sustainability...

[Odsox]

Without fossil fuels to motor modern farming methods I suspect that the old way of growing things - mixed arable farming with animals in the mix to provide both food and manure will become the norm again.

I totally agree, but we do seem to be in a minority.

I presume you're referring to the highlands of Scotland specifically there? If so, I just see it from another angle, that's all. It goes a bit like this: why would someone who only eats plants go and live somewhere where you can't grow them?

Going by that argument, there is absolutely no point in being an inner city vegetarian then ?

[gregorach]

And pointing out that we can't maintain exponential population or resource usage growth is a non-sequitur in this discussion.

Why is it? Sorry to be so thick there, gregorach! I honestly have missed this one.

Continued population growth is obviously a non-starter, we're both agreed on that. Where we disagree is on how best to maximise (a) the sustainable human population, and (b) the aggregate carrying capacity and biodiversity of the environment. I'm certainly not arguing that we can have unlimited population growth indefinitely, no matter what we do - even the Soylent Green option can't achieve that. My personal solution to my portion of the population problem is simple: don't breed. I'll wager that decision has contributed more to reducing my environmental footprint than veganism ever would, but I'm not about to start telling other people what they should do...

In a global context, there is a direct connection between the unsustainability of trying to feed an expanding population of humans aiming for a western lifestyle and that of an ever-increasing animal farming industry, an industry which by its very nature is destructive, consumes much good arable land and is hungry for the land currently covered in rainforest.

Which is totally not what I'm talking about here. Not all meat production is equal. I completely agree that we shouldn't be expanding meat production, especially not at the expense of using good arable land which could be put to better uses. I'm just saying that we shouldn't necessarily completely eliminate the portion of meat production which doesn't use good arable land. I completely agree that the "western lifestyle" normalises the consumption of far too much meat, I'm just not convinced that going to the opposite extreme is the necessarily always best option.

To sum up, you believe you should live on marginal land and 'manage' other animals for your diet and your current population would be 'sustainable'. I believe I should live on reasonable arable land with a local, plant-based diet and 'sustain' far more people. We're both right.

The whole point of my argument is that, in some circumstances, your approach does not sustain "far more people" - it sustains fewer people, and lowers biodiversity into the bargain. There is no one easy, perfect answer which is applicable in all circumstances.

Now, if you want to make an ethical argument for veganism, that's entirely fine and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. My entire point in this thread is that I'm profoundly unconvinced about universal applicability of the practical argument you're advancing.

[grahamhobbs]

Without fossil fuels to motor modern farming methods I suspect that the old way of growing things - mixed arable farming with animals in the mix to provide both food and manure will become the norm again.

I would like, but unfortunately I think it is a wishful dream. A hundred years ago an American agriculturalist went to China to teach them modern efficient farming - he ended up writing a book about how productive their farming was, even their wheat production was, I think, 3 times greater than in America at the time, a level only now matched with all our technology and chemical fertilisers. Did we follow the Chinese model....................no, we went big, why because it increases profits not necessarily output. So long as land is held by a minority they will always choose labour reduction and profit above all else.

The book by the way is no longer a rarity (it cost me £30 many years ago), you can download it for free on ibooks : Farmers of Forty Centuries or Permanent Agriculture in China.

[KathyLauren]

Without fossil fuels to motor modern farming methods I suspect that the old way of growing things - mixed arable farming with animals in the mix to provide both food and manure will become the norm again.

I suspect that you are correct. I still personally would never go back to eating animals, but I can see some use of animals on a farm, if it contributes to sustainability, as being a greater good than my own ethical purity.

[contadina]

I'm the same as you Keith, I've not eaten any meat or fish for around 35 years and can't see that I'd ever want to. I'm happy to keep animals for food and manure however, safe in the knowledge they have enjoyed their days prior to feeding the family.

would like, but unfortunately I think it is a wishful dream. A hundred years ago an American agriculturalist went to China to teach them modern efficient farming - he ended up writing a book about how productive their farming was, even their wheat production was, I think, 3 times greater than in America at the time, a level only now matched with all our technology and chemical fertilisers. Did we follow the Chinese model....................no, we went big, why because it increases profits not necessarily output. So long as land is held by a minority they will always choose labour reduction and profit above all else.

I hear what you are saying Graham and I'm convinced this why the agro-chemical companies and their cosy backers in government are keen to push GM as the only way forward. If we resist, however, then we will have to return to more sustainable farming practices, and for me, small-scale mixed arable farming seems the most viable solution.

[oldjerry]

I'm happy to keep animals for food and manure however, safe in the knowledge they have enjoyed their days prior to feeding the family.

That's always been my principle,in fact I'm not happy eating meat I haven't raised or hunted myself(or I don't personally know who has).Which makes what I order, on the rare occasions we eat out,it a bit predictable(veg or fish!)
I can't get away from the idea that if the emphasis was on LOCAL sourcing as much as poss(enforced by local sales tax on goods from outside the locality?),then the sort of high labour/low tech,mixed farm, sustainable system that many here seem to favour would return.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Without fossil fuels to motor modern farming methods I suspect that the old way of growing things - mixed arable farming with animals in the mix to provide both food and manure will become the norm again.

I would like, but unfortunately I think it is a wishful dream.

You know, Graham, I'm not so sure.

Small scale mixed farming makes economic sense when oil becomes more expensive than the intensive labour needed. I reckon that tipping point might be just the other side of $200 per barrel, a level it is entirely possible we will reach in the next 12 months.

[oldjerry]

I share your aspiration,but from experience , much as I hate to say it,the opposite could be true.The classic reaction in UK farming to higher costs has always been'more efficiency',for that read: biggerfarms/fields/machines,less labour/diversity/hedges/wildlife.I think in the UK,at least,it's almost impossible to overestimate the power of the Agri/business--Food Retailing machine. I truly wish I could think otherwise,I know other countries have a different ethos,and they should guard it as though it were one of their children.

[contadina]

...but, as RRE pointed out bigger machinery and bigger farms require a lot of fossil fuel, so I think a return to smaller farms with more people and less energy-guzzling machinery is our only viable option.

[oldjerry]

well yes,but that will only kick in when there isn't ANY fuel,i.e. when every sq. inch of Alaska/the Antarctic/Africa/Gulf of Mexico wherever and by which ever means has been decimated,oil companies have massive political clout,and the harder it is to find the more clout they have.Meanwhile farms will become more and more industrialised to become more 'efficient'.I'm sorry I wish I could agree with you,I'd like the scenario you foresee,and maybe it WILL come but I dont think it will be as a consequence of economics.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

well yes,but that will only kick in when there isn't ANY fuel,i.e. when every sq. inch of Alaska/the Antarctic/Africa/Gulf of Mexico wherever and by which ever means has been decimated,oil companies have massive political clout,and the harder it is to find the more clout they have.Meanwhile farms will become more and more industrialised to become more 'efficient'.I'm sorry I wish I could agree with you,I'd like the scenario you foresee,and maybe it WILL come but I dont think it will be as a consequence of economics.

OK - take a country like France or Italy which have to import pretty much all the oil they use.

In this case the economic is simpler: for a start, since both export foodstuffs, there is a clear incentive at national level to keep the value of the food products exported above the cost of the imported oil needed to produce that food. Oil companies' influence is big, but it is frequently overstated, particularly where non-producing countires are concerned, and they don't yet punch higher than a G8 nation state.

The minimum wage is €8.50-odd an hour (in France, at least). A certain number of labour hours will be required to cultivate and harvest a hectare costing X. That same hectare will cost Y in terms of gasoil for fuel. As soon as Y exceeds X there is every incentive for a farmer to start employing human labour. If I get time today, I'll try and find out what a typical litres of fuel per hectare of cereal is and we could take a look a the numbers. It would be interesting to see how they stack up.

I'd say that modern arable farms could only nibble away at improved efficiency in fuel terms - machines couldn't get much bigger around here without some serious widespread road-widening schemes

I must say that this thread is really throwing up some interesting points to chew over.

[oldjerry]

Yeah it is(can't do anything else,lying here with woman flu).I think we can (both) fall into the trap of generalising too much i.e I look at grain production,big increases in production per mechanization,and ignore say soft fruit possibly decrease in productivity with mechanization.Also,when I think about it,as meat gets progressively more expensive,in theory demand should fall and pressure on the arable sector to become ever more mechanizes might reduce(?)but will the inevitable rise in land prices not make specialisation inevitable and mixed farms less viable? Dunno,I'm hopeless at conventional economics.
Can't help this gut feeling that the ideal sustainable small mixed-holding scenario is so much the reverse of every thing thats happened in UK farming since the great 18th century Land thefts.

[grahamhobbs]

Riff-Raff, I think that would be a very interesting calculation.

I love heavy horses and have done some ploughing with them in the past. If I was millionaire and had a farm I'd dream of having a pair, but I remember hearing that you need about 50 acres (or you did when people used horses) to be economical because 10 acres was required to feed the horses. You would also have to factor in the others costs in keeping horses.

Oldjerry, unfortunately I think you are right. Agrobusiness is getting bigger and bigger, they want biger and bigger profits from less and less labour, even if fossil fuels eventually dry up are they really going to drive us to undertake mass slave labour in the fields, no they will switch to an alternative fuel source (nuclear?).

[dave45]

Warning signs about food crises ahead http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/19 ... ood-broken

rising prices are the symptoms.... And they chuck GM foods into the debate! (how about a blight-resistant cold weather tomato please?)

btw I've seen Bartlett - he's good - and he's on Youtube in bite-sized chunks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[boboff]

There will always be big machines, they will just be fuelled on other fuels. The equation of labour and oil is a backward thought, and we could never move back to mass scale human based labour driven agricuture. We are all too Fat for a start.

Food is still really really cheap for us, and it would have to go up 300% for it to make much of an impact on consumption IMO. The same is true with the price of fuel.

There are loads of other macro and micro economic factors that would come into play before you could have a fuel price "X" which would make labour at £6 an hour a better use of resources. Supply of labour being the most limiting factor I would suggest.

Fuel companies don't have power, money has power, it just happens that fuel companies make allot of money, and the higher the price of oil goes, the more they make, the better ones will use that to invest in their future, alternatives to oil. Living by a river if they could drop Sea levels by 10% to compensate for global warming, and use the water to fuel combine harvesters, then ,quite literally, we are all winners!