IN 40 years were will you be Farming I hope

cowkeeper · #21 02/23/11, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apryl in ND

I will be 64 and still homesteading somewhere.

I hate to be so morbid, but natural or man made disasters need to and will happen to thin the population. As horrible as this sounds, instead of working hard to produce more food to support more people so they can live to make even more people, I think we need to let them starve. I know that doesn't sound very nice but it's natures way of controlling population. The more we feed them, the more they will reproduce. I think instead of worrying about feeding people, we should offer more birth control. Just my opinion.

I was trying not to respond to this thread but here goes. We are all in this world, human beings, together on a planet of finite resources. The above, "I think 'we' need to let 'them' starve" is very disturbing. And to the other poster, those countries that have oil resources and sand are also populated with human families just as entitled to life as we consider we are. If we (all of us) don't start to figure out ways to limit the world population (not only 'theirs'), we will definitely run out of fresh water and food. We are lucky to live in the country and know how to grow things, but if our current dependence on oil continues and the supply dries up or becomes scarce and extremely expensive, how will we run our chainsaws, hay equipment etc. How self-sufficient would be be if there was no gas for the truck? Connecting with family ten miles away would become a luxury. That ten miles would be very far away on foot. We are immediately in trouble if the electricity goes out and we cannot pump water or do much else. We can feel smug and secure in the country but we could be facing starvation in the not-too-distant future. GMO Crops seem to play a part in the dying of honeybees and other pollenators. Was it Einstein who said that once the bees are gone, humans will have about four years?
I fear that we are too stupid a species to *work together* to limit our numbers and take care of the Earth that is our home, and it will take natural and man-made disasters to right the balance.ck

Heritagefarm · #22 02/23/11, 10:08 PM

I will hopefully still be farming normally, provided climate change doesn't screw it up... Or overpopulation... Or, or, or... I dunno. The future looks bleak, so I just won't worry too much. *cough* Uh, no, I'm worrying a lot. Some people seem to think the problem will just fix itself, or it just won't happen. I say huh, you have your head buried in the sand, and your neck and shoulders too. Humanity has a very good potential to just wipe out life on earth. I don't think it will get that bad, though...

Above: Well, on pasture grain gets used less and produces meat in conjuction with pasture. In a feedlot, however, it can take 35 pounds of grain to make a pound of meat. But lets not go there...

MO_cows · #23 02/23/11, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

I will hopefully still be farming normally, provided climate change doesn't screw it up... Or overpopulation... Or, or, or... I dunno. The future looks bleak, so I just won't worry too much. *cough* Uh, no, I'm worrying a lot. Some people seem to think the problem will just fix itself, or it just won't happen. I say huh, you have your head buried in the sand, and your neck and shoulders too. Humanity has a very good potential to just wipe out life on earth. I don't think it will get that bad, though...

Above: Well, on pasture grain gets used less and produces meat in conjuction with pasture. In a feedlot, however, it can take 35 pounds of grain to make a pound of meat. But lets not go there...

But you went there. And that is absolutely not true. There are a lot of variables involved but more or less 6 pounds of grain equals one pound of gain in the feedlot. Consider that animals live on pasture most of their lives and attain most of their growth on pasture. The feedlot is just for the final finishing, so the pound of grain per pound of meat is even far less than 6:1.

linn · #24 02/24/11, 08:24 AM

Even in many feed lots, the main diet of cattle is hay--mostly baled grass or legumes mostly from the pasture). Big feeders may keep the livestock on full grain feed, but we never do. We start with a small amount of grain and build up until we are feeding at an efficient level. Growing corn isn't the problem, it is the chemicals and pesticides that the government and big ag companies have convinced the farmers to use. Disease resistant strains of grain can go a long way in reducing this chemical load. Since time began, even humans have used grain for food. Grain isn't the problem, chemicals and pesticides are the problems in depleting soil. Natural fertilizers and eco-friendly sprays can help out there. What some of the younger people don't realize is that as early as the sixties, the prediction for world starvation and soil depletion have been circulated. We were told then to start stocking up. That was almost fifty years age, here it is 2011 and we are still going. I am not saying that this can't happen, but to blame the raising and feeding of grain crops for the total condition or to say let the starving people of the world starve is not realistic or humanitarian.

Apryl in ND · #25 02/24/11, 10:20 AM

[QUOTE=linn;4954632]What if they decide to start with letting you starve?

[/QUOTE

I raise, hunt and gather my own food so that won't happen.

Heritagefarm · #26 02/24/11, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

Even in many feed lots, the main diet of cattle is hay--mostly baled grass or legumes mostly from the pasture). Big feeders may keep the livestock on full grain feed, but we never do. We start with a small amount of grain and build up until we are feeding at an efficient level. Growing corn isn't the problem, it is the chemicals and pesticides that the government and big ag companies have convinced the farmers to use. Disease resistant strains of grain can go a long way in reducing this chemical load. Since time began, even humans have used grain for food. Grain isn't the problem, chemicals and pesticides are the problems in depleting soil. Natural fertilizers and eco-friendly sprays can help out there. What some of the younger people don't realize is that as early as the sixties, the prediction for world starvation and soil depletion have been circulated. We were told then to start stocking up. That was almost fifty years age, here it is 2011 and we are still going. I am not saying that this can't happen, but to blame the raising and feeding of grain crops for the total condition or to say let the starving people of the world starve is not realistic or humanitarian.

Interesting... Now, what about the first line? It was my understanding that all feedlots fed unlimited grain without hay. Perhaps smaller ones with no corporate ties that finish animals for customers instead of Cargill, etc.? I am aware that they gradually put them on their high-grain diet.
I do agree with much of what you wrote, although, pesticides or no, I believe grain-finished meat is unhealthy, not to mention I can't stand the fat.

linn · #27 02/24/11, 12:05 PM

Yes, many with corporate ties may feed unlimited grain every day, but small time feeders can't afford to do that, so yes the first line is accurate in my experience. Just because we like corn fed beef doesn't mean I advocate that everyone eat corn fed beef. On the other hand, I don't wish to have anyone dictate how I should raise my beef. We love our grain fed beef, but to each his own. That is the way things should be.

http://www4-auth.sdstate.edu/ars/spe...-20_Taylor.pdf

linn · #28 02/24/11, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE=Apryl in ND;4955900]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

What if they decide to start with letting you starve?

[/QUOTE

I raise, hunt and gather my own food so that won't happen.

But in the world you envision, only the fittest are chosen to survive. A lot like a regime in power seventy years ago. What happens if you don't fit the idealized version of someone's dream or if you become sick or disabled? Should we let you starve or die? I think your attitude would change dramatically in that event.

cowkeeper · #29 02/24/11, 12:56 PM

[QUOTE=Apryl in ND;4955900]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linn

What if they decide to start with letting you starve?

[/QUOTE

I raise, hunt and gather my own food so that won't happen.

Apryl, In looking at your earlier post you will be 64 in 40 years. That makes you 24 now. I remember what it was like to be 24: you will never get sick, never get old, or at least as you age you are certain that due to your lifestyle and inherent superiority you will be strong and well. I am 64, never ill, garden, look after livestock, 'chop wood haul water' yada yada, but I would have a hard time managing if parts of the 'system' failed &/or climate got a lot worse. A person's vigor and ability to cope with change is simply not the same as it was in the previous decades. If you are still hunting and gathering and well at 64 (no kidney stone/appendicitis or other medical emergency), would you be able to cope with an unexpected injury? Who would gather for you in that event? Will you be in a stable group of able bodied people willing to keep you fed and warm, or would taking care of an unproductive person be too much for the group?
Mahatma Ghandi said, "You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members". I hope that as world conditions become more difficult that we dont degenerate into 'a survival of the fittest' mentality.
Apryl, it's going to be your world. Better start thinking of some solutions now.ck

(This thread is a funny mixture of philosophy and feedlot diets LOL)

cowkeeper · #30 02/24/11, 01:02 PM

sorry, double post.

thequeensblessing · #31 02/24/11, 02:56 PM

People shouldn't rely on being able to hunt their own food when times get bad. Back in the early 20th century a lot of game was literally hunted out of habitat due to over-hunting. If a lot of people are starving, they all will want to go with the free food and they won't care how they get it. Poach it, steal it, whatever. If that's what you rely on, you might go hungry with the rest.

trbizwiz · #32 02/24/11, 03:22 PM

Maybe this is exploitative, but in those poor and under developed countries, why not figure out what their assets are. Maybe they have the capability of providing something to humanity. that would off set what ever that commodity or service is for some other part of the world, allowing that other part of the world to concentrate on what it can most effeciently provide. Then each part of the world would use their goods and services as currency to trade with the rest of the world to get what they need.

Yes we are sort of doing this now. But rather than providing free hand outs and aid, we need to provide real aid. Education, jobs, stability (governmental). A big part of the problem with under developed countries is very corrupt government in those areas. Those poor and under developed countries that would love to work and earn, in a perfect world those opportunities would be present.
It was very messy in this country at one time in order for us to have those same opportunities. Sadly it will have to be for those people too. My prayer is that they will figure it out, and make the sacrifice, and be blessed with strong leaders with integrity like we used to have.
As some others posted above, I do somewhat fear that the world will make corrections to any over poplulation. I am not afraid for myself. I know where I am headed, my family is headed there too. But what if they (my family) are left behind. I am strong as a bear, and smart as a fox. I can provide for my family. But what if I am not there, will they suffer with out me.
I would much rather see the whole world suceed, so I know my family will be fine, with or with out me. We teach our children to recycle, and care for their environment as well as their peers. Strength, and compassion will get us through.

Heritagefarm · #33 02/24/11, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thequeensblessing

People shouldn't rely on being able to hunt their own food when times get bad. Back in the early 20th century a lot of game was literally hunted out of habitat due to over-hunting. If a lot of people are starving, they all will want to go with the free food and they won't care how they get it. Poach it, steal it, whatever. If that's what you rely on, you might go hungry with the rest.

True to a certain extent. I think people should still learn how to do it, but as carefully as possible.

thequeensblessing · #34 02/24/11, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

True to a certain extent. I think people should still learn how to do it, but as carefully as possible.

I totally agree that everyone should know how to do it, but if that's what you're relying on, if that's your backup plan, I'm just sayin' it's flawed.

Heritagefarm · #35 02/24/11, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thequeensblessing

I totally agree that everyone should know how to do it, but if that's what you're relying on, if that's your backup plan, I'm just sayin' it's flawed.

True, since the Wilderness is not very productive.

thequeensblessing · #36 02/24/11, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

True, since the Wilderness is not very productive.

Not when half of the rest of the surrounding community is planning to live on it too.

Apryl in ND · #37 02/25/11, 01:52 AM

I sincerely hope that our world doesn't come to survival of the fittest and that more people don't starve. I just wish that all of the people that are so worried about feeding other people would put that money partly towards birth control. What's the point in feeding people so that they can make even more people to have to feed, keep disease free ect.. It's flawed. Not the way nature intended and it's a viscous cycle.

Has anybody read the book by Daniel Quinn "Ishmael"? I recommend it. Kind of gave me a different perspective.

cowkeeper · #38 02/25/11, 10:03 AM

Here it is, in a nutshell. The impact of fossil fuels on human population growth.ck

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48677