Oil, global warming, time and agriculture

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 05:02 AM

Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/

I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results.

I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier?

For example we had lots of speculation on this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479

about the efficiency of local vs. globalized food production.
But were is the science on this question?

Where is the science on how to produce food without oil?

Where are the GM crops which are better at growing without oil based fertilizers?

Where are the GM crops that reduce tractor time in the field?

Where are the GM banana's that can be grown in Canada to reduce shipping?

PixyMisa · 17th November 2009, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/

I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results.

I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier?

What problem?

Dancing David · 17th November 2009, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/

I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results.

I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier?

For example we had lots of speculation on this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479

about the efficiency of local vs. globalized food production.
But were is the science on this question?

Where is the science on how to produce food without oil?

Where are the GM crops which are better at growing without oil based fertilizers?

Where are the GM crops that reduce tractor time in the field?

Where are the GM banana's that can be grown in Canada to reduce shipping?

Well there are many issues there, hard to encapsulate a single one in a byte.

I would start with an easy on that does require surveys and some complex math.

Integrated pest management:

The application of pesticides in a limited and judged fashion that is based upon economic benefit.

Now agriculture here in the heartland of the US has changed since the seventies, there are fewer applications of chemicals based upon 'just do it because it is easier'. The cost of petro chemicals has changed this, but the gauging of pest levels, detriment to crops and then applying pesticides only when there is an actual economic benefit is one way to reduce overall use of chemicals.

Now people still spray anhydrous ammonia in the fall, which means applying about three times as much, because it is easier to do and saves time in the spring. The ron off pollution is tremendous.

But here at least, the size of farms means you have to use large scale machinery, there are very few 500 acre farms anymore in this county.

ETA: No bananas in Canada, they have to grow most of the tomatos in the southern most area of Canada. (Around Leamington, ONT)

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 06:15 AM

Next time please ask a question relevant to the post.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier?

What problem?

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Well there are many issues there, hard to encapsulate a single one in a byte.

I would start with an easy on that does require surveys and some complex math.

Integrated pest management:

The application of pesticides in a limited and judged fashion that is based upon economic benefit.

Now agriculture here in the heartland of the US has changed since the seventies, there are fewer applications of chemicals based upon 'just do it because it is easier'. The cost of petro chemicals has changed this, but the gauging of pest levels, detriment to crops and then applying pesticides only when there is an actual economic benefit is one way to reduce overall use of chemicals.

Now people still spray anhydrous ammonia in the fall, which means applying about three times as much, because it is easier to do and saves time in the spring. The ron off pollution is tremendous.

But here at least, the size of farms means you have to use large scale machinery, there are very few 500 acre farms anymore in this county.

ETA: No bananas in Canada, they have to grow most of the tomatos in the southern most area of Canada. (Around Leamington, ONT)

David, the point is that there is no concerted scientific effort to address agricultural dependence on oil. The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why?

PixyMisa · 17th November 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Next time please ask a question relevant to the post.

Next time don't base your question on false assumptions.

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why?

In many ways, the global warming alarmists' policy agenda overlaps this issue. Most of them seem to want to cut the use of fossil fuels by choice before the supply economics cuts it by necessity.

I do think all the attention being paid to the "catastrophic" effects being predicted by the warmers is diverting attention which might be better focused on this issue. In my opinion, the dependence on a dwindling resource is a much more pressing issue than the potential temperature fluctuations, both because it is more certain to occur and because its effects are easier to predict with confidence.

macdoc · 17th November 2009, 07:28 AM

Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome.

••••

There are lots of sustainable agriculture bodies in existence and a very large effort worldwide.

Cuba was forced to go to low carbon input for agriculture and it was indeed traumatic.

http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/...g-food-in.html

Peak population, peak oil, fresh water scarcity AND climate change are a witches brew....any one would be a challenge - all arriving within 3 decades is brutal.

Farmers have been surviving for millennia without fossil input and sustainable agriculture is an enormous issue worldwide as is water management.

No one magic bullet exists but reducing climate impact is one aspect we do have some control over and agriculture has a huge role to play in that in land use, animal husbandry practices, feed changes and sustainable land stewardship without massive fossil input which currently amounts to 12 calories of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of food in western agriculture.

This is just one group among thousands world wide

http://sustainableagriculture.net/

15 years this body has been dealing with the issue

Quote:

IPSA brings together civil society actors, government and United Nations agencies. For over 15 years, IPSA has achieved policy outcomes which have improved the lives of people in both developing and developed countries.

http://practice2policy.org/

and the main body created in 1992

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_mg/mg_index.shtml

I guess some are just waking up to the issue.

...

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Next time don't base your question on false assumptions.

Agriculture is dependent on oil?

Whats false about that?

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 08:45 AM

My ideas are

1. Biochar
Grow the most efficient photosynthetic plants on the planet, bamboo (giant perennial C-4 grasses).
Pyrolyze the bamboo to produce biochar, bio-oil and syngas.
The biochar takes carbon out of the carbon cycle and acts as a very stable carbon sequestrator immune to biological decomposition and therefore pyrolysis is carbon negative.
Biochar added to soil will decrease soil density, increase water holding capacity and increase Cation Exchange Capacity which are limiting factors in many marginal soils, thus increasing the amount of arable land for food production. Even arable soils have shown to benefit from biochar additions and result in better production.
The bio-oil and syngas can both can be used as fuel for internal combustion engines to generate electricity or drive farm machinery.
This way farmers get to sell carbon credits, reduce fossil fuel dependence and increase productivity.

2. Lactic acid fermentation
All organic waste (chipped agricultural and urban garden waste; industrial,domestic and catering food waste; slaughter waste; fish processing waste) can be treated with lactic acid bacteria as soon as possible to stop any further aerobic decomposition and release of greenhouse gasses. This preserved material can then be stored, transported and further processed by dehydration and made into pellets to be used as fertilizer or animal feeds (food waste only). Alternatively the material can also be pyrolyze as above or added to a biodigestor(see below).

3. Biodigestors
All human and animal faeces can be treated with lactic acid and photosynthetic bacteria as soon as produce which will stop the loss of greenhouse gasses till treatments plants were they are anaerobically digested to produce biogas which can be used for electricity. The remaining fertilizer can be used to grow the bamboo for the process above.

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by macdoc

Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome.

Are you tired? That might explain the incoherent syntax. Come back when you've had a nap.

soylent · 17th November 2009, 09:55 AM

Agriculture is an insignificant consumer of oil and most of the energy it does use is natural gas(nitrogen fertilizer) and electricity(various mining and processing).

Food distribution uses a whole lot of oil. Containerized transport is extremely efficient, especially container-ships, rail is time consuming but technically trivial to electrify. Container-ships are not that hard to "nuclearify"(it works very well for ice-breakers, sub-marines and naval vessels). The hard part is on the order of the last 100 miles. That will probably be handled with short-range electric trucks of some sort and in the very worst case could be handled with a very expensive dual-use(containers+public transport) electrified tram system in high-density areas.

Soapy Sam · 17th November 2009, 10:03 AM

soylent- in the present climate of terrorist inspired wet-knickerism, not to mention the resurgence of marine piracy, are you seriously advocating putting nuclear reactors on unarmed merchant carriers?

Dancing David · 17th November 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

David, the point is that there is no concerted scientific effort to address agricultural dependence on oil. The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why?

Um, that is a politics problem, there is reasearch going on in all sorts of areas.

So I answered your question and you ignored it.

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Um, that is a politics problem, there is reasearch going on in all sorts of areas.

So I answered your question and you ignored it.

No, I think you are ignoring the question.
What specific measures are being researched to reduce agriculture's dependence on oil?
IPM research was not driven by the dependence on fossil fuels.
It was driven by pesticide resistance and non-beneficial non-target effects.

BenBurch · 17th November 2009, 11:57 AM

My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor.

Burn bio-fuel (field waste) in the tractors, and the other motive power (people, horses) eat the non-waste.

Agricultural productivity will never approach what we have now, and many millions of people will have to work in the fields.

But we know how to do this.

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by macdoc

Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome.

••••

There are lots of sustainable agriculture bodies in existence and a very large effort worldwide.

Cuba was forced to go to low carbon input for agriculture and it was indeed traumatic.

http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/...g-food-in.html

Peak population, peak oil, fresh water scarcity AND climate change are a witches brew....any one would be a challenge - all arriving within 3 decades is brutal.

Farmers have been surviving for millennia without fossil input and sustainable agriculture is an enormous issue worldwide as is water management.

No one magic bullet exists but reducing climate impact is one aspect we do have some control over and agriculture has a huge role to play in that in land use, animal husbandry practices, feed changes and sustainable land stewardship without massive fossil input which currently amounts to 12 calories of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of food in western agriculture.

This is just one group among thousands world wide

http://sustainableagriculture.net/

15 years this body has been dealing with the issue

http://practice2policy.org/

and the main body created in 1992

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_mg/mg_index.shtml

I guess some are just waking up to the issue.

...

Last time I mentioned the word sustainable I got a mouthful.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154125

Looks like we are of the few who are conscious macdoc

I suppose its understandable since we are still debating what consciousness is

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158352

by trying to resolve the question of homosexuality in evolution

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor.

Burn bio-fuel (field waste) in the tractors, and the other motive power (people, horses) eat the non-waste.

Agricultural productivity will never approach what we have now, and many millions of people will have to work in the fields.

But we know how to do this.

Interestingly wine farmers in Burgundy, France have started using horses to till there soil in-between the vineyards again. With the lightweight materials now available (aluminium, carbon fibre) they have redesigned the tillers which can be pulled behind a horse. They have found that the horses are just as fast, can work in narrow spaces and on difficult terrain, reduce soil compaction and of course don't breakdown nearly as much and don't need fuel. The vines are also growing and producing better.

Also scythe's are making a major comeback as they are as efficient if well designed and used properly as a lawnmower or weedeater.

http://www.scythesaustralia.com.au/index.php
http://www.scytheconnection.com/

PixyMisa · 17th November 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

soylent- in the present climate of terrorist inspired wet-knickerism, not to mention the resurgence of marine piracy, are you seriously advocating putting nuclear reactors on unarmed merchant carriers?

No, that would be a really bad idea.

We should arm them.

PixyMisa · 17th November 2009, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor.

Steam-powered horses?

lionking · 17th November 2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point

Therein lies your problem. Monbiot is a left wing, ultra green zealot. Not much of a starting point for a rational debate.

ETA, From that starting point, it is no wonder this thread has already thrown up steam power, horse power and scythes.

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 11:35 PM

Corrected your post for you

Originally Posted by lionking

Therein lies your problem. Monbiot is a left wing, ultra green zealot. Who uses~~Not much of a starting point for a~~ rational debate.

!Kaggen · 17th November 2009, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

From that starting point, it is no wonder this thread has already thrown up steam power, horse power and scythes.

Its a lot more than the emotive labeling in your contribution.

lionking · 17th November 2009, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Its a lot more than the emotive labeling in your contribution.

You can continue to post off topic if you like, but how would you characterise Monbiot and what gives this journalist such an esteemed position? Why are his opinions to be used as a starting point for anything?

cornsail · 18th November 2009, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

how would you characterise Monbiot and what gives this journalist such an esteemed position? Why are his opinions to be used as a starting point for anything?

Because you can agree or disagree with them, I'm guessing. I don't see him being used as an appeal to authority for any particular argument, so your complaint seems petty.

lionking · 18th November 2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by cornsail

Because you can agree or disagree with them, I'm guessing.

You can agree or disagree with Krusty the Clown as well, which is the company I would put Monbiot in.

Anyway I have made my point. I believe that he is too far to the left to be credible on this subject.

cornsail · 18th November 2009, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

You can agree or disagree with Krusty the Clown as well

And?

Quote:

Anyway I have made my point. I believe that he is too far to the left to be credible on this subject.

Do you think oil supplies are not reducing? Do you think agricultural dependence on oil wont be a problem when oil supplies get too low? Are there any assumptions you think are being made in the thread that rely on Monbiot as a source?

If not then I don't see your point at all.

lionking · 18th November 2009, 02:12 AM

There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil".

JihadJane · 18th November 2009, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil".

Sorry, your right-wing views make your "peak oil" "skepticism" irrelevant.

Have you done any research into the subject or is your skepticism just a "gut feeling"? Monbiot, a scientist, was also skeptical about Peak Oil for a long time but facts convinced him otherwise.

lionking · 18th November 2009, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Sorry, your right-wing views make your "peak oil" "skepticism" irrelevant.

Gee I'd really like evidence about my right-wing views. I have voted for the Labor Party my whole life.

JihadJane · 18th November 2009, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Gee I'd really like evidence about my right-wing views. I have voted for the Labor Party my whole life.

I base my judgment on the views you express on this forum.

lionking · 18th November 2009, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I base my judgment on the views you express on this forum.

Well you'd be wrong then. Not unusual.

cornsail · 18th November 2009, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil".

But would you agree that the planet's supply of oil is finite (and hence decreasing), not assuming any specific timetable?

PixyMisa · 18th November 2009, 03:54 AM

I want to go on record that I think steam-powered horses would actually be kind of neat.

lionking · 18th November 2009, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by cornsail

But would you agree that the planet's supply of oil is finite (and hence decreasing), not assuming any specific timetable?

I agree with that, but am skeptical about the "peak oil now" theorists.

cornsail · 18th November 2009, 04:08 AM

The first sentence of the article says "I don’t know when global oil supplies will start to decline." so I'm still not seeing your point, lionking.

cornsail · 18th November 2009, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I want to go on record that I think steam-powered horses would actually be kind of neat.

What about steam-powered workers?

Dancing David · 18th November 2009, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No, I think you are ignoring the question.
What specific measures are being researched to reduce agriculture's dependence on oil?
IPM research was not driven by the dependence on fossil fuels.
It was driven by pesticide resistance and non-beneficial non-target effects.

It is one way towards reducing the use of petro-chemicals in agriculture.

Maybe next time you have a rant, you should state your gaols more clearly. Plus if you send me my script ahead of time, I can feed you the answers you want.

BTW: there is still some foam around your lips.

Most of the people I have heard who talk about reduction of the use of fossil feuls have discussed the role of manufacturing versus transporation and how the role of manufacturing is one to save them for. It is the high energy per volume that makes it beneficial to transport, but transport and electricity generation are the two biggies to target for green house reduction.

!Kaggen · 18th November 2009, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It is one way towards reducing the use of petro-chemicals in agriculture.

Sorry David but that is just not true.
IPM is just about reducing there use so that they can continue to be used without becoming either ineffective or plan dangerous. It is a way for the petro-chemical industry to increase the economic lifespan of their products.
There is enough knowledge and practical experience to stop using most petro-chemical pesticides altogether.
The will on the other hand.....

A little anecdote:

I had a Congolese friend doing a M.Sc. in Entomology who was trying to breed parasitic wasps for fly control in large scale chicken production. Unfortunately the amount of natural parasitism is so low that he could not collect enough parasitized fly pupae to start a breeding program even after 6 months of collecting. I knew that in the field that if we sprayed a consortium of microbes containing L.acid bacteria, yeasts and phototropic bacteria the fly populations would decrease drastically. I suggest he try adding this consortium to one of his treatments. Within 1 month he had enough parasitized fly pupae to start a breeding program. The parasitism had increased by up to 90 %. So when he presented the results to his Professor, the Professor immediately wanted money from the producers of the consortium for further research. When they declined , the Professor continued with the work using the consortium to collect parasites to breed with, but did not publish anything about the effect of the consortium. This was 10 years ago and now there is a flourishing and frankly a completely ineffective business of breeding and releasing parasites for fly control as well as the continued use of pesticides. Whilst the real control agent lingers in obscurity. Only the other day 6 months after introducing this consortium at a local horse stables and reducing their fly populations to astonishing levels did they tell me they had been spending $100 a month on parasites for years which had not had nearly as drastic an effect.

!Kaggen · 18th November 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Maybe next time you have a rant, you should state your gaols more clearly. Plus if you send me my script ahead of time, I can feed you the answers you want.

If I point out that your answer is false does that mean I should have given you the right answer beforehand?
I did not realise that a discussion worked that way.
You do surprise me more and more David.

17th November 2009, 05:02 AM	#1
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Oil, global warming, time and agriculture Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/ I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results. I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier? For example we had lots of speculation on this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479 about the efficiency of local vs. globalized food production. But were is the science on this question? Where is the science on how to produce food without oil? Where are the GM crops which are better at growing without oil based fertilizers? Where are the GM crops that reduce tractor time in the field? Where are the GM banana's that can be grown in Canada to reduce shipping?
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 05:13 AM	#2
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/ I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results. I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier? What problem?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

17th November 2009, 05:33 AM	#3
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 18,357	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...-save-farming/ I am interested in knowing what bright ideas there might be on this forum to reduce agricultural dependence on oil whilst still increasing production within the framework of inevitable global warming and taking into account a time frame of 20 years to achieve significant results. I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier? For example we had lots of speculation on this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479 about the efficiency of local vs. globalized food production. But were is the science on this question? Where is the science on how to produce food without oil? Where are the GM crops which are better at growing without oil based fertilizers? Where are the GM crops that reduce tractor time in the field? Where are the GM banana's that can be grown in Canada to reduce shipping? Well there are many issues there, hard to encapsulate a single one in a byte. I would start with an easy on that does require surveys and some complex math. Integrated pest management: The application of pesticides in a limited and judged fashion that is based upon economic benefit. Now agriculture here in the heartland of the US has changed since the seventies, there are fewer applications of chemicals based upon 'just do it because it is easier'. The cost of petro chemicals has changed this, but the gauging of pest levels, detriment to crops and then applying pesticides only when there is an actual economic benefit is one way to reduce overall use of chemicals. Now people still spray anhydrous ammonia in the fall, which means applying about three times as much, because it is easier to do and saves time in the spring. The ron off pollution is tremendous. But here at least, the size of farms means you have to use large scale machinery, there are very few 500 acre farms anymore in this county. ETA: No bananas in Canada, they have to grow most of the tomatos in the southern most area of Canada. (Around Leamington, ONT)
	__________________ Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.- Walt Kelly wow Mr.Philospher, you need some custard poured over your head mayhaps? -kittynh "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos Last edited by Dancing David; 17th November 2009 at 05:34 AM.

17th November 2009, 06:15 AM	#4
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Next time please ask a question relevant to the post. Originally Posted by PixyMisa Originally Posted by !Kaggen I am also asking the question as to why science has not started addressing this potential problem much earlier? What problem?
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 06:23 AM	#5
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by Dancing David Well there are many issues there, hard to encapsulate a single one in a byte. I would start with an easy on that does require surveys and some complex math. Integrated pest management: The application of pesticides in a limited and judged fashion that is based upon economic benefit. Now agriculture here in the heartland of the US has changed since the seventies, there are fewer applications of chemicals based upon 'just do it because it is easier'. The cost of petro chemicals has changed this, but the gauging of pest levels, detriment to crops and then applying pesticides only when there is an actual economic benefit is one way to reduce overall use of chemicals. Now people still spray anhydrous ammonia in the fall, which means applying about three times as much, because it is easier to do and saves time in the spring. The ron off pollution is tremendous. But here at least, the size of farms means you have to use large scale machinery, there are very few 500 acre farms anymore in this county. ETA: No bananas in Canada, they have to grow most of the tomatos in the southern most area of Canada. (Around Leamington, ONT) David, the point is that there is no concerted scientific effort to address agricultural dependence on oil. The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why?
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 06:54 AM	#6
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Next time please ask a question relevant to the post. Next time don't base your question on false assumptions.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

17th November 2009, 07:12 AM	#7
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by !Kaggen The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why? In many ways, the global warming alarmists' policy agenda overlaps this issue. Most of them seem to want to cut the use of fossil fuels by choice before the supply economics cuts it by necessity. I do think all the attention being paid to the "catastrophic" effects being predicted by the warmers is diverting attention which might be better focused on this issue. In my opinion, the dependence on a dwindling resource is a much more pressing issue than the potential temperature fluctuations, both because it is more certain to occur and because its effects are easier to predict with confidence.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 07:28 AM	#8
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome. •••• There are lots of sustainable agriculture bodies in existence and a very large effort worldwide. Cuba was forced to go to low carbon input for agriculture and it was indeed traumatic. http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/...g-food-in.html Peak population, peak oil, fresh water scarcity AND climate change are a witches brew....any one would be a challenge - all arriving within 3 decades is brutal. Farmers have been surviving for millennia without fossil input and sustainable agriculture is an enormous issue worldwide as is water management. No one magic bullet exists but reducing climate impact is one aspect we do have some control over and agriculture has a huge role to play in that in land use, animal husbandry practices, feed changes and sustainable land stewardship without massive fossil input which currently amounts to 12 calories of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of food in western agriculture. This is just one group among thousands world wide http://sustainableagriculture.net/ 15 years this body has been dealing with the issue Quote: IPSA brings together civil society actors, government and United Nations agencies. For over 15 years, IPSA has achieved policy outcomes which have improved the lives of people in both developing and developed countries. http://practice2policy.org/ and the main body created in 1992 http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_mg/mg_index.shtml I guess some are just waking up to the issue....
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

17th November 2009, 08:16 AM	#9
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Next time don't base your question on false assumptions. Agriculture is dependent on oil? Whats false about that?
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 08:45 AM	#10
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	My ideas are 1. Biochar Grow the most efficient photosynthetic plants on the planet, bamboo (giant perennial C-4 grasses). Pyrolyze the bamboo to produce biochar, bio-oil and syngas. The biochar takes carbon out of the carbon cycle and acts as a very stable carbon sequestrator immune to biological decomposition and therefore pyrolysis is carbon negative. Biochar added to soil will decrease soil density, increase water holding capacity and increase Cation Exchange Capacity which are limiting factors in many marginal soils, thus increasing the amount of arable land for food production. Even arable soils have shown to benefit from biochar additions and result in better production. The bio-oil and syngas can both can be used as fuel for internal combustion engines to generate electricity or drive farm machinery. This way farmers get to sell carbon credits, reduce fossil fuel dependence and increase productivity. 2. Lactic acid fermentation All organic waste (chipped agricultural and urban garden waste; industrial,domestic and catering food waste; slaughter waste; fish processing waste) can be treated with lactic acid bacteria as soon as possible to stop any further aerobic decomposition and release of greenhouse gasses. This preserved material can then be stored, transported and further processed by dehydration and made into pellets to be used as fertilizer or animal feeds (food waste only). Alternatively the material can also be pyrolyze as above or added to a biodigestor(see below). 3. Biodigestors All human and animal faeces can be treated with lactic acid and photosynthetic bacteria as soon as produce which will stop the loss of greenhouse gasses till treatments plants were they are anaerobically digested to produce biogas which can be used for electricity. The remaining fertilizer can be used to grow the bamboo for the process above.
	__________________ the source Last edited by !Kaggen; 17th November 2009 at 08:46 AM.

17th November 2009, 09:39 AM	#11
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by macdoc Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome. Are you tired? That might explain the incoherent syntax. Come back when you've had a nap.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 09:55 AM	#12
soylent Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 657	Agriculture is an insignificant consumer of oil and most of the energy it does use is natural gas(nitrogen fertilizer) and electricity(various mining and processing). Food distribution uses a whole lot of oil. Containerized transport is extremely efficient, especially container-ships, rail is time consuming but technically trivial to electrify. Container-ships are not that hard to "nuclearify"(it works very well for ice-breakers, sub-marines and naval vessels). The hard part is on the order of the last 100 miles. That will probably be handled with short-range electric trucks of some sort and in the very worst case could be handled with a very expensive dual-use(containers+public transport) electrified tram system in high-density areas.
	__________________ "A lot of those lobbyists genuinely like people. But then, fleas like people too." - Mike Munger.

17th November 2009, 10:03 AM	#13
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 18,092	soylent- in the present climate of terrorist inspired wet-knickerism, not to mention the resurgence of marine piracy, are you seriously advocating putting nuclear reactors on unarmed merchant carriers?
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 18,092

17th November 2009, 11:04 AM	#14
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 18,357	Originally Posted by !Kaggen David, the point is that there is no concerted scientific effort to address agricultural dependence on oil. The impact is potentially as devastating as a more than 2DG rise in global temp due to global warming but it is receiving much less attention. Hell, there is not as yet a global scientific panel such as the IPCC to address the issue. Why? Um, that is a politics problem, there is reasearch going on in all sorts of areas. So I answered your question and you ignored it.
	__________________ Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.- Walt Kelly wow Mr.Philospher, you need some custard poured over your head mayhaps? -kittynh "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos

17th November 2009, 11:36 AM	#15
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by Dancing David Um, that is a politics problem, there is reasearch going on in all sorts of areas. So I answered your question and you ignored it. No, I think you are ignoring the question. What specific measures are being researched to reduce agriculture's dependence on oil? IPM research was not driven by the dependence on fossil fuels. It was driven by pesticide resistance and non-beneficial non-target effects.
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 11:57 AM	#16
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor. Burn bio-fuel (field waste) in the tractors, and the other motive power (people, horses) eat the non-waste. Agricultural productivity will never approach what we have now, and many millions of people will have to work in the fields. But we know how to do this.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

17th November 2009, 10:20 PM	#17
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by macdoc Bokonon cut the ideology crap regurgitated denier blogs - gets wearisome. •••• There are lots of sustainable agriculture bodies in existence and a very large effort worldwide. Cuba was forced to go to low carbon input for agriculture and it was indeed traumatic. http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/...g-food-in.html Peak population, peak oil, fresh water scarcity AND climate change are a witches brew....any one would be a challenge - all arriving within 3 decades is brutal. Farmers have been surviving for millennia without fossil input and sustainable agriculture is an enormous issue worldwide as is water management. No one magic bullet exists but reducing climate impact is one aspect we do have some control over and agriculture has a huge role to play in that in land use, animal husbandry practices, feed changes and sustainable land stewardship without massive fossil input which currently amounts to 12 calories of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of food in western agriculture. This is just one group among thousands world wide http://sustainableagriculture.net/ 15 years this body has been dealing with the issue http://practice2policy.org/ and the main body created in 1992 http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_mg/mg_index.shtml I guess some are just waking up to the issue.... Last time I mentioned the word sustainable I got a mouthful. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154125 Looks like we are of the few who are conscious macdoc I suppose its understandable since we are still debating what consciousness is http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158352 by trying to resolve the question of homosexuality in evolution
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 10:28 PM	#18
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by BenBurch My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor. Burn bio-fuel (field waste) in the tractors, and the other motive power (people, horses) eat the non-waste. Agricultural productivity will never approach what we have now, and many millions of people will have to work in the fields. But we know how to do this. Interestingly wine farmers in Burgundy, France have started using horses to till there soil in-between the vineyards again. With the lightweight materials now available (aluminium, carbon fibre) they have redesigned the tillers which can be pulled behind a horse. They have found that the horses are just as fast, can work in narrow spaces and on difficult terrain, reduce soil compaction and of course don't breakdown nearly as much and don't need fuel. The vines are also growing and producing better. Also scythe's are making a major comeback as they are as efficient if well designed and used properly as a lawnmower or weedeater. http://www.scythesaustralia.com.au/index.php http://www.scytheconnection.com/
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 10:55 PM	#19
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam soylent- in the present climate of terrorist inspired wet-knickerism, not to mention the resurgence of marine piracy, are you seriously advocating putting nuclear reactors on unarmed merchant carriers? No, that would be a really bad idea. We should arm them.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

17th November 2009, 10:59 PM	#20
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by BenBurch My solution to the agricultural machinery problem is an extreme one; Steam-powered tractors, horses, and manual labor. Steam-powered horses?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

17th November 2009, 11:03 PM	#21
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Quote: Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point Therein lies your problem. Monbiot is a left wing, ultra green zealot. Not much of a starting point for a rational debate. ETA, From that starting point, it is no wonder this thread has already thrown up steam power, horse power and scythes.
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer Last edited by lionking; 17th November 2009 at 11:07 PM.

17th November 2009, 11:35 PM	#22
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Corrected your post for you Originally Posted by lionking Therein lies your problem. Monbiot is a left wing, ultra green zealot. Who uses~~Not much of a starting point for a~~ rational debate.
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 11:39 PM	#23
!Kaggen Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 1,182	Originally Posted by lionking From that starting point, it is no wonder this thread has already thrown up steam power, horse power and scythes. Its a lot more than the emotive labeling in your contribution.
	__________________ the source

17th November 2009, 11:59 PM	#24
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Its a lot more than the emotive labeling in your contribution. You can continue to post off topic if you like, but how would you characterise Monbiot and what gives this journalist such an esteemed position? Why are his opinions to be used as a starting point for anything?
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer

18th November 2009, 01:26 AM	#25
cornsail Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 615	Originally Posted by lionking how would you characterise Monbiot and what gives this journalist such an esteemed position? Why are his opinions to be used as a starting point for anything? Because you can agree or disagree with them, I'm guessing. I don't see him being used as an appeal to authority for any particular argument, so your complaint seems petty.

18th November 2009, 01:54 AM	#26
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Originally Posted by cornsail Because you can agree or disagree with them, I'm guessing. You can agree or disagree with Krusty the Clown as well, which is the company I would put Monbiot in. Anyway I have made my point. I believe that he is too far to the left to be credible on this subject.
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer

18th November 2009, 02:02 AM	#27
cornsail Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 615	Originally Posted by lionking You can agree or disagree with Krusty the Clown as well And? Quote: Anyway I have made my point. I believe that he is too far to the left to be credible on this subject. Do you think oil supplies are not reducing? Do you think agricultural dependence on oil wont be a problem when oil supplies get too low? Are there any assumptions you think are being made in the thread that rely on Monbiot as a source? If not then I don't see your point at all.

18th November 2009, 02:12 AM	#28
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil".
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer

18th November 2009, 02:40 AM	#29
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,383	Originally Posted by lionking There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil". Sorry, your right-wing views make your "peak oil" "skepticism" irrelevant. Have you done any research into the subject or is your skepticism just a "gut feeling"? Monbiot, a scientist, was also skeptical about Peak Oil for a long time but facts convinced him otherwise.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH Last edited by JihadJane; 18th November 2009 at 02:43 AM.

18th November 2009, 02:43 AM	#30
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Originally Posted by JihadJane Sorry, your right-wing views make your "peak oil" "skepticism" irrelevant. Gee I'd really like evidence about my right-wing views. I have voted for the Labor Party my whole life.
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer

18th November 2009, 02:57 AM	#31
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,383	Originally Posted by lionking Gee I'd really like evidence about my right-wing views. I have voted for the Labor Party my whole life. I base my judgment on the views you express on this forum.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

18th November 2009, 03:01 AM	#32
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Originally Posted by JihadJane I base my judgment on the views you express on this forum. Well you'd be wrong then. Not unusual.
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer

18th November 2009, 03:51 AM	#33
cornsail Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 615	Originally Posted by lionking There's been 50 years oil supply for at least the last 50 years, so yes I am skeptical about "peak oil". But would you agree that the planet's supply of oil is finite (and hence decreasing), not assuming any specific timetable?

18th November 2009, 03:54 AM	#34
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	I want to go on record that I think steam-powered horses would actually be kind of neat.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

18th November 2009, 03:56 AM	#35
lionking Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 12,135	Originally Posted by cornsail But would you agree that the planet's supply of oil is finite (and hence decreasing), not assuming any specific timetable? I agree with that, but am skeptical about the "peak oil now" theorists.
	__________________ You must believe in free will; there is no choice. Isaac Bashevis Singer