How do you go about that ?25% reduction in output by farming organically using zero oil based chemicals
Just dog and stick ?
How do you go about that ?25% reduction in output by farming organically using zero oil based chemicals
Bio dieselHow do you go about that ?
Just dog and stick ?
Bio diesel
it is for me! I don't know if you have read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy you will know it was what Arthur Dent wanted to drink because "it makes me happy!"Tea is biggest export from Sri Lanka is tea, not exactly a staple food item?
I think, either with our wanting to change or being forced to by climate instability, there are going to be great changes in this century, possibly relying on a diet that has grains as it's basis will have to change, as this diet is the basis of our obesity crisis. If we reduce the grain base of our diet, and eat more meat and with regen ag, precision farming techniques (robot weeding etc) and more emphasis on preventing soil loss and carbon sequestration in the soil, I think farming will be completely different in the future and arguments like organic or conventional is best will be obsolete. The biggest hurdle to these changes I believe are the multinational companies that make fertliser, herbicides/sprays etc, manufacture ultra processed food, process sugar and patent life (patenting genes, stopping heritage seeds etc).Does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?
My own impression of organic is that the yield is lower per acre and the fossil fuel (or perhaps biodiesel and fossil fuel) use is far higher per acre and even more so when you take into account the reduced yield. Is that fair? Certainly the organic carrot growers seem to use a load more fuel when weeding - including a lot of very unsustainable propane to physically burn off the weeds.
Think that's a fair comment!I think, either with our wanting to change or being forced to by climate instability, there are going to be great changes in this century, possibly relying on a diet that has grains as it's basis will have to change, as this diet is the basis of our obesity crisis. If we reduce the grain base of our diet, and eat more meat and with regen ag, precision farming techniques (robot weeding etc) and more emphasis on preventing soil loss and carbon sequestration in the soil, I think farming will be completely different in the future and arguments like organic or conventional is best will be obsolete. The biggest hurdle to these changes I believe are the multinational companies that make fertliser, herbicides/sprays etc, manufacture ultra processed food, process sugar and patent life (patenting genes, stopping heritage seeds etc).
That's only the fuel that you see on farm.Does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?
My own impression of organic is that the yield is lower per acre and the fossil fuel (or perhaps biodiesel and fossil fuel) use is far higher per acre and even more so when you take into account the reduced yield. Is that fair? Certainly the organic carrot growers seem to use a load more fuel when weeding - including a lot of very unsustainable propane to physically burn off the weeds.
That's only the fuel that you see on farm.
Fertiliser, I agree - but there will be plenty non organic who use minimal or no fertiliser. Syntheyic chemicals (I presume you mean pesticides) - less so. Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?Look at the supply chain for synthetic chemicals, fertilisers, etc.
The hidden cost is significant.
Ever since the first farmer dropped a seed or tamed a dinosaur to milk more has been better. If you farm you should understand that. Only by striving to attain more from our chosen farming venture will the worlds population continue to be fed. Enough kids go to bed hungry every night now without a tree hugging butterfly chasing twits telling the farmers of the world to cut production so they can sleep better. Seems only yesterday farmers were praised for working all hours to put food on the tables of the furloughed millions ignoring their own possible exposure to COVID.
I wonder if the general public would pay double for food so we could cut production and still feed our families???
Sorry if I wasn't clear.What is? My post mentions at least three different things.
Fertiliser, I agree - but there will be plenty non organic who use minimal or no fertiliser. Syntheyic chemicals (I presume you mean pesticides) - less so. Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?
Again, does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?
And as a follow up, is it your impression that organic has a lower or higher overall carbon footprint when considering all factors of inputs including the higher staffing rates and fuel use than non organic?
Of course no one is employed in the global oil and gas industry?Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Of course no one is employed in the global oil and gas industry?
Dragging black "gold" from more and more remote fragile eco systems to satisfy humans need for energy.
So why do you advocate a form of food production that uses more oil over one that doesn't?
Except that it is patently not [destroying the planet]. What an absurd claim to make.As I said your only counting the oil burnt on farm not for inputs such as fertiliser.
You need a complete chain energy calculation.
Why do you advocate a form of food production that is in parts destroying the planet ?
As I said your only counting the oil burnt on farm not for inputs such as fertiliser.
You need a complete chain energy calculation.
I haven't advocated any such thing. My own farm is carbon negative, including the effects of external factors and complete chain energy.Why do you advocate a form of food production that is in parts destroying the planet ?
Palm oilExcept that it is patently not [destroying the planet]. What an absurd claim to make.