Organic Farming Activists get real.
Organic farming creates more CO2 (which is a good thing, of course). So why do urban organic activists pretend it's the other way 'round!
Urban organic activists begin every argument by pining for the good ol' days. They point out that in 1940 one calorie of fossil-fuel energy produced two calories of food. But now, due to the dreaded effects of industrialization, 20 calories of fossil-fuel energy are required per calorie of food. And this, for them, illustrates why an immediate transformation of the food biz is required to "save the planet." How? By converting from a fossil-fuel-based food economy to one based instead on sunshine. Case closed! After all, it's a 20-fold increase, right!
Well... turns out it's not.
A wise man once said an ordinary mind is incapable of making distinctions. The distinction not being made in this case is that while we're using 20 times the fossil-fuel energy, we're certainly not using 20-times the total energy. Not even close...
If only they had ever worked a day on a farm, these "slow," urban activists would appreciate the massive amounts of human and animal labour that used to be required before machines driven by fossil fuels came along. The reason only a single calorie of fossil-fuel energy was required to produce two calories of food was that, prior to the mass industrialization during the Second World War, farmers did the rest of the work by hand and by back! Far more calories were consumed emitting far more CO2. Otherwise, industrialization would not have made economic sense.
Slow food activists will try to tell you that a great deal of today's fossil-fuel consumption results from the transportation of food, and that all food should therefore be procured locally. But transportation turns out to only account for a tiny fraction of energy use. (Were this not the case, greedy capitalists wouldn't ship food over long distances; it's that simple.)
It's energy-intensive activities like the plowing of land, harvesting, and the handling and processing of food that account for the lion's share of energy consumption and hence CO2 emissions.[ii] And when our ancestors relied on horses to do this work -- which of course meant fully one-half of their arable land was dedicated to growing crops for feed (something which clearly had both an economic and environmental impact) -- they still expended enormous amounts of human energy. And all that work, human and animal, had a measurable carbon footprint which greatly exceeds the 20-fold increase in fossil-fuel energy-use that occurred over the last 70 years. How much more exactly? Hold onto your hat.
Even if you believe, as the food activists do, that CO2 is a harmful pollutant, it turns out we're actually releasing at least an order of magnitude less of it today than we used to for every calorie of food produced! Modern-day farming is far more efficient, and thankfully so. All that's changed is that fossil-fuel calories can be easily measured while human and animal calories were never measured. And why did farmers get sucked into replacing their horses with tractors? Simply because there are over 20,000 man-hours of energy in a single barrel of oil which, even when oil is at its peak price, works out to less than two cents per oil-powered man-hour. That's right... two cents!
Of course, besides reverting to human and animal labor, there is another way that some urban food activists envision converting us back to a "sunshine-based" food economy.
They seek to replace evil ol' fossil-fuels with biofuels like ethanol. Instead of burning 20 calories of fossil-fuel energy to yield two calories of food as we currently do, in a biofuel food-economy farmers would burn 20 calories of biofuel, and would once again find themselves setting aside half of all their land to grow that fuel... just like their ancestors did to grow feed for their horses.. See a pattern here!
All you achieve with biofuels is a shift in where the fuel comes from, not in how much is consumed. So much for the sunshine economy! Besides, fossil fuels are sunshine-based as surely as crops are. The sunshine was captured in forests millions of years ago and remains stored in underground reserves in the form of crude oil. Why is today's sunshine any better than yesterday's!
Most members of the urban-environmentalist crowd don't have the slightest conception of what they're promoting in taking us back to what they perceive to be the good ol' days. But the really scary part is that many do.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Biological farming soil study promising.
Preliminary results from biological farming study promising
The Rotorua Lakes and Land Trust (RLLT) - a joint venture between Te Arawa Federation of Maori Authorities and Rotorua/Taupo Province of Federated Farmers - has been studying nitrate leaching under biological farming systems since August 2010 in Reporoa with the research support coming from crown research institute Scion. The preliminary results are promising.
"We don't want to draw any conclusions from these preliminary results as this is in the early days of research but results are definitely encouraging," said Gifford McFadden, a Trustee of RLLT and the Project Leader for Vallance Project.
At this stage, we are monitoring only two farms (one conventional and one biological) in Reporoa. Following these promising results, we have now set up similar research in two farms in Edgecumbe. We will be monitoring Edgecumbe farms from April. Ideally we need, and would like to monitor, a number of study sites to draw proper conclusions.
Please note that these results are only from the tail-end of the drainage season when nitrate concentrations are expected to be low in the drainage water.
"Even in this situation, there is a significant difference between nitrate concentrations between these two farms," said Gifford McFadden.
We look forward to the results during the main drainage season (from late autumn to early spring) when most of the nitrogen leaching occurs.
"Since the amounts of drainage could differ between years due to amount and timing of rainfall), it will be ideal to monitor leaching losses at least for 3 years," he added.
In recent years, water quality has become an important issue in many countries including New Zealand. Farmers are under sustained public pressure to reduce nutrient leaching from their farms to streams, rivers and lakes.
New Zealand farming needs solutions that are simple to implement and easy to monitor.
Vallance Project (biological farming research project) explores how biological farming can play a role in reducing nitrate leaching from farms. This research is being carried out for the benefits of New Zealand farming community.
Total estimated cost for the project is $400,000 over 3 years. We have approached various funding agencies requesting support this research, and we will meet them again with these preliminary results. Already AGMARDT has committed $138,000, Bay of Plenty Regional Council $20,000 and a private company has put up $20,000.
"We hope these results may help some funding agencies to come forward to support this research at least for one or two drainage seasons," said Mr McFadden.
The Rotorua Lakes and Land Trust (RLLT) - a joint venture between Te Arawa Federation of Maori Authorities and Rotorua/Taupo Province of Federated Farmers - has been studying nitrate leaching under biological farming systems since August 2010 in Reporoa with the research support coming from crown research institute Scion. The preliminary results are promising.
"We don't want to draw any conclusions from these preliminary results as this is in the early days of research but results are definitely encouraging," said Gifford McFadden, a Trustee of RLLT and the Project Leader for Vallance Project.
At this stage, we are monitoring only two farms (one conventional and one biological) in Reporoa. Following these promising results, we have now set up similar research in two farms in Edgecumbe. We will be monitoring Edgecumbe farms from April. Ideally we need, and would like to monitor, a number of study sites to draw proper conclusions.
Please note that these results are only from the tail-end of the drainage season when nitrate concentrations are expected to be low in the drainage water.
"Even in this situation, there is a significant difference between nitrate concentrations between these two farms," said Gifford McFadden.
We look forward to the results during the main drainage season (from late autumn to early spring) when most of the nitrogen leaching occurs.
"Since the amounts of drainage could differ between years due to amount and timing of rainfall), it will be ideal to monitor leaching losses at least for 3 years," he added.
In recent years, water quality has become an important issue in many countries including New Zealand. Farmers are under sustained public pressure to reduce nutrient leaching from their farms to streams, rivers and lakes.
New Zealand farming needs solutions that are simple to implement and easy to monitor.
Vallance Project (biological farming research project) explores how biological farming can play a role in reducing nitrate leaching from farms. This research is being carried out for the benefits of New Zealand farming community.
Total estimated cost for the project is $400,000 over 3 years. We have approached various funding agencies requesting support this research, and we will meet them again with these preliminary results. Already AGMARDT has committed $138,000, Bay of Plenty Regional Council $20,000 and a private company has put up $20,000.
"We hope these results may help some funding agencies to come forward to support this research at least for one or two drainage seasons," said Mr McFadden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)