On 13/06/2014 10:08 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:

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.

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

That paragraph makes no sense.

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the
increases since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and
monocrop megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their
own consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so
abundant these days.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population.
There's some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last
time I looked..

Part of the problem with zealots is there are no nuances, no details, no
shading, no compromises. You are either with them entirely or agin 'em.

Yep.

I don't think that a food system based on broad acre farming with big
inputs from fertiliser derived from fossil fuel is ideal in the long run
either.

Nope, not with increasingly limited resources. The way I see most
people driving I wonder if they've ever heard of 'peak oil' and what the
downstream consequences are stemmign form that.

And you too would be conscious of all those years of applications of
Super.......

However, the idea of quitting grains altogether for ideological
reasons is mad.

The biggest danger to this world is not diet, climate-change,
starvation, asteroid-strike, Murdock or Godlessness. Its Toddthink.

:-)) Conspiracy and paranoia can be great fun if it's done in jest but
when it's expounded in a serious way then, IMO, there should at least be
some sane or reasoned basis for it.