[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: John Hagelin: Old vs New Approach in Agriculture
On 30 Oct 1996, J J wrote:
>
> B. McClinton <b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <326C63E6.51E7@sk.sympatico.ca>...
> >
> > Historically, the plow has caused far more land degradation than
> fertilizers and
> > pesticides. Afterall, how fertile is the "fertile crescent," now? The
> negative
> > effects of soil erosion have been documented throughout history.....
>
> > ....With a growing world population, we need to be able to use all the
> management tools
> > available including cultural, biological and chemical technologies to be
> > sustainable.
> >
> > Blair McClinton
> > b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca
>
> Blair...Interesting thoughts ... Financial sustainability (survival) is
> fundamental. But is the answer to keep perpetuating the same old
> distructive patterns just because they marginally work. They have been
> able to squeeze additional production for a period of time but at what
> cost. Is our soil any healthier that it was in 1964 before the
> intensification of high yield production strategies. The family farmer is
> being driven out; the costs of increased agriculture yields verses the
> profits are marginalizing the small producers who may really have a stake
> in protecting the land; and the soil is not getting any healthier. Are
> current production techniques- even those using new technologies really
> sustainable with the increasing world demand? It almost seems like there
> is a need for a new paradigm shift... I like these ideas of moving
> toward increasing the health of the soil, diversifying the varieties of
> crops grown, and more local self sufficiency.
>
> Your thoughts are good, but of course you know that very little of the food
> grown today is directly consumed. Your scenario of farmers driven to plant
> in protected, sensitive environmental areas is more apt to occur from just
> plain greed than need. Wouldn't it happen in any system?
>
> Food is a secondary consequece in most modern agriculture. In Iowa where I
> live it's hard to find an ear of fresh corn unless you grow it yourself.
> It goes to ADM for corn syrup solids for coffee whiteners, sweeteners and
> industrial uses. Meanwhile there is an oversupply of milk and milk
> products. A small change in our eating and use habits could easily make
> room for an increasing population.
>
> It begs the question of what truly ideal agriculture would be... that
> benefits the land as well as serving the financial needs of the
> agricultural producer and the health of the comsumer. These exotic
> desparate attempts at forcing more production from already strained natural
> resources (Monsanto's Roundup-ready seed for instance) seem destined to
> fail in the long run. Isn't it more of a bandaid than a long term
> solution. Despite all the hype, and the sensible sound of your logic, I
> think a little thought and creativity in the other direction (health and
> sustainability) would be valuable for everybody.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dear J J
Who is going to mandate a change in our eating habits to a more "healthy
and sustainable" system?
Governments? Governments can't keep us from people from killing each
other in the streets, let alone quell desires for good food.
About Round-up ready beans, I have a question. Why does it seem that
when science answers a pertinent concern. The concern is forgotten and
the question changes? Round-up ready beans are a boon for those
concerned about the environment. They allow for the expanded use of
no-till planting, which eliminates soil erosion. Which is a big deal for
those like myself who cannot afford to live in paradise.
Glyphosate, which you know is Round-up's a. i., has no soil activity.
It also is one of the most benign of herbicides. Round-up ready = less
inputs and less environmental damage.
Why do we bemoan the loss of the family farmer? Where is the family
auto-maker, grocier, department store, or brickmaker? Who will look out
for my job when I can't compete? Nobody, I hope.
You suggest that cooperate farming may be more detrimental to the
environment than family farming. Honestly, who will get more thoroughly
regulated, the large easily targeted industrial farm or the small family
farm which uses the "Kentucky gutter-flush" (or Indiana, depends where
you're from) system of manure management. Example, you can't say that our
air was cleaner 100 years ago when every house burnt coal for heat. Coal is
still burnt now, but we can breathe. The same economy of scale is true
for agriculture.
That's all I have time for now.
Respectfully
Jeff
References: