A cheap and reliable food supply

Originally Posted by rambler

There have been many replies with the same theme.

This is a simple math problem - can be complicated answers, but the 'issue' is pretty simple.

If you take away produce (including meat) from a land, that land will be poorer.

Many of the grass-fed operations, and small garden operations, don't have very high yields. Then perhaps a lot is consumed on-site, with only small surpluses being hauled away.

This _appears_ to be sustainable, because there is a very low rate of produce (including meat) being hauled off site.

None the less, the soil becomes poorer and poorer over a long time. As well, yield/production remains fairly low.


Dad was an extremely tightwade German. He couldn't bear to spend money on fertilizer. His average corn yield was 88 bu per acre. We have 250 foot deep clay soils, vey rich in natural water holding, natural minerals, above average ph, good base fertility. This is _good_ soil.

I'm averaging 167 bu corn a decade or so later on the same ground. I actually use less fuel than he did. I spoon-feed P & K in strips, I apply less than conventional amounts of nitrogen.

I've doubled food production, with a bit more fertilizer, a bit less fuel.

My soils test better than they used to of course. And the earthworms are doing well, except of course where the 6 inches of rain flooded me out this year.

Used to be my dad & uncle farmed together, both their wives helped quite a bit, and averaged 2 kids a piece helping out with farming. I'm down to just me farming a bit more land than dad did, with some help from my wife. More acres covered with less labor.

That is how we feed more people with less.

My cattle I have gone to mostly grazing. I feed them very little of my corn & oats any more. Unfortunately it's a small herd, and with all the grazing I get little manure to put on my crop fields. I wish I had more, I value manure for it's many nutrients.

Your way of farming is great. But it requires more labor, it requires imported manure (some use seaweed, and organic-approved minerals, etc.) to build up & maintain the soil.

You just end up with lower production, more labor, to produce food. This is _not_ moving forward.

It's wonderful, it's fine, it's a great way of life if that's what you want.

But it is not sustainable for feeding the world's population now.

We can't force the whole world backwards. We don't have enough manure to import from 'somewhere' to fertilize all out crops. We don't have enough seaweed. We don't have enough people willing to work cheap enough to hand-weed all our crops. We won't go back to hand picking cotton for everyone.

We can't lose the time spent growing cover crops waiting for the soil to rebuild - we only have about 1 month extra food at any time. What id we all stopped fgrowing corn for a year in order to grow clovers & alfalfas to rebuild the soil? People would starve.

Note that cover crops are a very hot topic in conventional farming these days - I myself use clovers, alfalfas, and turnips in my effort to improve soils. I've experimented with tillage radishes. Real, big, farms are working with these ideas as well to improve growing.

MIG is the only way to go with livestock - big farms and ranches are using these ideas as well. I split the pasture dad had into 3 pieces, it offers much more grass, much less weeds now that I can do some limited rotation. I do much more than that with the turnips, cornstalks, etc.

Your way of doing things is wonderful. Frankly it's not all that different than _big_ farming, with conventional herbicides, fertilizers, etc.

Your way has some limits on what you can do. That cuts into production & efficieny somewhat.

In the big picutre, your way & the conventional way of farming are very similar, and use much the same ideas. Neither is sustainable, or both are sustainable. Your way uses imported manure; conventional uses manure & fertilizers. You use more labor to deal with weeds & bugs - conventional used some chemicals.

MIG, cover crops, manure, it's all a big part of conventional farming.

We all import things onto our farms to produce more; or we suffer a reduction in production. There can be no other way.

That doesn't make your way wrong, or bad.

I'm puzzled why you would think your way is somehow more sustainable, or somehow superior? That isn't true. No how, no way.

It's all farming, it's all about using land to it's best ablitiy to produce crops that can be used by humans.

--->Paul

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

In the corn belt, so much fertilizer is used, you can't drink tap! Tell me something is wrong when the farming practices make it so that you can't drink well water anymore?

Originally Posted by oneokie

If that is all that is needed, try feeding a high quality mineral along with sawdust or ground peanut hulls to ruminants and see what happens. Most of the ingredients that are in supplemental mineral mixes pass through the animal to be deposited on the ground. IMO, that is a very expensive way to add minerals to pasture land.

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

More labor... To raise a smaller amount of food... done small, it is much better for everyone. If we had all the small farms of yesterday, but with modern practices of organics, we could have a green future. We don't have to produce enough food to feed millions... Because we already produce more food than Cargill, ADM and evreyone else know what to do with. As for keeping prices small, food's not SUPPOSED to be cheap. If you wanted the life of lazy luxury (and compared to what used to be, many many people have lives of luxury), you had to pay some lovely cash for it. Otherwise you grew it yourself because it was too expensive. Then, of course, we run into the argument of people too poor to eat the cheap crap from Walmart - these people need to learn to grow food themselves. It would save money, even from buying the cheap crap. Then there's the argument of not buying cheap crap because it is, indeed, crap. Well, yes, it shouldn't be bought, because usually you can whip up some nicely cheap meals from bulk, raw materials, that are several times better for you. Of course that bulk food was probably produced by conventional, big-farm methods, so now we're back to where we started, which is buying locally produced organic food. (I think I mentioned local...?)So can you grow it cheap enough to feed poor people? Yes, certainly, if you don't mind losing more than it took you to grow it. Which brings us to another issue, that conventional produce cheaper than organic - because they use fertilizers made by cheap oil. So food is made cheap with oil. So do we use less fuel growing organically? Perhaps, but sometimes you can use MORE oil! The more you try to grow organically, the harder it gets and the more oil it takes. So small amounts would better be grown. Which brings us back to cost... I'm tired, and this is making me depressed, so I'm just posting this like it is.

Originally Posted by Patt

Good pasture and good hay plus a high quality mineral. .

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Unless you are a hermit living in the woods, and I doubt anyone here has WiFi in the Pine Barrens.

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

Then, of course, we run into the argument of people too poor to eat the cheap crap from Walmart - these people need to learn to grow food themselves. It would save money, even from buying the cheap crap. Then there's the argument of not buying cheap crap because it is, indeed, crap. Well, yes, it shouldn't be bought, because usually you can whip up some nicely cheap meals from bulk, raw materials, that are several times better for you. Of course that bulk food was probably produced by conventional, big-farm methods, so now we're back to where we started, which is buying locally produced organic food. (I think I mentioned local...?)So can you grow it cheap enough to feed poor people? Yes, certainly, if you don't mind losing more than it took you to grow it. Which brings us to another issue, that conventional produce cheaper than organic - because they use fertilizers made by cheap oil. So food is made cheap with oil. So do we use less fuel growing organically? Perhaps, but sometimes you can use MORE oil! The more you try to grow organically, the harder it gets and the more oil it takes. So small amounts would better be grown. Which brings us back to cost... I'm tired, and this is making me depressed, so I'm just posting this like it is.

Originally Posted by Patt

Good post! And I am tired too because I don't think they actually listen to anything we say and they discount even our own personal experiences which is wearing after awhile.

Originally Posted by oneokie

I am listening to what you are saying, and it does not make sense to me. It is not economically feasable to do what you say you are doing and be able to feed even one half of the population of the U.S. A cheap and reliable food supply should include all 300 + million people in the U.S.A.

Your personal experiences are what you have found that work for you in your particular circumstances. Those experiences won't work for everyone.

Originally Posted by oneokie

I am listening to what you are saying, and it does not make sense to me. It is not economically feasable to do what you say you are doing and be able to feed even one half of the population of the U.S. A cheap and reliable food supply should include all 300 + million people in the U.S.A.

Your personal experiences are what you have found that work for you in your particular circumstances. Those experiences won't work for everyone.

Originally Posted by oneokie

Are you achieving your good pasture and good hay without importing any inputs? Raising your own hay, harvested from your acreage?

If your pasture and hay are all that great, why are you using a mineral supplement?

Your sustainable operation is becoming more of a somewhat sustainable operation.

Originally Posted by HermitJohn

So again what are you going to do when the CHEAP OIL disappears? Just hope for manna from heaven? Just cause you really, really want to have 300M+ consumers with an abundance of food, even if its crappy food?

Fact of life, in a finite world you cant have infinite growth. You dont want to be responsible, mamma nature forces you to be responsible and that isnt usually very pretty. Saying you HAVE to provide for 300M+ people in the USA is bit like the crazy little old lady that wants 150 cats in her 2 room apartment and can barely cover monthly rent yet inflation doubles the price of cat food?

Again explain how "conventional" agriculture happens when oil either runs out or gets so expensive the "abundance" of food it produces isnt affordable to the average consumer? Total dependence on chemical ag and the desire for ever bigger human population doesnt seem to be very well thought out long term strategy. It seems more like a short term expediency. Instead of using the time to think out a true long term strategy, we have just become dependent on the short term oil windfall and expanded the population to depend on the temporary excess. Sort of like the little old cat lady inheriting couple thousand dollars. She just expands her herd of cats to the extent of what the couple thousand can buy in way of cat food. But then the couple thousand dollar windfall runs out without her having a way to continue to spend that amount of money and the cat poop hits the fan. And alas the great cat god she prays to every night doesnt send manna from heaven to fill the starving cats bellies......

Originally Posted by Patt

This proves that you are not listening to me. I am against a cheap food supply because it's a very simple rule in life you get what you pay for. We can have a very reliable food supply using organic or sustainable farming methods.

And as far as that "cheap" goes in reality it is not cheap it is heavily subsidised on many levels. If you dumped those subsidies and put that money back in the taxpayers pockets a lot of them would buy higher quality foods with it. Their choice has been taken away because the government takes our money and then chooses for us what to subsidise. That is wrong!

You have never shown one iota of proof that we could not feed America using my methods. You can say it all you like but until you actually back it up it means nothing.

Originally Posted by Patt

Because I raised weird cows like Highlands that need a supplement. Goats do better on one too. Heck I take a calcium supplement every day myself because my family genetics make me need more of it. It stands to reason if you take a cow from Scotland and plop him down in Arkansas he may need a thing or two that you don't have. And today's milk animals, cows and goats, are so over bred that they are dysfunctional and it takes awhile to get animals adapted to your area.

20 years from now I hope to have animals who are all compatible with my climate and my pasture. I have no doubt the guys around me who have cow/calf operations using cows that have been born and bred here for the last 100 years or so don't need a special mineral.

Originally Posted by HermitJohn

So again what are you going to do when the CHEAP OIL disappears? Just hope for manna from heaven? Just cause you really, really want to have 300M+ consumers with an abundance of food, even if its crappy food?

Fact of life, in a finite world you cant have infinite growth. You dont want to be responsible, mamma nature forces you to be responsible and that isnt usually very pretty. Saying you HAVE to provide for 300M+ people in the USA is bit like the crazy little old lady that wants 150 cats in her 2 room apartment and can barely cover monthly rent yet inflation doubles the price of cat food?

Again explain how "conventional" agriculture happens when oil either runs out or gets so expensive the "abundance" of food it produces isnt affordable to the average consumer? Total dependence on chemical ag and the desire for ever bigger human population doesnt seem to be very well thought out long term strategy. It seems more like a short term expediency. Instead of using the time to think out a true long term strategy, we have just become dependent on the short term oil windfall and expanded the population to depend on the temporary excess. Sort of like the little old cat lady inheriting couple thousand dollars. She just expands her herd of cats to the extent of what the couple thousand can buy in way of cat food. But then the couple thousand dollar windfall runs out without her having a way to continue to spend that amount of money and the cat poop hits the fan. And alas the great cat god she prays to every night doesnt send manna from heaven to fill the starving cats bellies......

Originally Posted by oneokie

You are pushing an agenda for organic, somewhat sustainable food production. Pure and simple.

I asked early in this thread for proof of what your are pushing and got a lame excuse about the raw data that the reports you were citing was unavailable to you. A final report without the raw data used to reach that conclusion is smoke and mirrors. As to the peer review you keep mentioning, those peers were people with similar agendas.

Originally Posted by Patt

Is there any chance at all any of you naysayers will make any effort whatsoever to back up your OPINIONS? Because if not I am done with this, I have amply proven my theory and you have not. Unless you want to give some hard scientific evidence you are wrong.