Most every scientist, believe it or not, is very capable of seeing the world as it is. It is not a skill that requires much work, and being educated, they tend to actually seek out how the world works and how systems interact with each other out of the very nature of the field.

They also see the world where it may move...and actually create things other than words to move it towards that goal or away from the negative aspects of where the world is moving.

It doesn't make them all-knowing or always correct...or always act in the best interest of mankind...but they are not blind machines that only know how to use the programming (education) they've been provided with to churn out the same-old, without innovation, and are blind to things that aren't strictly by the programming.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 19:22

len may not be back. Anyway I have read the speculations and scenarios. I don't have the answers myself, but I believe Someone does.

In the meantime I expect things to continue more dangerous from many directions. I have read where one well executed EMP attack might wipe out electricity for..well maybe good. We do not make large transformers anymore in this country. There are terrorists who care not one wit about our lives or limbs. There are nuclear bombs in scary hands and threatened to be worse.

There are wantabe Hitlers in many places and the One World government thing is closing in more all the time. I believe that the stage is being set for disaster on unheard of degrees. It is a sobering time. About the only hope I believe is in the One who made it all and knows our very thoughts and has things already figured out. I believe the stage is set for His return soon. Satan his had his chance and we can see how he has corrupted things. I believe it has been necessary for his hand to be played to show the folly of him and his ways.

If I am right about this, it will be a time of mourning, but also a time of escape for believers.

Confession - I'm about as far away from a doomsayer, prepper or conspiracy theorist as you can get. I'm not apt to be moved by such notions, nor am I interested in planning for them.

len - your premise that cities will die without community agriculture is based upon the lack of fuel to transport food. If and when that happens, fuel needed to run efficient farms, process food, move water for irrigation, etc. will also be insufficient to produce food. The whole chain collapses. Not even community farms will survive. Self-sufficient homestead farms might be able to make it, to the extent they have no need for external power sources, but cities will already be largely dead (and the homesteads may have been overrun by the refugees) . In the direction we're going, that whole death spiral scenario will happen at some point. The question is when. In the meantime, cities provide an incredibly efficient conduit for resource allocation and distribution, and the concentration of people will keep policy makers favorably disposed to their priorities. Large population centers will be at the top of the list to get essential resources.

If you want to get the real heart of the issue it is total world population and the demand that population creates for natural resources given current lifestyles. If you want a sustainable planet for the maximum useful lifetime of the planet (and that too is finite), then the only truly viable solution is to return to subsistence living at about 1/3rd or less of the world's current population, using only rapidly renewable energy and related resources (think pre-18th century lifestyles).

But apparently you aren't truly interested in maximum sustainability, as evidenced by your ongoing presence here that requires the use of a computer, the internet, electrical power, etc. So the question for you is for how long have you planned for the sustainability of the species?

This post was edited by TXEB on Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 21:25

I agree that cities are very efficient in many ways, as compared to the de-populated rural areas especially. It is madness to be driving a motor vehicle many miles to work a low-paying job, and that is very common in rural regions. The problem with living within an urban zone is that unless one can get near the top of the income bracket living conditions are miserable. Manhattan vs the Bronx, for example, or Haarlem.

Those high-rise apartment complexes in the Upper West side are nice to live in, Central Park is the nicest urban park in the country, the trains and trucks that bring supplies to NYC efficiently serve millions of people. But not everyone can be a highly-paid urban professional.

If I'm going to be a laborer (which I am), then I like my chances much better with access to land and raw resources.

I'm going to try to leave this discussion with two references - one linked below, the other I'll post the URL.

The first is EPA's ongoing annual monitoring and reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data for the U.S. The entire report is a bit foreboding at 505 pp. But, you can download/view select sections by major topic (e.g., Agriculture). The inventory covers all the major gas emissions, but states them all as carbon dioxide equivalents (e.g., methane is converted to the equivalent CO2 impact). The current report covers through 2011. For the period 1990-2011, Agriculture less transportation and on-farm energy use amounted to 8% of the total emissions. In 2011 that number was 6.9%. As a sector, ag is the smallest contributor. Within that ag category the largest source is from soil management, followed by enteric fermentation (farm animal flatulence) then manure management and rice cultivation. The URL for the EPA report home is:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

The second (linked below) is a 2008 report from the U of WI that summarizes and reviews several decades on U.S. food system energy use. The average numbers largely parallel other studies by EPA. Total food system energy use, including agricultural production, processing, transportation, wholesale/retail distribution, and preparation in both restaurants and homes amounts to ~16% of U.S. energy consumption. Of that total 16%, restaurant and home preparation combined account for ~41%, processing comes in at 28%, ag production is ~18%, transportation is 11%, and wholesale/retail distribution is 9%. If you combine transport and distribution for 20%, the total energy consumption of moving and selling food to people represents ~3% of total U.S. energy consumption.

If you combine results of those two studies using the common transportation category, ag transportation accounts for just ~1.8% of U.S. energy consumption. Transportation accounts for 29% of U.S. energy consumption and 28% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (second behind power generation). The extrapolation is that that ag transportation amounts to ~1.7% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect there are better opportunities (return on investment) for greenhouse gas reduction, both in the U.S. food system, and in the nation as a whole, than transportation reduction via more local sourcing.

This post was edited by TXEB on Fri, Jul 26, 13 at 9:56

I don't disagree with the numbers since I have none of my own, but will point out the obvious: that where an existing investment can be easily re-purposed then the gain is effectively free. For example, using the resources that are currently devoted to maintaining lawns instead to raise food.

yep keep your proverbial heads in those proverbial buckets behind your lead society nowhere science, look broader afield, you mention conspiracy yes but has not been a theory for 30 years or more.

all this intelligence wasted on science hype, shut down the broadacre farms and regrow habitat then CO2 will be of no concern, farm machinery a drop in the ocean, it is transport trucking not only a high end CO2 producer, but the costs caused by gov' reducing CO2 directly effects us little people.

as demand for farm food drops off farmers will shut up shop, the demand won't drop because people stop eating but because they can no longer afford to eat.

making coal the villain won't solve things as both our countries are still going to mine and export coal to asian countries so their cheap tariffs will attract our home grown industry to off shore.

look to England imports around 40% of its food that makes them vulnerable, yet when i see programs on tv showing England there are these castles and palaces with vast lawn areas the queens palace is on 200k acres, all this green lawn and manicured gardens, when people need home grown food.

anyhow minds are controlled by science hype.

len

len - at least you're entirely consistent. When confronted with credible, reliable facts that don't comport with your apparently self created view of the world, you label it as "science", and then entirely dismiss it. When asked to explain the basis for your beliefs and conclusions, you don't answer, you provide no factual basis for your statements, but rather you just fling the words absent foundation and proceed to chastise and deride those who question your reasoning and logic. It seems you have a very hard time dealing with facts, len.

I agree that the Queen does not need 200k acres, nor does anybody. Though Prince Charles is quite the progressive agriculturalist, and has done interesting things with the Duchy of Cornwall.

OTOH, if large acreages were not protected by governments or private agencies, they would be ravaged or at the very least relentlessly exploited, as happened all over north and south america and is still happening in Amazonia and many other parts of the world.

What bothers me is the increase in the severe weather events - everything from microbursts/floods to severe droughts to temperature spikes.

Our temperate crops depend on fairly regular and predictable temperature and rainfall patterns. And from what I'm seeing and reading, its the extremes - and the increasing number of extremes - we need to worry about, not the average.

Get a few days of really high temperature, and it seriously messes with your crop.

david, severe weather is just that, it is cyclical, and has all happened before, by their own records, if we get more of it look to destruction of habitat and the natural system. if you have a look at your 300 app' year history you will see the trend caused by mass destruction of habitat, over your way they are altering the mountains and water sheds, scraping out the last vestige of coal, this really is unsustainable.

and to the science boffins i do point actual fact not theoretical fact, whilst ever we follow the follies of science we create un-employment, as jobs go off shore. science began as mythology back in the times of sages, sears and dreamers. it has no moral ethical code it follows.

have a look with your own eyes at realty of habitat destruction, we need to do it better, wind farms and solar will not save those who are poor.

when science comes up with actual fact then people like me (over here the masses who suffer with no roof over their heads and rising food and power prices)

take care all

len

You speak of science as if it's a disease infecting mankind...the thing you're typing on to share your views would be disappointed if it had an advanced artificial intelligence.

Also, based on your shared view of science, it's rather insulting to those of us who have devoted our education and lives to improve the world.

I've worked on projects that have developed crops that would otherwise not be able to be grown in a given climate...specifically cool season crops in warm areas. That's just a single, small, barely-a-blip contribution that my "science" has added to this world. It didn't happen by accident...it didn't just show up by itself... The projects were purposely put into action and the products were (and continue to be) brought to market. This is just my contribution...there's many other greater and more important contributions by science that pales my work contribution into near obscurity.

Just plodding around in the dark hoping for things to happen or standing still while the world changes while failing to adapt is not acceptable to some of us. We were given 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, a brain, and free will for a reason...

This could be a game-changer, if it proves feasible:

Here is a link that might be useful: no more cost for synthesizing N

I wonder if plants that synthesize N can use much of the N for themselves or is it mostly left for the next crop. The N isn't going to be there for an initial starting boost.

Still, there would be some cost...the seed treatment.

I hope N-Fix, as a developed technology, is better for the treated seeds than it would appear to be naturally for sugarcane. As I recall sugarcane uses a affair amount of soil-sourced mineralized nitrogen (i.e., fertilizer).

yes nc-crn,

you pretty much said it but you have not worked at improving our lot, just the bottom line of farmers and food producers, over hybridisation of the grains has caused health issues which science has failed to keep up with because new hybrids are not safety tested properly, soy would be one of the worst.

so those back room people in lab's somewhere are there because they enjoy a stressless job, only be sacked if they speak out against the peer group. peer review same as jobs for the boys policy is no recommendation, the only recommendation can only come from those whom have these inventions forced upon them.

your productivity is measured by how soon you put something out there to make profit for those who seek it and returns for shareholders. in medicine science goes so far then dumps the rest of the responsibility onto the unsuspecting public, their 50/50 rule, their philosophy if we want cures.management then we should be guinea pigs as well.

GMO transgenic is a blight on the food chain. sugar cane noted for excess irrigation use, applications of large quantities of nitrogen and spray applications to control bugs, just think we grow it but our bodies don't really need it, stevia would have less impact until science gets involved.

older hybrids of grains would only grow in certain conditions that is how it should have been left, those who suffer from T2DB if they do the research will realise we do not need grains in our diet, at least not to the extent we get them. over here even rice now hybridised so it will grow under normal irrigation.

step outside the box and look back inside, have a look at the growing list of lifestyle(not couch potato lifestyle) diseases syndromes, not identified and no fixes or management.

a world that is getting sadder divided by myth technology

len

I think it is true that most people eat too much grain, too processed. There apparently is evidence also that older varieties of grain are hardier and have higher levels of nutrition.

I'll look around for studies on that.

edit - Lloyd's right.

This post was edited by TXEB on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 1:30

Walk away TX, this thread has jumped the shark, it's not worth your time and effort.

Lloyd

Good counsel, Lloyd!

Thanks for the sanity jolt.

"you pretty much said it but you have not worked at improving our lot, just the bottom line of farmers and food producers, over hybridisation of the grains has caused health issues which science has failed to keep up with because new hybrids are not safety tested properly, soy would be one of the worst."

I know some raspberry/blackberry and cucumber growers in NC/TN/SC/GA/KY/CA that would disagree with this...growing high producing crops in areas where heat stress on the plants would normally not make them a plant worth growing except during small windows of the year (if at all).

I've worked on an improvement on luffa gourd sponges (though not a food crop) and sprite melons that need less pollination persistence to form full fruits, taking some of the work off the bees and other pollinators.

My entire work history isn't all corn/soy...it's just what I do now (along with peppers in a non-GMO, greenhouse application).

"so those back room people in lab's somewhere are there because they enjoy a stressless job, only be sacked if they speak out against the peer group. peer review same as jobs for the boys policy is no recommendation, the only recommendation can only come from those whom have these inventions forced upon them. "

I have no idea where you get this notion from, but this is not how the industry works. Thugs and gangsters do not run the show. No one works in fear. Where you find corruption, you're most likely to find a payoff or an ideological mindset, not threats...and there's not a lot of corruption to begin with.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jul 28, 13 at 18:33

nc ,

âÂÂNever try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and besides it annoys the pig.âÂÂ

Mark Twain?

A hint about nutrient decline here:

Here is a link that might be useful: broccoli

And here a study on mineral concentrations of older vs newer wheat varieties:

Here is a link that might be useful: more than random

Robert Heinlein, not Twain.

My background is with raising fish - including selecting strains, hybrids, overcoming environmental stresses, etc. There are far more similarities with terrestrial ag than differences, particularly in thought processes on how we address problems.

So, we're moving into a situation with more frequent and more extreme conditions. Can we breed, say, a variety of corn or soy that will withstand flooding, drought, and temperature spikes?

I can see breeding for one of those characteristics, but all three?

Today the more enterprising farmers are using gps to fertilize and lime different areas of a field differently by reason of soil testing. Now it is coming up to make the planters able to plant different varieties in those different soil types. These varieties could then have genetics favorable for those given areas.

looks like the hype worshipers are getting into name calling no worry "sticks and stones may break my bones - but names will never hurt me".

there is a nucleus of us over here, who through volunteer growing we still do it as through natural selection only the strongest seed grow, we do it with many things including pumpkins(kents), man interfered hybrids GMO's won't do it they also attract lots of bugs.

we tried growing our pumpkin seeds in another wetter area and they did nothing, had to revert to seeds from local fruit.

at present we have one vine from local seeds persisting through winter that will be the best genetic seed, planted some of our seeds in pots not sure if we will get the best of, as the best of comes from teh plant growing itself. we found the same with eucalypt trees, we bought tube stock(where all seeds are force germinated, but they nearly all died, we then transplant natural seedling and they nearly all grew, again they will be from the strongest seeds.

some people probably need to get a lfe, they remain faceless and nameless.

len

len, We have all kinds here I suppose. Those who are more 'natural' minded than others. I tend to agree that mankind has made a potentially dangerous world...he made a nuclear bomb...then an H bomb. What is he going to do with them?

Still, in the context of the day we live in, unless we live like the Amish [who have adapted some ], we have to live in today's world. I am not of this world, but must live in it. Someday the Lord will bring a better order...I believe that.

true wayne,

but us good people need to stick together against adversary. the Lord will come, but He expects us to do His work here on earth, he gave us the ethics, called the 10 commandments as they were first written, in stone to signify set in cement aka can't be changed only broken. it's not about living like some sect or other.

we must stand between those in it for ego and position.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens garden page

"And here a study on mineral concentrations of older vs newer wheat varieties"

Wheat growers grow for protein content, water stress capability, and yield (including grain weight)...they really don't care about Fe/Zn (or other metals) or Se concentration (especially Se since there's not much wheat used for animal feed anymore).

"there is a nucleus of us over here, who through volunteer growing we still do it as through natural selection only the strongest seed grow"

How exactly do you think the research teams I was on developed heat resistant berries, cukes, etc? ...and other teams developed (or are developing) other types of produce?

We plant, we pay attention...we note not only tolerance to heat, but yield, water tolerance pressure, pest/disease resistance, nutrient requirements, etc...100s-1000s of plants...building an information cache on all of them. We're talking about plant material that you can't even buy in the marketplace...stuff with names like NC-372 and E-28xFU that are only passed around researchers because they are only kept alive because of desirable traits even if they produce undesirable yield/fruit-quality/etc.

Then we find/found plants with promising traits and cross them. Then we run across failure. Then we try again...and again...and again... Then we find something that works. Then we see if we can sustain it via open pollination or if it requires a hybrid for best expression and vigor (this is unnecessary for blackberries/raspberries, because all the plants are cloned and not grown from seed). Then once something "does what we're looking for" we send the clones/seed out to be planted over different growing environments all over the nation to see how it performs in test gardens over a few seasons. Then, if "winners" are found, they get released into the open market and given a nice "normal" name rather than "NC-372 x E-28xFU - Cross 18".

The difference between "messing around" and "science" is writing down and weighing your evidence...and in this case another important factor is mass scale. It makes further research, even by others, easier because they have a whole slew of research (and plant material) to go back to and use as a starting point. If there's not a certain disease pressure in the area...and a team doesn't breed for it...but it becomes an issue later...you have a starting point for breeding this trait already known and you can skip ahead in your research using those breeding lines. Science, yo.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 20:14

Yes, NC, I'm well aware the growers don't care about mineral content. But eaters should, and smart eaters will be interested in the studies.

"Yes, NC, I'm well aware the growers don't care about mineral content. But eaters should, and smart eaters will be interested in the studies."

Yeah, i understand that. That said, increased protein content in wheat might be more important to others over decreased Fe, Zn, and Se.

It's worth mentioning, outside of wheat, that we have a lot of crops losing nutrient value because of breeding for size/weight/appearance/yield/etc.

The margins of sway on both sides of this equation tends to be rather minor, though. That said...home gardeners should/can pick better options for nutrition without seeing large yield loss. The yield vs nutrition scale generally gets noticeable over a manner of many acres, not the 2-10+ plants the home gardener generally grow.

I kinda cringe when home gardeners grow "field/transport" type seed crops in their home gardens...most of these are bred for size/storage/appearance over things most home gardeners would benefit from while growing their own.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 20:26

Agreed.

For example, a typical seed-propagated bulbing onion vs a traditional land-race onion like Catawissa. I brixed a bulb of each yesterday, recently harvested, and the former was about 7 (even though grown in a superior soil-type) while the latter was about 18. Add to the nutritive difference the fact that a perennial onion is nearly labor-free while typical onions are quite labor-intensive.

Top-setting onions are a rarity now because they have various features that make them unattractive for market growers. I think that is generally the trend with all crops - the traditional forms have various features undesirable to mass-production but most often they have higher nutrition, or at least broader.

yes nc-crn,

you ahve a big barrow to push, you missed the point our selection is purely natural, something that would be difficult to replicate in a lab test tube scenerio.

no good comparing nutrient values of grain, i look at health issues, the most nutritious wheat would have been original wild wheat before man got involved in farming for profit. also no good talking about trace elements missing in all F&V, this is because element mining goes on through mono-cropping, something science misses the point on.

they can hit growing areas with man made chemical nitrogen and make plants look healthy, then the nitrogen over dosed plants a like lollies to bugs so then they need to introduce systemic(now) applications to control bugs, then us who have to eat to live get product laced with chem' residuals, and lacking trace elements, so the body can utilise the whole package the food should offer.

science messed things up and now they won't be able to fix it, like opening pandora's box when science got involved.

mono-cropped broad acre factory farms cruel the consumers health and ruins the environment. not only F&V but all fresh (can that claim still be made) meat products as well.

worst part is when science works something out in the lab' they pass it on to the farmer, improperly tested, they have no idea what the product will do in the human digestive system, they do no testing to develop parameters so they can say either pull the product or how to repair damaged health.

the term i first heard from USA consumers, the fresh food is empty food, responsible for gene's level damage to the immune system.

len

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all original natives are the best when you consider yield, days to maturity, and taste [a big one for me]. Anyway, I take a goodly compliment of supplemental things to fill in the gaps.

"empty calories" is the term.

Len, it is nonsensical to say that it does no good to discuss these issues. If you want to be closed-minded that's your business. I prefer to learn anything I can from others. All the stuff you are talking about I already know (plus I was raised in the bible-belt and many of my relatives are born-agains, so you haven't much to teach me about the lord either).

So when people expert in plant science or other sciences come on here and offer a lot of what they know, I'm listening. No one is likely to change my ideology but I find it very silly to refuse to listen to information.

pnbrown you said:

"the above"

did i say it does no good? doesn't sound like me that is why i'm always there batting away. also to me bible belt ideals may not be where i am coming from, you call me born again that's ok, i'm happy to live with that, but am i trying to teach anyone anything about the bible or our God of creation? no i am not, if someone like now raises the topic i respond. take care there pnbrown, make no judgements.

i listen to scientific boffins in nearly all forums i am in, they don't want to hear from people like me as they are locked into their beliefs.

as to out Lord i learn daily.

take care

len

The "boffins" might want to hear from you if it was anything cogent.

And I think you are the one who brings Gods or Lords into these discussions, I'm pretty sure. It's not the place for it. Lots of us have spiritual beliefs that we don't start arbitrarily placing into discussions on agriculture.

It's weird to live in an era where having an education and applying it to change the world is a negative to some...not just a negative, but worthy of scorn.

Seeing as I would probably be dead from medical concerns if not for science...if I was born at all thanks to past medical + agriculture advances...it's a bit "woah" to me.

That's before we get into the irony of being lectured on environmental responsibility by someone on a computer. Your average microchip factory uses 1-2 million gallons of super-pure-treated water per day that is dangerous waste water until it's further treated/cleaned before release back into the water system...not including the plastic housing, the glass screen, the LED display behind it, etc...

I'm not trying to pull a "straw man" or distraction bringing up the computer thing...but when generalizations like "science boffins" is thrown around we're encompassing a huge body of work that parts are being selectively "okay'd" and "dismissed" via convenience.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 30, 13 at 17:07

I just came across the article at the link - a far more sobering account of whats happening in the Colorado and Rio Grande river basins.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

Phoenix/Tucson/Yuma, and a chunk of Southern Cali heavily depend on what happens upstream (far away from the area) with the Colorado River.

The amount of lawns and wasteful agriculture going on there is astounding.

Though Tucson isn't as bad (by a longshot), the amount of vast lawns and plants that shouldn't exist in the desert are extremely more noticeable in Phoenix...and there's a huge mindset there that it's all right to do it if you can afford it and no one needs to stick their head in your business if you're doing it.

What's going on in Yuma (both Arizona and Mexico) going all the way up to the Coachella/Indio region of Southern California is also alarming. We're talking about places that get 6" of rain a year doing vast year-round agriculture.

The Colorado River keeps this entire area alive...for both water sources and a huge chunk of their power.

So what happens when the Colorado simply doesn't have the water and the Ogallala falls so far that the energy to pump the water approaches too closely to the energy in the crop?

We'll all come stay with you. I got dibs on the couch. :-)

In the hot desert cities, the days of the heavily watered lawns are done - its all gravel xeriscaping, sports fields are artificial turf. Las Vegas is paying a significant amount of money if you tear up your lawn and put gravel - something like $1,000 then the water savings. I don't hang out much in Phoenix, but driving through, all the new construction is xeriscape.

I'm on one of the tributaries to the Colorado, my irrigation company has the 2nd most senior rights on the river, #1 being some outfit down in Gateway, a ranch bought up - along with the water rights - by a dot.com tycoon and turned it into a luxury resort so they need the water for their golf course. They've only put in a call once, in history, about 5 years ago. Otherwise, our irrigation company rules the river.

Now amongst us shareholders, things are getting interesting this drought season, with the special irrigation deputy sheriff getting 40 calls a day to come sort out squabbles.

Even with the senior rights, our irrigation will be shut off in the next few weeks. Unless we get *lucky* and catch one of these massive cloudbursts over the upper watershed.

If you believe the current model results, it will get more interesting. See the "current" view from EPA via the link below - note the precip forecast maps in the section titled "Key U.S. Projections". If the study on permafrost thawing and methane releases published in Nature last week is right, then the whole process will accelerate and become even more extreme than what EPA is currently showing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Future Climate Change - EPA

you can blame me pnbrown, i've got broad shoulders and while you bully me you are leaving others alone. no i never raise the subject on line only on my web page, you came back at me i'd guess after reading my web page and made certain accusations.

len

If you think I'm bullying you then you don't have thick skin nor broad shoulders. You're not being bullied, you're being told by a number of posters here to lay off the ideology, there is no place for that in a serious discussion of the OP issues.

But if you want to just go on blathering about boffins and the Lord doesn't allow climate change, then continue, we'll have a dead thread.

"i listen to scientific boffins in nearly all forums i am in, they don't want to hear from people like me as they are locked into their beliefs."

Let us take care not to perceive the mote in another's eye while ignoring the log in our own.