Oil, global warming, time and agriculture

[!Kaggen]

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.

Agriculture is unique in this regard . If done correctly it can offset its own emissions and furthermore act as a way of sequestrating carbon into the soil. Every 1 % increase in soil carbon in the first 0.3metres of soil for instance sequestrates 30tons of carbon per hectare. It therefore should be approach completely differently than the traditional debate you mentioned above.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

What about the peak oil in 20 years like the OP suggested?

 

[!Kaggen]

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?

I do not always agree with his position and you are welcome not to either.
In this case the idea is to discuss this important topic, using Monbiot's argument as a starting point, on a rational basis not just by accepting or rejecting it because of ones political and environmental preferences.

 

[Jeff Corey]

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...

In my experience with horses, they do need fuel on a daily basis. And if they are housed in things called "stalls", frequent sanitary maintenance.

 

[daenku32]

Agriculture is unique in this regard . If done correctly it can offset its own emissions and furthermore act as a way of sequestrating carbon into the soil. Every 1 % increase in soil carbon in the first 0.3metres of soil for instance sequestrates 30tons of carbon per hectare. It therefore should be approach completely differently than the traditional debate you mentioned above.

The one thing I heard about this is that if the ground is disturbed the soil can release a lot of that carbon.

Personally, I expect developing nations to increase their carbon footprint quite a bit. Otherwise they may be required to jump over 50 years of development and directly into a carbon-free economy.

The developed nations would be much more capable of going carbon-free.

 

[CoolSceptic]

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

Definite thumbs up for steam powered horses, and I officially declare PixyMisa the winner of this thread for invoking STEAMPUNK.

Disclaimer: satire found at b3ta.com may not all be in good taste.

 

[!Kaggen]

In my experience with horses, they do need fuel on a daily basis. And if they are housed in things called "stalls", frequent sanitary maintenance.

The fuel can all be grown in a carbon negative way.
The sanitary maintenance problem can be solved by using a consortium of lactic acid bacteria, yeasts and phototrophes which eliminate the need to remove faeces and urine spots daily and add wood or straw litter daily. I have clients stalls were they started with pure wood chips and have not removed any manure or urine soaked chips for 6 months. No fly problems, no smell(ammonia), no hoof problems, nice dry and soft bedding. All we remove is a few bags of excellent compost every months and add a few bags of wood chips every 6 months otherwise the horses will end up hitting their heads on the ceiling.

 

[!Kaggen]

The one thing I heard about this is that if the ground is disturbed the soil can release a lot of that carbon.

Personally, I expect developing nations to increase their carbon footprint quite a bit. Otherwise they may be required to jump over 50 years of development and directly into a carbon-free economy.

The developed nations would be much more capable of going carbon-free.

Not if they use biochar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

 

[BenBurch]

In my experience with horses, they do need fuel on a daily basis. And if they are housed in things called "stalls", frequent sanitary maintenance.

You bet they do!

One beneficial side effect is that they can eat grass and make fertilizer.

But there is a reason that farmers adopted mechanized agriculture the moment it was available to them!

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Maybe you assume I can understand your intent in your post, I responded with one way that petro chemical use can be reduced.

You set up a false dichotomy, I answered a general question about how petro chemical use can be reduced.

I will ask what you are asking in the future to surmount the language barrier.

This is what you posted:

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.

So IPM would "reduce agricultural dependence on oil", which is the question I was answering.

Now if you want to eliminate all us eof agricultural chemical, that is different.

 

[bokonon]

What about steam-powered workers?

Or swarms of breadbox-sized solar-powered earth-turning, seed-planting, crop-fertilizing, insect-squashing and weed-pulling robots. Harvesting might still require tractors and combines, but if the tractors themselves are electric they could conceivably be powered from a source other than fossil fuels.

Entrepreneurs could travel the country with their robot swarms, similar to the way beekeepers operate today.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Funny that is a different statement from your first post.

I answered the question as stated which was how to reduce the use of petro chemicals, this is a different question and not what you stated originally.

The agricultural people and gardeners I know who use IPM do so to reduce the use of petrochemical and contain costs. I myself do not use broadleaf pesticides in my yard and garden. I use Roundup (glyphosate) for spot treatment and then extensive hand weeding to control the broad leafs in the lawn.

that is a form of integrated pest management. I do not apply a spray of broadleaf weed control on my lawn.

When it comes to insects, I do not apply insetcticides (as a general rule), they are rather harmful to butterflies and other lepidoptera. I use 'manual' by squashing them or knowking them into jars of soapy water. This too is a limited form of IPM, altghough this year I used a pyrreterin based powder for the first time to prevent squash vine borer on water melons (grown for my son, not something i would normally grow). Now I did not apply it prior to the degree days for the squash vines borer adults. That is IPM.

Now I understand your goal of the elimination of agricultural petrochemical pesticides, and that is different than what you stated in your OP.

 

[quarky]

Embracing and exploiting insects, weeds, and fungus will help.

 

[!Kaggen]

Maybe you assume I can understand your intent in your post, I responded with one way that petro chemical use can be reduced.

You set up a false dichotomy, I answered a general question about how petro chemical use can be reduced.

I will ask what you are asking in the future to surmount the language barrier.

This is what you posted:

So IPM would "reduce agricultural dependence on oil", which is the question I was answering.

Now if you want to eliminate all us eof agricultural chemical, that is different.

The point of the OP was to think about ways of reducing oil dependence in agriculture with direct intent, not possibly indirectly by the way of reducing pesticide resistance and non-target effects of pesticides.
When I studied IPM at University and worked with farmers applying it, it was not about reducing costs or oil dependence.

The fact that IPM has been around since the 80's and has had no significant effect in reducing agricultural dependence on oil says a lot. In fact in my town there is a campaign starting up to stop the use of pesticides (Folpan, carcinogen and Dithan,endocrine disruptor and carcinogens) on vineyards near residential areas, especially when the wind causes spray drift. They have had IPM in this region for 15 years already!!!

It has nothing to do with the elimination of pesticides either because that is not my intent. My intent is to use safer and better ideas which are also not dependent oil. The fact that pesticides becomes superfluous is a by-product of better ideas and not my intent.

 

[!Kaggen]

Funny that is a different statement from your first post.

I answered the question as stated which was how to reduce the use of petro chemicals, this is a different question and not what you stated originally.

The agricultural people and gardeners I know who use IPM do so to reduce the use of petrochemical and contain costs. I myself do not use broadleaf pesticides in my yard and garden. I use Roundup (glyphosate) for spot treatment and then extensive hand weeding to control the broad leafs in the lawn.

that is a form of integrated pest management. I do not apply a spray of broadleaf weed control on my lawn.

When it comes to insects, I do not apply insetcticides (as a general rule), they are rather harmful to butterflies and other lepidoptera. I use 'manual' by squashing them or knowking them into jars of soapy water. This too is a limited form of IPM, altghough this year I used a pyrreterin based powder for the first time to prevent squash vine borer on water melons (grown for my son, not something i would normally grow). Now I did not apply it prior to the degree days for the squash vines borer adults. That is IPM.

Now I understand your goal of the elimination of agricultural petrochemical pesticides, and that is different than what you stated in your OP.

Your personal experiences are most encouraging and commending and I have found many thoughtful gardeners do the same, but this approach is certainly not the norm in large scale production in my experience working with farmers all over South Africa. I will admit that there are signs in the last year of improvement, but it is still limited to smaller farmers.

If my tone sounds frustrated it is because I am
I have been advocating the exact things you have mentioned above for 17 years and have endured ridicule and plan old ignorance for too long and I am no longer tolerant of it. Perhaps I need more meditation time....

 

[macdoc]

No no - fire in the belly is exactly what is needed and OUTRAGE in large letters.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Tractors aren't size or weight limited pieces of equipment, at least not on the scale of passenger vehicles. You can fit a lot of rechargable batteries on a tractor. I see energy production as a major farm crop of the future anyway, whther we're talking about bio-gas generation at ranches and dairies, algae ponds for biodiesel, wind, solar, etc.,. I've no real problem with other systems of human and animal labor, but it seems a waste not to employ the technologies we know have utility and practicality to this application.

 

[!Kaggen]

No no - fire in the belly is exactly what is needed and OUTRAGE in large letters.

Thanks for the encouragement

 

[Dancing David]

Your personal experiences are most encouraging and commending and I have found many thoughtful gardeners do the same, but this approach is certainly not the norm in large scale production in my experience working with farmers all over South Africa. I will admit that there are signs in the last year of improvement, but it is still limited to smaller farmers.

If my tone sounds frustrated it is because I am
I have been advocating the exact things you have mentioned above for 17 years and have endured ridicule and plan old ignorance for too long and I am no longer tolerant of it. Perhaps I need more meditation time....

Well it is more time consuming when it comes to agriculture, you have to survey the fields to determine the level of pest infestation (this is harder with the fungal problems), then there has to be a good model of when the pest infestation will effect the yeild outcome, then a cost benefit analysis is done to determine when to apply pesticides.

However this will do nothing to limit the application of fertilizer.

Yet there is a major economic benefit to not just broadcast spraying the fields on a regular basis.

Now it would be difficult to control pest on a large scale using manual methods especially when it comes to root attacks and borers.

I personally question the whole use of the BT products as it will just increase resistance to BT.

It is rather a power full chemical but the strange use of glyphosate to resistant crops is sort of interesting. It has less drift than 2-4D so while it is very damaging to local plants, it does not drift far away and damage other plants.

But I think that nothing will change the US farmer except for economics and profit.

 

[Dancing David]

I know the issue with many biofeuls is the use of water in processing.