In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Billy wrote:
Sci Am, April 2010

Breaking the Growth Habit
by Bill McKibben

For the past quarter of a century, despite the rapid spread of
massive-scale agribusiness farming, pesticides and genetically
engineered crops, the amount of grain per person has been dropping.

I assume this means the amount of grain per farm worker working to produce
it, is that right?
I'm speculating that number of consumers are outstripping production.
"the observed figures for 2007 show an actual increase in absolute
numbers of undernourished people in the world, 923 million in 2007
versus 832 million in 1995.[88]; the more recent FAO estimates point out
to an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion in 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

I had imagined that the productivity by this measure climbed very rapidly in
the early 20th century and then the rate slowed down with little surges as
bigger and more automated combine harvesters, irrigation gear, better
strains of grain etc were introduced. So I expected that in the last
quarter century it would have levelled off like a diminishing returns curve,
I didn't expect it to start going down.
The other problem is that production levels are proportional to optimum
humus levels in the soil. Falling humus levels require more and more
chemical fertilizers to reach the same production levels. (I'll need to
go through my books to come up with the citation, but I think I know
where it is.)

This is running a bit afield of my purpose in posting the various
systems to maximize production. One reference I read said that Salatin
grew an inch of top soil per year. A typical pine forest grows an eighth
of an inch of top soil per 50 years.

"in 2007, we used 13 million tons of synthetic fertilizer, five times
the amount used in 1960. Crop yields, by comparison, grew only half that
fast. And it's hardly a harmless increase: Nitrogen fertilizers are the
single biggest cause of global-warming gases from U.S. agriculture and a
major cause of air and water pollution -- including the creation of dead
zones in coastal waters that are devoid of fish. And despite the massive
pesticide increase, the United States loses more crops to pests today
than it did before the chemical agriculture revolution six decades ago."

"Another cause for concern is that industrial agriculture and
genetically modified crops dangerously reduce biodiversity, especially
on the farm. In the United States, 90 percent of soy, 70 percent of
corn, and 95 percent of sugarbeets are genetically modified. Industrial
farms are by their very nature monocultures, but diverse crops on a
farm, even weeds, serve multiple functions: Bees feast on their nectar
and pollen, birds munch on weed seeds, worms and other soil
invertebrates that help control pests live among them -- the list goes
on."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/29/dont_panic_go_organic

Does the author provide any references to where and how this statistic is
measured? Does this just relate to the absurdity of the USA corn belt or is
it global? What are his reasons for the decline?
Look for the book at the usual places.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
was recommended for further reading by SciAm.

Part of a Q & A with the author.

SA: Is sheer size the culprit, or is it the complexity that size brings?
You say that not just banks but more basic industries are "too big to
fail." Should such institutions be broken up or disentangled somehow?

McKIBBEN: The financial system, the energy system and the agricultural
system share great similarities: a very small number of players,
incredibly interwoven. In each case, cascading effects occur when
something goes wrong; a chicken pot pie spreads botulism to 48 states.
My house runs on solar panels. If it fails, I have a problem, but it
doesn't shut down the eastern U.S. power grid.

SA: So you're advocating a return to local reliance. But since E. F.
Schumacher's 1973 book, Small Is Beautiful, dedicated people have been
trying to implement local food and energy systems around the world, yet
many regions are still struggling. How small is "local"?

McKIBBEN: We'll figure out the size. It could be a town, a region, a
state. But to find the answer, we have to get the incredibly distorting
subsidies out of our current systems. They send all kinds of bad signals
about what we should be doing. In energy we've underwritten fossil fuel
for a long time. It's even more egregious in agriculture. Once subsidies
wither, we can figure out what scale of industry makes sense.

SA: Don't local products cost more?

McKIBBEN: We would have more farms, and they might be more
labor-intensive, but that would also create more jobs, and the farmier
would reap more of the revenue. Economically, local farms cut out many
middlemen. Buying vegetables from CSA [community-supported agriculture]
farms is the cheapest way to get food. Meat might still be more
expensive, but frankly, eating less meat isn't the end of rhe world. The
best news in my book is the spread, in the past few years, of all kinds
of smart, technologically adept, small-scale agricultural techniques
around the developing world.

SA: It sounds like the key to local agriculture, at least, is to teach
people how to raise yields, without more fertilizer.

McKIBBEN: Yes, and it depends on where you are. There will not be one
system that spreads across rhe entire world, the way we've tried to
spread industrial, synthetic fertilizer-based agriculture. The solutions
are much smarter than that. Instead of spreading chemicals, which causes
all kinds of problems, we are figuring out alternative methods and how
to spread them.
SA: Okay, even if local agriculture works, how does that support
durability instead of growth?

McKIBBEN: Probably the most important assets we can have for long-term
stability, especially in an era of ecological upheaval, are good
soils‹soils that allow you to grow a good amount of food, that can
absorb a lot of water becausc rainfalls are steadily increasing, soils
that hold that rainfall through the kinds of extended droughts that are
becoming more common. Good soil is precisely what low-impact, low-input,
local agriculture builds, and, precisely what industrial agriculture
destroys.

SA: Local reliance sounds attractive, but how do countries like the U.S.
get out of huge debt without growing? The U.S. Treasury Department says
the only painless solution is growth. Do we need a transition period
where growth eliminates debt, and then we embrace durability?

McKIBBEN: Well, "painless" is just delay. You know: "Pay me now, or pay
me later." The primary political question is: Can we make change happen
fast enough to avoid all-out collapses that are plausible, even likely?
How do we move these transitions more quickly than they want to move?

www.ScientificAmerican.com April 2010


Have you got the book?

David

Later
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Billy wrote:
Sci Am, April 2010

Breaking the Growth Habit
by Bill McKibben

For the past quarter of a century, despite the rapid spread of
massive-scale agribusiness farming, pesticides and genetically
engineered crops, the amount of grain per person has been dropping.

I assume this means the amount of grain per farm worker working to produce
it, is that right?
I'm speculating that number of consumers are outstripping production.
"the observed figures for 2007 show an actual increase in absolute
numbers of undernourished people in the world, 923 million in 2007
versus 832 million in 1995.[88]; the more recent FAO estimates point out
to an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion in 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

I had imagined that the productivity by this measure climbed very rapidly
in
the early 20th century and then the rate slowed down with little surges as
bigger and more automated combine harvesters, irrigation gear, better
strains of grain etc were introduced. So I expected that in the last
quarter century it would have levelled off like a diminishing returns
curve,
I didn't expect it to start going down.

The other problem is that production levels are proportional to optimum
humus levels in the soil. Falling humus levels require more and more
chemical fertilizers to reach the same production levels. (I'll need to
go through my books to come up with the citation, but I think I know
where it is.)

My authority for the above is
The Fatal Harvest Reader
Edited by Andrew Kimbrell
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Harvest-.../dp/155963944X
/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282583500&sr=1-1
This is a anthology of agricultural authors.
Part 3 starts with ARTIFICIAL FERTILITY by Jason McKenny, p.121 - 129

p. 125
THE BREAKDOWN OF A SYSTEM
We now know that the massive use of synthetic fertilizers to create
artificial fertility has had a cascade of adverse effects on natural
soil fertility and the entire soil system. Fertilizer application begins
the destruction of soil biodiversity by diminishing the role of
nitrogen-fixing bacteria and amplifying the role of everything that
feeds on nitrogen. These feeders then speed up the decomposition of
organic matter and humus. As organic matter decreases, the physical
structure of soils changes. With less pore space and loss of their
sponge-like qualities, soils are less efficient at retaining moisture
and air. More irrigation is needed. Water leaches through soils,
draining away nutrients that no longer have an effective substrate on
which to cling. With less available oxygen the growth of soil
microbiology slows, and the intricate ecosystem of biological exchanges
breaks down. Acidity rises and further breaks down organic matter. As
soil microbes decrease in volume and diversity, they less are less able
to physically hold soils together in groups called aggregates. Water
begins to erode these soils away. Less topsoil means less volume and
biodiversity to buffer against these changes. More soils wash away.
Meanwhile, all of these events have a cumulative effect of reducing the
amount of nutrients available to plants. Industrial farmers address
these observed deficiencies by adding more fertilizer. Such a scenario
is known as a negative feedback loop; a more blunt comparison is
substance abuse.

127
THE DEBT IS DUE
All of these adverse effects of fertilizers result from their
application. It is equally important to consider the problems associated
with the production of fertilizers. The Haber process first made for the
direct link of fertility to energy consumption, but this was in a time
when fossil fuels were abundant and their widespread use seemed
harmless. The production of nitrogenous fertilizers consumes more energy
than any other aspect of the agricultural process. It takes the energy
from burning 2,200 pounds of coal to produce 5.5 pounds of usable
nitrogen. This means that within the industrial model of agriculture, as
inputs are compared to outputs, the cost of energy has become
increasingly important. Agriculture's relationship to fertility is now
directly related to the price of oil.

128
This economic model made some sense throughout a farming
period in which we were mining the biological reserves of fertility
bound in soil humus. Now it is a crisis of diminishing returns. In 1980
in the United States, the application of a ton of fertilizers resulted in
an average yield of 15 to 20 tons of corn. By 1997, this same ton of
fertilizer yielded only 5 to 10 tons. Between 1910 and 1983, United
States corn yields increased 346 percent while our energy consump-
tion for agriculture increased 810 percent. The poor economics of this
industrial agriculture began to surface. The biological health of soils
has been driven into such an impoverished state at the expense of
quick, easy fertility that productivity is now compromised, and fertil-
izers are less and less effective.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 1997
declared that Mexico and the United States had ³hit the wall" on
wheat yields, with no increases shown in 13 years. Since the late 1980s,
worldwide consumption of fertilizers has been in decline. Farmers are
using fewer fertilizers because crops are physiologically incapable of
absorbing more nutrients. The negative effects of erosion and loss of
biological resiliency exceed our ability to offset them with fertilizers.
The price of farm commodities is so low that it no longer offsets the
cost of fertilizers. We are at full throttle and going nowhere. Economic
systems assume unlimited growth capacity. Ecological systems have
finite limitations. It would be wise to recognize how the industrial
perspective of fertility as a mined resource drives us toward agricul-
tural collapse.

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
Certainly the adverse effects of fertilizer use come as no sudden
surprise to farmers. Even those who manage the most chemically based
agricultural systems recognize the important roles of organic matter,
microorganisms, and crop diversity ill fertility maintenance.
Unfortunately, under crushing financial pressure most farmers are
limited in the changes they can afford to make.

Some of the greatest reductions in fertilizer use have come from
conservation practices and more careful applications. These represent
a savings for farmers. Better timing and less indiscriminate applica-

129

tion of fertilizers reduce the adverse effect on soil biology and the
likelihood of environmental pollution. Equally important are conser-
vation tillage methods in which ground disturbance is minimized and
the decomposition of crop residues is promoted. Less tillage distur-
bance gives a greater opportunity for microorganisms to proliferate,
and more crop decomposition helps provide habitat and resources for
them. More water, nutrients, and soils are retained on the farm.
Organic farmers approach the management of fertility biologically rather
than chemically. Most organic methods work to enhance soil nutrient
cycles by relying upon strategies of crop rotation and cover-cropping to
provide nutrient enrichment. Nitrogen-fixing and nutrient-building crops
are grown explicitly for the purpose of improving soils, increasing
organic matter and soil microbes, preventing erosion, and attracting
other beneficial organisms. Soil diversity is maintained with crop plant
diversity. Multiple varieties of different crops are grown in
successions, which maximize nutrient use by different plant types and
minimize pests and pathogens. Additional fertility is provided through
organic sources. Naturally based organic fertilizers include composted
plant materials, composted manures, fishery by-products, blood and
bonemeals, and other materials which decay and release nutrients,
participating in rather than destabilizing the nutrient cycle. Practiced
well, organic methods establish a dynamic yet stable fertility. Costs of
outside inputs dwindle, while soil health and overall fertility grows.

snip

A bit of over kill perhaps, but just to justify my assumptions about
McKibben's article in the April, 2010 Scientific American.


As a side bar to Frank's fear of finally having to do some work
is the exchange between SciAm and McKibben in the Q & A
----

SA: The subtext here is that large, centralized, monolithic systems of
agriculture, energy and other commerce drive growth. Are you saying big
is bad?

McKlBBEN: We built things big because it allowed for faster growth.
Efficiencies were gained through size. That's not what we need now. We
don't need a racehorse that is exquisitely bred to go as fast as
possible but whose ankle breaks the minute there's a divot in the track.
We need a plow horse built for durability. Durability needs to be our
mantra, instead of expansion.

SA: Is sheer size the culprit, or is it the complexity that size brings?
You say that not just banks but more basic industries are "too big to
fail." Should such institutions be broken up or disentangled somehow?

McKIBBEN: The financial system, the energy system and the agricultural
system share great similarities: a very small number of players,
incredibly interwoven. In each case, cascading effects occur when
something goes wrong; a chicken pot pie spreads botulism to 48 states.
My house runs on solar panels. If it fails, I have a problem, but it
doesn't shut down the eastern U.S. power grid.

To put this in context, we are presently experiencing the recall of over
500,000,000 eggs (half a Billion eggs).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tainted_eggs
If these eggs had been produced by smaller producers, fewer people would
have gotten sick. Smaller producers would create jobs that we sorely
need right now. The jobs might be shoveling out chicken coops, but it
would get Frank off the dole, and contributing to society.

Always a pleasure Frank ;O) maybe you could get a job for your acolyte
as well. He doesn't even seem to understand chook poo at all.

In the meantime, for a full explanation from Bill McKibben, I must wait
to be served by my library. I am 28th in the queue. At least it's not as
bad as "The #1 Ladies Detective Agency". We started in 134th place with
that one, and now we are down to 3rd.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html