"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
: On 8 Aug 2018, Norman Wells wrote
: (in article <***@mid.individual.net>):
: > On 08/08/2018 09:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > > wrote:
: > > > On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > > > > wrote:
: > > > > > I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: > > > > > production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: > > > > > contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it
: > > > > > totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot
: > > > >
: > > > > Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million.
: > > > > going vegan would solve that.
: > > >
: > > > How do you work that out?
: > >
: > > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat
: > Really? Where's your proof?
: > > You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one
: > > eater.
: > Really? Where's your proof?
: > And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
: > nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
: > vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.
: > > You can dispute the figures
: > Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
: > derived?
: > > but common sense tells you than meat and
: > > dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed
: > They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
: Poor quality?
: If other land is so much better quality, why are you in favour of adding
: quantities of artificial fertiliser onto it?
: > and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
: > grazing land is.
: > Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
: It would seem that they can't unless they pour unlimited amounts of
: fertilisers onto the land and spray everything other than the crop (and
: insects who pollinate them) out of existence.
: > It makes no sense not to.
: It makes a lot of sense not to, if you are someone who has love and
: for the environment they are growing in.
: > But we do have a fair amount of poor,
: > unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing.
: We now have masses of arable land which has been rendered poor by the
: application of tons of chemicals per acre.
: Try to convince Michael Gove -
: The UK is 30 to 40 years away from "the fundamental eradication of soil
: fertility" in parts of the country, the environment secretaryMichael Gove
: (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/michaelgove)has warned.
: "We have encouraged a type of farming which has damaged the earth," Gove
: told the parliamentary launch of theSustainable Soils Alliance
: (https://sustainablesoils.org/)(SSA). "Countries can withstand coups
: d'état, wars and conflict, even leaving the EU, but no country can
: withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.
: "If you have heavy machines churning the soil and impacting it, if you
: drench it in chemicals that improve yields but in the long term undercut
: future fertility of that soil, you can increase yields year on year but
: ultimately you really are cutting the ground away from beneath your own
: Farmers know that."
: A giant insect ecosystem is collapsing due to humans. It's a catastrophe
: Arguing that farmers needed to be incentivised to tackle both the loss of
: soil fertility and the decline in biodiversity, Gove said that he hoped
: SSA, a new body formed with the mission of bringing UK soils back to
: within one generation, would hold the government to account and bring him
: ideas and inspiration. "We are listening to you now and it's critical
: that we do so."
: Gove's speech on Monday afternoon came as UK farmers anxiously wait to see
: if Brexit will take them out of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, and
: so, what will take its place. Defra is currently working on a new
: agricultural bill and is simultaneously drawing up a 25-year environmental
: plan. Gove promised both would reflect the concerns of the SSA.
: There has been a spike in awareness of the impact that intensive farming
: techniques are having on the world's soils and its biodiversity. In2014
: Sheffield University researchers
: warn.htm)said that UK farm soils only had 100 harvests left in them, and a
: year later aUN spokesperson warned
: soil-degradation-continues/)that at current rates of degradation, the
: world's topsoil could be gone within 60 years. "It feels as if soil is
: now a hot topic," said Helen Browning, head of the Soil Association.
: Meanwhile a new German study has revealed thatnumbers of flying insects
: armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers)have fallen by up to
: quarters. Intensive farming techniques that encourage the heavy use of
: fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides are believed to be major factors
: these problems.
: Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture
: Read more
: The UK has a poor record in this area. The government has not been
: regular soil monitoring since the last Countryside Survey in 2007, and in
: 2012UK ministers helped block
: law-blocked-by-uk-france-and-germany/)a critical EU soil health directive.
: Even a year ago, experts such as Peter Stevenson at Compassion in World
: Farming felt there was no real appetite for reform of intensive farming.
: But environmentalists are now increasingly hopeful that, unlike his
: predecessors at Defra, Gove will take this issue seriously. In Julyhe said
: that the
: intensive-farming-defra)UK would not move towards "US-style farming" and
: would prioritise "high environmental and animal welfare standards".
: "There's been quite a dramatic shift in understanding around what we're
: doing to our soils," said Browning. "Everyone is quite bowled over by
: some of the comments that Michael Gove is making."
: > You can't
: > grow crops up a mountainside,
: Tell that to those who have been farming terraces in South America for
: thousands of years....
: > in a bog or on a moor.
: > > and we are only talking a 50% increase here.
: > In what?
: > > > > Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was
: > > > > pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of
: > > > > propaganda.
: > > >
: > > > There's no propaghanda, just facts.
: > >
: > > The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care
: > > children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled
: > > sugar, salt and fat.
: > They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy.
: Nonsense. They are interesting in selling cheap and nasty rubbish that
: can hook customers to, by the addition of fats, sugar and salt - which are
: well known for developing cravings.
: > They're
: > not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
: > wants to live off broccoli and leaves.
: > > They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
: > > insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
: > > security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
: > > gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
: > Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
: > their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.
: Give us your examples of the cheap luxury calories which are a dream come
: true for the consumer.
: Half a dozen examples will do for a start.
: > > > > Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow
: > > > > for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: > > > > people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely
: > > > > in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it
: > > > > out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with
: > > > > this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
: > > >
: > > > We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
: > > > population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have
: > > > increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
: > > > using the same methods as we did then.
: > >
: > > Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.
: > Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
: > you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
: > surplus but shortage.
: Surplus of organic meat and veg, shortage of cheap carb-laden crap,
: washed shite and hormone filled protein.
: Yes, Definitely the way forward.
: > > We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,
: > Where is your proof?
: You hardly ever provide proof, so why should you demand it of others?
: > And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
: > you define that term?
: Pissed off my head....
: > > and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals
: > Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
: > usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
: > It's a sensible use of them.
: > > and bio fuel.
: > Very little actually.
: > > Worse IMO we grow way
: > > too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
: > > the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
: > We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
: > have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
: > easily. And that's bizarre.
: > > > > Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24
: > > > > organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so
: > > > > why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
: > > >
: > > > Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very
: > > > We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using
: > > > the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
: > > > chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
: > > > two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of
: > > > Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
: > > > follows as night follows day.
: > > >
: > > > > For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: > > > > mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: > > > > probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village
: > > > > like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: > > > > didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only
: > > > > another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it.
: > > > > is ingenious.
: > > >
: > > > Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds
: > > > much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
: > > > very silly rules they impose on themselves.
: > >
: > > Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and
: > > do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
: > > field.
: > Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
: > shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.
: > So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
: > please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.
: > > > > The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: > > > > come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out
: > > > > village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
: > > >
: > > > It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
: > > > can't disprove them.
: > >
: > > We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
: > > end well.
: > That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
: > at that.
: > > We need to eat better and curb population growth.
: > OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?
: > Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
: > seems to be your only approach so far.
: > > Not load the NHS with
: > > the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
: > > spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
: > > growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
: > Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
: > produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.
: > To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
: > tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
: > people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
: > we'd need to cull 36 million.
: > It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
: > who should be culled?