Those are nice books phil but they don't change the reality of the marketplace.
All that counts is what consumers buy. They buy what is cheap, pretty and tasty and sometimes what is fashionable.
Corn makes beef cheap and juicy, makes soda pop cheap and sweet, makes chicken, fish, and dairy cheap and cheaper.
Blame the situation on anything that makes you feel better; the G man, the ad man, the tax man, Gregor Mendel or Borlaug.
But regardless it boils down to if it didn't pay, it wouldn't get done.
PeakOil is You
The Importance of the Haber Process
Re: The Importance of the Haber Process
by Pops » Sun 12 Apr 2015, 14:45:03
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)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops - Elite
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Re: The Importance of the Haber Process
by KaiserJeep » Sun 12 Apr 2015, 17:00:31
By <insert deity name of choice here> you are a Capitalist after all, Pops. 
It must have been your time spent as a Gentleman Farmer.
It must have been your time spent as a Gentleman Farmer.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
- KaiserJeep
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6094
- Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
- Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland
Re: The Importance of the Haber Process
by DesuMaiden » Mon 13 Apr 2015, 02:41:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChilPhil1986', 'B')ecause the green revolution ruined farming, pops. It took the most basic element of western civilization, something even the most disadvantaged among us could do safely (like me, who's deaf enough to not integrate easily in society) and forced it to industrialize and took it out of the 'peasant class' hands. When I say 'force' I mean the government in the 60's basically turned to the farmer class and said "Get big or get out" and started granting cheap loans for infrastructure geared toward monoculture crops. It's still that way with Monsanto being in the Supreme Court's pocket. For the peasant class that stuck around, they now have an entire generation of farm infrastructure debt to pay. Why would they risk a new approach when their budgets are tight as it is?
In addition, corn subsidies manipulate the markets such that a nutritionally anemic product absolutely dominates the farming landscape. I argue that the prevalent persistence of monoculture is more a product of government interference with the free market than any inherent efficiency advantage.
If you want to know what sources I have to have convinced me so, here they are.
"The One-Straw Revolution" by Mansanobu Fukuoka. He's a rice-planter, so I'm not exactly wild about the nutritional value of his main crop. I love his refinements of the no-till method, however.
"Restoration Agriculture" by Mark Shepard. A Wisconsin large-scale permaculturist. This guy is my home boy. If I can replicate half of what he's doing, I'll be set.
"Water For Every Farm" by P.A. Yeomans. This really applies everywhere, but especially in places experiencing extreme drought. The dialect is wonky, but it's agreat system for the on-site storage and usage of water, and the replenishment of water-tables.
"Permaculture" by Sepp Holzer. Haven't read it yet, but I will.
And no, full disclosure, Ì'm a college dropout who works a warehouse job. Like I said tho, I'm enough of a loner to read a lot of books. Jack of trades, master and professional of none.
Nothing I do will likely be of immense monetary benefit to me. It takes a long time to grow trees and the plot I'm starting will likely be of more benefit to the people who come next. Assuming they don't chop and burn it down. Gotta run.
In addition, corn subsidies manipulate the markets such that a nutritionally anemic product absolutely dominates the farming landscape. I argue that the prevalent persistence of monoculture is more a product of government interference with the free market than any inherent efficiency advantage.
If you want to know what sources I have to have convinced me so, here they are.
"The One-Straw Revolution" by Mansanobu Fukuoka. He's a rice-planter, so I'm not exactly wild about the nutritional value of his main crop. I love his refinements of the no-till method, however.
"Restoration Agriculture" by Mark Shepard. A Wisconsin large-scale permaculturist. This guy is my home boy. If I can replicate half of what he's doing, I'll be set.
"Water For Every Farm" by P.A. Yeomans. This really applies everywhere, but especially in places experiencing extreme drought. The dialect is wonky, but it's agreat system for the on-site storage and usage of water, and the replenishment of water-tables.
"Permaculture" by Sepp Holzer. Haven't read it yet, but I will.
And no, full disclosure, Ì'm a college dropout who works a warehouse job. Like I said tho, I'm enough of a loner to read a lot of books. Jack of trades, master and professional of none.
Nothing I do will likely be of immense monetary benefit to me. It takes a long time to grow trees and the plot I'm starting will likely be of more benefit to the people who come next. Assuming they don't chop and burn it down. Gotta run.
You make some pretty valid points. Thanks for pointing them out.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
- DesuMaiden
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 888
- Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31
Re: The Importance of the Haber Process
by davep » Mon 13 Apr 2015, 04:09:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChilPhil1986', 'O')ff-topic: I refuse to accept that organic is an inherently less efficient method for growing food than conventional means. If people could change their diets off these silly neo-lithic diets to foods that could more readily be grown in a multilayered context, we could actually design agriculture that makes sense. Here's one example: Chestnut trees next to apple trees next to hazelnut bushes or a no-till rotational crop, next to vegetable patches.
Phil, that organic or permaculture is less efficient is self-evident, otherwise there would be no need for you to refuse to believe it. If it were more efficient don't you think farmers would have caught on by now? Or do you have better insight into farm economics?
The reason monocultures are more efficient and diversified farms are extinct is the exact same reason the local cobbler is extinct; mass production is simply more efficient. And what method caused the extinction? The whim and requirement of the consumer for the cheapest product possible.
I assume in your job you are in some way a specialist, what if I told you you should give up your cush income and become a handyman for the good of the world, would you?
That is the same argument made here time after time, if only stupid farmers would do what I say we'd all be saved.
Small-scale horticulture is more efficient than green-revolution scale monoculture as it is more intensively managed and doesn't need to leave the between-row gaps for agricultural equipment.
Concerning the reason why the green revolution gained traction, in France, for example, they pushed the green revolution in the 40s and 50s. Apparently each farmer could only feed 5 people beforehand, but that went up to about 25 rapidly. However, the number of farmers was reduced by a factor of 4, making the actual gains per unit area marginal. It just led to more people leaving the countryside and farmers getting into perpetual debt to fund their equipment as global prices decreased. And biodiversity was destroyed as hedgerows etc were destroyed to make way for bigger fields (and remember, it's the biodiversity that allows pest predators to survive and avoid pest plagues).
As I've explained before, you can get similar yields from the likes of walnuts as from annual crops, but without the hassle and energy inputs.
And even if the overall effect is a slight decrease in yields, a small adjustment in our meat-eating habits would more than address that.
What we think, we become.
-
davep - Senior Moderator
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
Re: The Importance of the Haber Process
by Pops » Mon 13 Apr 2015, 10:37:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')mall-scale horticulture is more efficient than green-revolution scale monoculture as it is more intensively managed and doesn't need to leave the between-row gaps for agricultural equipment.
As I've explained before, you can get similar yields from the likes of walnuts as from annual crops, but without the hassle and energy inputs.
And even if the overall effect is a slight decrease in yields, a small adjustment in our meat-eating habits would more than address that.
As I've explained before, you can get similar yields from the likes of walnuts as from annual crops, but without the hassle and energy inputs.
And even if the overall effect is a slight decrease in yields, a small adjustment in our meat-eating habits would more than address that.
LOL, that's pretty funny. I'm pretty sure we aren't gonna switch from hamburger to walnuts. Again, if it were an obvious advantage wouldn't it be widespread? I haven't heard of starving people saved eating walnut burgers.
I picked up both black and english walnuts as a kid for christmas money back in the day (when white people still did such work). I'd rather take a beating, I haven't been able to stand up straight since, LOL. I had black walnuts growing wild in the fence rows on the farm in Missouri and never ate one. (Of course I didn't cut them down either)
Pretty sure row-gaps are a non issue, commodity crops form a near complete canopy, corn well over 90%, it is selected and sold specifically for traits that improve solar intersection. Tree crops take years to get even close.
Agriculture in general was based on grains and not nuts - even before widespread mechanization and FFs - because you can survive all of your annuals dying but you can't survive the death of all your trees. That very thing happened to the American Chestnut, it was wiped out in just a couple of decades last century. But even if they aren't wiped out they are not as dependable as annuals, how many offspring does a tree need when it has 150 years to reproduce?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')Black] Walnut trees begin producing nuts when they are about 10 years old, but the best nut production begins when trees are 30 years old. Good nut crops occur in about two out of five years. Open-grown trees with large crowns produce more nuts than woods-grown trees with small crowns, but the number of nuts, frequency of nut crops, and quality of nuts (percentage of kernel to shell, by weight) vary greatly from tree to tree.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yar ... ck-walnut/
English (Persian) walnuts are a better staple food but they are a mediterranean species. 99% of the US and 2/3 of world's crop is grown in the San Joaquin valley around Stockton CA on $25,000 an acre land using $2,500 ac/ft irrigation. Hardly a solution.
Walnuts $8 per pound
Wheat flour 50¢ per pound
BTW, I don't eat grains, nuts are my staple food
.
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)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
