[hillsidedigger]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_ ... ion_report

"FAO says global food output will have to increase by 70 percent to feed a projected population of 9.1 billion in 2050.

To achieve that, poor countries will need $44 billion in annual agricultural aid, compared with the current $7.9 billion, to increase access to irrigation systems, modern machinery, seeds and fertilizer as well as build roads and train farmers."

It's seems quite clear to me that far less food will be grown in 2050 than now.

Machinery, fertilizers, foreign seeds and irrigation systems defeat the purpose of learning to farm the most productive way that is with time tested methods and seeds appropriate for individual localities.

[meemoe_uk]

Machinery, fertilizers, foreign seeds and irrigation systems are time tested ways of increasing productivity.

Machinery : plough invented about 8000 years ago. Very useful!
Fertilizers : Organic fertilizers used for thousands of years. Very useful!
Foreign seeds : Wheat selectively bred around modern Iraq about 13000 years ago, spread all over the world. Very Useful!
Irrigation : Used by ancient Egyptions 4000 years ago. Very Useful!

[hillsidedigger]

Machinery, fertilizers, foreign seeds and irrigation systems are time tested ways of increasing productivity.

Machinery : plough invented about 8000 years ago. Very useful!
Fertilizers : Organic fertilizers used for thousands of years. Very useful!
Foreign seeds : Wheat selectively bred around modern Iraq about 13000 years ago, spread all over the world. Very Useful!
Irrigation : Used by ancient Egyptions 4000 years ago. Very Useful!

My point was the call for $44 billion of annual aid. Do you think any of that money would benefit anyone other than corrupt corporations and nation leaders?

[mos6507]

My point was the call for $44 billion of annual aid. Do you think any of that money would benefit anyone other than corrupt corporations and nation leaders?

If the people we're sending aid to don't starve as a result, I'd say they benefit.

[Ludi]

How will the people afford the equipment, fertilizers, etc? These modern methods cause farmers to go into debt, ruining or, even ending, their lives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-c ... 87457.html

It might be more effective to end the Food Race rather than perpetuate it.


http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.cfm

[hillsidedigger]

How will the people afford the equipment, fertilizers, etc? These modern methods cause farmers to go into debt, ruining or, even ending, their lives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-c ... 87457.html

It might be more effective to end the Food Race rather than perpetuate it.


http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.cfm

It's ironic as I saw on a presentation by Michael Pollack that most American (family farmers as opposed to large corporations) farmers are 'market farmers' and do not raise much of their own food but must drive to a grocery store every few days.

Machinery and roads are needed for 'market farmers' and those with tiny plots of marginal land in the 3rd. World would have their 'lunch eaten' trying to compete within global markets.

Simple subsistance whereby a 3rd. World farmer adequately supplies themself, their family and maybe a few neighbors is not of a scale that involves mechanized equipment. I would bet most 3rd. World farmers know which seed is best for their area and they don't need to purchase GMO seed although acquiring enough of the appropriate seed is still plenty expensive.

[mos6507]

How about $44 billion to airlift depo-provera, condoms, and Permaculture manuals?

[meemoe_uk]

>My point was the call for $44 billion of annual aid. Do you think any of that money would benefit anyone other than corrupt corporations and nation leaders?

Yes, potentially, idealy. But the people-who-control-the-world's plan is to depopulate 3rd world nations. They won't allow debt free money to circulate in such places. There's only 2 likely ways in which the money will be used, if the plan to use the money goes ahead. Both ways are weapons designed to devastate the target nation's economy.
a.) $44bn worth of goods will be dumped on victim nation's markets. The local producers won't be able to compete and will go bust. Their land and businesses will be moped up by the IMCC.
b.) $44bn will be lent at high interest to victim nation's government in return for highly comprimising concessions. The $44bn will be converted into the victim nations currency. Then the IMCC will use short-selling and other such insidious money weapons to greatly lower the worth of the victim nation's currency. Then the IMF will demand it's money back, which the victim nation can't possibly pay. More concessions will be agreed for more loans to partially pay off the old loans and so on.... Alot of the money won't leave the western banks. the IMCC won't want to risk giving a nation money in case the population attains a little wealth.

[mos6507]

But the people-who-control-the-world's plan is to depopulate 3rd world nations.

Funny how many psychics there are on peakoil.com... Do you know who's going to win the Kentucky Derby this year as well?

[kpeavey]

I have a problem with $44B in aid in 2050.

If these countries still need aid in 40 years, after all the help we've been sending them over the last 40 years, then quite frankly, cut them loose.

If these aid receiving societies can not drag themselves out of the muck, they aint never going to. Cut off the aid.

This is not international aid, this is international Welfare.
40 more years of aid? Does anyone see this as being a good idea?

Enough is enough. We have problems of our own. Better to tear off the bandaid now, it will be less suffering than in 2050 when their population is a gozillion.

"Where is your compassion?" someone will ask.
Hey, I got no problem with helping out and being compassionate, but there is a point when compassion is used up and now these poor nations are going to have to make it on their own. A permanent state of compassion is not sustainable and just makes us chumps.

End the aid. Do it immediately. We gave them all the help we could and they failed to dig themselves out. They had their chance, they failed. Too damn bad.

[copious.abundance]

Here we go again . . .

>>> Russian land boom could avert global famine <<<

Russian land boom could avert global famine
Vast areas of farmland lie idle, reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 11:17pm BST 20/06/2008

Across a great arc of the Eurasian steppe from Ukraine through Russia to Kazakhstan lies enough arable land to feed the world for years to come, with spare for biofuels to help plug the energy gap.

In the days of Nikita Khrushchev - a great enthusiast for the vast Sovkhoz collectives - the Soviet Union farmed 240m hectares, badly. The same territory now farms 207m hectares. These reserves of idle soil are alone enough to meet the entire global need of 30m extra hectares over the next decade, as estimated by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The Moscow investment bank Troika Dialog says that just 43pc of the arable land in Russia is cultivated. Crop yields in the trio of leading ex-Soviet states remain at pre-modern levels. Yields can be doubled in Russia, and tripled in the Ukraine using modern kit and know-how. "The potential is tremendous," said Kingsmill Bond, Troika's chief strategist.

[...]

>>> The Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado) <<<

From a US perspective, the cerrados equal 26% of the area of the lower 48 states--more than 510 million acres--an area larger than the US east of the Mississippi River, excluding Florida. Only about 60 million ha--about one-fourth of the cerrados--is now economically used. Of that, dryland and irrigated crops cover about 25 million ha. The rest is in pasture.

EMBRAPA, Brazil's agricultural research organization, estimates that another 100+ million ha are suited for modern mechanized crop agriculture. More recently, the USDA estimated that between 145 and 170 million hectares (402 million acres) could be opened for crop production. This means that the agricultural area yet to be opened is more than 25 percent larger than the total crop acreage of the U.S.

Throw in the usual batch of various agricultural technologies and - bingo! - you've got Cornucopia. Not that everyone will be happy with that.

[hillsidedigger]

Here we go again . . .

>>> Russian land boom could avert global famine <<<

Russian land boom could avert global famine
Vast areas of farmland lie idle, reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 11:17pm BST 20/06/2008

Across a great arc of the Eurasian steppe from Ukraine through Russia to Kazakhstan lies enough arable land to feed the world for years to come, with spare for biofuels to help plug the energy gap.

In the days of Nikita Khrushchev - a great enthusiast for the vast Sovkhoz collectives - the Soviet Union farmed 240m hectares, badly. The same territory now farms 207m hectares. These reserves of idle soil are alone enough to meet the entire global need of 30m extra hectares over the next decade, as estimated by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The Moscow investment bank Troika Dialog says that just 43pc of the arable land in Russia is cultivated. Crop yields in the trio of leading ex-Soviet states remain at pre-modern levels. Yields can be doubled in Russia, and tripled in the Ukraine using modern kit and know-how. "The potential is tremendous," said Kingsmill Bond, Troika's chief strategist.

[...]

>>> The Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado) <<<

From a US perspective, the cerrados equal 26% of the area of the lower 48 states--more than 510 million acres--an area larger than the US east of the Mississippi River, excluding Florida. Only about 60 million ha--about one-fourth of the cerrados--is now economically used. Of that, dryland and irrigated crops cover about 25 million ha. The rest is in pasture.

EMBRAPA, Brazil's agricultural research organization, estimates that another 100+ million ha are suited for modern mechanized crop agriculture. More recently, the USDA estimated that between 145 and 170 million hectares (402 million acres) could be opened for crop production. This means that the agricultural area yet to be opened is more than 25 percent larger than the total crop acreage of the U.S.

Throw in the usual batch of various agricultural technologies and - bingo! - you've got Cornucopia. Not that everyone will be happy with that.

There's a lot of problems with both of those places from an agriculturalists point of view, too far North and too dry, too far South and too wet.

[Homesteader]

Yup, more of oily's cr@pola showing his ignorance. If the land was truly suitable it would already be in production.

[copious.abundance]

Here we go again, Part #2:

There's a lot of problems with both of those places from an agriculturalists point of view, too far North and too dry, too far South and too wet.

That doesn't seem to be stopping them, does it.







1. The Brazilian cerrado isn't all that wet, it has a wet season and a dry season.
2. They have varieties of soybeans and corn which can be grown in tropical climates.
3. You can grow wheat as far north as the Yukon and Alaska. Other grains grow fine that far north too.

[copious.abundance]

Yup, more of oily's cr@pola showing his ignorance. If the land was truly suitable it would already be in production.

It already IS in production. In the case of Russia, there just happens to be large gaps of farms abandoned after Soviet rule crumbled (and while it was under Soviet rule, too). In the case of Brazil, it is a frontier area which hasn't totally been developed yet. But there are already lots of farms producing in this area.

[Homesteader]

3. You can grow wheat as far north as the Yukon and Alaska. Other grains grow fine that far north too.

Yup, just bulldoze the lichen off the permafrost and plant them amber waves of grain from one end to the other, just like Kansas.

[Bman4k1]

1. The Brazilian cerrado isn't all that wet, it has a wet season and a dry season.
2. They have varieties of soybeans and corn which can be grown in tropical climates.
3. You can grow wheat as far north as the Yukon and Alaska. Other grains grow fine that far north too.

If Brazil keeps increasing its soybean production, Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to skyrocket. The area that they are turning into agriculture is very ecoligically important rainforest.

[Pretorian]

Don't they have to cut some forest every 15 years to replant coffee plantations? I heard you can grow nothing on the land of an ex-coffee patch.

[sparky]

.

Just work out how much of the food crop carbon end up as people breathing and how much end up as sewage watery waste .

A clue......... one quarter breathing , three quarter sewage !

google " Ug99 " and be afraid ...very afraid



mos
" ...If the people we're sending aid to don't starve as a result, I'd say they benefit."

think about it , do they really ?

.