Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

25%-30% of Harvestors Quiting

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Unread postby pip » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 17:54:29

I've got 160 acres of wheat to harvest this year. The custom harvesters that have done it the last few years have not called yet and I've lost their card. From the article, it looks like they might be out of business. I've got a local guy with one combine lined up, but I'm third on his list.

I still think ag will survive. By my calculation, I could continue to grow wheat as I do now if I planted about 15% of my acres to canola and make biodiesel. I think the industry's got some slack if you look at all the grain going to animal feed. However, the painfulness to change may be pretty great.
Last edited by pip on Wed 08 Jun 2005, 18:03:21, edited 1 time in total.
The road goes on forever and the party never ends - REK
User avatar
pip
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed 21 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Republic of Texas

Unread postby bruin » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 18:03:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', 'I')'ve got 160 acres of wheat to harvest this year. The custom harvesters that have done it the last few years have not called yet and I've lost their card. Looks like they might be out of business. I've got a local guy with one combine lined up, but I'm third on his list.

I still think ag will survive. By my calculation, I could continue to grow wheat as I do now if I planted about 15% of my acres to canola and make biodiesel. I think the industry's got that much slack if you look at all the grain going to animal feed. But the painfulness to get there may be pretty great.


There's going to be a lot less hamburgers in the PO world. Didn't really think of it till now, but fast food hamburgers are going to get walloped by PO.
User avatar
bruin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu 09 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: CA, USA

Unread postby MicroHydro » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 18:23:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruin', 'f')ast food hamburgers are going to get walloped by PO.


Well, that will cut down on colon cancer, breast cancer, and heart disease, which will be good since there will be fewer resources available for health care.
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Taskforce_Unity » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 18:39:19

The most energy doesn't go to primary production (actually producing the crops) the most energy goes to processing and secundary production

It's a 1 to 5 ratio


1 energy unit on primary
5 energy units on secundary

Go and read the book eating oil from 1976.. its ALL in there (the ratio's)
User avatar
Taskforce_Unity
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Holland

Unread postby eric_b » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 19:52:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'M')oreover, global warming will certainly decrease what is left to harvest in the post peak oil world.


Sure. Global Warming might happen. But it will not be because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is... water vapour! Responsible for +98% of the greenhouse effect. It is the sun activity and earths distance and tilting towards the sun which make a difference.


You're correct that water vapor is the greenhouse gas.

However you're likely incorrect about increasing CO2 levels (fact)
not causing GW. It's thought that CO2 raises temps indirectly
by how it couples with water vapor. That is, increased CO2 levels will
eventually (if not already) lead to increased levels of water vapor in
the atmosphere. Many computer models seem to bear this out.

The precession of the Earth's axis, distance from sun, seasonal tilting,
etc. are quite accurately accounted for in most computer models -- these
factors are not significant as far as climate (at least for the next few
centuries). The sun's output does vary, but only minutely (fractions of a percent)
and is more than compensated for by the measured 'global dimming'
(up to 20-30 % !!) taking place in many areas of the globe due
to particulate pollution caused by human activities. Ironically global
dimming may be offsetting the warming due to rising CO2 levels.
There's some evidence that solar output is slightly higher during
the 11 year maxima of the sunspot cycle, and there's some evidence that
increased sunspot activity (charged particles) can effect the extent of
cloud cover on the Earth, but again not enough to offset GW.

Of course, at this point, it's anyones guess as to whether GW is a fact,
though the weight of the evidence (more and more) is pointing towards
it. The 'GW signal' appears to be accelerating.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 20:06:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('albente', 'I') was building a small garden for vegetables this spring in our backyard and couldn't believe how much physical work was involved. It took me a whole day to move the earth for a mini field of just 4 square meters and I did sweat like a pig.


Digging isn't necessary for gardening.

No digging (except to plant the apple tree in the middle) for this garden of mine, now producing tasty tomatoes:

Image
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby RonMN » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 20:35:29

I'm not sure i understood you Pops. I was talking about his 120 acres feeding "him & his family", with some left over to sell...not feed denver or dallas. (?)
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 20:44:27

Having maintained small gardens for years, there is plenty of work involved. However, once a garden is in place, you do have it a bit easier in the spring, but crop rotation, fertilizing, and garden safe bug killers (i use neem, BT) are a requirement in my book.

I don't know if we can feed the world/let alone the country without the necessary inputs of fertilizer and weed/bug killers.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Unread postby Pops » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 21:43:40

My point Ron, is that his 120ac feeds more than his family today. Should he (and every other producer) decide to feed ONLY his family, that leaves out the others he is feeding now, including to a large part - me.


Ludi, while I appreciate your tomatoes (pardon the expression) – man doesn’t live by tomatoes alone. Not to start an argument, but what happens to the garden when the tree grows and shades the tomatoes? Or in planting the tomatoes next year (without digging) you cut the feeder roots of the apple? Or in watering the tomatoes you drown the tree?


I like to work less and gain more, but I also believe after these many eons of agriculture, there is no free lunch.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 22:31:50

Pops, you seem to believe that hard work is necessary, and I wouldn't want to try to convince you otherwise. I don't like hard work, personally. That's why I study and implement the methods of Bill Mollison and Masanobu Fukuoka.

In the garden depicted, in a few years the tree will overshade the planting bed and I'll have to plant something which requires less sun than tomatoes. In Central Texas, we tend to have an oversupply of sun, so I'll welcome the shade. The roots of the apple won't be in particular danger from planting, as only small holes are dug (oh no! And I said no digging!) with a little hand tool to plant the vegetables. When this bed is overshaded, I will have started another bed for tomatoes elsewhere. I don't see any danger in drowning the apple tree, as apples are fairly flexible in their water requirements. Tomatoes don't require a great deal of water, so drowning just isn't an issue in this case.

I recommend Bill Mollison's "Permaculture: a designers' manual" for complete information about permaculture.

I'm not sure why the idea of hard work is so important to many people here. Is it some kind of Puritan Work Ethic? I prefer my Hedonist Sloth Ethic. :)

Eons of agriculture have developed a way of growing food which is terrifically labor intensive. People like Mollison and Fukuoka are trying to break the bad habits of this old style of agriculture, and they have been very successful with their methods.
Ludi
 

Unread postby RonMN » Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:41:30

Ludi...if you know of a non-labor intensive way to garden...please point the way (links, book titles, etc.)...I know my gardens are very labor intensive and i'm only talking 2 - 12 foot by 12 foot gardens (nowhere near enough to actually feed myself).

I understand now Pops...I'm not saying for everybody to ONLY think of themselves...however if there comes a time where there is nobody to harvest the 120 acres of wheat...no trucks to haul it anywhere...there's really no point in planting all wheat & at that point it would be time (past time) to focus on feeding yourself & family & help immediate neighbors as best ya can...that's all.

Ya know it get's frustrating to think how much easier it would all be if EVERYBODY was aware of PO and accepted it.

1 person building a lifeboat for 1 is almost impossible.
2 people building a lifeboat for 2 is tough...but doable.
3 people could build a lifeboat for 5.
5 people could build a lifeboat for 10...ya see, the results of working as a team grow exponentially with each additional person involved...but instead of joining in the work, 97% just don't wanna hear it. Some times it really makes me wanna bitch-slap somebody :) but i don't...i don't really know why...but i don't.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota

Unread postby aldente » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 00:25:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('albente', 'D')riving by the large mechanically plowed fields the next day I realized that there is no way on this earth to go back to an agriculture that is managed by hand, not even remotely


Uhu..? Fair enough. What do you suggest as alternatives then? Foraging? Starvation? Or the "C" word?


The answer is bretherianism: no intake of food or water alltogether. Pretty crazy I know but would be the correct answer. YoganandaImage
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby katkinkate » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 05:41:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'P')ops, you seem to believe that hard work is necessary, and I wouldn't want to try to convince you otherwise. I don't like hard work, personally. That's why I study and implement the methods of Bill Mollison and Masanobu Fukuoka.....


Aahh Ludi, I agree completely. Fukuoka san is my sensei.
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 05:45:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not sure why the idea of hard work is so important to many people here


I've no idea about this either, though i know protestantism is one thing you can blame for that. John Locke as well. And that whole 'the devil will make work for idle hands' idea.

i've no idea why people think consistent hard work for 50 years of your life is a good thing. yes, a little bit of hard work can give you a sense of satisfaction if you get to 'own' the end result, but people generally dont now. they go to work, do some tasks which have the function of gaining money for their employer, then the employer pays them just enough so that they dont run off to a competitor employer, but no more - making money from the employee in the process.

its shoved down your throat every day though from all angles 'If you'd only work hard, one day you'll be a millionaire!'. The only people who really benefit from a compliant, hard working populace are the people who own the capital and means of production. The workers simply get fobbed off with enough cash to buy crappy things and go on holiday once in a while.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland
Top

Unread postby RonMN » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 07:37:03

The cold hard fact is that most "millionairs" got to that position by

1- working hard every day of thier lives.
2- taking calculated risks
3- spending SMART...not buying crap products...not buying fancy cars...not going on vacation...

but slowly, smartly, accumulating their wealth over years & years. I saw 1 show on casinos where a worker said he saw bill gates a few times...and it was RARE that bill would ever gamble but on the occasions that he did, he never bet over 5 dollars!

If you see a supposed "millionare" driving a rolls & spending ike there's no tomorrow, chances are he'll be broke in a couple years or he's living on credit cards already! More than 60% of all million dollar + lottory winners are broke & have NOTHING to show for it.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 08:02:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'L')udi...if you know of a non-labor intensive way to garden...please point the way (links, book titles, etc.)...


Bill Mollison - "Permaculture: a designers' manual"

http://www.permacultureactivist.net/


Masanobu Fukuoka - "The One Straw Revolution" "The Natural Way of Farming" "The Road Back to Nature"

"Most farmers begin by asking, what if I do this or what if I do that, but only dissipate themselves that way. My approach just the opposite, seek the pleasant, natural way of farming. In order to make the work easier, not harder, I ask, how about not doing this or how about not doing that? By actual practice I finally reached conclusion there is no need to plow, no need to apply artificial fertilizer, no need to use pesticides at all. Most of the work of farming is created by tampering with nature, which causes negative side effects. Very few agricultural practices are even necessary, just scattering seed, spreading straw on the soil and harvesting." - Masanobu Fukuoka
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 08:50:39

Funny. We pay $5 a gallon and have no problems with our harvesters.

When do you think we see the first hybrid harvester?
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Unread postby Leanan » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 09:09:24

What Pop said. Of course agriculture will survive. I would say it's probably the best field you could be in, at least if you have the option to switch to subsistence farming and aren't dependent on irrigation.

The problem is all the other people, who aren't farmers now. A hundred years ago, something like 97% of Americans were farmers. Now, it's the opposite. 3% of Americans are farmers, and they feed the rest of us.

Permaculture, I'm afraid, is a luxury. They bill it as the "natural" way to farm. They're right; it is likely how farming was in the beginning. Even hunter-gatherers do some farming; they just don't work very hard at it.

So, why have we drifted away from the "natural" way to farm? For same reason we pursued complexity in general. We were forced to.

Here's a couple of what I see as likely scenarios of how post-peak agriculture might play out:

1) As happened during the LA riots, the police are unable or unwilling to intervene, and hordes of hungry people raid and loot farms. Some farmers manage to fight off the interlopers, but to do this, they need more people...which means farming more intensively to feed them all.

2) We move toward a totalitarian state. The government confiscates all arable land, and forces people to become farm laborers. Naturally, they too lean toward farming intensively, so they can feed the people and avoid widespread rebellion.

In either case, there will be a lot of pressure toward intensive farming, just because of the population we have to feed.

I think that's one thing a lot of people don't get. Oil has given us agricultural surpluses, and the means to move them when they are needed. No longer do large numbers of people starve to death or significant political unrest follow when there's a bad year. That will change, and it's going to be a hell of a shock to a people who believe obesity is the biggest health problem they face.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 09:17:51

Why would it be considered a "luxury" to produce the same or greater yields of food as conventional agriculture for less work? This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not saying you don't have to work hard if you want to, what I'm saying is, this kind of hard work isn't necessary. You can bust your ass all you like, but merely working harder isn't going to produce greater yields. At least if you insist on working hard, use Biointensive techniques which produce very high yields in a small area.

I know I'm going against the flow here, but I'm trying to save people from going back to an horrendously difficult way of life.

http://www.growbiointensive.org/
Ludi
 

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron