[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . To be truly sustainable the world needs to be able to feed its population on half the arable land.

Animal rotations, cover crops, leys and fallow are a tried and proven system and, given adequate moisture and low speed tillage health of the soil and soil biota can be continually improved.

I don't think it will happen.

Cheers.

[dohboi]

"Dohboi, The Green Revolution proved you can't fix hunger by throwing food at it"

Good point. But I would amend "...by just throwing food..."

Programs to help feed the poor, however well intentioned in the short term, always should include ways of improving women's rights and other initiatives shown to correspond with lowered reproductive rates (along with lots of other 'win-wins'). But that hasn't been the approach, so far, by and large, it seems.

[ennui2]

I don't know tons about permaculture, but my dim understanding is that includes looking at whole systems. I would assume that means looking at humans as part of the whole, rather as the end for which everything else is the means (though I could be wrong). I would hope that would include keeping humans, both in their numbers and in their behaviors, in come kind of balance with the rest of life.

Well of course. That's how it's supposed to work, but how it works in practice is that it's just an alternate form of agriculture. The socio/political dimension is mostly absent.

[careinke]

Even if everyone on the planet adopted permaculture principles overnight I don't think it would feed 9 billion people sustainably, and if it did, we'd just sail right past that and go into overshoot again. It's still treating the symptoms and not the root problem of limits to growth.

Well since the original third ethic in permaculture as stated by Mollison is to limit consumption and population. I doubt that would happen.

[careinke]

It appears some of you have some questions on Permaculture. So I will try and answer them. If I don't cover everything, feel free to ask.

First Permaculture started out as shorthand for permanent agriculture. Now it stands for permanent culture.

Permaculture is not just gardening, it is a design science combing the following disciplines: Water, Shelter, Food, Earthworks, Soils, Energy, Waste, Clothing, Economics, and Community among others.

Permaculture is based on three ethics. 1. Care of the Earth. 2. Care of people. 3. Reinvest the surplus back into the first two ethics.

Pops: GMO's are designed to sell more herbicides and pesticides. Monoculture NEVER builds soil. GMO no till cropping slows soil erosion, but does not stop it, much less build soil. How do you build soil by leaving only one food in the soil at a uniform depth? Face it, it's a mining operation, and therefore unsustainable.

dohboi: You are correct in your thinking. Permaculture tries to link various systems so they support each other. Limiting population and consumption are both parts of permaculture. Basically if what you are doing does not meet ALL three ethics, you should not be doing it. Overpopulation would violate the first ethic, care of the earth.

IN General:

1. Permaculture is very hard to do without animals. Animals provide: food, fertilizer, brush control, clothing, heat, pest control, land regeneration, and other services. Without them people have to do these tasks.

2. The biggest impact from permaculture is when it is practiced in urban areas. The largest concentration of people is in the cities. The more permaculture is practiced in the cities, the less outside resources are needed to support them.

3. Permaculture does not need to compete with current industrial agriculture. It can grow alongside of it in areas that are not suitable for present day agricultural methods.

4. In the US more money is spent on herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers by homeowners and recreational property owners, than is spent for agricultural uses.

[dohboi]

Thanks, c. You don't need herbicides to do no till ag, do you? Can't weeds be controlled by careful use of cover crops?

"GMO's are designed to sell more herbicides and pesticides."

Nicely put.

"Permaculture does not need to compete with current industrial agriculture"

But I kinda wish it would--really, I wish it would out-compete it. But maybe growing around the edges so you're ready to take up what's left when the whole system collapses is after all the best strategy?

[dohboi]

"land-redistribution"

Good idea, wherever it leads.

[careinke]

But make no mistake. Permaculture will not fix a damn thing. Not without land-redistribution. You know where that leads? Right? Right?

I'm not sure what you mean by land redistribution?

Do you mean land seizure (stolen) by the government, and then giving the stolen land to someone else? Sort of like we did with the Native Americans?

Or do you mean, as the farmlands degrade, and become less profitable, they are sold off for other uses?

[vtsnowedin]

Those scraps of scrub cannot supply 7.3 billion people with meat 3-4 times a day. Yes, some people should continue to eat some meat to take advantage of some such habitats. But mostly, most people will have to become vegetarian or vegan most of the time if we are going to have a habitable planet...or fung-ian??

Scraps of scrub? It adds up to quite a bit.

Livestock grazing systems & the environment

ABOUT 60 PERCENT of the world's pasture land (about 2.2 million km2), just less than half the world's usable surface is covered by grazing systems. Distributed between arid, semi arid and sub humid, humid, temperate and tropical highlands zones, this supports about 360 million cattle (half of which are in the humid savannas), and over 600 million sheep and goats, mostly in the arid rangelands. The distribution of livestock over the different ecological zones is provided in Annex Table 2.

Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef and about 30 percent of the world's production of sheep and goat meat. For an estimated 100 million people in arid areas, and probably a similar number in other zones, grazing livestock is the only possible source of livelihood

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e05.htm

[Graeme]

Can farmers outsmart climate change?

Attention, farmers of the world! Here’s a question for you: How do you feed a world with 9 billion people? Furthermore, how will you do so while facing hotter seasons, droughts, weirder weather, and water shortages?

That’s a mighty tall order, but let me assure you: There is work underway to plan for this overwhelming future. It’s called climate-smart agriculture, and if you haven’t heard of it already, here’s what you need to know.

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA, not to be confused with, CSAs) is the idea that farmers — along with their friends with money and agriculture/climate science knowledge — should develop and use technologies that work with the ever-changing climate, not against it. Why? Well, to put it simply, so that climate change doesn’t completely disrupt our food system forcing us all to go hungry.

A recent article in Modern Farmer explains that up until recently, CSA was more of a philosophy than a solid plan:

Climate-smart agriculture is a sort of overview concept originally put forth in 2010 by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization … [it is] a general idea about adjusting all forms of agriculture (“farms, crops, livestock, aquaculture, and capture fisheries”) to better adapt to a changing climate.


CSA is going to be difficult to implement. It requires academic research, technology development, and the money to make it happen. But when it all comes together, CSA could help farmers deal with climate change affecting crop health and yields, move away from environmentally harmful farming practices, and learn to use less carbon-reliant technology.

Luckily, CSA is starting to gain attention. The Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research, a group of 15 scientific research centers that specialize in assisting farmers in the tropics, recently issued a statement that it would commit a 60 whopping percent of its operating budget (which is over $55 million) to develop climate-smart tools for 500 million farmers around the world. (Let’s take a moment to pause for applause.)

And here’s a shock for you: The U.S. government is starting to get on board, too! Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recently launched the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, a group that promotes agriculture that reduces the impact of climate change.

grist

[dohboi]

vt cited: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef..."

Exactly. You can't magically change 9% to 100% just by wishing it. 9% is a scrap.

[dohboi]

vt cited: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef..."

Exactly. You can't magically change 9% to 100% just by wishing it. 9% is a scrap of the total.

By your own stats, beef eating would have to be reduced by over 90% if it were to be supported just by purely grazed herds.

Thanks for the info.

[careinke]

vt cited: "Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef..."

Exactly. You can't magically change 9% to 100% just by wishing it. 9% is a scrap of the total.

By your own stats, beef eating would have to be reduced by over 90% if it were to be supported just by purely grazed herds.

Thanks for the info.

Interesting hypothesis, How do you account for the fact that there were many more pounds of Buffalo during their heyday than we have in cattle production today? I'm pretty certain the buffalo were using a mob grazing system. With todays movable electronic fencing, the same productivity can be achieved with cattle, sheep etc. As an added bonus, the soil builds up and carbon sequestering is close to forest systems. Throw some chickens into the mix, and productivity increases even more.

Vegan lifestyles require people to do the work that animals do naturally. I'd rather work less, and eat steak.

[dohboi]

I don't know the figures, but they certainly weren't feeding 7 billion people with their meet. They were also grazing on a lot of land that is now under cultivation, some of the richest land for growing grasses (including corn) in the world.

I'm all for getting rid of a lot of that corn and giving the land back to the buffalo, to the tall grasses and to the silphia etc., by the way. And yes, then some could be 'harvested. Again, though, not enough to feed buffalo burgers and sausages to 7 billion 3-4 times a day.

This was posted on another thread, but it seems more relevant here:
http://xkcd.com/1338/

[dohboi]

Russian grains in ‘even worse’ condition than 2009

Russia’s autumn-sown grains crops are heading into winter “even worse” condition than five years ago, when losses from cold weather, and summer drought, sent wheat production tumbling, SovEcon warned.

Dry weather has allowed for speedy plantings, with farmers having planted 16.2m hectares of grains already, only 300,000 hectares short of the government target, and roughly 3m hectares ahead of last year.

Some parts of Russia, and western Ukraine, have received less than 20% of normal rainfall over the past 45 days, according to MDA.

http://www.agrimoney.com/news/russian-g ... -7632.html

Will this lead to price spikes that lead to more 'Arab Springs'?

[dohboi]

Yes, and of course there were long-term grievances of various sorts. But I would say that low oil prices are even more likely to trigger more problems, since many MENA countries have been using oil revenues to keep their people well fed enough not to revolt. If they can't get as much money for their oil, they won't have as much money for bread (not to mention 'circus').

[dohboi]

CC related only indirectly (hotter > more evaporation > more salt damage), but another element putting stress on food supplies going forward:

World losing 2,000 hectares of farm soil daily to salt damage

Every day for more than 20 years, an average of 2,000 hectares of irrigated land in arid and semi-arid areas across 75 countries have been degraded by salt, according to a study. Today an area the size of France is affected — about 62 million hectares (20 percent) of the world’s irrigated lands, up from 45 million hectares in the early 1990s.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 082628.htm

[dohboi]

Europe Olive Oil Crisis: 2014 Harvest ‘Worst Year In Memory,’ Drives Up Costs

Europe’s olive harvest was hit hard this year by bad weather and blight, which will likely lead to consumers spending more for some olive oils, according to the Associated Press. The European olive oil crisis comes at a time when Europe’s southern economies are struggling to jump-start growth.

In Italy, where national production of olive oil is expected to drop 35 percent, the bulk price for extra virgin olive oil has already jumped more than 3 euros – from 2.7 euros to 6 euros – compared to the same time last year. “This is the worst year in memory,” Pietro Sandali, head of the Italian olive growers’ consortium, told the AP...

The reason for Europe’s particularly bad olive harvest was infestations of olive fly and olive moth brought on by high spring temperatures, abundant rain and a cool summer, the AP reported.

http://www.ibtimes.com/europe-olive-oil ... ts-1725512

(Thanks, as often on these types of stories, to COBob at robertscribbler's blog.)