Oil, global warming, time and agriculture

!Kaggen

Illuminator
!Kaggen
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
3,874
Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/16/if-nothing-else-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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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?
 
!Kaggen said:
Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/16/if-nothing-else-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?
Click to expand...
What problem?
 
!Kaggen said:
Using Monbiots latest article below as a starting point of discussion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/16/if-nothing-else-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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
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)
Click to expand...

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?
 
!Kaggen said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 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/2008/04/growing-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

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.
Click to expand...

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.:rolleyes:...:garfield:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
!Kaggen said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dancing David said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
macdoc said:
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/2008/04/growing-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.:rolleyes:...:garfield:
Click to expand...

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158352

by trying to resolve the question of homosexuality in evolution:eye-poppi
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/
 
Soapy Sam said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, that would be a really bad idea.

We should arm them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom