Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:Large farms are more productive per person employed i.e they are most efficient at turning oil into food, hence cheaper. Small farms and gardens are more productive per acre than a large farm but more labour intensive, hence more expensive. Large farms produce mainly commodity crops such as grains and others mentioned above while small farms are better at producing vegetables. The old fashioned mixed farms were more productive and are more sustainable because they rely less on oil and gas based inputs.

The UN produced a report recently, referred to elsewhere on this site, which said that the future of food production in the world was small scale, organic agriculture. It provides food and work in one go.
Again I doubt that if you are talking the same ground growing the same crop. No amount of intensive labor is going to increase yields of staple crops beyond what is achieved with machine farming with chemical weed control. The sited work achieves it's conclusions by comparing low production range land to truck gardens. Also they discard food sold as "commodities" or animal feed as somehow not being "Food".
Compare the yield of the suggested small farms worked by hand to the mile long lettuce fields of California's central valley growing the same crops and the results would be quite different.

Better yet take a section in Iowa and cut it into ten 64 acre small farms and compare it to the next section farmed as one field. same crop, same soil ,same weather. Then you would have an apples to apples ( or more likely a soybean to soybean) comparison.
Now I'm not against small farms as I own one. My topography makes it not suitable for large scale machine farming and I could grow all my own food on it if needed but even using state of the art methods I could never achieve yields per acre equal to big Ag as much of my land is steep enough to only be useful as grazing ground and wood lot. The gardens do do quite well on a square foot basis if I stay ahead of the weeds but If my labor is worth anything near minimum wage it's cheaper to buy produce at the market.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

You're as much a doomer as I am, Steve. :(

I think our mastery of technology will slow the decent/regression to the 1700s by about a generation as, when the technology breaks, we won't be able to replace it. But even then the knowledge we have of plant nutrition, disease control, intercropping and so on will enable us to provide much better productivity per are than the 1700s, or even the 1900s.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

VT, they may be discounting animal feed as that animal feed has only one third to one fifth the nutritional value that a straight human food crop would because that is the loss in feeding it to animals. Yes, there are situations where it is worth feeding animals but rarely by the growing of grains.

Take the oil and gas out of agribusiness and the whole thing collapses. Increase the cost of the oil and gas and the business case looks increasingly dodgy. Try and put oil and gas into subsidence economy agriculture and the economy goes bust. This is being found increasingly in India where the suicide rate amongst poorer farmers in rapidly increasing (especially where Monsatan's crops are concerned).

(Slightly off topic but my spell checker recognised Monsatan as referring to Monsanto!!! Like it)

The bottom line is that modern agribusiness is only possible with huge inputs of fossil fuel energy. That is not sustainable. If we move away from meat and grain heavy diets, which are much more healthy anyway, the requirement for large energy inputs is much less as the labour required can be provided by human power and the work done on a much smaller scale.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Little John

Post by Little John »

kenneal - lagger wrote:You're as much a doomer as I am, Steve. :(

I think our mastery of technology will slow the decent/regression to the 1700s by about a generation as, when the technology breaks, we won't be able to replace it. But even then the knowledge we have of plant nutrition, disease control, intercropping and so on will enable us to provide much better productivity per are than the 1700s, or even the 1900s.
The land is knackered K. I don't know how old you are, but I remember, as lad, watching the tractor ploughing the fields and seeing the hordes of birds following it and hovering up all of the grubs that were exp9osed.

Go to any mainstream farm now and watch the same process. There are only a fraction of the birds following the plough. The reason is because the soil is dead. Resurrected only temporarily each season by the application of nitrogenous fertilizers cracked from, natural gas. Because of this, when the oil and machines go, the land will be capable of producing far less than it could in 1750 no matter what methodologies are employed and it will take literally centuries for the land to rejuvenate. The above sorry state of affairs can be seen repeated all over the western world.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:
The bottom line is that modern agribusiness is only possible with huge inputs of fossil fuel energy.

I have to disagree with your use of "huge". Taking US corn for example the total cost of production is $4.97 per bushel including rent value of the land and labor. the total energy from fossil fuels both fertilizer and machine fuel included in that $4.97 is about $1.00. That is not huge. Take the fuel and chemical fertilizer away and replace it with more labor and organic fertilizers and your cost will soar perhaps to $30/ bu or more.
As oil and other fossil fuels become scarce we will have to prioritize where we cut back their use. They will have to take away your gas for your car and the garden rototiller before they can justify taking one gallon from big AG.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

vtsnowedin wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:
The bottom line is that modern agribusiness is only possible with huge inputs of fossil fuel energy.

I have to disagree with your use of "huge". Taking US corn for example the total cost of production is $4.97 per bushel including rent value of the land and labor. the total energy from fossil fuels both fertilizer and machine fuel included in that $4.97 is about $1.00. That is not huge. Take the fuel and chemical fertilizer away and replace it with more labor and organic fertilizers and your cost will soar perhaps to $30/ bu or more.
As oil and other fossil fuels become scarce we will have to prioritize where we cut back their use. They will have to take away your gas for your car and the garden rototiller before they can justify taking one gallon from big AG.
Your equations don't take climate change from all this subsidised fossil fuel use taken into account.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

emordnilap wrote:
Your equations don't take climate change from all this subsidised fossil fuel use taken into account.
With the time lag between emissions and effect taken into account both sides face the same climate (Changed or not) for the foreseeable future therefor climate on both sides of the equation cancel out.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:All you merely doing is suggesting that all will be well with BAU with modifications.
I've never said that all will be well! That's why it's so important to work out where the bright spots are so that they can be developed to increase our survival chances.

Doomsaying is all too easy.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

vtsnowedin wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
Your equations don't take climate change from all this subsidised fossil fuel use taken into account.
With the time lag between emissions and effect taken into account both sides face the same climate (Changed or not) for the foreseeable future therefor climate on both sides of the equation cancel out.
Oh, that's alright then. Carry on. :roll:
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
tpals
Posts: 79
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:40

Post by tpals »

vtsnowedin wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:
The bottom line is that modern agribusiness is only possible with huge inputs of fossil fuel energy.

I have to disagree with your use of "huge". Taking US corn for example the total cost of production is $4.97 per bushel including rent value of the land and labor. the total energy from fossil fuels both fertilizer and machine fuel included in that $4.97 is about $1.00. That is not huge. Take the fuel and chemical fertilizer away and replace it with more labor and organic fertilizers and your cost will soar perhaps to $30/ bu or more.
As oil and other fossil fuels become scarce we will have to prioritize where we cut back their use. They will have to take away your gas for your car and the garden rototiller before they can justify taking one gallon from big AG.
As corn is currently $4.65 per bushel it's not looking too profitable for anyone.

My father, a retired farmer, agrees with the report that small farms are more productive than big ag.
User avatar
sushil_yadav
Posts: 189
Joined: 23 Feb 2006, 14:21
Location: Delhi , India

Post by sushil_yadav »

.
Industrial Farms are dead zones.

Nothing but crop plants for miles and miles.

All trees have been cut down to make way for farming machines.

Birds, animals, bees and butterflies have been killed by insecticides and pesticides.

Underground water has been poisoned by insecticides, pesticides and fertilizers.

Industrial Farms are graveyards of nature.
.
User avatar
sushil_yadav
Posts: 189
Joined: 23 Feb 2006, 14:21
Location: Delhi , India

Post by sushil_yadav »

.
Industrial Society trying to save environment with money is like Fire Fighters trying to extinguish fire with petrol.

World Bank thinks rivers can be saved by giving million dollar loans.

Thousands of environmental organizations are pretending to save environment with their combined budgets of billions of dollars.

Height of Insanity!!!

Industrial Society is trying to save environment with money that has been accumulated by destroying environment.

First you kill environment for earning money, then you pretend to save environment with the money earned by killing environment..

This is like first killing a person with a gun and then trying to save him with the gun.

All money in Industrial Society is earned through some kind of Industrial Activity.

All money in Industrial Society is earned by killing animals, trees, air, water and land.....directly or indirectly.

All money in Industrial Society is earned by killing forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere.....directly or indirectly.

All money in Industrial Society is blood money

All money in Industrial Society has blood of nature on it.

There are thousands of Environmental Organizations and NGO’s in this world....Their combined budget runs into billions of dollars.

All this money is coming from the very system that is destroying the ecosystems.....How can Environmental Organizations and NGO’s ever save environment when their Salaries/ Grants/ Funds and Donations are coming from Industrial Activity which is destroying the environment???

Environment cannot be saved by Environmental Organizations, NGO’s, Protests and Petitions.

For millions of years on earth, environment was not saved by Environmental Organizations, NGO’s, Protests or Petitions.

You cannot save a person after killing him.
You can only save him by not killing him.

You cannot save environment after killing it with Industrial Activity.
You can only save environment by not killing it with Industrial Activity.

Once you have killed a person, you cannot save him with any treatment....He is already gone.

Once you have killed environment with Industrial Activity, you cannot save it with anything....It is already gone.

Industrial Activity has destroyed environment in 100 years.
Absence of Industrial Activity saved environment for millions of years.
.
.

Industrialization was the biggest crime on earth.

Agrarian society was the limit for man on earth.

Cities are the Graveyards of Nature, Urban Dwellers the Executioners.

Stop Education.....Close Down Universities.

Stop Urban Work.....Close Down the Cities.
.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

tpals wrote:
As corn is currently $4.65 per bushel it's not looking too profitable for anyone.
It has been very profitable as of late due to the demand created by the ethanol program. margins are slim and usually just pennies per bushel but your talking millions of bushels per farm.

Farmdoc Search Subscribe About Contact Us friends of farmdoc



US Monthly Average Corn Price Received
for the 2000 - 2014 Calendar Year(s)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg*
$/bu.
2000 1.91 1.98 2.03 2.03 2.11 1.91 1.64 1.52 1.61 1.74 1.86 1.97 1.86
2001 1.98 1.96 1.96 1.89 1.82 1.76 1.87 1.90 1.91 1.84 1.85 1.98 1.89
2002 1.97 1.93 1.94 1.91 1.93 1.97 2.13 2.38 2.47 2.34 2.28 2.32 2.13
2003 2.33 2.34 2.33 2.34 2.38 2.34 2.17 2.15 2.20 2.12 2.20 2.31 2.27
2004 2.39 2.61 2.75 2.89 2.87 2.79 2.51 2.34 2.20 2.15 2.05 2.04 2.47
2005 2.12 1.95 2.02 2.00 1.98 2.03 2.11 1.95 1.90 1.82 1.77 1.92 1.96
2006 2.00 2.02 2.06 2.11 2.17 2.14 2.14 2.09 2.20 2.54 2.87 3.01 2.28
2007 3.05 3.44 3.43 3.39 3.49 3.51 3.32 3.26 3.29 3.29 3.43 3.76 3.39
2008 3.97 4.53 4.70 5.15 5.28 5.48 5.24 5.26 5.02 4.37 4.26 4.10 4.78
2009 4.36 3.87 3.86 3.85 3.97 4.03 3.60 3.33 3.25 3.61 3.65 3.59 3.75
2010 3.66 3.55 3.55 3.41 3.48 3.41 3.49 3.65 4.08 4.32 4.55 4.82 3.83
2011 4.94 5.64 5.53 6.35 6.30 6.38 6.32 6.88 6.37 5.71 5.84 5.86 6.01
2012 6.07 6.28 6.35 6.34 6.33 6.37 7.14 7.63 6.89 6.77 7.02 6.87 6.67
2013 6.96 7.04 7.13 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.79 6.21 5.40 4.61 4.35 4.41 6.15
2014 4.42 4.35 4.51 4.71

*The average in the above table is the calendar year average.

Source

To generate a new table, select the variables below and click here
Commodity Price Beginning Year Ending Year Type



Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences
Home | Finance | Marketing & Outlook | Management | Law & Taxation
Policy | FAST Tools | AgMAS | Crop Insurance | Prices & Weather | Ag Links
Search | Subscribe | About farmdoc | Contact Us | friends of farmdoc
E-mail: farmdoc@illinois.edu
University of Illinois

Copyright© 2014 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
External sites are not endorsed by the University of Illinois

Last Modified:06/05/2014 08:16:12
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

The cereals, maizie, wheat, barley and rye, are crops which may always be best grown in something that resembles the modern industrial agricultural methods as the benefits of tractors and combine harvesters over manual labour give a big advantage, even if the fuel for the machinery is derived from the crop itself.

It's too simplistic to say all small-scale farming good, all large-scale farming bad.

I know; I've threshed wheat by hand!
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

It has to be admitted that, since starting on The Plot, I have grown to see a lot of the downsides of small-scale local ag., the main one being the effect on an imperfect 50-year olde frame of all that bloody bending!

So, I agree totally about the cerials/staples thingie. Little plots like mine are great for protein, vits and minerals, plus the odd spud. I'm assuming that the simple calories will come in from elsewhere.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
Post Reply