the world won't care it can go on without people and make new oilEach other, eventually. The days of starving a billion people are long behind us, now we can starve 5 or 6 billion instead. Easy really, just turn off the oil
the world won't care it can go on without people and make new oilEach other, eventually. The days of starving a billion people are long behind us, now we can starve 5 or 6 billion instead. Easy really, just turn off the oil
What we didn't have back then was so many entitled loudmouths with too much time on their hands wanting to tell others what they can and must not do while whining about anything and everything. Lots of sofa farmers seem to want to dictate how others should do things. As for waterways, they have never been cleaner and by far the main current polluters are the water authorities, mainly through sewerage works illegal discharges whenever it suits them.Now I am told since the tanneries have gone and the sewage works have all been cleaned up and farms have been forced top stop all their discharges, that this same river now is just a shadow of its former self from a fishing viewpoint
is more better ?Farmer are and will always be political pawns that produce cheap food for voters. Organic is a novelty niche market that’s good for those who want to go that route but with the yield reduction it could never feed the world’s population. A percentage of the third world population don’t care where food comes from their main concern is if they get to eat every day. I’ve farmed in Canada for twenty years and it was far behind in agrochemicals to the extent most grain farms never used a fungicide,nitrogen rates were minimal and yields were still the same as the late sixties. Land values have changed the crop growing dynamic to the extent that a crop now must be above average to be financially viable. My yields have doubled in the last 20 years,mainly from higher fertilizer and chemical usage but also from drainage and crop residue incorporated continually I think my soils are now easier working and more fertile. posted above the comment of do we need to extract more from our land leaves me dumbfounded to think that attitude is still around. Farmer are progressive by nature and no matter how good a yield I get next year I want to do better. Not because of the money but it’s an internal drive and lust to do the best I can.
never is a long timeWhat we didn't have back then was so many entitled loudmouths with too much time on their hands wanting to tell others what they can and must not do while whining about anything and everything. Lots of sofa farmers seem to want to dictate how others should do things. As for waterways, they have never been cleaner and by far the main current polluters are the water authorities, mainly through sewerage works illegal discharges whenever it suits them.
Let's say 'since the industrial revolution' then. Although rivers that ran through towns were grossly polluted since towns became towns, way before the industrial revolution, because even in London they had what culminated in 'The Great Stink', because all sewage went straight into watercourses, often by way of open ditches.never is a long time
"Not never" what then?Right, not never then
Oh I agree.Empty calories, pollution and excessive energy use won't either.
There is more than enough calories in the world , the distribution is not correct.
Pile it high sell it cheap isn't working.
What when ?"Not never" what then?
Why ?Oh I agree.
Amount of food in supermarkets that gets binned as not sold is shocking.
But its upto the public to change, till then farming has to keep growing max go feed the system.
Because until things change, then corn price will keep on average to low so you got to max production to pay the bills .Why ?
Yes they do.Do they have Elephants in sri lanka, no matter I bet they are to blame
What I did not mention , is that river now accepts the run off from a town of a quarter of a million that was not there 50 years agoWhat we didn't have back then was so many entitled loudmouths with too much time on their hands wanting to tell others what they can and must not do while whining about anything and everything. Lots of sofa farmers seem to want to dictate how others should do things. As for waterways, they have never been cleaner and by far the main current polluters are the water authorities, mainly through sewerage works illegal discharges whenever it suits them.
I don't think any of us can ignore the effects of a ballooning population...certainly can't think of a positive one.There are five times as many people alive today as were 100 years ago when the world found the benefits of artifical fertiliser. So I guess the answer to your question is "a lot more than they used to".
Sure, excess consumption and empty calories doesn't help, but even @Sid can't ignore the effects of a ballooning population.
Isn't it because they were all small businesses and although they were polluting it was small amounts that perhaps the river could cope with.I started my farming on my fathers farm in North Bucks on the banks of the Great Ouse.
As you say all the drainings from the dairy and midden went into the stream as did all the local cess pits overflows and the local sewer works also connected into one of our ditches and that ran black.
We had to regularly clean the ditch as the sediment built up so much.
Father used to welcome the regular winter flooding as he was certain it bought down fertility from the nearby Newport Pagnell sewage works and wee certainly never used any P or K on those meadows..
At that time the Ouse was regularly dredged every ten years and the spoil grew huge cross of grass where it was spread.
This must have been a total environmental disaster except it was not. The local river was a renowned fishery and keenly sought after and regularly held top class matches.
of course there were few if on local heavy industries except of course the tanneries, which certainly did chuck some interesting chemicals in the river, regularly changing the colour of it depending on the dyes used that day.
Now I am told since the tanneries have gone and the sewage works have all been cleaned up and farms have been forced top stop all their discharges, that this same river now is just a shadow of its former self from a fishing viewpoint
Because many organic farmers try to farm using 'conventional' practices (monocultures, stale seedbeds, no livestock etc) and so use fossil fuels and steel to achieve what 'conventional farmers' achieve through the spray canOK can anyone explain why Organic is bad
I don't think any of us can ignore the effects of a ballooning population...certainly can't think of a positive one.
So the consensus on this thread is Artificial Nitrogen was developed so the world population has been able to grow rapidly because of the extra food? But we're consuming the planet at a faster rate than anytime throughout history?
OK can anyone explain why Organic is bad
OK, so your saying Organic is half as bad as conventional because the Organic farmers only do 50% of the bad stuff that conventional farmers do?Because many organic farmers try to farm using 'conventional' practices (monocultures, stale seedbeds, no livestock etc) and so use fossil fuels and steel to achieve what 'conventional farmers' achieve through the spray can
I agree with that, so is the actual question we need to be asking, can the planet sustain the present population, as in are we destroying the planet to sustain one species?I think you're confusing correlation with causation.
But no, I don't think anyone is saying organic is bad, just that it's not a credible option if we expect everyone to eat.
I agree with that, so is the actual question we need to be asking, can the planet sustain the present population, as in are we destroying the planet to sustain one species?
Nobody seems to have mentioned our own government is pushing for UK agriculture to be sustainable by 2030 , how are you all preparing or will we get caught out like the Sri Lankans ?