Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:35 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

the same way it was done before much of the
current nonsense came along. diversity, smaller
farms and people working together as an actual
community.


There just won't be enough food. What is so hard to understand about
2/3 of the worlds food calories come from carbohdrates, mainly grain
grown on farms? If you stop doing that what do they eat? Do it
like it was done before? What was that, when? When the entire
world population was a few million? How does that scale up to 7
billion? Where does the land come from?

i've seen good results here on not much room
at all, no reason it can't work on a larger
scale other than needing more people who would
want to do it. enough people get hungry enough
and perhaps they will want to do it too.


Stop with the idealism for a second, take a breath and look at the
figures. You and Todd are both in fantasy land.


D


Hi David,

I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.
The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.

At last some engagement!

Those other crops (which other crops are they?) cannot produce anything like
the calories per unit area that grains do. It's all about the efficiency to
harvest sunshine. We are running out of arable land and losing much
constantly while every day there are a few million more mouths to feed.
Aside from the obvious that we cannot keep reproducing ourselves to
extinction this implies the need for more food per acre of land not less.

Have you read about the green revolution? Start with Wikipedia. For the
current situation go to the FAO they have been grappling with this for
decades. Those are the kinds of figures that make your scheme impossible to
apply generally. As Fran said, what you suggest is only possible in rich
societies.



Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.


Assuming that what you say about yield and cost are true about California
wine you cannot extrapolate this to your scheme to do away with
carbohydrates as a major component of the world's diet. For a start their
measure of success is to produce quality wine not feed the maximum people
per acre.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

No it isn't. You merely assert your case but I need you to produce some
evidence.


Just out of curiosity, do you use compose in your garden
or ammonium nitrate? Which gets the better, more consistent
yield?


I am mainly organic but I would describe my approach as eclectic with a bias
towards recylcling and away from introduced inputs. I have no need of
ammonium nitrate as I can get N from manures. But I will use Potassium
sulphate as there is no other practical way to get K into my soil.

This is not relevant as I am not trying to feed a family on my vege plot.

Let us not get too distracted by the specifics of my garden, you need to
show how the world can still eat by doing away with 2/3 of its calories that
come from carbohydrates. And show the FAO how to find a way to feed those
millions of poor buggers who already don't get three squares most days. And
the millions extra that will be born daily until we get means of population
control other than starvation and war.

David