[jonouk]

http://lammas.org.uk/

[ralfy]

Yes, but that comes after Demographic Transition lowers the fertility rate.

Food sanitation, etc., which require more energy and material resources, take place before the transition period.

[jedrider]

We just need to put Two + Two together and get the right answer. Searching for a thread on 'Eating' and I found this thread, instead. It will do:

[urlhttp://www.truthdig.com/report/item/saving_the_planet_one_meal_at_a_time_20141109[/url]

We will not have sustainable agriculture until we stop 'Eating' the planet to death.

It all started with the Paleo diet with Paleo man, 100,000 years ago.

[I've been vegetarian for five years now. I'm still around, too.]

[Shaved Monkey]

I dont think there was problem with paleo man he wasnt going to send anything extinct he was just part of the chain when we started with wheat cultivation,it gave man time to work out how to exploit things and allowed him to breed up to larger numbers that the simple paleo diet couldn't support

[DesuMaiden]

We just need to put Two + Two together and get the right answer. Searching for a thread on 'Eating' and I found this thread, instead. It will do:

[urlhttp://www.truthdig.com/report/item/saving_the_planet_one_meal_at_a_time_20141109[/url]

We will not have sustainable agriculture until we stop 'Eating' the planet to death.

It all started with the Paleo diet with Paleo man, 100,000 years ago.

[I've been vegetarian for five years now. I'm still around, too.]

The diet of hunter and gather societies is actually healthier than the diet of agricultural societies. Hunter and gathers typically had a wide variety of food in their diet. Agriculturalists only ate a handful of different food. Also the hunter and gather diet was low in carbohydrates meaning they had better oral hygiene than agriculturalists who had poor dental hygiene due to the high carbohydrate diets they had. Eating a lot of carbohydrates is bad for your teeth, and agriculturalists, who primarily ate carbohydrates, had rotten teeth, unlike their hunter and gather predecessors who had good teeth.

[lpetrich]

I'll return to the OP.

Our current agricultural system is not sustainable. It is totally and utterly reliant on fossil fuels. When you take fossil fuels out of the equation, we will not be able to produce food at the levels we are right now. Food production will go down when you take oil out of the equation. When food production goes down, then there will be massive starvation and famine.

How do we create an agricultural system that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and yet can feed the population of the world? We need to be able to feed our current population without the use of petro-chemicals, which will be a huge challenge in the years to come, as our petroleum supply continues to contract.

Is there any law of nature that says that one can only use fossil fuels for that? Seriously.

Farm machines, like vehicles in general, are most conveniently run using combustible liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel. So if one can produce such fuels in renewable fashion, one has got it made. The only problem is a version of the EROEI issue -- Energy Returned On Energy Invested. Only in this case it's liquid fuels. One has to produce more fuel from the farm than one had used to power the farm machines that were used for growing it.

It may be possible to have electric tractors, electric combines, etc., but that has the problem of electric vehicles in general -- getting a good range on a charge, and charging reasonably fast, or else quickly exchanging batteries. I mention that because most renewable energy sources to date are best adapted for producing electricity.

You failed to mention that modern agriculture is also totally dependant upon fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that are petrochemicals, and thus are made from oil (although nitrogen fertilizers are also made from natural gas).

Here again, is there any law of nature that says that one can only use fossil fuels for that? Seriously.

I'd have to find out the details of the manufacture of various pesticides and herbicides before commenting much more on that, but I don't see why fossil-fuel raw materials can't be replaced by raw materials made by synfuel processes, let's say.

As to fertilizer, phosphorus and sulfur are usually mined, something which suggests eventual problems of "peak phosphorus" and "peak sulfur" and the like. Unless one can recover those two elements and various other mineral nutrients from seawater without much expense. Sodium ought to be easy. :D

Nitrogen fertilizers are an interesting issue. Making them involves two processes: the Haber process and the Ostwald process.

The Haber process involves taking nitrogen and hydrogen, mixing them, and heating and compressing them and making them flow past a catalyst. These gases are then sent to a condenser for the ammonia, and the ammonia-less raw materials are return to the heat, pressure, and catalyst.

Nitrogen can be produced by liquefying air. One chills the air to where the oxygen condenses out, leaving the nitrogen.

Hydrogen is produced industrially by methane reforming -- heating natural gas with water to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The CO is then heated with water to make CO2 and hydrogen. However, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis or by a serpentinization reaction:
2FeO + H2O -> Fe2O3 + H2
Fe2O3 -> 2FeO + (1/2)O2
Electrolysis requires electricity, and serpentinization can be done by concentrated sunlight.

The Ostwald process is relatively easy: burn ammonia with the help of a catalyst to make nitrogen oxides, then combine the NOx with water to make nitric acid.

So one can avoid using fossil fuels when making nitrogen fertilizers.

[careinke]

I'll return to the OP.

Our current agricultural system is not sustainable. It is totally and utterly reliant on fossil fuels. When you take fossil fuels out of the equation, we will not be able to produce food at the levels we are right now. Food production will go down when you take oil out of the equation. When food production goes down, then there will be massive starvation and famine.

How do we create an agricultural system that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and yet can feed the population of the world? We need to be able to feed our current population without the use of petro-chemicals, which will be a huge challenge in the years to come, as our petroleum supply continues to contract.

Is there any law of nature that says that one can only use fossil fuels for that? Seriously.

Farm machines, like vehicles in general, are most conveniently run using combustible liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel. So if one can produce such fuels in renewable fashion, one has got it made. The only problem is a version of the EROEI issue -- Energy Returned On Energy Invested. Only in this case it's liquid fuels. One has to produce more fuel from the farm than one had used to power the farm machines that were used for growing it.

It may be possible to have electric tractors, electric combines, etc., but that has the problem of electric vehicles in general -- getting a good range on a charge, and charging reasonably fast, or else quickly exchanging batteries. I mention that because most renewable energy sources to date are best adapted for producing electricity.

You failed to mention that modern agriculture is also totally dependant upon fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that are petrochemicals, and thus are made from oil (although nitrogen fertilizers are also made from natural gas).

Here again, is there any law of nature that says that one can only use fossil fuels for that? Seriously.

I'd have to find out the details of the manufacture of various pesticides and herbicides before commenting much more on that, but I don't see why fossil-fuel raw materials can't be replaced by raw materials made by synfuel processes, let's say.

As to fertilizer, phosphorus and sulfur are usually mined, something which suggests eventual problems of "peak phosphorus" and "peak sulfur" and the like. Unless one can recover those two elements and various other mineral nutrients from seawater without much expense. Sodium ought to be easy. :D

Nitrogen fertilizers are an interesting issue. Making them involves two processes: the Haber process and the Ostwald process.

The Haber process involves taking nitrogen and hydrogen, mixing them, and heating and compressing them and making them flow past a catalyst. These gases are then sent to a condenser for the ammonia, and the ammonia-less raw materials are return to the heat, pressure, and catalyst.

Nitrogen can be produced by liquefying air. One chills the air to where the oxygen condenses out, leaving the nitrogen.

Hydrogen is produced industrially by methane reforming -- heating natural gas with water to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The CO is then heated with water to make CO2 and hydrogen. However, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis or by a serpentinization reaction:
2FeO + H2O -> Fe2O3 + H2
Fe2O3 -> 2FeO + (1/2)O2
Electrolysis requires electricity, and serpentinization can be done by concentrated sunlight.

The Ostwald process is relatively easy: burn ammonia with the help of a catalyst to make nitrogen oxides, then combine the NOx with water to make nitric acid.

So one can avoid using fossil fuels when making nitrogen fertilizers.

Or......you could just learn to grow naturally.

[Pops]

The only real sustainable ag is less intensive farming practices that do not export more fertility from the land than they return, and do not destroy or erode topsoil.

I'm from California and have many times used CA agriculture to illustrate the regional specialization of ag globally and how that concentration is a huge danger. I'm talking about how cheap transportation has allowed crop production to concentrate in the most favorable climate for particular crops, on a global scale. Then that region becomes the dominate producer due to expansion of the specialized infrastructure for that particular crop. When I left CA 10 years ago almonds were a big thing here, when I moved back I was astounded at the acreage now being converted to almond orchards, It is simply amazing. The harvest is now 3 times what it was in the 90's when I left and CA produces more than 80% of the world's almonds.

It is pretty amazing, the valley is wall to wall, top to bottom trees. the West side which was once all row crops is all trees, the eastern foothills which were once grazing land is all trees the south valley that once was cotton is increasingly trees.

Obviously, growing and shipping 85% of the world supply of almonds is not sustainable. But ...

One of the early books to identify this type of ag was "Tree Crops, A permanent Agriculture." It was written back in the 20's (way before the copyright mark was attached to "Permaculture") and pointed out how chestnut trees in Corsica had been grown on hillsides there for hundreds of years, feeding the inhabitants without ruining the land.

[careinke]

One of the early books to identify this type of ag was "Tree Crops, A permanent Agriculture." It was written back in the 20's (way before the copyright mark was attached to "Permaculture") and pointed out how chestnut trees in Corsica had been grown on hillsides there for hundreds of years, feeding the inhabitants without ruining the land.

I don't think there is a copyright mark on permaculture it would be against the ethics. If there is, I would guess it was done to prevent corporations from monopolizing it, and the use would be released to the public. Or.... you and I are breaking the law.

Your points on tree crops is spot on. Much easier on the land. You can make them even better by adding animals and supporting plants.

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/76230-from-monoculture-to-permaculture

PS - the link above asks for your e-mail address, but the only thing they use it for is to notify you when he puts up another short video.

[DesuMaiden]

I have come to realize the only way we can survive as a species in the long term is to abandon the catastrophic practice of totalitarian agriculture. Totalitarian agriculture is what got us into this mess in the first place, and we must abandon it if we ever want a sustainable future. This will be difficult to do because our population wouldn't be so big in the first place if it wasn't for totalitarian agriculture. Without totalitarian agriculture, there wouldn't be billions of people on this planet.

But this planet was never meant for the sole purpose of human in habitation in the first place, contrary to what totalitarian agriculture preaches. Mankind can only achieve happiness if he realizes that he lives on a finite planet, and that he must live in balance with all of the plant and animal life on this planet. Without this, mankind can never achieve true happiness.

We need to realize this planet was never designed for the sole purpose of human use and inhabitation. This planet was designed for the habitation of millions of other species. Unless man can regain the harmony he had with nature before the invention of totalitarian agriculture, there will never be true happiness on this planet.

In order to regain balance with this planet, billions of people need to die, so that other animals can survive. A maximum of 1 billion people on this planet is the sustainable population without oil. Without totalitarian agriculture, most of humanity wouldn't exist because most of the Earth's land wouldn't be used solely for human food production.

I believe Jared Diamond is correct in saying that agriculture was the biggest mistake mankind ever made. What he meant by agriculture was totalitarian agriculture. Totalitarian agriculture is the root of most of the world's problems, and by abandoning it, we can create a much better world for the future of our species.

[Loki]

One of the early books to identify this type of ag was "Tree Crops, A permanent Agriculture." It was written back in the 20's (way before the copyright mark was attached to "Permaculture") and pointed out how chestnut trees in Corsica had been grown on hillsides there for hundreds of years, feeding the inhabitants without ruining the land.

I don't think there is a copyright mark on permaculture it would be against the ethics. If there is, I would guess it was done to prevent corporations from monopolizing it, and the use would be released to the public. Or.... you and I are breaking the law.

Of course it isn't. But Mollison tried his best. From his 'Permaculture: A Designer's Manual': "The contents of this book and the word PERMACULTURE are copyright."

Your points on tree crops is spot on. Much easier on the land. You can make them even better by adding animals and supporting plants.

There isn't a whole lot of "sustainability" in the way California's monoculture orchards are managed. Just because they're tree crops doesn't mean they're in any way sustainable. They're dependent on cheap fossil-fueled global transportation, lots of chemicals, armies of imported cheap labor, and most recently with the drought, a very unsustainable drawing down of aquifers.

[Loki]

Desu, livestock are self-motivated by their own genetic predisposition to gather cellulosic material and convert it into amino acids, lipids, nutrients that humans require. All we have to do is kill and eat them. That is sustainable agriculture. It is only necessary to get over that vegan thing.

LOL

That is a profoundly misleading statement Pete. I know you know better. Don't you have like a doctorate in Permaculture Ⓒ or something?

At the very least you should state "grass fed," then we can begin to have an honest conversation. And no, corn fattened in a feedlot does not count as "grass-fed."

[DesuMaiden]

Desu, livestock are self-motivated by their own genetic predisposition to gather cellulosic material and convert it into amino acids, lipids, nutrients that humans require. All we have to do is kill and eat them. That is sustainable agriculture. It is only necessary to get over that vegan thing.

I never said we shouldn't eat live stock. What I said is that totalitarian agriculture is coming to an end because it is failing us.