rmarqusee - An excellent summary on how increased organic matter is accumulated and its impact on carbon sequestration. However, I am not sure how it bears on comparisons of natural habitats vs. grazed pastures. Did I miss something?

Mr. O -

I promised to post the information about pasture and its benefit for curbing global warming:

"Current Science" Volume 91, No. 7, 10 October 2006 entitled "Plant Roots and Carbon Sequestration".
Also, check out "Carbon Farmers of America" a group started by Abe Collins of Vermont.

As you will determine, there is a lot more carbon sequestration than you thought in your earlier posts.

Rob

John - I skimmed the first paper. It says that PD was found to be twice as likely in those reporting exposure to pesticides. Well I bet that cockroach infestations in their homes were also much higher in those exposed to pesticides. Do pesticides cause cockroach infestations? Do cockroaches cause PD? Cigerette smoking is correlated with achieving less education. Do cigerettes cause people to drop out of school? Correlations are not necissarily causal connections.

As far as the "evolution" hypothesis, most of the food we eat is novel in evolutionary terms. Even corn is a recent food for most people. Only those with new-world ancestry have had this in their diet for more than a few hundred years, and corn is one of the oldest foods that we eat. Go to the grocery store and look around. Tonmatoes, carrots, cucumbers, brocolli, etc. - they are all relatively new to our diet in evolutionary terms. Maybe kiwi fruit is causing PD?

If you are a PhD, you do not impress me as much as you may some others. They are handing these out to anyone with enough money and persistence to stay in school these days. I am not going to have a pissing contest with you, but it is likely you would lose.

So, why talk about being 'fair' to this dweeb?

Every read Mark Anthony's 'defense' of Brutus in Julius Caesar, John? ;)

chessgames56 - I wouldn't state that all autism is caused by pesticides, nor all cancers, etc. My point was that they've been shown to be endrocrine disrupters leading to hemaphroditism as well as being strongly correlated with Parkinsons. (And note, in the study, this was correcting for genetic predispositions by looking at differences in Parkinson's within the family correlated with pesticide use.) So, why talk about being 'fair' to this dweeb? - I was fair - I gave references to papers and articles even though he's obviously NOT a biologist and lies about it while hiding behind some snarky pseudonym. And so what if alphatoxins are natural and produced by fungus? - do we purposely spray it on our food?

John, scientific truth almost always has nuances and qualifying factors, and more are discovered all the time. Many course opinions have partial scientific truth, but become false when looking at the bigger picture, or overlooking some qualifying factor or factors. Autism has indeed been on the rise, and not too long ago Bill Moyer's had a toxicologist test his body for accumulated toxins, and he was shocked to find that his body had been storing a relatively high level of PCBs. The toxicologist said that we are all building up various chemicals from the environment within us, and no one knows yet what this means exactly.

An educated guess would be that it might lead to disease in those who are genetically predisposed.

In fairness to Mr O, he is not did not say he was a molecular biologist, and in the case of aflatoxins (a fungus that grows on various grains and nuts), which causes liver cancer, he would be correct. However, I do not think he is qualified to claim that pesticides have little effect on disease etiology; at this point in time, such a statement is rather presumptuous.

That's Dr. John Boy to you, son. But 'fungle'? and you say you're a Biologist?

- yeah, right...

Okay, but back to your education! Yippeee! Here's link to a paper that links a 2x increase in Parkinson's with pesticide use.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2377-8-6.pdf

And the connection between pesticides and hemaphroditic frogs - e.g. male frogs that have developmental problems so they develop ovaries -

http://www.cleanairpurewater.com/frogs.html

And note that yes, there are a lot of natural toxins out there - but guess what? - animals have had millions of years to evolve to adapt to them. And even if a pesticide has passed testing by the FDA, there are no tests for anything that causes subtle developmental defects. There's been an epidemic of autism in the last 40 years - why? As someone who worked as a chemist in Process Development for a herbicide manufacturer, I think I have a bit more wisdom than you in this area. So, read up sonny and get educated!

And do you get paid by Monsanto or Dupont to troll sites and spew disinformation?

OK John-boy - How about that the miniscule amounts of pesticides do not even start to compare to the natural toxicants in the food that we eat every day. Furthermore, these toxicants are upregulated when the plants are attached by pests, not to mention the fungle toxins present on the wounds made by these pests. These toxicants have proven toxicological consiquences while the pesticides have been evaluated and found to present negligable risk. OK - Now your turn to rant...

Mr O pseudonymy dude - so you're a biologist? if you were, you'd know some biochemistry and say something intelligent to correct me. Obviously (haha) you don't.

bingo "0" and that is why farmers crow corn for fuel. As others have said farmers should not be allowed to do this? Sorry my land, grow what I want to make money. That is why Germany stopped doing it. Bio fuels were being shipped to the US from Europe the US puts in some gas in to make it ethanol and ships it back and sells it for a profit putting people out of work in Europe. It is a scam from the word grow

Rob - We agree on ethanol from corn. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that this is a "legal" way provide Ag subsidies.

AS A FARMER
Farmers trying to make a living out of farming. You forget the family farm is a thing of the passed and just ads on TV. So the few little guys wants to make a few extra bucks for his family and to pay the bank I say it is his land he can grow what works. If I came into your work and said no you can't do this job you have to do this and make less money who the fuck am I to tell you different. You assholes stand on your box and tell people what to do with their lives BUT I AM STILL WAITING FOR ONE OF YOU TO SAY YOU WERE AT A PROTEST ON THE WEEKEND.

O -

I see your point - but that is a long shot. Here is my point: the ethanol thing is driving folks to devastate areas that would otherwise be used to do the conservation thing you talk about. In the Midwest, we have the Loess Hills - a geologic fragile environment. Rather than use it for wooded areas or for conservation, farmers have seen the dollars in their eyes and are row cropping it. Another article on Common Dreams: "As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation" is on point here.

So, our little detour regarding cattle aside, the main thrust is that grain prices are going up, land that is needed to provide ecological balance, etc, is being taken for corn production, and devastation is happening. Forests are being eaten up in other parts of the world.

So, we agree that it would be great for more wooded areas. And it sounds like you are a conscientious farmer. And I agree that if we were to accelerate cattle production, and if you were to extend that out over vast pastures, "may" cause an issue (depending on the scenario). But, in the unlikely event that the latter would occur, or - to use an unlikely scenario to support CAFO's - is not reasonable.

Using grain to push bio-fuels, pushing up the price of grain - and being supported by US Farm policy - well, I am still trying to make sense of it all.

Rob - My point is that I believe concentrating 4000 head in a CAFO is better than spreading the same 4000 animals over countless acres of pasture that otherwise could be converted to natural habitat. Better yet would be to reduce meat production which would have both ecological and health benefits (good luck with that). Our high-intensity vegetable operation allows us to convert 90% of our farm to natural habitat and the advantages in terms of biodiversity are obvious to us. Speading our operation out using organic methods, including producing animals for manure could never achieve this environmental improvement. Not even close!

Mr. O -

Then you can see how CAFO's are disastrous. The high concentration of animals - with concentrated manure - is death to an area.

The DNR in Iowa requires a Manure Management Plan - and the figures show that a 4000 head CAFO can produce as much manure as a city of 100,000 people. Put that in highly erodible land area - and you have a mess.

That is why, among other reasons such as high concentrates of nitrates, the City of Des Moines spent 10s of millions to treat their water. So, pastured land with fewer head of cattle is better -

But, we digress. Getting back to your initial point: it is not the elite rich who necessarily promote organic or sustainable ag - there are very good reasons to counter industrial ag. (even though you may not agree with all of them).

Rob

rmarqusee - There are two sides to the CO2 equation. Photosynthesis captures CO2 and use of the plant material (metabolism) releases it. If biomass is accumulated (or soil organic matter increases) then there may be a net sequestering of CO2 compared to what is lost through animal/microbial/fungal processing. This is not likely on pasture land which requires inputs beyond the manure from the grazing animals to stay productive. This is part of why animal production is believed to be a major agricultural contributor to greenhouse gases. Ungrazed grasslands would likely provide some net sequestering of carbon. Growth of perennial woody plants provides a great carbon sink. The best situation is lumber production where the wood is tied up in structures where it is not destroyed, and the ground is replanted to trees.

Namaste
The sugar is removed from the cane and is used as sugar. Now the countries that are making ethanol from cane use the rest of the plants to make the ethanol that people couldn't eat anyway. There is no food lost at all. What they make is alcohol and put a small amount of gas in it to make it undrinkable.
Now this simple process is called in slang terms moon shine. It cost between 50 and 75 cents a US gallon to make. If you look at the gas cap on your car you will see that the newer ones can use up to 85% of this much cheaper produce than gas product. So all the oil companies see even higher profits as they charge as much for ethanol as gas.
Now american farmers who have all the equipment to plant corn they plant corn.
I am in the process on my own farm of planting sugar cane. I don't know if it has even done this far north.

O -

I am getting the scientific journal's study reference on this point - will post here. But, it should be straight forward that photo-synthesis occurs.

Rob

P.S. Better check out your assertion that grassland helps with greenhouse gas emitions. Not sure where you think the carbon is being sequestered. Please enlighten me.

Well we are doing fine on our small farm with no government subsidies. Guess some need farm welfare? I favor an open market, but if you think that those unable to compete need to be supported, then I guess farm welfare is a great idea....

OH one more thing - grass consumes carbon dioxide - and reduces greenhouse gases. So, pastureland is very important for keeping a balance in the sky.

Rob

Thank you Mr Obvious for your thoughtful response. However, I can easily answer some of your points:

Why are small farms disappearing? It is because we have become a large economies of scale society where great wealth is created by high volume, low margin commodities. The Farm Bill has been mostly responsible for this - as with GMO - reducing the amount of labor. 10% of farmers receive 75% of the subsidies - they work to consolidate farms. The subsidies are the primary reason farm land, and current grain prices, have gone sky high. Remove the subsidies - and the price goes down. That cannot be questioned - it is a fact.

So, the "cannot compete" notion is completely government driven. The US Government has a policy literally to destroy small family farms. My testimony to US Congress - the written copy of which is sited in my first post - lays all this out.

It should be noted as well that a large percentage of our farms are cash rented. These cash rent farmers are getting squeezed - it is the low percentage of landowners who make bundles of cash.

So, it is what you are seeing throughout the county - the CEOs make a ton of money - while the rest of us labor and take the crumbs that the policies produce.

As for your other points - I will get the the specific data on nutrient replacement specifics on organic - hopefully in this thread. I know that the rotations do replace significant portions of natural depletion - however, that does not even come close to that which mono-culture practices requires.

Rob

John - If a biologist tried to explain why your understanding of chemistry was wrong, what would you think? As a biologist, imagine what I think of your assessment. Why do you think that your chemistry training endows you with an understanding beyond most biologists? Maybe you are sifting cat poo from your sandbox.

The devil is in the details, folks... Are organically grown foods more nutritious? No. Do I eat organic even though a chemist? - Yes. Why? Because pesticide/herbicide use correlates very well with Parkinson's (roughly a 2x increase) and I have little doubt - if the data can be sifted though - autism, reproductive problems, and lots of subtle, but seriously debilitating problems. And while having chosen to be a vegetarian for some years, our bodies are not designed for it - from a metabolic standpoint, we piss away large amounts of nitrogen because of our digestive systems were designed for a high meat diet and an excess of protein - unlike a cow or a deer that recycles nitrogen very efficiently. But what does that have to do with being vegetarian? - we have reason and ethics - it's a matter of conscious choice.

Treefrog - Existing supplies of manure are currently being used to fertilize crops. Using this manure on food crops is dangerious. No one is argueing that existing suppies of concentrated manure is a great fertilizer on commodity crops. However, advocating it as a replacement for the synthetic fertilizer on the vast majority of agricultural fields is irresponsible. Increased animal production to supply this need would be ecologically devistating.

Manure is going to be available regardless of how it is used, it is a natural part part of any life cycle. Synthetic chemicals have disrupted this natural order and bioaccumulate in every living thing with an average life span. Have you had your children tested for body burden levels of synethic chemicals?

rmarqusee - Please consider the following: If smaller grain farms are more efficient then why are they disappearing? Small grain farms are disappearing because they cannot compete. My wife, childern and I operate a small high-intensity vegetable farm, and last I looked we were thriving. Small farms can compete just fine with labor-intensive crops or those that will not ship well while maintaining high quality, like good-tasting tomatoes. We have no trouble selling our crops, almost exlusively retail at farmers markets. The organic growers do not come close to competing with us and are forced to sell for lower prices. They don't like us, maybe because we don't use gimicks. Second, when you harvest phosphorus and potassium in a crop you must replace them. They are elements and are not regenerated by rotational crops. Rotations cannot replace all the nitrogen either, but they can replace some. This is what the soybean/corn rotation practiced by most US farmers does. Third, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture both use tractors as you said. Synthetic fertilizer takes fossil fuel to produce but can be applied with less fossil fuel than manure can be spread. Also manure comes from animals that are major contributors to greenhouse gases and which require pasture land that reduces natural habitat. Finally, Ethanol subsidies are agricultural subsidies in that they create demand and drive up prices, and they benefit grain farmers, and the whole ag industry.

By the way, nature not only provides food but also the most deadly toxins known to man. Nature does not take care of us or anything, it is a series of processes and nothing more. It is amazing, but it is not a god.

In response to kernel - who I believe is being honest in his or her arguments:

First, you (and Mr O's) are assuming a great deal to reach your conclusion. You think that organic agriculture - or better yet, food produced by small family farmers - are a throw back in time. This is evidenced by your statement that we cant go back to horse and buggy days.

Modern organic agriculture uses tractors. It is not mandated that we use horse and buggy :)

Second, you assume that manure has to be spread out over all farmland in the US. This is not true as well.

The reason why we use chemicals today is to make up for the lack of nutrients in the ground - that is caused by stripping land via lack of proper rotations.

Third, industrial farming is highly fossil fuel intensive. Enough said.

Fourth, your approach (and Mr 0s) is like going to bottled water. If a company came up and said to you - I make a better water than nature can provide. Would you buy it? That thinking has led to an environmental disaster via plastic bottles.

I guess the point is: industrial ag does not produce better food than nature itself can provide.

Fifth, the price of grain is going up because of input costs going up.

Lastly, subsidies - well, that is a big topic - but I can prove to you that it is not farmers who benefit from the subsidies - since they used to sell grain at a loss. Rather, the benefit of subsidies goes to large corporate food aggregators. The USDA has agreed with this point. Because of the ethanol subsidies, US does not have to pay out LDP or Counter-Cyclical payments - but farmers still get direct payments. The US simply shifted who would benefit from subsidies - that is, going to the oil companies who get the blenders tax credit.

Rob

The benefit of organic versus conventional food is probably not the most urgent point this article makes, but, OMG! looking at the picture above of the pesticides going on the rice sure makes the case for organic food.

Since the Earth is being pushed to its absolute limit because of overpopulation and, to a smaller extent waste, we are subjected to all kinds of horrendous chemicals in our food to facilitate maximum production.

I have to say, I am so glad to see what I consider reasonable comments by Robert Settgast, leafsong and others. Unless overpopulation is addressed people will continue to starve at increasing rates. I personally do not want to send the message: "You keep having babies you can't take care of, we'll keep sending food, and feeling guilty and responsible."

Mr O is unfairly maligned for his practical views instead of some dream of going back to pre-industrial agriculture. If we cannot feed people using GMO Hybrids with commercial fertilizer and pesticides, we surely will not do it with the primitive methods of the past.

Most of the problems with pesticides are caused by improper or careless use, but that is one thing that can be avoided by using GMO seed.

Using manure on fields is a fine practice, however to cover the bulk of the farmland in the US would be totally impossible unless we all eat meat like crazy and multiply our feedlots by a great number.

The only things that will put our agriculture back to the old ways of a century ago will be a deep depression or a nuke war that gets to us instead of the other guys. After using 500 horsepower tractors and very large equipment that drives itself, few will go back to the hoe and the manure fork again.

Some think subsidies are adding to the prices of food, but they are designed to compensate for low prices, not to add to the high ones. With today`s prices, most of the help to farmers will be to pay for land that has been taken out of production and put in grass for conservation.

Today`s farming does not cause soil erosion, but is controlling it by less cultivation and more residue left on the surface. The dust bowl days of the 30`s and 50`s were because of poor yields and too much plowing and cultivation.

Are we discussing the first widespread manifestations of global recession and the disastrous effects of US-imposed neo-liberal economic policies on the poor and working class consumers - i.e. textile factory workers in Egypt rioting and dying over food prices and shortages, impoverished Haitians demonstrating and dying against their government's policies and food shortages, Filipino farmers and consumers demonstrating daily over out of reach prices and acute shortages of rice...and on and on? Or are we navel gazing and scape-goating on peripheral issues...a la Paul Krugman's blame the 'meat-eating Chinese', over-population of brown people, lack of personal-responsibility and counterpose the absurd 'go back to nature grow organic' alternative?
When diciplined factory workers and low-income housewives bravely face armed riot police in repressive imperial client states like Egypt and the Philippines over their inability to put food on the family table - despite their arduous labor and 'personal' discipline - and the affected workers and consumers correctly blame their governments' US/IMF/World Bank imposed neo-liberal policies of eliminating support to domestic agriculture and food security for 'structural readjustment', privatization and speculative land conversion policies ... then we should take heed!
This is not about 'personal responsibility' or overpopulation or the demands of 'meat-eating Chinese' (a la Krugman) - this is the first ugly spark of world-wide recession and mass misery directly related to the imperial policies popularized as 'globalization'. Do we have to wait for riots in our own streets to decide which side we are on? Reading all these navel-gazing 'blame the victim' commentaries makes one wonder.

Oh, and I forgot the potent ozone depleting effects of Methyl Bromide soil fumigant. The US refuses to follow the rest of the world in banning it - even though the worldwide crop damaging effects of increaed UV radiation is much, much greater a threat than some insects are to the growers of those tasteless California strawberries.

Mr. O wrote:

"If a pesticide was found to be this dangerious, it would never be registered."

Funny how libertarians like you suddenly fal in love with government regulation when it helps their pro-corporate agruments, or when they know the regulatory process is compromised by corporate interests.

Pesticides certainly would fit most people's definition of "dangerous". There have been numerous documented health effects on poor farmworkers - even fatal poisonings from working in sprayed fields.

Drinking water have very low pesticide level standards - but probably not low enough as these halogenated hydrocarbons have long-term hormone-disrupting effects at absolutely tiny levels.

Persistent halogenated organic compounds from pestecides are found in fish everywhere in the world - and at unhealthy levels in Arctic fish thousands of miles from the closest large farm. The Inuit are haveing 2 female babies for every male one, the pesticides in their fish diet being the most likely culprit.

While I agree that most GMO's by themselves are unlikely to have deliterious health effects, their effects on food security and economic justice are enormous. The primary thrust of GMO's is not productivity or nutriton, it is to make all food seeds and ultimately most life forms the "ntellectual property" of a few large corporations, permitting monopoly control of the food supply worldwide.

The "terminator" technology that renders seeds from a crop sterile is especially alarming.

This shortage is engineered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher.

--Gee whiz, Mr. Obvious, these 'trendy folks' sure do have a lot of power to control the food supply! One wonders where you hear this babble.

--And my oh my, what did nature EVER do without man made fertilizer and pesticides? It's a wonder we're here at all. There are a LOT of problems with using man made fertilizers and pesticides that have PROVEN deleterious effects on the environment, which you seem to conveniently ignore, are just unaware of, or believe just doesn't matter.

Also, I dare say that there are PLENTY of animals to render fertilizer--the ones we raise for our excessive meat consumption, which you apparently have forgotten as well.

Not meaning to pick on you, Mr. O, but I think this points to a bigger problem with man having lost touch with his natural roots. Many are no longer capable (or willing) to distinguish between what is authentically beneficial and natural and atificial and harmful, perhaps because just about everything now is thought of in terms of yield and profit margin.

--There is another point to raise: farmers get paid relatively little for their grain and other staples, and much of the cost goes into advertising, processing, and transportation. Eliminate and Reduce these factors, and you reduce the price of goods as well. You can still offer expensive foods that those 'trendy rich folks' seem to relish, but they'll have to pay more for them.

Today's NY Times says that last year Nigerians spent 73% of their income on food; the Vietnamese-65%. "They are in trouble."

"And - as most posts on CD suggest - taking personal responsibility is the only way you will change your world - wherever you live"

What exactly do you mean by this? You seem to be talkng the blame-the-victim language of the people who have created most of the worlds poor - and even bansided the word "poor" from our political discourse and the US mass media.

I can take personal responsibility and start stealing food, or I can move in and start squatting and growing food on idle land of a rich man, but for how long will that work? We need many thousands of people coming together and taking over the food distribution system and rich people's idle land.

The operative word is collective resposibility, not personal responsibility.

in fact the capitalist commandment that we all be greedy and self-absorbed ethic of only "looking out of No. 1" is what has getten us into this mess.

A couple more points:

GMO ag is highly fossil fuel dependent.

Many of the entries above make an assumption that is incorrect: Rodale Institute has proven that you can get same yields with organic as you can conventional (GMO) ag. A 22 year study shows comparable yields.

There are conclusive studies showing a lack of iodine in the American diet - and that has been definitely shown to be a link with increased breast cancer rates. Industrial Ag has removed much of the iodine. So, what we have here is: nutrients have been removed from food - and there is a big push for pills that make up for the lack of nutrients we get in our food.

There are so many aspects of this: Mr. O would be a big supporter of CAFOs - or bST - etc. Anything to promote highly concentrated methods of food production. Meanwhile, autism and other health problems are on the rise. While I cannot prove a direct correlation, you would throw caution to the wind - and experiment on the general public.

Mr O is completely wrong. It looks like he is an employee for Monsanto. If you desire to get the true facts on organic vs industrial tech farming see www.woodburyorganics.com - and look at the Letter to the Public.

One major issue is that many grain farmers are no longer rotating crops - we have become a mono-culture. As a result, bio-diversity has been sacrificed, top soil is being destroyed, centralization of food distribution has worked against local communities to feed itself, chemicals have saturated the ground water, etc etc.

Now, if Monsanto has the patents on seed - you would want the whole world to pay royalties to a company for seed that otherwise would have been passed down for generations in Mexico etc. It makes those people poorer - while leaving a corporation holding all rights to the seed.

I am mostly concerned about the rural communities. Iowa is becoming a wasteland of large corporate farms - as will the entire Midwest (except for increasingly large metropolitan areas.

What do you mean by saying that grain ethanol offsets other legal ag subsidies? Or that European scientific community is somehow causing a problem by not adopting GMO? That makes no sense whatsoever.

In the end - what you are really saying is that nature is not as good as man created industrial farming in supplying food. You assume the latter is safe. There are many reliable studies showing that local food is more nutritious.

Go eat your twinkies and drink your high fructose corn syrups.

Oh, by the way, while crappy industrial foods will increase in price due to price gouging and subsidies, organic food will actually come in line with industrial since they do not use the same inputs. It may end up that crappy food will cost more than the real thing.

Rob

""Climate change is a real issue and is rightly being dealt with by major global investment. However, I am concerned there
is another major issue along a similar time-scale - that of food and energy security.""

WOW, on the same time scale huh? Genius that!

Gee, could it be because the two issues are intrinsically linked?

Genius...

Mr. O:

I quite agree. Its ironic my dairy farmer grandfather told me almost exactly the same thing 45 years ago. He said we've come to far and there are too many people to go back to the old ways.

good luck April 9th, 2008 6:54 pm said:

"OK, lets start to eat people. it is the only answer to both problems. More food and less people."

Very funny, good luck, but I imagine it will come to that in certain places. The survival instinct trumps the religious impulse when pressed too far.

How about insects instead? I read somewhere there are 1,800 pounds of termites for every person on earth. Imagine pulling up to the drive through at Mickey D's saying, "I'll have a quarter Bugger-Burger Deluxe, and throw in an order of hopper fries, a termite turnover, and a carob grub shake." Yum or yuk depends on your hunger level & the miracles of modern science (and advertising LOL).

I also read recently the corn/ethanol/fuel ruse could ultimately cause 200-300 million deaths from starvation and/or disease worldwide. That's as many deaths as all the wars of the 20th century. Can't pat ourselves on the back for being a learned enlightened species if we keep repeating the same mistakes, yet expecting different results, now can we?

My admiration goes to the person at the dawn of time who discovered eating raw oysters was ok...a real adventurous soul he/she, brave & bold. I've always felt if someone can do something so can I, so here goes,

"I'll have a quarter Bugger-Burger Deluxe, and..."

bbr-001 - It is nice to sit in your suburban living room and romaticise farming, but with billions to feed, it is more ecologically freindly to concentrate food production on as little land as possible. Production of annual agriculture crops is inheriently disruptive and not compatible with biodiversity.

Andy - The earth must be flat because it appears so. The sun must revolve around the earth because I see it do that every day. "Organic must be healthier." Science sometimes tells us that what we think we know is false. Every environmental factor affects the composition of food. Many studies have looked for both ecological and health benefits for organic production and food. The problems are different, but no convincing evidence has emerged that one method produces safer food, but organic takes up more land. This is why it is illegal to make health claims for organic produce. Such claims have been found to be false over and over again in scientific studies from around the world. By the way, you are correct that "More food poisoning cases come from industrial agriculture that organic agriculture." But again this is misleading. There is far less organic food than conventional. It is like saying that crime is lower on a single street in Harlem compared to the state of Wyoming. The proportion of food poisoning from organic food is much higher than the proportion of food poisonings from conventional food. This does not make organic unsafe when proper procedures are followed. Unfortunately, improperly processed manure used on food crops can cause food poisoning. If a pesticide was found to be this dangerious, it would never be registered.

Mr Obvious

Just because you have not seen studies showing that organic foods are healthier does not mean they don't exist.

What about the pesticide residues in chemically grown foods. Organics must be healthier.

How many times do we have to tell you that organic production does not need animal manure, there are other methods of naturally increasing soil fertility and furthermore, animal manure correctly composted does not pose an unacceptable risk.

More food poisoning cases come from industrial agriculture that organic agriculture.

You have said before, "keep an open mind". That is good advice, check out the research yourself, none so blind as those who don't want to see.

Mr. O:

Its ecologically sound if you're an Amish farmer just feeding his family with a little extra for the local farmer's market and the grain wholesalers, and your farm has been paid off for generations. But we have billions to feed!

CoCo: You're right. The neocons had no idea what it took for that vain egomaniac to hold Iraq together. He was predictable and under control. Now its just chaos.

Imagine 160,000 soldiers ( or "troops" if you insist ) along with an equal number of $800-per-day mercenaries - all cultivating fields and digging wells ( water wells ) instead of shooting children; and branding steers and stimulating bulls for their semen instead of forcing piled enemy combatants to masturbate. What a well fed world that would be, a?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070614071300AAWQljn

But, as it is, all the world's hungry eyes, envious and resentful eyes, are directed at the fat Americans with their big automobiles and gasoline enough to invade the world.

Matti - you wrote: " Industrial farmed food has been demonstrated significantly less nutritious than "organically" grown food."

Bull! - This has been tested over and over again and it ain't so. Labels to this effect have been deemed illegal by the EU courts based on the scientific data. By the way, I do not drink soft drinks like Coke. Also, I did not say that only poor people eat grain. What I was trying to point out is that grain commonly represents the main food for the poor in 3rd world countries. Organic production which requires replacement of synthetic fertilizer with animal waste is ecologically unsound. Where is all the manure going to come from? What are the ecological impacts of all this additional animal production? Over-grazing and production of greehouse gases ring a bell? Ethanol from corn is a "legal" subsidy for agriculture. This is a response to other "legal" Ag subsidies like the banning of GM crops by EU politicians after these crops were approved by the EU scientific regulatory agencies. Again, the poor suffer as we play games.

didn't 'global security' go out the window on march 20th 2003?

There are many reasons for this. In no particular order: Susidized ethanol production competing for acreage in the US and Brazil. US farmers reluctant to take a chance on over production and falling prices while they lose the subsidy for not planting. China (India too?)importing more food with its export income. Overfishing. Bad weather. Monumental droughts in Australia, Somalia and elswhere. Higher oil and fertilizer prices. Scarcer and more expensive water for irrigation. Increased beef and pork production world wide. Increased global commodity trade has raised transportation costs.

The green revolution, at least partly built on cheap fossil fuel, gave food supplies a big boost, but Dr. Malthus' math, modern sanitation, and medicine, and traditional large families have caught back up.

The world's population is at the brink of unsustainabiity and growing, and we are just beginning to see the effects of peak oil, depleted aquifers, and global warming. Looks like a collision course to me.

"ONLY POOR PEOPLE EAT GRAIN" ??

Vegetarian diets are healthier, being typically high in fibre and low in fat, and devoid of meat borne toxins as well as meat linked food poisoning, while vegetarian cuisine is tasty and diverse, visit any top class Greek, Indian or Thai restaurant.

However, the poor can benefit from a vegetarian diet being cheaper than a meaty one, while vegetarianism is better for the environment, as meat production requires far more land and animal manure pollutes waterways, and methane from meat production exacerbates climate change. Vegetarian diets will help end world hunger as meat production is an inefficient method of producing food.

Carnivores naturally eat meat and it would be wrong to stop them, but the human digestive system more closely resembles that of herbivores so vegetarianism is an excellent choice.

So, maybe only the most intelligent people eat grain?

Maybe we need to stop making babies we can't feed? We do understand how this happens right? Oh that's right. Religion has made us stupid.

Hey -liz-.

I was so busy responding to the stupidity of the first part of your "doctor"al thesis that I completely failed to notice the stupidity of the second part.

80% of calories from animal foods huh?

Pretty slick bait-and-switch, since of course most animal foods are much higher in calories than plant foods.

Of course "Americans" are deriving too much of their average diet from animal foods, but the main health detriment of this is the lack of plant foods that result.

There is only so much room in the stomach after all.

But blaming people in the "developed" Nation-States for being biologically attracted to high-calorie animal foods is just as stupid as Krugman's blaming of the Chinese for attempting to follow in our path.

People will be attracted to the cheapest, highest calorie foods on hand, millions of years of striving to supply ourselves with fuel for our complex brains tends to trump any dietary ideology.

The obvious solution to global food shortages caused by population jumps and the capitalist preference for storable commodity grains is locally produced, nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables, with the adjunct of local meat production where resource and culturally permissable.

Of course this involves a conflict with globalist food selling paradigms and unfair land ownership laws.

There is much work to be done when it comes to the Human relationship to food production, ideologically based thinking can only get in the way of this work.

I suggest people drop it.

-matti.

Protein production determines carrying capacity. Cannabis seed is the world's best source of protein, but because of marijuana prohibition, hemp seed agriculture has been forbidden in most countries of the world for the past seventy years.

What we are seeing now is the result of imposed essential resource scarcity. Until hemp is reintroduced into the agricultural equation, the problems we face will never be resolved.

Ugh.

Every subject serves as fuel for whatever agenda one was already determined to espouse here on the Internets, doesn't it?

My favorite silly thing written is the "SINCE WHEN IS SUGAR A FOOD SOURCE" bit.

Well, since glucose has been a required coating for mammalian neuron cells, so several million years, I suppose.

I think what you mean, -goodluck- is Since when has CANE sugar been a food source?

The answer to that is : for several hundred years.

To lizard:

Still awaiting your "doctor"al response.

-matti.

Good luck -- because carbohydrates are burned within the body as fuel, even if your muscles atrophy (w/o proteins) and you eventually die of some other disease, at least one doesn't starve.

OK SINCE WHEN IS SUGAR A FOOD SOURCE?

one other thing is the US and gas companies don't want people to start making moon shine and run the family car off it. If your car can run on 85% ethanol that many can, just look at the gas cap on your car. It can be a mix of moon shine and gas and buy 85% less gas. No tax bucks off home made and profits for the oil industry.

PERMACULTURE!!!

Don't grow food for Fuel!!!!

Permaculture

Permaculture Defined
Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor. It teaches us how build natural homes, grow our own food, restore diminished landscapes and ecosystems, catch rainwater, build communities and much more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food Forests and Guilds
Food Forest mimics the architecture and beneficial relationships between plants and animals found in a natural forest or other natural ecosystem. Food forests are not 'natural', but are designed and managed ecosystems (typically complex perennial polyculture plantings) that are very rich in biodiversity and productivity. example

http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/classroom/

geo:
ethanol does NOT have to be made from corn. It can be made from just about any green plant on earth. CUBA Brazil use sugar cane AFTER they remove the sugar from the cane and use the rest of the plant that was before just burned. Like who cares if it cost 1 cent more for your coffee because of higher sugar prices.As for the Germany, the reason given in the article was damage to engines as well as food prices.

a few steps to begin with:

1) Eco-Eating at www.brook.com/veg

2) stop using food for fuel

3) de-commodify basic grains and other necessities

4) tax greenhouse gas emissions (methane and nitrous oxide as well as carbon dioxide)

It seems to me that this is something that the UN WANTED to happen by perpetuating this myth about CO2 caused global warming, and thus turning food into fuel. But there is a bit of good news on this subject, read about it here:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/196704,germany-cancels-plans-to-add-ethanol-to-petrol.html

OK, lets start to eat people. it is the only answer to both problems. More food and less people. Soylent Green on a whole wheat bun with a side of fries. McDonalds will sell billions of them. That old Zone To Serve Man will be a best seller at Chapters

Wow. Finally, an article that doesn't blame the 'meat eating Chinese' for the increase in grain prices and the world-wide shortfall of rice and other staples, a la Paul Krugman.

*I was disappointed it didnt mention meat.
On the BBC this morning they had a show on this and THANK DOG someone did mention the logic of a vegetarian diet in the last few minutes. We have the food to feed everyone now--just need to take the wasteful dietary choices out of the equation.

1.3 billion people switching to a meat diet isnt good.

If one is too much of a selfish asshole to care about what happens to members of other species in farms(big and small) then think about the humans who are suffering because of the wasted water and food.
That and the new diseases that are created from livestock rearing.

There just isnt a good side to it, except maybe humans will drive themselves to extinction.
Meat looks like shit, and is a misery to cultivate, while fruits and vegetables are the colours of the rainbow and grow on trees, vines and the ground. If there is a deity it couldnt have created a better PR campaign for what to eat.

i don't see what the problem is...we can still eat at mcdonald's on the dollar menu. this is America!!! we have Taco Bell....

it's time to wake up and smell the fast food people!!!

I think the food shortage is a blessing - albeit disguised. What else would motivate people to take personal responsibility for their own welfare? As it becomes obvious that global imbalances are biased towards the haves, the have nots need to avoid reliance on them and their corporate and bureaucratic outreach programs. Hunger is probably one of the most un-ignorable encouragements to start producing foods - nutritious and health-supporting - locally that we could experience. And - as most posts on CD suggest - taking personal responsibility is the only way you will change your world - wherever you live - in terms of hunger, security, pollution ........

...the agriculture industry needed to double its food production, using less water than today...

Full marks for every mention of over-population. Say it again and again.

There is no doubt that excessive meat consumption and waste is part of the problem. Suppose that agriculture and consumption patterns manage the impossible, and todays population can now be fed. What is going to stop population growth from running into the next new limits to growth?

Human herd numbers have already grown too large. We are struggling against each other to consume life in overwhelming numbers. That will not stop the rich from consuming quantities of Gaia that could support a much larger population.

Nobody, apart from the Chinese, are concentrating on reducing population growth. The freaking oil-power leaders at the US white house would even try to stop abortions if they could. Their chief contribution to solving human overpopulation is to try and mass destruct the population of any part of the world they do not like, in order to consume more than their fair share.

Priority for human kind from A to Z should be birth control and contraception. As for abstinence,... who are you kidding (or having sex with)? Making little kiddies, with the additional costs of supporting their lives, is now far the most destructive process for Gaia. It is also our primal instinct. Wisdom lies in the control of primal instincts.

leaf:
this is getting funnier by the minute.
So who do you blame?

There is no shortage of food and there never has been in the history of the world. There is only an excess of people. The article quotes one idiot saying that we need to double food production. Firstly, that's impossible. Secondly, it would only put us back exactly where we are if it were possible. This is the same strategy we have tried thrice a century for the last 10,000 years. It never worked before; why would anyone suspect that it might work now? Abstinence. Contraception. Masturbation. Abortion. Homosexuality. It's either these or genocidal warfare and slow, horrible lingering death by starvation and disease. Those are the options; increasing food supplies is not among them.

Starvation & Poverty can never be mitigated until an effective means of family planning/population control is implemented. Our environment can not sustain the current reproduction rates.

Compared to over-population, other measures are on almost irrelevant. Unless this admiinistration's zealotic opposition to this essential need is halted, and these vital measures are addressed now, increasing poverty and eventual degradation of the quality of life--as well as environmental degradation-- is inevitable.

Hey Wow!

I take back all the good stuff I wrote about you -liz-!

Can you please "explain" to me as a "doctor" how milled grains can be the "natural food" for humans when they were part of NO HUMAN'S diet as little as 9,000 years ago and require at least hand-driven stone-milling to be edible and of nutritional value?

It should be entertaining.

-matti.

fertilisers and pesticides are oil based. Price to protect the crops from bugs etc and make them grow faster costs more. Then the machines to cut, bail and put it on a truck or train or ship. This price gets passed on. Do you think oranges grown in California are going to continue to be sold in Canada or around the world cheap?

lizard,

As your sentence after "The Africans?" acknowledges, these "countries" are NOT "poor", a great many of the people in them ARE, because of the greed of a few of the people in them and -a sadly less few- of the people in this "country"

Perhaps the problem comes from speaking (or writing) in terms of "countries" instead of people?

Even accurate terms like Nation-State, while still focusing on political entities rather than bioregions, would be superior.

The "country" where I live has remained mostly the same, even as it switched from being Kittitas-controlled, to Tsarist-controlled, to Britsh-controlled, to U.S.-controlled. Excepting of course all the trees cut down.

Am I nit-picking? Sure. But I strongly believe that intelligent people(notice the compliment to you) would be benefited by employing non-B.S. language in their attempts to understand the World.

I'd also like to point out that Cubanos DID recently go through what they now refer to as a Special Period (I believe) of malnutrition and food shortages after the loss of Industrial-Style subsidies from the defucnt Soviet Union?

What got them out of this and on the path toward "best nourished People of the Tropics"?

If you guessed Local Organic Farming and Food Co-operatives, give yourself a pat on the back.

Anyway good on you for asking the economic questions -lizard- sorry to nitpick ya.

-matti

The single most important event that can improve world hunger is the emergence of poverty amongst white people. The europeans are just as disgusting in protecting their agribusiness. They have systematically destroyed any opportunity for others to grow food. Malnutrition is a result of imperialism and will improve only with the decline of white supremacy.

Matti: As a doctor I must inform you that people eat grains because this is the natural food for humans. The AMA recommends a diet which is 70% grains. In the US eating grains is a sign of poverty, and being fat is a sign of prosperity. Americans obtain more than 80 % of their calories from meat and are the fattest people on earth. This is very bad for health and very bad for the environment. Time to learn some things here! Organic? Christ this is so unrealistic it makes me cringe. Spoiled rotten I say.

All the countries named are poor. Why are they poor? Do you need to ask? Take Haiti. If anyone tries to help these people the US invades. The Africans? Corruption on a massive scale and sponsored by the US. If we need to increase food production it is because we are not ready to end corruption which is of great use to the US. Look into it. The evidence is there. The UN ( yes the UN) has just commended Cuba for being so good at feeding its people. Cuba is very poor, but not corrupt, as evidenced by its well fed people. Why? They have succesfully kept out the US. Had the US succeeded in reconquering Cuba is there any doubt Cubans would be malnourished? No doubt at all.

Mr. Obvious,

Industrial farmed food has been demonstrated significantly less nutritious than "organically" grown food.

Although I agree that the "organic" LABEL has been a fad for the affluent this does not offset the superiority of organic produce- including grain.

I think that the fact that the food choices of people in north america can affect the food situation for those in the tropics is where the problem lies.

To say "Poor people eat grain(s)" and then to leave it at that is to ignore quite a gigantic subject don't you think?

WHY do "Poor people" eat grain food do you think? And what makes you think everbody else doesn't also rely too heavily on grain?

Where do you think the "sweetness" of your Coke comes from, beets?

-matti.

Not good. Not a word about how US subsidies to agriculture prevents other people of the world from growing and selling food. The capacity is there but is undermined by US policies. We need to grow more food? Not really, we need for food to be priced according to market forces and not what benefits agribusiness. Too bad the people don't just starve to death, then we wouldn't worry about stability. Since they are protesting, and I say good for them, I guess we will have to pay attention before they turn violent. The UN is an American organ incapable of criticizig the US. World hunger and famines are the result of corruption and wars, not a shortage of food. The evidence is there. The UN? Ha!

what a surprise. who would ever have thought that feeding food to our cars, giving over land to produce agrofuels instead of food,clearing rainforests for palm oil would possibly affect our food supply? Britain and u.s. are both mandating production of biofuel. While many people have noticed how stupidly self destructive this is, agricultral produce is still going in the gastank.

There is no shortage of food (grain not produce). Poor people eat grain. We have created markets for our grian (ethanol) to offset other "legal" subsidies for agriculture (like the EU politician over-ride of GM approvals by their scientific regulatory agencies). This shortage is engineered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher. When you are hungry, philosophy is not a luxury that you can afford. You just want safe, nutritious food. You don't send back your steak because it wasn't cooked the way you wanted it.

There is no shortage of food (grain not produce). Poor people eat grain. We have created markets for our grian (ethanol) to offset other "legal" subsidies for agriculture (like the EU politician over-ride of GM approvals by their scientific regulatory agencies). This shortage is engeneered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher. When you are hungry, philosophy is not a luxury that you can afford. You just want safe, nutritious food. You don't send back your steak because it wasn't cooked the wat you wanted it.

I recently read that the world needs to produce as much food during the next 50 years as it has during the past 10,000 years just to meet the demand of the increasing global population (this factors in an ever incresing percentage of that population eating higher on the food chain).

If this statistic is correct, the threat to global security is more staggering than is being portrayed in this article.

Thousands of acres of high quality farmland are lost to development each day and few people believe that is a problem. Whenever a grassroots effort emerges to attempt to save farmland in any location, the National Association of Home Builders and National Real Estate organizations open their war chests and promptly destroy the grass roots organizations efforts.

Wow. Finally, an article that doesn't blame the 'meat eating Chinese' for the increase in grain prices and the world-wide shortfall of rice and other staples, a la Paul Krugman. How does one explain that the irate Egyptian and Haitian workers were demonstrating against their governments and not against the Chinese embassies? The American pundits are generally united in pointing fingers at the Chinese now that the general campaign has been set by the US government. This British Guardian author is just not 'on-message' - China is supposed to be the Empire's whipping boy for the world wide economic crisis. Maybe the anti-China (from food shortages to repression in Tibet) hysteria is being whipped up to divert world attention from the messy collapse of the US Empire.
Of course we will never be led to call for the dismantling of the neo-liberal structural readjustment policies from the World Bank and IMF which have pressured poor countries to stop subsidizing domestic staple production and shift resources to privatizations, land concentration, real estate and financial speculation, producing export products and debt servicing.
Why are the Haitian, Egyptian and Filipino masses so off message? Why do they blame their servile US client governments for the mess?

The production of local fresh foods will a great business to get into. Also the manufacturing industry could make a comeback, as the cost of shipping and the poor quality of imports from places such as China, will offset the cost of providing good quality paying jobs, for quality made goods.
Support your local industries, and small production farmers. The spinoffs will help everyone in your community.

Part of the problem is we have tried to avoid seasonality to crops by growing them on both sides of the world, and Australia went and had a bad season... With no security or stocks of food, we have to wait for the next season... Which means people will starve to death because no one is saving anything. It's a really hard cycle to break once it starts...