labor. They do Organic Farming and use petrol
machines rarely in their business. They do not use petrol based
fertilizer, petrol based insecticides or petrol based herbicides.
(11) Farmers who can make a living via muscle power on farms that use
little to no petrol are farmers that can make it in any century of
history. They are what farming was meant to be-- a Positive Net Gain. It
matters not if gasoline goes to $2 a gallon or $10 a gallon. Farmers who
live under the Math Equation that 1 unit of energy (muscle power) can
produce 50 units of food are farmers that have existed throughout
history. It is the farmers of the 20th and 21st century that have opted
for petrol based farming that will all eventually lose because the
equation that 50 units of energy spent to produce 1 unit can only exist
by subsidy and artificially.
(12) The world has a huge surplus of food grains and the reason for this
is because the world is allowing oil to be wasted on agriculture.
(13) In one of my other threads recently, a man replied that the main
reason planet Earth has grown from 1 billion people to 6 billion people
in the 20th century is for the reason that oil is so readily available
and cheap. Oil is finite and do we need to burn up so much oil in just
one century in order to 6 fold increase human population. Would it not
be better if planet Earth had just 1 billion humans and making the lives
of those 1 billion 6 times better than having 6 billion humans living a
short, nasty brutish life.
My Vision of Future Farming:
(1) It will be farming that pays attention to the Equation that for 1
unit of muscle power energy produces 50 units of food energy, and not
the reverse as in petrol based farming.
No petrol machinery or petrol products on future farms. Perhaps the
transportation to get those farm products to market will be the only
petrol used in agriculture.
(2) Many more people will be working in Agriculture and farming and the
food will all be Organic Grown Food simply because any petrol
application to farming is a net loss.
(3) The planet Earth will capp population growth and thus eliminate the
pressure placed on agriculture to increase food supplies. This is an
essential and vital component of farming. Only in a world environment of
population stabilization can other factors such as farming become
stable.
(4) Many more people will be on the farm in the future and their food
products much more appreciated and valued than what existed in 2001.
Jim Blair
...
>(1) Farming before the 20th century was great farming because it was
>based on human and animal muscle power. The mathematical relationship
>was that for every 50 calories of food produced by 19th century
>agriculture that 1 calorie of food was spent in order to gain that 50
>calories.
Hi,
Likely true. But it is an empirical relationship, not a "mathematical"
one. And it varies a lot with time and location.
>... It is hard to recognize that a modern day
>farmer is anything different from a truck driver on the expressway. I do
>not believe that farming as a profession ever meant to be a so much a
>tractor driver and tractor mechanic.
How do you know what farming was "meant to be"? And "meant" by who?
>.... So too has farming found
>PETROLEUM in the 20th century so very abundant and cheap and allowing
>farming to become so utterly mechanized.
Yes. And as a result, food is cheaper than ever, at least in the
Industrial world.
>
>(4) There is a Math Equation that defines Farming in past centuries and
>in Future centuries.
No, it does not DEFINE anything. It DESCRIBES the past and may or may not
accurately predict the future.
>...Defines farming even in the 20th and the 21st
>century. This math equation is able to forecast the Farm Crisis and the
>farm hardships of the 20th and 21st century.
Like with the wealther, the forecast is not always accurate.
>
>(5) Math Equation for Farming: in muscle based agriculture 50 calories
>of food energy are produced from 1 calorie of muscle energy spent to
>produce those 50 calories. In Petrol based farming, for every 50
>calories of petrol spent yields but 1 calorie of food.
An empirical relationship that may be approximately correct, but with much
variation according to time, place and crop.
>
>(6) That equation above would have forecast and predicted a Farm Crisis,
The "farm crisis" in the industrial nations today is that farmers grow too
much food for the market. Not what I would have predicted from your 50
units in for one unit out.
>that the price of oil fluctuates wildly and that oil based farming will
>push farmers into larger and larger fields and push farmers into
>surplusses of crops.
But populations have also expanded, so it is not clear that more energy
per unit of food would mean too much food for the population to eat.
>....And all of those crops created from the equation
>that they spent 50 calories and reaped only 1 calorie. How fast will it
>take for people to go bankrupt when they spend 50 dollars to get 1
>dollar back?
???? How did dollars get into this? The price of energy has been falling
as the energy per unit of food has increased. The PRICE of food has been
falling.
>
>(7) You cannot fight facts and science.
But you can mis-understand them. And do ;-)
....
>(10) SOME HOPE: there is alot of glimmering hope. Many farmers have
>scaled down to small farms where their energy costs are muscle power by
>themselves or hiring labor. They do Organic Farming and use petrol
>machines rarely in their business. They do not use petrol based
>fertilizer, petrol based insecticides or petrol based herbicides.
In the US and Europe, the "Organic" farmers also use tractors. It is the
Amish that plow with horses.
>
>(11) Farmers who can make a living via muscle power on farms that use
>little to no petrol are farmers that can make it in any century of
>history. They are what farming was meant to be-- a Positive Net Gain.
You mean Amish, not "Organic". And in most of the 3rd world, the
subsistance farmers.
>...It
>matters not if gasoline goes to $2 a gallon or $10 a gallon. Farmers who
>live under the Math Equation that 1 unit of energy (muscle power) can
>produce 50 units of food are farmers that have existed throughout
>history. It is the farmers of the 20th and 21st century that have opted
>for petrol based farming that will all eventually lose because the
>equation that 50 units of energy spent to produce 1 unit can only exist
>by subsidy and artificially.
>
>(12) The world has a huge surplus of food grains and the reason for this
>is because the world is allowing oil to be wasted on agriculture.
And on SUV's?
>
>(13) In one of my other threads recently, a man replied that the main
>reason planet Earth has grown from 1 billion people to 6 billion people
>in the 20th century is for the reason that oil is so readily available
>and cheap.
Well medicine was a factor also.
>...Oil is finite and do we need to burn up so much oil in just
>one century in order to 6 fold increase human population. Would it not
>be better if planet Earth had just 1 billion humans and making the lives
>of those 1 billion 6 times better than having 6 billion humans living a
>short, nasty brutish life.
Actually people are living longer today than in the past. Especially in
the industrial nations that use petroleum agriculture. And even (to a
lesser extent) where muscle power agricultue is used.
>
>My Vision of Future Farming:
>(1) It will be farming that pays attention to the Equation that for 1
>unit of muscle power energy produces 50 units of food energy, and not
>the reverse as in petrol based farming.
>No petrol machinery or petrol products on future farms. Perhaps the
>transportation to get those farm products to market will be the only
>petrol used in agriculture.
>
>(2) Many more people will be working in Agriculture and farming and the
>food will all be Organic Grown Food simply because any petrol
>application to farming is a net loss.
Back to the past? Live on the farm and grow your own food?
>
>(3) The planet Earth will capp population growth and thus eliminate the
>pressure placed on agriculture to increase food supplies. This is an
>essential and vital component of farming. Only in a world environment of
>population stabilization can other factors such as farming become
>stable.
"Stable"??
>
>(4) Many more people will be on the farm in the future and their food
>products much more appreciated and valued than what existed in 2001.
>
I sure hope you are all wrong. I perfer a future powered by new energy
sources, and expansion into space:the solar system, the galaxy, the
Universe.
That (to me) sounds much better that walking through horse shit growing
veggies and waiting for a comet or asteroid to wipe us out.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jerry W. Anderson
Food calories are not the same as thermodynamic calories.
The calorie used in referring to food is actually a kilocalorie.
The calorie used in referring to fuel is the the amount of energy
required to raise
one gram of water 1 degree centigrade.
So if your supposition is correct, 50 calories of gasoline produce 1
calorie of food.
ie 1000 theromodynamic calories.
BTW, I dispute your numbers.
jerry
--
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead
of altering their views
to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can
be very uncomfortable if you
happen to be one of the facts that needs altering. -- Doctor Who,
Face of Evil
Dean Hoffman
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in part:
>farming has lost almost all connection
> with land management and has become
> merely a job of driving heavy machinery.
> It is hard to recognize that a modern day
> farmer is anything different from a truck
> driver on the expressway.
Actually, farming has become more about land management. Soil
testing, better weed and pest control. more precise fertilizer
application and modern irrigation techniques are examples. This all
contributes to higher yields. They do a lot of planning before they
climb into their air conditioned tractors.
He closed with four predictions. Three of them are:
>Many more people will be working in
> Agriculture and farming and the food will
> all be Organic Grown Food simply
> because any petrol application to
> farming is a net loss.
>(3) The planet Earth will capp population
> growth and thus eliminate the pressure
> placed on agriculture to increase food
> supplies. This is an essential and vital
> component of farming. Only in a world
> environment of population stabilization
> can other factors such as farming
> become stable.
>(4) Many more people will be on the
> farm in the future and their food
> products much more appreciated and
> valued than what existed in 2001.
Wouldn't a return to organic farming mean we need a lot more land
to produce the same amount of food? Isn't it better to farm fewer
acres intensively, leaving the marginal land idle?
Do you envision population stabilization through starvation?
That's what prediction 3 seems to say.
Prediction 4 would be a reversal of a decades old trend, maybe
centuries. More people on the farm probably wouldn't be a positive
thing.
What if the discoverer of penicillin had to spend his days eking
out a living on a farm? Or the inventors of all the modern conveniences
we take for granted? Our lives would be a lot shorter and maybe poorer
in the cultural sense.
If memory serves me, one U.S. farmer feeds 117 other people.
Granted, not by himself. There's a lot of us in the food production
chain. Miners, steel workers, truck drivers, oil workers and bread
delivery men all contribute.
That still leaves a lot of others to invent, create and discover
things to better our lives. I don't see how more efficient farming is a
bad thing.
I don't have scientific credentials or claim large stature. All
I know is what I've seen growing up on a farm and working in the
irrigation business. Commodity prices stink now but things will work
out.
I don't have any business getting into a scientific argument. I
just wanted to mention a couple other things to consider for the big
picture.
Dean
Archimedes Plutonium
Dean Hoffman wrote:
>
>
> He closed with four predictions. Three of them are:
>
> >Many more people will be working in
> > Agriculture and farming and the food will
> > all be Organic Grown Food simply
> > because any petrol application to
> > farming is a net loss.
>
> >(3) The planet Earth will capp population
> > growth and thus eliminate the pressure
> > placed on agriculture to increase food
> > supplies. This is an essential and vital
> > component of farming. Only in a world
> > environment of population stabilization
> > can other factors such as farming
> > become stable.
>
> >(4) Many more people will be on the
> > farm in the future and their food
> > products much more appreciated and
> > valued than what existed in 2001.
>
> Wouldn't a return to organic farming mean we need a lot more land
> to produce the same amount of food? Isn't it better to farm fewer
> acres intensively, leaving the marginal land idle?
No, it means less land because the total number of people residing
on Earth is perhaps 3 billion in all and not the present day 6 billion.
It means less land in agriculture but many more working in
agriculture. Instead of 10% of the workforce working in agriculture
there would be 30% of the workforce in agriculture.
This "new & wise agriculture" uses no fossil fuel to grow food.
We allow petrol use in farming only to distribute the food products.
>
> Do you envision population stabilization through starvation?
> That's what prediction 3 seems to say.
We regulate Money Supply by the Federal Reserve. Likewise, we have
an International Body of Regulators who monitor the population
increases or decreases.
One of the best gauges of telling us whether too many people exist
is the Global Warming gauge-- too much global warming means too
many people consuming too much fossil fuel.
Another gauge is species and habitat destruction. We are extincting
many species and habitat by our petrol-based-farming. When we
capp population we also capp the need for more farmland and thus
preserve species and wild habitat.
>
> Prediction 4 would be a reversal of a decades old trend, maybe
> centuries. More people on the farm probably wouldn't be a positive
> thing.
> What if the discoverer of penicillin had to spend his days eking
> out a living on a farm? Or the inventors of all the modern conveniences
> we take for granted? Our lives would be a lot shorter and maybe poorer
> in the cultural sense.
> If memory serves me, one U.S. farmer feeds 117 other people.
> Granted, not by himself. There's a lot of us in the food production
> chain. Miners, steel workers, truck drivers, oil workers and bread
> delivery men all contribute.
> That still leaves a lot of others to invent, create and discover
> things to better our lives. I don't see how more efficient farming is a
> bad thing.
> I don't have scientific credentials or claim large stature. All
> I know is what I've seen growing up on a farm and working in the
> irrigation business. Commodity prices stink now but things will work
> out.
> I don't have any business getting into a scientific argument. I
> just wanted to mention a couple other things to consider for the big
> picture.
>
> Dean
My argument above depends a Barrier of Energy. It depends on my
theory of a Fusion Barrier Law. If the Fusion Barrier Law is correct
would mean that humans must shift towards renewable energy as
much as possible!! They must save the nonrenewable of coal, oil,
gas, uranium and thorium for future emergency and important needs.
If the Fusion Barrier Law is false, then our present day actions of
utter domination of this planet and the destruction and wiping out
of species and habitat in order to fit this planet to the maximum
with people would be acceptable. Acceptable because we have no
worries about energy since fusion of hydrogen secures our future.
And the human population explosion on Earth would speed up progress.
Population explosion would speed up technology progress and would
speed up our wish and desire to colonize space. And although it would
push many species into extinction-- such is par for the course for a
system that is speeding up in advancements.
I believe the Fusion Barrier Law is true and thus humans have to
go the course of reducing population, relying almost exclusively on
renewable energy and saving species and wildlife habitat. If the
Fusion Barrier Law is true and we continue in the direction we have
been going for the 20th century will lead to a premature extinction
of the human species. I believe the pulsar messages are many examples of
premature extinctions.
Jim Blair
>> Wouldn't a return to organic farming mean we need a lot more land
>> to produce the same amount of food? Isn't it better to farm fewer
>> acres intensively, leaving the marginal land idle?
Archimedes Plutonium <plut...@willinet.net> wrote:
>
>No, it means less land because the total number of people residing
>on Earth is perhaps 3 billion in all and not the present day 6 billion.
Hi,
The original statement is correct. Use of what you seem to call "organic"
agriculture (as opposed to "USDA Certified Organic" agriculture which uses
more petroleum than conventional agriculture) would use more land to grow
the same amount of food. Because horses or oxen or whatever also must
eat, and their food must also grow on some of the land.
>It means less land in agriculture but many more working in
>agriculture. Instead of 10% of the workforce working in agriculture
>there would be 30% of the workforce in agriculture.
Or are you assuming that people and not horses must pull the plows ?
Better make that 90% of the work force.
>
>This "new & wise agriculture" uses no fossil fuel to grow food.
>We allow petrol use in farming only to distribute the food products.
So you are not talking about USDA Organic food.
>> Do you envision population stabilization through starvation?
>> That's what prediction 3 seems to say.
>
>We regulate Money Supply by the Federal Reserve. Likewise, we have
>an International Body of Regulators who monitor the population
>increases or decreases.
Banks create money and Alan Greenspan sets the interest rates. People
create people and what is Alan Greenspan (or whoever) going to do about
it?
>
>My argument above depends a Barrier of Energy. It depends on my
>theory of a Fusion Barrier Law. If the Fusion Barrier Law is correct
>would mean that humans must shift towards renewable energy as
>much as possible!! They must save the nonrenewable of coal, oil,
>gas, uranium and thorium for future emergency and important needs.
>
>If the Fusion Barrier Law is false, then our present day actions
....would be acceptable.
>
>I believe the Fusion Barrier Law is true ....
The "Fusion Barrier" is like the Sound Barrier: just waiting to be broken.
It is obviously not a "law of nature" like the speed of light barrier.
Why? Because hydrogen is fused into helium all the time. In the stars.
Jim Blair
>Check your definitions.
>
>Food calories are not the same as thermodynamic calories.
>
>The calorie used in referring to food is actually a kilocalorie.
>
>The calorie used in referring to fuel is the the amount of energy
>required to raise
>one gram of water 1 degree centigrade.
>
>So if your supposition is correct, 50 calories of gasoline produce 1
>calorie of food.
>ie 1000 theromodynamic calories.
>
>BTW, I dispute your numbers.
>jerry
Hi,
I was assuming that he knows that and made the correction. I don't doubt
that modern agriculture puts more energy in to growing crops that we get
back in food energy. (and of course we spend more energy cooking the food
than growing it)
I doubt that his "50 times" is correct, but that is the lest of his
errors. And using draft animals takes a lot more land/sunlight to grow the
same amount of food, since the animals must also eat.
And he probably does not realize that gmo crops take less energy to grow
because of fewer tractor passes. And if gmo's can use nitrogen fixation,
they will need even less energy to grow. This become more of a factor as
petroleum gets more expensive.
D.A.Kopf
> Banks create money and Alan Greenspan sets the interest rates. People
> create people and what is Alan Greenspan (or whoever) going to do about
> it?
Any interest in making the latter might be reduced to zero if his recent
speeches could be used for some sort of ad nauseum media campaign...
Lucy Owsley
<snip>
> Hi,
>
> The original statement is correct. Use of what you seem to call "organic"
> agriculture (as opposed to "USDA Certified Organic" agriculture which uses
> more petroleum than conventional agriculture) would use more land to grow
> the same amount of food. Because horses or oxen or whatever also must
> eat, and their food must also grow on some of the land.
where do you get this? that certified organic ag uses more petroleum
than conventional ag? i am not necessarily disputing this, i realize
there is more passes thru a field in organic ag due to more cultivation
but than again there are no petroleum inputs as in fertilizers,
fungicides and pesticides. I would hazard that the organic folks may be
using more plastic mulches than conventional ag folks and they seem to
use poly tunnels and polyester and polyvinyl row covers than
conventional farmers. But do certified organic farmers really use more
petroleum overall?
>
> >It means less land in agriculture but many more working in
> >agriculture. Instead of 10% of the workforce working in agriculture
> >there would be 30% of the workforce in agriculture.
I agree the trade off of not using petroleum products is to use a lot
more labor. I figure teens could be put to good work in the fields
instead of watching TeeVee, playing nintendo and being a surely employee
who asks "do you want that super sized?" The kids would learn how to
really work, would use their bodies and would get out in the sunshine
and really learn where their food comes from (out of the ground, not a can!)
>
> Or are you assuming that people and not horses must pull the plows ?
> Better make that 90% of the work force.
> >
> >This "new & wise agriculture" uses no fossil fuel to grow food.
> >We allow petrol use in farming only to distribute the food products.
>
> So you are not talking about USDA Organic food.
Agreed-if no fossil fuels are used we may have to use college aged kids
as well as teens to work the farms. As a person who has been through the
certification process I can say that most farms do use tractors/tillers
and lots and lots of plastic as we don't have the labor force to avoid
such work savers.
>
<snip>
--
Lucy Goodman-Owsley
Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa
Looking for a CSA, Farmer's market or other venue for fresh local food?
Check out
http://www.localharvest.com
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong
Voltaire (1694-1778)
Marty Bernard
EarthVision Environmental News
WASHINGTON, May 8, 2001 - Manufacturing cars that got better gas mileage would do more to
cut the amount of oil imported into the US than opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
drilling says a new study. The study, a product of the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), says if the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks were to be increased by
just
five percent per year, within a decade 1.5 million barrels of oil per day would be saved. Over
40
years, this increased efficiency would translate into 10 to 20 times more oil than the
projected supply
from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than three times total US proven oil reserves
today the group says.
"Simply improving vehicle fuel economy five percent a year will do more to enhance US energy
security than all the oil drilling the Bush Administration is going to call for in its
forthcoming plan," said
Howard Geller, the study's author and former Executive Director of ACEEE.
Noting that cars and light trucks are getting worse when it comes to fuel efficiency, the study
says the
answers to reigning in oil imports lies in tougher fuel economy regulations, financial
incentives,
continued R&D, and more consumer education. According to the ACEEE study, technologies that
are commercially available could improve the fuel efficiency of new vehicles by up to 65
percent
within a decade.
For copies of Strategies for Reducing Oil Imports: Expanding Oil Production vs. Increasing
Vehicle Efficiency, contact the ACEEE publications office, phone: 202-429-0063; email:
ace3...@ix.netcom.com. The Executive Summary of the report is available at
http://aceee.org/pubs/e011.pdf.
--
*********************************************************************
Martin J. Bernard III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Station Car Association
Oakland, California
http://www.stncar.com
Information Exchange
Technical Support in Developing Station-Car and Shared-Car Programs
Assistance in Developing Funding
*********************************************************************
Timothy Miller
>Study: Better Fuel Economy Beats New Oil Drilling
> EarthVision Environmental News
>
>
> WASHINGTON, May 8, 2001 - Manufacturing cars that got better gas mileage would do more to
> cut the amount of oil imported into the US than opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
> drilling says a new study. The study, a product of the American Council for an Energy Efficient
>
> Economy (ACEEE), says if the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks were to be increased by
>just
> five percent per year, within a decade 1.5 million barrels of oil per day would be saved. Over
>40
> years, this increased efficiency would translate into 10 to 20 times more oil than the
>projected supply
> from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than three times total US proven oil reserves
>
> today the group says.
>
> "Simply improving vehicle fuel economy five percent a year will do more to enhance US energy
> security than all the oil drilling the Bush Administration is going to call for in its
>forthcoming plan," said
> Howard Geller, the study's author and former Executive Director of ACEEE.
>
Why not just mandate vehicles that are 1000% efficient and tap their
energy for electrical power while they are parked?
Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
> where do you get this? that certified organic ag uses more petroleum
> than conventional ag? i am not necessarily disputing this, i realize
It does not necessarily have to use more. In fact, if you look at an
Amish farm operation or any of the 19th century farms, they used
no petroleum.
>
> there is more passes thru a field in organic ag due to more cultivation
> but than again there are no petroleum inputs as in fertilizers,
> fungicides and pesticides. I would hazard that the organic folks may be
> using more plastic mulches than conventional ag folks and they seem to
> use poly tunnels and polyester and polyvinyl row covers than
> conventional farmers. But do certified organic farmers really use more
> petroleum overall?
> >
> > >It means less land in agriculture but many more working in
> > >agriculture. Instead of 10% of the workforce working in agriculture
> > >there would be 30% of the workforce in agriculture.
>
> I agree the trade off of not using petroleum products is to use a lot
> more labor. I figure teens could be put to good work in the fields
> instead of watching TeeVee, playing nintendo and being a surely employee
Ever since I moved back out West and have some land to take care of, I have
not been able to get back to bicycling. On the East Coast I got most of my
physical exercise by running and bicycling. Now, I get it every day by working
on the trees, lawn and garden. I think it is a darn shame that modern society
spends so much time with sports and exercise when they can get the same
exercise and yet do something constructive and worthwhile such as push reel
mower the lawn or build up enough firewood to last the whole winter via
Swede bow saw.
I wonder what percentage of people aged 10 to 30 comprise the total
population? Is it 30%? And would it not be a great idea that all these
young people had to spend some time in working in farm fields? I certainly
spent a long time working in horticulture in my youth.
>
> who asks "do you want that super sized?" The kids would learn how to
> really work, would use their bodies and would get out in the sunshine
> and really learn where their food comes from (out of the ground, not a can!)
> >
> > Or are you assuming that people and not horses must pull the plows ?
> > Better make that 90% of the work force.
> > >
> > >This "new & wise agriculture" uses no fossil fuel to grow food.
> > >We allow petrol use in farming only to distribute the food products.
> >
>
> > So you are not talking about USDA Organic food.
>
> Agreed-if no fossil fuels are used we may have to use college aged kids
> as well as teens to work the farms. As a person who has been through the
> certification process I can say that most farms do use tractors/tillers
> and lots and lots of plastic as we don't have the labor force to avoid
> such work savers.
> >
> <snip>
> --
>
> Lucy Goodman-Owsley
>
The 20th century was an abnormality century as far as farming is concerned.
It was the century that mechanized farming yet it should not be mechanized.
It was a century that we found oodles of cheap petrol to run modern civilization
and to run farming. But petrol is finite and will be very expensive in the
future.
Thus, we need to find out at what level of world population (is it 3 billion people
?) that this planet can sustain well. Where the Global Warming is neutralized.
Where all the farming is done on a Renewable basis-- petrol used only to
distribute farm food. Where a fair percentage of people are involved in
agriculture (perhaps 30%). In such a future vision can we have food for
everyone because we control human population, and where there is no
more degradation of environment nor species extinctions due to loss of
habitat. We control the most important variables rather than, as in the
past centuries where wars, famine, extinction of species were allowed to
happen and controlled us. In this 21st century, we can control the most
important variables-- human population size rather than population size
dictating to us an ugly world of shortages, pollution, competition to the
death and wars, famine disease.
Lucy Owsley
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Wed, 09 May 2001 13:58:27 -0400 Lucy Owsley wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > where do you get this? that certified organic ag uses more petroleum
> > than conventional ag? i am not necessarily disputing this, i realize
>
> It does not necessarily have to use more. In fact, if you look at an
> Amish farm operation or any of the 19th century farms, they used
> no petroleum.
>
> The Amish today use a lot of petroleum, they use lots of herbicide, fungicide and pesticide plus plastic mulches and other plastic items. the own trucks and hire drivers to take them places and they do indeed own tractors and again hire drivers.
Organic farming today is not the same farming as in 1900, neither is no
till or conventional or the Amish.
No I am assuming people will hoe, hand weed, plant seeds and
transplants, lay mulches down, and harvest the food, there is a lot more
to growing food than cultivation. Human scale farming is very labor
intensive and neither horses nor oxen can replace the human. Remember
too, horses are unpredictable and can and do kill and maim people. They
also have to have pasture and like company so if your are working with
under 10 acres a horse or 3 may not fit.
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> No I am assuming people will hoe, hand weed, plant seeds and
> transplants, lay mulches down, and harvest the food, there is a lot more
> to growing food than cultivation. Human scale farming is very labor
> intensive and neither horses nor oxen can replace the human. Remember
> too, horses are unpredictable and can and do kill and maim people. They
> also have to have pasture and like company so if your are working with
> under 10 acres a horse or 3 may not fit.
Lucy, I suspect the maximum return on Farming, that keeps the
soil from erosion and operates on human muscle power only. Is a
division of all farmland into 42 hectares. No petrol used, only
human muscle. That one person can take care of 42 hectares and
doing it with a "push reel mower". Pattern the farm crop such
that one can push reel the mower through the rows both
vertically and horizontally. The shearing becomes the herbicide
and the clippings becomes the fertilizer. Thus, you never
need any chemical herbicide nor chemical pesticide and since the
soil is rarely tilled means that you save the soil from erosion.
We should take example from natural woodlands and forests.
They thrive and prosper due to debris (clippings) on the forest
floor.
Future agriculture and farming can use petrol to distribute
farm products, but in the actual growing of crops, no petrol
should ever be used. And we can use biotech seeds to help use
in the fight for fungicides, viruses, bacteria, insecticides.
Both 20th and 21st centuries were horrible extravagant farming
practices of wasting valuable energy. Petrol farming wastes
50 units of energy in order to yield 1 unit of energy. Human
muscle farming yields 50 units of energy for every 1 unit
spent to get that 50 units.
Lucy, I suspect that in Europe where farms are much smaller
such as 42 hectares that some European farms already have
a push reel mower operation where they use shearing as the
herbicide and the sheared clippings as the fertilizer. I suspect
in Germany and Switzerland and Scandinavia that many farms
have already adopted a "no petrol" philosophy. Petrol is the
lazy-man farm and the unsustainable farming because with time
the price of petrol will ruin all large farms just on the energy
accounting ledger.
The major reason that the USA had a farm crisis circa 1980
was because petrol became too expensive and then by 2001
most USA farms are really government subsidy. The government
subsidy of USA farms is the shear act of paying for the petrol
that farms need. Only in a subsidy relationship of government
to farmer can such an unrealistic and surrealistic practice
continue where 50 units of energy are wasted just to produce
1 unit of energy in food.
Because humanity will never have a commercial Fusion Power
Grid, means that the use of petrol in farming has been one
huge "Farming Candyman Century". Farming in the 20th century
is like a teenager boy who first learns how to drive and we don't
expect him to be wise and practical behind the wheels, rather
instead we know he is going to hot-rod and accelerate and
behave foolishly often.
Farming in the 20th century was an aberration because it
had plenty of cheap petrol. Our energy futures are now
limited and thus, we must maximize farming to accomodate
the Energy Equations.
Jim Blair
>>
>> The original statement is correct. Use of what you seem to call "organic"
>> agriculture (as opposed to "USDA Certified Organic" agriculture which uses
>> more petroleum than conventional agriculture) would use more land to grow
>> the same amount of food. Because horses or oxen or whatever also must
>> eat, and their food must also grow on some of the land.
Lucy Owsley <goo...@infinet.com> wrote:
>
>where do you get this? that certified organic ag uses more petroleum
>than conventional ag? i am not necessarily disputing this, i realize
>there is more passes thru a field in organic ag due to more cultivation
>but than again there are no petroleum inputs as in fertilizers,
>fungicides and pesticides.
>...I would hazard that the organic folks may be
>using more plastic mulches than conventional ag folks and they seem to
>use poly tunnels and polyester and polyvinyl row covers than
>conventional farmers. But do certified organic farmers really use more
>petroleum overall?
Hi,
The big selling point of Bt and RoundUp Ready crops is that they cost the
farmer less to grow, mostly because of fewer tractor passes. The more
expensive the fuel, the more important that becomes.
Since the "USDA Organic" label is so recent, it will take a year of more
to get data on the actual petroleum used in producing that vs conventional
crops, but I am predicting that the "USDA Organic" will use more. The
pertoleum used in fungicides and pesticides is pretty small compared to
the diesel oil used to run tractors, and the fetrilizer production will be
largely offset by hauling and spreading manure.
And when/if gmo's use legume genes to fix nitrogen for grains, the USDA
Organics will surely take more petroleum.
jeb:
>> >It means less land in agriculture but many more working in
>> >agriculture. Instead of 10% of the workforce working in agriculture
>> >there would be 30% of the workforce in agriculture.
>
>I agree the trade off of not using petroleum products is to use a lot
>more labor. I figure teens could be put to good work in the fields....
They tried that in both China & Cambodia, but it didn't work out so well.