The following is similar in approach to Farm for the Future,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
but in print format.

http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-n...limate-and-dou
ble-food-production-without-gm

Save Climate and Double Food Production With Eco-Farming
IPS, March 8 2011
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54775

UXBRIDGE - Eco-farming could double food production in entire regions
within 10 years while mitigating climate change, according to a new
U.N. report released Tuesday in Geneva.

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to
food, following the presentation of his annual report focusing on agro-
ecology and the right to food to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

"Agro-ecology mimics nature not industrial processes. It replaces the
external inputs like fertiliser with knowledge of how a combination of
plants, trees and animals can enhance productivity of the land," De
Schutter told IPS, stressing that, "Yields went up 214 percent in 44
projects in 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using agro-ecological
farming techniques over a period of 3 to 10 yearsŠ far more than any
GM [genetically modified] crop has ever done."

Other recent scientific assessments have shown that small farmers in
57 countries using agro-ecological techniques obtained average yield
increases of 80 percent. Africans¹ average increases were 116 percent.
"Today¹s scientific evidence demonstrates that agro- ecological
methods outperform the use of chemical fertilisers in boosting food
production in regions where the hungry live," De Schutter said.

Agro-ecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural
systems. It enhances soil productivity and protects crops against
pests by relying on the natural elements.

Eco-farming doesn¹t require expensive inputs of fossil-fuel- based
pesticides, fertilisers, machinery or hybrid seeds. It is ideally
suited for poor smallholder farmers and herders who are the bulk of
the one billion hungry people in the world. Efforts by governments and
major donors such as the 400-million- dollar Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to subsidise fertilizer and hybrid seeds
will produce quick boosts in yields but are not sustainable in the
long term, De Schutter said.

Malawi is touted as an AGRA success story by funders such as the Gates
Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation who have massively
subsidised fertilizer and created a corresponding improvement in food
production. However the country simply cannot afford to continue those
subsidies and is shifting its strategy to agro-ecology. "The [Malawi]
government now subsidises farmers to plant nitrogen-fixing trees in
their fields to ensure sustained growth in maize production," he said.

De Shutter says AGRA is looking for quick results and is getting them.
He has found it difficult to overcome AGRA proponents¹ suspicions
about the effectiveness of agro-ecology, despite the mounting
evidence. "I expect countries to express scepticism towards these
solutions because they are not in accord with the dominant paradigm,"
De Schutter said.

The dominant view of agriculture is the industrial approach - of
maximising efficiency and yield. However that system is utterly
dependent on cheap fossil fuels and never having to be held
accountable for environmental degradation and other impacts. (END)
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

wrote:
Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

The shade of Malthus wails over Africa, nobody listens.

David

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

wrote:
Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

The shade of Malthus wails over Africa, nobody listens.

David

Read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed and note
the down under issues.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

http://uppitywis.org/ live WI

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

wrote:
Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

The shade of Malthus wails over Africa, nobody listens.

David

Read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed and note
the down under issues.

I have. I do. Oz is not in the high birthrate and starving group (far from
it). I don't see the connection with Malthus and Africa. What do you think
it is?

David

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

wrote:
Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

The shade of Malthus wails over Africa, nobody listens.

David

Read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed and note
the down under issues.

I have. I do. Oz is not in the high birthrate and starving group (far from
it). I don't see the connection with Malthus and Africa. What do you think
it is?

David

The carnage left by colonization.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

You presume a fixed birth rate and a declining death rate, neither of
which is assured.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...ctures/human_p
op/human_pop.html
According to a report from the United Nations Population Fund, based on
1998 analyses (see The State of World Population 1999), projections for
the future global population are being revised downward. The projection
for 2050 now is 8.9 billion (medium variant), substantially lower than
the 1996 projection of 9.4 billion.

The major reason for the lower projection is good news: global fertility
rates have declined more rapidly than expected, as health care,
including reproductive health, has improved faster than anticipated, and
men and women have chosen to have smaller families. About one-third of
the reduction in long-range population projections, however, is due to
increasing mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Indian
subcontinent. The most important factor is HIV/AIDS, which is spreading
much faster than previously anticipated.

Joel Cohen's recent book on human carrying capacity summarizes the
continuing lack of scientific consensus on the subject. Estimates of the
number still vary widely according to the specific assumptions used. In
fact, the estimates are more scattered than before - indicating a
quantitative field still very much in its infancy. One strand of
thought, represented by the author Julian Simon discards the notion of a
human carrying capacity altogether, claiming that the additional people
will provide sufficient creativity and innovation to break through any
possible natural barriers to human population growth. Most of the
serious estimates of K (the carrying capacity, often symbolized as " K")
for humans, however, lie in the range 10 -20 billion people.
----

Mixed crops annuals can produce twice as much food as monocultures.

Perennial chestnut trees could replace wheat fields.

See Farms for a Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
especially parts III, IV, and V.

Next time try to bring some facts.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

You presume a fixed birth rate and a declining death rate, neither of
which is assured.

No, I'm taking the statement at it's face value.

Calls to produce more and more and saying it's "the only way" are
more than misleading. It's calling for disaster.

I know there are some trends to reduce population growth but
overall we're still growing at 1.1% world wide.

Very few countries have an official policy to limit growth.

Joel Cohen's recent book on human carrying capacity summarizes the
continuing lack of scientific consensus on the subject. Estimates of the
number still vary widely according to the specific assumptions used. In
fact, the estimates are more scattered than before - indicating a
quantitative field still very much in its infancy. One strand of
thought, represented by the author Julian Simon discards the notion of a
human carrying capacity altogether, claiming that the additional people
will provide sufficient creativity and innovation to break through any
possible natural barriers to human population growth. Most of the
serious estimates of K (the carrying capacity, often symbolized as " K")
for humans, however, lie in the range 10 -20 billion people.

Precisely the kind of magic thinking I'm talking about.

"We can break through any natural barrier". Great.
I understand if we get hungry enough we can eat each other too.

Mixed crops annuals can produce twice as much food as monocultures.

Perennial chestnut trees could replace wheat fields.

See Farms for a Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
especially parts III, IV, and V.

Great, double production and we can double the number of people.
That makes sense. There's not enough traffic in town yet.
There are still some plots of land that haven't been developed.
What a waste.

Why have a bunch of people living in single family homes.
Do you know how many people can live in a square mile if
we build vertically.

Next time try to bring some facts.

I brought my opinion. Deal with it.

I'm fine with increasing food production efficiency but someone
from the UN saying the only way we can deal with resource issues
is to produce more is just wrong.

We've built up quite a nice life style but the planet has finite
resources. A number of them are in short supply. Squeezing the
rock harder isn't going to work.

Some serious self control is called for.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

You presume a fixed birth rate and a declining death rate, neither of
which is assured.

No, I'm taking the statement at it's face value.

Calls to produce more and more and saying it's "the only way" are
more than misleading. It's calling for disaster.

I know there are some trends to reduce population growth but
overall we're still growing at 1.1% world wide.

Very few countries have an official policy to limit growth.

Joel Cohen's recent book on human carrying capacity summarizes the
continuing lack of scientific consensus on the subject. Estimates of the
number still vary widely according to the specific assumptions used. In
fact, the estimates are more scattered than before - indicating a
quantitative field still very much in its infancy. One strand of
thought, represented by the author Julian Simon discards the notion of a
human carrying capacity altogether, claiming that the additional people
will provide sufficient creativity and innovation to break through any
possible natural barriers to human population growth. Most of the
serious estimates of K (the carrying capacity, often symbolized as " K")
for humans, however, lie in the range 10 -20 billion people.

Precisely the kind of magic thinking I'm talking about.

"We can break through any natural barrier". Great.
I understand if we get hungry enough we can eat each other too.

Mixed crops annuals can produce twice as much food as monocultures.

Perennial chestnut trees could replace wheat fields.

See Farms for a Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
especially parts III, IV, and V.

Great, double production and we can double the number of people.
That makes sense. There's not enough traffic in town yet.
There are still some plots of land that haven't been developed.
What a waste.

Why have a bunch of people living in single family homes.
Do you know how many people can live in a square mile if
we build vertically.

Next time try to bring some facts.

I brought my opinion. Deal with it.
Opinion, logic if you will, is only as good as its premise. Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

I'm fine with increasing food production efficiency but someone
from the UN saying the only way we can deal with resource issues
is to produce more is just wrong.

We've built up quite a nice life style but the planet has finite
resources. A number of them are in short supply. Squeezing the
rock harder isn't going to work.

Some serious self control is called for.

We are already past the carrying capacity of the planet. I don't see
help coming. If we grow more food, we might buy enough time for people
to come to their senses. If not, it could get ugly.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

You presume a fixed birth rate and a declining death rate, neither of
which is assured.

No, I'm taking the statement at it's face value.

Calls to produce more and more and saying it's "the only way" are
more than misleading. It's calling for disaster.

I know there are some trends to reduce population growth but
overall we're still growing at 1.1% world wide.

Very few countries have an official policy to limit growth.

Joel Cohen's recent book on human carrying capacity summarizes the
continuing lack of scientific consensus on the subject. Estimates of the
number still vary widely according to the specific assumptions used. In
fact, the estimates are more scattered than before - indicating a
quantitative field still very much in its infancy. One strand of
thought, represented by the author Julian Simon discards the notion of a
human carrying capacity altogether, claiming that the additional people
will provide sufficient creativity and innovation to break through any
possible natural barriers to human population growth. Most of the
serious estimates of K (the carrying capacity, often symbolized as " K")
for humans, however, lie in the range 10 -20 billion people.

Precisely the kind of magic thinking I'm talking about.

"We can break through any natural barrier". Great.
I understand if we get hungry enough we can eat each other too.

Mixed crops annuals can produce twice as much food as monocultures.

Perennial chestnut trees could replace wheat fields.

See Farms for a Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
especially parts III, IV, and V.

Great, double production and we can double the number of people.
That makes sense. There's not enough traffic in town yet.
There are still some plots of land that haven't been developed.
What a waste.

Why have a bunch of people living in single family homes.
Do you know how many people can live in a square mile if
we build vertically.

Next time try to bring some facts.

I brought my opinion. Deal with it.
Opinion, logic if you will, is only as good as its premise. Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The truth is that our present form of agriculture poisons the planet,
and is responsible for loss of topsoil. If we can get more food and a
healthier planet, I say go for it. Malthus may get us in the end, but
lacking a population control program such as they have in China, we can
hope that rising levels of "quality of life" will lead to lower birth
rates, such as exist in Europe, and apparently Australia.

I'm fine with increasing food production efficiency but someone
from the UN saying the only way we can deal with resource issues
is to produce more is just wrong.

We've built up quite a nice life style but the planet has finite
resources. A number of them are in short supply. Squeezing the
rock harder isn't going to work.

Some serious self control is called for.

We are already past the carrying capacity of the planet. I don't see
help coming. If we grow more food, we might buy enough time for people
to come to their senses. If not, it could get ugly.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Another take on Eco-Farming

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUKTRE7272FN20110308

Eco-farming can double food output by poor: U.N.


By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO | Tue Mar 8, 2011 1:09pm GMT

(Reuters) - Many farmers in developing nations can double food
production within a decade by shifting to ecological agriculture from
use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, a U.N. report showed on
Tuesday.

Insect-trapping plants in Kenya and Bangladesh's use of ducks to eat
weeds in rice paddies are among examples of steps taken to increase food
for a world population that the United Nations says will be 7 billion
this year and 9 billion by 2050.

"Agriculture is at a crossroads," according to the study by Olivier de
Schutter, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in a drive
to depress record food prices and avoid the costly oil-dependent model
of industrial farming.

"Agroecology" could also make farms more resilient to the projected
impact of climate change including floods, droughts and a rise in sea
levels that the report said was already making fresh water near some
coasts too salty for use in irrigation.

So far, eco-farming projects in 57 nations had shown average crop yield
gains of 80 percent by tapping natural methods for enhancing soil and
protecting against pests, it said.

Recent projects in 20 African countries had resulted in a doubling of
crop yields within three to 10 years. Those lessons could be widely
mimicked elsewhere, it said.

"Sound ecological farming can significantly boost production and in the
long term be more effective than conventional farming," De Schutter told
Reuters of steps such as more use of natural compost or high-canopy
trees to shade coffee groves.

AFRICA

Benefits would be greatest in "regions where too few efforts have been
put in to agriculture, particularly sub-Saharan Africa," he said. "There
are also a number of very promising experiences in parts of Latin
America and parts of Asia."

"The cost of food production has been very closely following the cost of
oil," he said. Upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia have been partly linked to
discontent at soaring food prices. Oil prices were around $115 a barrel
on Wednesday.

"If food prices are not kept under control and populations are unable to
feed themselves...we will have increasingly states being disrupted and
failed states developing," De Schutter said.

Among examples, thousands of Kenyan farmers were planting
insect-repelling desmodium or tick clover, used as animal fodder, within
corn fields to keep damaging insects away and sowed small plots of
napier grass nearby that excretes a sticky gum to trap pests.

Better research, training and use of local knowledge were also needed.
"Farmer field schools" by rice growers in Indonesia, Vietnam and
Bangladesh had led to cuts in insecticide use of between 35 and 92
percent, the study said.

De Schutter also called for a push to diversify global farm output from
reliance on rice, wheat and maize in diets.

Developed nations, however, would be unable to make a quick shift to
agroecology because of what he called an "addiction" to an industrial,
oil-based model of farming. Still, a global long-term effort to shift to
agroecology was needed.

Cuba had shown that such a change was possible after the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991 cut off supplies of cheap pesticides and
fertilizers. Yields had risen after a downturn in the 1990s as farmers
adopted more eco-friendly methods.




The following is similar in approach to Farm for the Future,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
but in print format.

http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-n...limate-and-dou
ble-food-production-without-gm

Save Climate and Double Food Production With Eco-Farming
IPS, March 8 2011
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54775

UXBRIDGE - Eco-farming could double food production in entire regions
within 10 years while mitigating climate change, according to a new
U.N. report released Tuesday in Geneva.

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to
food, following the presentation of his annual report focusing on agro-
ecology and the right to food to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

"Agro-ecology mimics nature not industrial processes. It replaces the
external inputs like fertiliser with knowledge of how a combination of
plants, trees and animals can enhance productivity of the land," De
Schutter told IPS, stressing that, "Yields went up 214 percent in 44
projects in 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using agro-ecological
farming techniques over a period of 3 to 10 yearsŠ far more than any
GM [genetically modified] crop has ever done."

Other recent scientific assessments have shown that small farmers in
57 countries using agro-ecological techniques obtained average yield
increases of 80 percent. Africans¹ average increases were 116 percent.
"Today¹s scientific evidence demonstrates that agro- ecological
methods outperform the use of chemical fertilisers in boosting food
production in regions where the hungry live," De Schutter said.

Agro-ecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural
systems. It enhances soil productivity and protects crops against
pests by relying on the natural elements.

Eco-farming doesn¹t require expensive inputs of fossil-fuel- based
pesticides, fertilisers, machinery or hybrid seeds. It is ideally
suited for poor smallholder farmers and herders who are the bulk of
the one billion hungry people in the world. Efforts by governments and
major donors such as the 400-million- dollar Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to subsidise fertilizer and hybrid seeds
will produce quick boosts in yields but are not sustainable in the
long term, De Schutter said.

Malawi is touted as an AGRA success story by funders such as the Gates
Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation who have massively
subsidised fertilizer and created a corresponding improvement in food
production. However the country simply cannot afford to continue those
subsidies and is shifting its strategy to agro-ecology. "The [Malawi]
government now subsidises farmers to plant nitrogen-fixing trees in
their fields to ensure sustained growth in maize production," he said.

De Shutter says AGRA is looking for quick results and is getting them.
He has found it difficult to overcome AGRA proponents¹ suspicions
about the effectiveness of agro-ecology, despite the mounting
evidence. "I expect countries to express scepticism towards these
solutions because they are not in accord with the dominant paradigm,"
De Schutter said.

The dominant view of agriculture is the industrial approach - of
maximising efficiency and yield. However that system is utterly
dependent on cheap fossil fuels and never having to be held
accountable for environmental degradation and other impacts. (END)
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw