The merits of natural versus chemical fertilisers

[kenneal - lagger]

The conversion ratio for cattle is about 10 and that for indoor raised pigs about 3. Quite a bit of wastage but that's only because we are eating far too much and they are reared in the wrong way.

If we ate less of them they could be raised as they were in times past on scraps with a little extra grain, in the case of pigs, and on grass from areas which weren't suitable for arable, in the case of cattle. Chickens would free range on what they could glean and forage. We would be eating perhaps a tenth of the meat we eat now but it would be sustainable.

[vtsnowedin]

Tens of billions of 'farmed' animals consume far more grain than 7 billion humans could ever need. And that still leaves the grains humans already consume.

I think the only animal that exist in the tens of billions is chickens and cattle do not spend their entire lives eating just grain. You might find this interesting reading.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2373e/i2373e03.pdf

According to FAO (2009b),
the reality is not that simple. The main problem
of food security is not currently one of supply
but of demand. The 925 million undernourished
people are not undernourished because the
global food supply is deficient, but because they
cannot afford to buy food or they live in places
or societies where it is hard to obtain. Reducing
the grain fed to livestock would not ensure that
these people could access food.

[vtsnowedin]

I don't think you understand the energy inputs and outputs, though I am happy to stand corrected.

Having raised cattle and having brought feed to the front end and shoveled muck away from the back end I expect that I understand the inputs and outputs as well as anyone on this board.
Beef is not as efficient as a straight grain to table system but I never said it was. But the model the vegans keep harping about where a cow is fed just grain just does not exist in the real world. They eat coarse grass which you can not eat and convert it into meat or dairy products which you can. If the cattle are grazed on land not suitable for other crops then you are getting food from an area that would otherwise be a nutritional dessert to you.
One of the papers above bemoaned the fact that high yield cows were fed as much as a tonne of grain a year, but that cow produced over a tonne of milk above what it could if fed only grass. So in effect the cow converted $170 worth of grain into $360 worth of milk. I fail to see the problem in that.
Looking at beef the store price for good steak is $5.00/ lb and you can assume that includes all cost of grazing and grain finish feeding plus processing, transport, waste, and several peoples profit margins. It will have to get a lot higher then $5.00/ lb. before I return to raising my own.
I did some back of the envelope calcs on the price per calorie of beef to wheat flour ratio using local prices. I get 9 to 1 on my first attempt so I won't argue with Ken's 10 to 1 ratio.

[vtsnowedin]

[quote="RenewableCandy

Smaller? what ever for?

Protection from wind and driving rain that would erode the soil.[/quote]

Must erosion measures only be applied to field perimeters? A line of snow fence or a strip left in grass every so often can be placed adverse to the wind to collect both soil and water being carried by the prevailing wind.

And could you market that many beans?

They're beginning to do that here [guote]
As long as the are soybeans you probably have a market. [/quote]

The tree borders sound just like what I see in place if I google earth the UK countryside but I don't know as you could get them to grow in the Texas-Montana wheat land as it is a bit dry there for that.

They might have to plant scrub-type plants first, then plant trees later. Or even just use plastic fences first of all, to trap soil.

Some places have lost forest cover due to poor practices and those could be repaired but others do not have enough rainfall to support trees regardless of method employed.

Good luck getting a permit to dredge a river even if the river and land both benefited.

I can imagine the river-dredging beginning to happen by stealth if a black market for soil fertility develops! How desperate everything else would be by then, though, who knows?

Rivers here are choked with sand and gravel, not what you want on your topsoil. Some estuary full of washed down silt and organic muck might be worth it, now if you can just get the government to see the light.

Now is rock dust from the coast limestone dust? How is that better then rock phosphate from Algeria?

It's just nearer [/quote]

If it doesn't provide a significant nutritional value to your crops would it be worth the fuel used to haul it?

Sorry for the poor readability. Other things to do today and the proper fix doesn't come to mind.

[kenneal - lagger]

I was talking about the energy ratio not the cost ratio. Costs will vary in the future and are not important in the long term. It's the energy in to the energy out that is important and, of course, where the food comes from. In the UK beef cattle aren't usually fed a lot of grain as they are usually grass reared. It's the US style feed lot system where a lot of grain based food is used. A hard winter in the UK can result in more grain based food being fed. We try to avoid doing this, though and are feeding big bale silage at the moment.

[vtsnowedin]

I was talking about the energy ratio not the cost ratio. Costs will vary in the future and are not important in the long term. It's the energy in to the energy out that is important and, of course, where the food comes from. In the UK beef cattle aren't usually fed a lot of grain as they are usually grass reared. It's the US style feed lot system where a lot of grain based food is used. A hard winter in the UK can result in more grain based food being fed. We try to avoid doing this, though and are feeding big bale silage at the moment.

In normal times (which I think are still in force) the free market will closely account for the energy value of the product minus the energy required to deliver it to the consumer. That would be a much more accurate measure of net value available then say just cooking off a sample in a test tube to measure its calories per kilogram. The cost will vary in the future for sure but the value will still be determined by the net calories available to the consumer at the point of consumption.
You have a skewed view of the US cattle raising system. Cows and calves are on grass until the calves are about seven months old when the calves are moved to finishing lots. The cows and the necessary number of bulls are on grass year round and the calves are on grain or corn only as long as it takes to bring them to slaughter weight. Even then the feed ration the calves are given is driven by what helps them gain weight the fastest and is seldom straight grain or corn. But again if it could be done cheaper and more efficiently that is the way they would already be doing it. The proof is in the price charged at the super market. If permaculture is better let them open a store and compete for market share.

[Little John]

I was talking about the energy ratio not the cost ratio. Costs will vary in the future and are not important in the long term. It's the energy in to the energy out that is important and, of course, where the food comes from. In the UK beef cattle aren't usually fed a lot of grain as they are usually grass reared. It's the US style feed lot system where a lot of grain based food is used. A hard winter in the UK can result in more grain based food being fed. We try to avoid doing this, though and are feeding big bale silage at the moment.

In normal times (which I think are still in force) the free market will closely account for the energy value of the product minus the energy required to deliver it to the consumer. That would be a much more accurate measure of net value available then say just cooking off a sample in a test tube to measure its calories per kilogram. The cost will vary in the future for sure but the value will still be determined by the net calories available to the consumer at the point of consumption.
You have a skewed view of the US cattle raising system. Cows and calves are on grass until the calves are about seven months old when the calves are moved to finishing lots. The cows and the necessary number of bulls are on grass year round and the calves are on grain or corn only as long as it takes to bring them to slaughter weight. Even then the feed ration the calves are given is driven by what helps them gain weight the fastest and is seldom straight grain or corn. But again if it could be done cheaper and more efficiently that is the way they would already be doing it. The proof is in the price charged at the super market. If permaculture is better let them open a store and compete for market share.

Permaculture cannot compete with hydrocarbons. That is blindingly obvious. However, there is the little fact of hydrocarbons being a finite resource. For the moment, though, hydrocarbons make "sense". However, they only make "sense" in the same way that cutting down trees made "sense" on Easter Island. The problem was that anyone who didn't cut down a tree was economically disadvantaged compared to their neighbours and so it continued.

Right up to collapse.

And so it will continue with hydrocarbons.

Right up to collapse.

[vtsnowedin]

Permaculture cannot compete with hydrocarbons. That is blindingly obvious. However, there is the little fact of hydrocarbons being a finite resource. For the moment, though, hydrocarbons make "sense". However, they only make "sense" in the same way that cutting down trees made "sense" on Easter Island. The problem was that anyone who didn't cut down a tree was economically disadvantaged compared to their neighbours and so it continued.

Rght up to collapse.

And so it will continue with hydrocarbons.

Right up to collapse·

Your point is valid but there is the fact that the amount of oil needed for agriculture is a small share of current usage so if priorities are properly allocated agriculture will be the last thing to run out of fuel while cruising down to the mall will soon be history.

[kenneal - lagger]

......... if priorities are properly allocated agriculture will be the last thing to run out of fuel while cruising down to the mall will soon be history.

That's a big "if".

There will be so many priorities such as the military, law and order and food manufacturing and distribution that have very high lobbying power that others will be forgotten about. Farms are spread out, difficult to guard and, so, vulnerable to theft so they will not be thought by increasingly pressurised authorities to be a good place for such a valuable commodity to be stored.

The food manufacturers and distributors are likely to put the conventional farmers out of business and take over the whole system as it must be "managed properly". Many farmers already have a high level of debt and when fuel prices rise quickly the price of their produce is unlikely to rise as fast, especially if Wallmart and Co have anything to do with it, so they will go even deeper into debt and probably go bust. This is much more likely in such a corrupt political system as the US than it would be here, especially if we have got out of the EU, which is just as corrupt but in a slightly more European, less competent, way.

Once fuel gets so expensive that the majority, the mall shoppers, can't afford it the whole system is likely to break down. The price of oil will swing as it has done recently but, in all probability, much more wildly. People will be put out of work on a massive scale and social disorder would be more likely in the US than here where we have a semblance of a social security system to take the mitigate the initial brunt of discontent.

Maintaining the supply of anything will be very difficult especially if there are highly armed gangs of people wandering around in sparsely populated and heavily built up areas. This is less likely to happen in Europe as we don't have a gun culture to add to the armed criminals.

If you don't rely on supplies of artificial fertilisers, agrochemicals and feed you are going to stand a chance of producing some food on a sustainable basis. Your soil is also likely to be in good heart to sustain production and your production methods will also allow you to carry on producing.

If you've been mining the soil of its fertility for years the second you're late with a fertiliser application you will lose your crop and all future crops. After seven years of fallow you might be able to start growing again but badly mined soils would probably need a lot longer than that to regain natural fertility. And then you would have to break ground again which would be very difficult without oil.

Coming up to an oil price shock I would be more confident of riding it out if I wasn't wholly or even partially dependent on supplies of oil based products.

[biffvernon]

In normal times (which I think are still in force) the free market will closely account for the energy value of the product minus the energy required to deliver it to the consumer.

The market fails in two respects when it comes to fossil fuel.

1. Future generations are not able to participate in the market.

2. Environmental costs, such as purchase of a new planet, are externalised.

[emordnilap]

there is the fact that the amount of oil needed for agriculture is a small share of current usage

Some fact. As Biff's already pointed out, it's the second biggest user of ff after transport.

And that's before you read Livestock's Long Shadow.

[peaceful_life]

http://www.keylinevermont.com/Permaculture.html

Get in touch with these guys.

[Totally_Baffled]

Some fact. As Biff's already pointed out, it's the second biggest user of ff after transport.

Really? What is included in this figure?

The numbers I (thought) I read for pesticide,fertiliser, farm machinery etc were absolutely tiny compared to overall FF consumption, eg fractions of a percent.

Is the fact above based on all the transport involved in the current insane food system? (eg UK sells chickens to Holland and visa versa, flying apples to Poland to get waxed etc etc)

Just interested

[vtsnowedin]

there is the fact that the amount of oil needed for agriculture is a small share of current usage

Some fact. As Biff's already pointed out, it's the second biggest user of ff after transport.

And that's before you read Livestock's Long Shadow.

Agriculture as a Share of U.S. Energy Use
Direct Energy Use. In 2002, the U.S. agricultural sector (encompassing both
crops and livestock production) used an estimated 1.1 quadrillion Btu3 of total direct
energy.4 This represents slightly more than 1% of total U.S. energy consumption of
98 quadrillion Btu in 2002. (See Figure 1.) In comparison, the non-agricultural
component of the industrial sector is estimated to have used 31.4 quadrillion Btu
(32%), while the transportation sector used 26.5 quadrillion Btu (27%).

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/asse ... L32677.pdf
I don't know where Biff got his number from but he appears to be a bit off.

[vtsnowedin]

Some fact. As Biff's already pointed out, it's the second biggest user of ff after transport.

Really? What is included in this figure?

The numbers I (thought) I read for pesticide,fertiliser, farm machinery etc were absolutely tiny compared to overall FF consumption, eg fractions of a percent.

Is the fact above based on all the transport involved in the current insane food system? (eg UK sells chickens to Holland and visa versa, flying apples to Poland to get waxed etc etc)

Just interested

I had a hard time finding a place where they had sorted Ag energy expenses from other industry and all transport seems to get lumped together. One source had it that energy was about fifteen percent of the cost of food at the farm but didn't have it tallied up and another said that the cost of shipping processing ,transporting, retailing and storage were about ninety percent of the price you paid for an item in your cupboard. Another said an empty cereal box delivered to your door would cost almost as much as a full one.
Farmers are already reacting to rising energy costs and have made significant reductions in energy inputs per unit production. Perhaps the greatest potential for further reductions lies between the farmer and your shelves. Flying waxed apples ? Indeed!