TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: Agriculture thread Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
oprn Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:55 am

For all you "electrics are the future, fossil fuel is gone" guys where will you get something to eat? Agriculture is 100% dependant on fossil fuel from the field to your plate. That ain't about to change, there is presently no alternative to eating.

Zundfolge1432 Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:55 am

oprn wrote: For all you "electrics are the future, fossil fuel is gone" guys where will you get something to eat? Agriculture is 100% dependant on fossil fuel from the field to your plate. That ain't about to change, there is presently no alternative to eating.

Click your heels three times Dorothy and say “There’s no place like home” 😀

bigdog1962 Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:35 am

Zundfolge1432 wrote: oprn wrote: For all you "electrics are the future, fossil fuel is gone" guys where will you get something to eat? Agriculture is 100% dependant on fossil fuel from the field to your plate. That ain't about to change, there is presently no alternative to eating.

Click your heels three times Dorothy and say “There’s no place like home” 😀

There is an alternative to agriculture - Soylent Green.

oprn Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:25 pm

bigdog1962 wrote: Zundfolge1432 wrote: oprn wrote: For all you "electrics are the future, fossil fuel is gone" guys where will you get something to eat? Agriculture is 100% dependant on fossil fuel from the field to your plate. That ain't about to change, there is presently no alternative to eating.

Click your heels three times Dorothy and say “There’s no place like home” 😀

There is an alternative to agriculture - Soylent Green.
I didn't read the book or see the movie. 1973 wasn't it? Something about recycling dead human bodies as food?

VW_Jimbo Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:17 pm

oprn wrote: For all you "electrics are the future, fossil fuel is gone" guys where will you get something to eat? Agriculture is 100% dependant on fossil fuel from the field to your plate. That ain't about to change, there is presently no alternative to eating.

Let me preface by saying, I understand the linear thought here. However,.....

People have been farming for a few centuries. Well before fossil fuels were available. To assume that those old ways are non existent is not logical.

I believe the old methods of farming could be reimagined with currently available technologies, in both fuels, machinery and farming protocols. I recently read an article about farming with the use of 1/10th the amount of water! Someone is thinking right there, well outside of the four sides of the box! Limiting oneself to an old, outdated technology is a milestone that fresh minds are needed!

I do get it. It would cost millions. Yes, it would, but the general public has subsidized the farming community for years. Why not divert some of those funds into alternative farming equipment not using fossil fuel technology.

Just trying to think outside of the box. I do not like being in a box. Boxes suck! I like seeing bright light, bright ideas and fresh input!

It has to start somewhere and at some time, because the truth is, we can not keep going in the direction we are going without something giving. Where will the world be in 100 years? How many more mouths will need to be feed? How much more water will need to be consumed to grow food? Where will that come from? I think those are the bigger questions. You can not transport anything until you can grow it!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/farming-technique-u...9d11d0ae35

[email protected] Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:40 pm

VW_Jimbo wrote: I recently read an article about farming with the use of 1/10th the amount of water!

right...then you have all of the organic clowns up in arms because of the evil "GMO's" which in reality is just cross breeding/breeding out certain traits. my best analogy is take a pure bred animal...they have "common problems" and a short life span....but you have a mutt that can be basically healthy for 18 years...

don't get me wrong...I love the organic crowd. they pay 6/lb for corn fed brooder house raised turkey. shit, i'd put them on a treadmill if I thought I could get 9/lb

oprn Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:53 pm

First off let me say that I was very tempted to walk away from this reply and write you off as being uneducated like the vast majority of city folks are when it comes to farming and the present farming environment. My parents and grand parents all farmed, my brother farmed, we live in a farming community surrounded by farmers. The holes in your knowledge of farming are gigantic to say the least. I will try to fill some of those holes if you will allow me to.
VW_Jimbo wrote: People have been farming for a few centuries. Well before fossil fuels were available. To assume that those old ways are non existent is not logical.

Limiting oneself to an old, outdated technology is a milestone that fresh minds are needed!
The second statement is a direct contradiction of the previous one.

VW_Jimbo wrote: I believe the old methods of farming could be reimagined with currently available technologies, in both fuels, machinery and farming protocols.
The old pre-fossil fuel methods, skills and machinery are long gone by a space of at least 2 generations. Retrieval of what it takes to farm by horses and oxen would be a HUGE undertaking IF you could find enough old folks that remember the old ways. The old method of farming was a subsistence method whereby each family worked a very small parcel of land to feed themselves. IF there was anything gleaned from the farm over and above survival it would then be bartered or sold to buy luxuries such as tea, coffee, sugar, store bought cloth to sew clothing and store bought shoes for church.

This method of farming does not and will not ever provide enough produce to sustain any city population of any size. It only worked when the majority of the population of our countries were farmers. Today farmers are few and far between as most of the people now live in the urban bubble. There would have to be a mass exodus of people back onto the land that would leave the cities virtual ghost towns.
Then where would you get the machinery? The horses? The skills to keep city folks from starving to death?

Nope, those days are gone for ever! Cannot be retrieved.

Now consider modern farming. The present day farmer owns a tractor, an air seeder, a sprayer and a combine. He covers anywhere from 3000 to 15,000 acres of land each year. He seeds the land without any cultivation, sprays for weeds, disease and insects up to 7 times in a growing season and at harvest sprays the crop once more with a desiccant to kill it and combines it.

Let's talk about livestock. In the past it was mixed farming with a couple cows a half dozen pigs and some chickens. Now it's all specialized. No one is making a living with less than 300 t0 500 cows. Pig operations are 1200 and up. Chickens are a major factory style operation with thousands of birds and several employees. Buyers of these animals want bulk shipments with consistency in condition, age and weight.

Nope that's not going to change anytime soon either!


VW_Jimbo wrote: the general public has subsidized the farming community for years. Why not divert some of those funds into alternative farming equipment not using fossil fuel technology.
Not in our country, farmers here are expected to make it on thier own! There are no subsidies given to farmers.

EverettB Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:18 pm

oprn wrote: VW_Jimbo wrote: the general public has subsidized the farming community for years. Why not divert some of those funds into alternative farming equipment not using fossil fuel technology.
Not in our country, farmers here are expected to make it on thier own! There are no subsidies given to farmers.
60 seconds on Google appears to show massive subsidies.
I fully admit to not spending much time looking it up though as I immediately did not believe you. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.
I will say without subsidies, you would bitching non-stop about the cost of food.

A couple links
https://mises.org/library/cartels-and-subsidies-canadian-agriculture
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business...e13055078/
Quote: Government support totalled $6.9-billion in 2011.

zimblewinder Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:38 am

I can understand how oprn could say that. The rest of the farming world is generally pretty frustrated with (the extent of) US farm gate protectionisms, subsidies and the dumping that regularly occurs on foreign markets resulting from US farming inefficiencies. That said, dump some of the Tesla trucks down here in OZ and we'll make great farming utes of them, we know how to appreciate UGLY:lol:

oprn Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:39 am

EverettB wrote:
60 seconds on Google appears to show massive subsidies.
I fully admit to not spending much time looking it up though as I immediately did not believe you. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.
I will say without subsidies, you would bitching non-stop about the cost of food.

A couple links
https://mises.org/library/cartels-and-subsidies-canadian-agriculture
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business...e13055078/
Quote: Government support totalled $6.9-billion in 2011.
Yes you missed a few things. First off define a government subsidy.

Your first article talks about a land settlement plan put in place to attract farmers to the west back in the 1800s. I would hardly call that a subsidy that effects farming today. That was 150 years ago and gave each farmer 160 acres if he developed it and stayed on it for a specified number of years.

Then there is talk about a transportation subsidy. In actual fact it was not a subsidy at all but rather an equalization plan that was put in place so that farmers further from markets were not at a disadvantage compared to those close to markets on transportation costs. That as your article points out ended in 1997.

The second article talks about dairy subsidies. The way it works is the dairy farmer buys a quota for the privilege of producing XX liters of milk. If he over ships his quota he is penalized on his income. If he consistently under ships his quota he looses it without compensation for it's loss and the quota is resold to someone else. These quotas by the way cost as much as the cows do. Quota for a single cow will run you upwards of $3000 or more depending on demand at the time. If you are running 80 milk cows you have at least $240,000 invested just in quota alone!

You call that a subsidy?? The USA does.

Another thing they are calling a subsidy in these articles is our government administered crop insurance plan whereby each farmer is charged a rate based on the known risks in his area. It works just like any other insurance plan. Do you consider the insurance you buy for your car or your house a subsidy?

Another thing these article do not mention is that the cost of government administration is included in those supposed subsidy numbers. Oh yes! It's on the internet alright but are you getting the real picture? Or is it slanted to suit a cause? (borderline propaganda?)

EverettB Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:16 am

oprn wrote: EverettB wrote:
60 seconds on Google appears to show massive subsidies.
I fully admit to not spending much time looking it up though as I immediately did not believe you. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.
I will say without subsidies, you would bitching non-stop about the cost of food.

A couple links
https://mises.org/library/cartels-and-subsidies-canadian-agriculture
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business...e13055078/
Quote: Government support totalled $6.9-billion in 2011.
Yes you missed a few things. First off define a government subsidy.

Your first article talks about a land settlement plan put in place to attract farmers to the west back in the 1800s. I would hardly call that a subsidy that effects farming today. That was 150 years ago and gave each farmer 160 acres if he developed it and stayed on it for a specified number of years.

Then there is talk about a transportation subsidy. In actual fact it was not a subsidy at all but rather an equalization plan that was put in place so that farmers further from markets were not at a disadvantage compared to those close to markets on transportation costs. That as your article points out ended in 1997.

I think of subsidies as money but I don't know if there are wider definitions

The first article has several other things listed, it says the government is paying stuff:
Quote: In Canada, however, it’s the whole farm profit margin that is being subsidized rather than crop prices or farm revenues. Under the program called AgriStability, farmers pay into an income support account where 45 percent of the premium is paid by the farmer and the remaining 55 percent comes from the federal and provincial government budgets.
Quote: ... farmers may be eligible for a payment from a subsidized crop insurance program if the income loss was due to a crop yield shortfall.

I don't know what they are including in the second article as subsidies.
I agree it's sort of useless without a list

The whole dairy thing in the second article doesn't sound like what I would call a subsidy (money) but it definitely sounds like there are massive barriers to entering the market and they are essentially forcing small business people to go out of business in favor of huge corporations.
Sounds like they are copying the USA here :)

Also... There were TONS of other articles that came up.
Honestly, I don't care enough to go read them all as I find it impossible to believe Canada would not be doing whatever they could to protect Canadian farmers, same as every other country protecting their farmers. If you tell me the USA is far worse and has far more subsidies, I would instantly believe that too.

oprn Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:21 pm

I am not aware of this AgriStability thing that they talked about existing in our province. News to me but there is quite a variance from province to province. In fact in spite of the trade disputes that have been going on between Canada and the USA for as long as I can remember, trade east and west between provinces here is more restrictive than it is north and south across your border and ours!

Go figure!

oprn Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:39 pm

[email protected] wrote: then you have all of the organic clowns up in arms because of the evil "GMO's" which in reality is just cross breeding/breeding out certain traits. my best analogy is take a pure bred animal...they have "common problems" and a short life span....but you have a mutt that can be basically healthy for 18 years...
Here is another misconception. What you are talking about here is selective breeding. That has been going on for centuries and is totally harmless to the general population.

GMOs on the other hand is the practice of re-engineering the genes of a plant or animal by introducing the genes of a different species altogether. The purpose is to create a characteristic which has never before existed in that species. The end result is that there is now a new species in existence that is genetically different than what has ever been seen before. For instance (I don't know if this has been done) in order to make corn more frost tolerant a gene from say - beets which is quite frost resistant - is incorporated into the corn genetics with the hope that the new variety of corn will take lower temperatures.

outcaststudios Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:53 pm

oprn wrote: [email protected] wrote: then you have all of the organic clowns up in arms because of the evil "GMO's" which in reality is just cross breeding/breeding out certain traits. my best analogy is take a pure bred animal...they have "common problems" and a short life span....but you have a mutt that can be basically healthy for 18 years...
Here is another misconception. What you are talking about here is selective breeding. That has been going on for centuries and is totally harmless to the general population.

GMOs on the other hand is the practice of re-engineering the genes of a plant or animal by introducing the genes of a different species altogether. The purpose is to create a characteristic which has never before existed in that species. The end result is that there is now a new species in existence that is genetically different than what has ever been seen before. For instance (I don't know if this has been done) in order to make corn more frost tolerant a gene from say - beets which is quite frost resistant - is incorporated into the corn genetics with the hope that the new variety of corn will take lower temperatures.


whats wrong with creating new characteristics? essentially youre outlining what other people have called ' natural selection' ie: mutations that aren not normally occuring in a given group,which are 'natural'. in fact all that occurs within nature is technically 'natural' so its problematic to appeal to the idea that there is a 'natural order' to anything. especially genetic traits. i dont see the problem?

Splitdog Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:04 am

Google it; it's deeper than that.

windfish Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:42 pm

GMO is really interesting.
One of the more bizarre examples is the fishy tomato, researchers looked at adding an 'antifreeze protein' from an arctic flounder to tomatoes.  They successfully did it, but it wasn't as effective as hoped and it was never commercialized. 
But they did add a fish protein to a tomato, something that could never be done with old fashioned cross breeding, even radiation-assisted.

This article mentions it,
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-sc...s-tomatoes
Plus an effort to combine a part of a Brazil nut into soy beans; but it was found that that made people who were allergic to Brazil nuts also allergic to those soy beans, so it was scrapped. 

Another interesting link - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/19/we...ne-editing
And a BuzzFeed for grins - https://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker/crazy-gmo-foods
That one mentions a few GMO animals, including faster growing, significantly larger fish and modifying pigs to better digest the crap they're fed.

GMO foods have the potential to do incredible good, including reduced pesticide use and hardier plants, but I can see why some may be hesitant.

oprn Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:15 pm

windfish wrote: GMO is really interesting.
One of the more bizarre examples is the fishy tomato, researchers looked at adding an 'antifreeze protein' from an arctic flounder to tomatoes.  They successfully did it, but it wasn't as effective as hoped and it was never commercialized. 
But they did add a fish protein to a tomato, something that could never be done with old fashioned cross breeding, even radiation-assisted.

This article mentions it,
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-sc...s-tomatoes
Plus an effort to combine a part of a Brazil nut into soy beans; but it was found that that made people who were allergic to Brazil nuts also allergic to those soy beans, so it was scrapped. 

Another interesting link - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/19/we...ne-editing
And a BuzzFeed for grins - https://www.buzzfeed.com/deenashanker/crazy-gmo-foods
That one mentions a few GMO animals, including faster growing, significantly larger fish and modifying pigs to better digest the crap they're fed.

GMO foods have the potential to do incredible good, including reduced pesticide use and hardier plants, but I can see why some may be hesitant.
This is not selective breeding folks! Genetic engineering is a field completely outside of what nature does. Nature could not do this without scientific intervention. It is so new that we really have no idea what the consequences are good or bad, short term or long term. That is what people are upset about.

Monsanto developed a genetically modified canola to address the problem of farmers not being able to spray thier canola crops to kill the weeds as every weed spray out there killed the canola as well. So they patched in some gene from somewhere (trade secret) and now we have Round Up resistant canola that can be sprayed with weed killers and not die. All good? Well yes and no.

First off, this new plant has become a noxious weed around the country. It grows everywhere, roadsides, railroad tracks, in towns and cities, in other crops etc. It cannot be killed with weed spray, the only way to get rid of it is to manually pull it out. Imagine trying to do that in thousands of miles of ditches across the country!

The second issue is that Monsanto has a patent on this canola plant, you can only grow it with thier permission with them as the seed supplier. You are not allowed to save seed from one crop year to plant the next year. Yes they have staff that regularly patrols the countryside taking random samples of people's crops and dragging them through court.

Here is the issue, being a weed that spreads by wind, birds, on tires of vehicles etc. it can occur anywhere at any time. Also if you grew Monsanto canola one year and changed to a different variety the next, being chemical resistant there is no way to kill the volunteer canola that results from the less than efficient machinery that harvested last year's crop. All combines "throw over" a certain percentage of grain with the straw. So Monsanto has turned the situation into a cash cow using the court system.

While this genetically engineered plant is at this point not known to be harmful to humans these are the unintended consequences of tampering with nature. Yes there are benefits to be had for sure such as the genetically modified rice that does not need to grow in flooded fields that someone has already alluded to.

Only time will tell if this practice is a net benefit or not.

Splitdog Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:29 pm

It's a good thing they won't try this stuff on humans. ;)

oprn Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:51 pm

Splitdog wrote: It's a good thing they won't try this stuff on humans. ;)
Too late, the Chinese may already be into it! At least that is what I thought I heard but I didn't hear enough of the news release to be sure of the details.

Manfred58sc Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:54 pm

Its really simple- Option 1- you are a broke dick who will pay the medical price of consuming conventional foods ( telling yourself they are safe and science is sacrosanct) . 2- you have money budgeted for less toxic food rather than medical treatments. The Robert Sapolski bell curve of life expectancy vrs. toxic exposure over time is well accepted . Read Dr. Lewis's " Science for sale" on the routine use of toxic municipal sludge waste on farms. The good news is smarter people with money will be the future voters that builder a safer world. Very Darwinian



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group