At 4:29 AM 00.4.13 +0100, Chris Lees wrote (in part)
>Well, I think we should move away from all intensive high tech industrial
>systems as fast as possible - probably means a lot of folks have to starve -
>towards organic agriculture. That at least feeds quite a few, without too much
>environmental damage.
There are two papers that I know of demonstrating how organic agriculture
can produce as much per hectare as convenional agriculture. It should
therefore be possible to produce the same amount as we are now with organic
agriculture and not increase the starvation rate (and this is not taking
into account the argument about production vs. fairer distribution of
food).
Drinkwater et al. (Nature 396, 262-265, 1999) gives 10 year data on maize
yield comparing organic and conventional practices. Sahs et al. (IFOAM 1998
proceedings 116-124) found that oat yield was higher in organic systems.
Ecologist David Tilman also discusses ways in which yield could improve by
growing more than one crop on the same field. The two or more crops could
exploit different niches (ecology 80, 1455-1474, 1999).
Of course although the yield per hectare can be the same or even better
under an organic system, the yield per person hour would be a lot lower.
Since labour is not in short supply, and clean air, water and habitable
land is, this should not make any difference as far as feeding the world is
concerned. Though of course the agribusinesses who are continually trying
to increase profit by cutting labour costs would naturally oppose such a
scheme. It should also be pointed out that research funding and
agricultural subsidies have favoured conventional agriculture. We could
probably acheive a lot more with organic agriculture if the playing field
was truly level.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|