Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Been there. OFFAL place to go!

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 131627 times) previous topic - next topic

VoxRat, Fenrir, DaveGodfrey, Pingu, Dave Hawkins, superhoop, Sea Star (+ 2 Hidden) and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26725
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26726
He is a fellow Darwin club member
::)

You really need to do something about that ginormous chip on your shoulder.
This has nothing to do with Darwin.
Zombies catalogued his*  carbon footprint.
It's a lot smaller than yours.
It's as simple as that.

* or her. I haven't kept any closer track of his/her gender than of his/her take on Darwin.
It's important I give all credit to my wife on this.
She informs me that we don't attend a coo-op, it's a farmers market.  She knows the name of the lady who grows cilantro, and the name of her kids and grandkids.  I pay a lot more for her cilantro, but it's fresh, and it's from her.  
Same with the lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, fruit and veg.  If I have to cook something for a special day, and I can't get it or a good substitute from the market, I will go to the shops.  If grand daughter wants strawberry crepes for breakfast on her birthday, I will get her what's available, even if they taste like potatoes.  But really, only for special occasions.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26727
Why yes,  I do know what a kilometer is.  There's 40,000 of them in the quarter meridian of the earth that passes through Paris.  Oh wait. I mean there's 40,011.
Well, then, you know wrong information. A full meridian circumference is sbout 40K kilometers, not a quarter meridian.

What a bluffoon.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26728
Why yes,  I do know what a kilometer is.  There's 40,000 of them in the quarter meridian of the earth that passes through Paris.  Oh wait. I mean there's 40,011.
Oops this is the entire circumference I think.

 In any case, the sharp knives in the drawer will note that I am poking fun at the originators of the metric system who picked such a variable quantity as a quarter meridian for their reference standard  whereas the ancient system was based on a non-variable reference standard - the polar radius of the earth.
Really? These ancients were able to directly measure the polar radius?
Did they bore down to the center of the planet and then use a very long tape measure?
Or perhaps they flew into space and took very precise angular and distance measurements of the planet. Oh, wait, that would also  be a calculated result, based upon various assumptions.

What a blufoon.
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 06:36:14 AM by RAFH
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26729
Well if you want to reduce your ecological footprint with respect to food production, and you are a plant food person like Pingu, then Walter Haugen's approach is probably the best.   I think his EROI in 2009 was something like 3.5 or so  compared to 0.10 for industrially produced plant foods.   His EROI in subsequent years was higher I believe, but I didn't see him state why... Presumably he became more efficient or perhaps he focused more on high calorie crops like potatoes.  You could obtain still higher EROI then Walter by eliminating the gas powered tiller  and using only hand tools, but then how many calories would you be able to produce in a year and how many hours would it take you?  Walter produced 2.1 million in 2009 and it took him 2000 labor hours to do it.  If you are producing only 1 million food calories per year on say 1500 hours of labor, that seems like a hell of a lot and pretty much refutes Pingu's argument about historical  food surpluses  by farmers.  I think if Pingu looked at the details of historical surpluses, she would see an awful lot of slave labor.
Hmmm, there seems to be a discrepancy between your claims of what Haugen claimed and what Haugen claimed himself in this thread just two weeks ago.
Someone asked about my numbers. I am retired now and we are trying to sell our small farm and move to France, so I am not in full production. I mostly just putter around. This year, I produced 795,172 kilocalories from 3,582 pounds of food, using one gallon of gasoline in a borrowed tiller and 200 hours of my labor, for an input of 56,500 kilocalories. That is an EROI of 14:1 or just 14 if you drop the colon. That makes me 98-140 times more efficient than industrial agriculture. The numbers are from the orchard and a few vegetables. I didn't even count several crops, like zucchini.

In 2016, I only worked 100 hours, since I didn't prune the orchard and didn't plant much. However, we had a bumper year in tree fruit and I got over 7,000 pounds of fruit in the orchard (60 trees with about 20 actually producing). My EROI was 38.47:1, or just 38.47. This is a very high number, twice as high as the current worldwide EROI of oil, but it is a special circumstance because of the bumper year. It is also lower than the best estimate of harvesting wild wheat 10,000 years ago in what is now Iran at 50:1.

Which do we go by, Bluffy, Haugens direct statements of two weeks ago or your claims of what Haugen claimed nearly 10 years ago?
Are we there yet?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26730
OK let's revisit this ....
Quote
I'm not saying nobody should keep a goat if they like fresh goat's milk.  I'm saying that your idea that "hyperlocal food production" is some desirable end goal is full of flaws.  This is because:

    Food production takes a lot of space, and animal food production more so that veggies.  Whereas other kind of production (whether of goods and services) typically takes a lot less.
    It is relatively easy, with veggie production especially, for farmers to produce more than they need for themselves


Therefore it makes sense for farmers to spread out on agricultural land and non-farmers (good and services providers) to cluster in market towns and cities.  Sure it's great if those town/city dwellers also produce some of their own food - and many do.  And it's also great if they mainly get their food from local (not hyperlocal necessarily) sources, e.g. the farmers in the surrounding land.

So I'm saying that there is something wrong with "hyperlocal" food prediction as a general principle - too much "hyperlocal" food production would be very counter-productive in terms of sustainability.

Pingu's argument seems to be ...

1) All food production takes lots of space ... but veggie less than animal ...
2) Veggie (including grains?) food production is relatively easy

Therefore only a few should do it and make surpluses for the rest who don't do it.

First, if we are talking about "non-industrial veggie food production" I don't think it's that easy to produce surpluses.  Walter Haugen produced 3.8 million food calories (enough for 4 people) in 2009 on 3000 hours of labor (1266 food calories per hour).  That's a hell of a lot of labor.  I myself have NO desire whatsoever to spend that much time each year on food production for myself or for anyone else.  My current system produces 400,000 cal on about 1 hour per day (365 per year) (1095 food calories per hour and it's not even close to being optimized.  When I add the cow, I should be around 2 million food calories per year on the same labor (5479 food cal per hr).  Joe Hopping produces at least 30 million food calories per year on 500 hours of labor. (Say 1500 if you add slaughtering and packaging each animal so it's ready to cook and eat ... say 2500 if you add in the cooking and food prep labor so we compare apples to apples with milk food calories) ... so that's 12,000 food calories per hour.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that my model of 80% of everyone producing 80% of their own food would create logistics nightmares.  I don't see that.  If I live in a "Sustainable Subdivision" with say 500 residents where all subdivision services are within walking distance (or biking) and I'm one of 10 "dairy guys" (or gals) in the subdivision and there are 10 meat producers and 10 honey producers and so on ... why would it create logistical problems for me to walk over to Joe's to buy (or trade for) meat?  Or to Fred's to buy honey?  Or to Sally Mae's to buy her award winning breads?

You leave out so much.

Joe Meatman has to have a clean butchering area, a cooler large enough to keep fresh meat, a freezer large enough to keep frozen meat, enough clean water to sanitise, enough hot water to sanitise, a method of dealing with fresh animal hides, a safe disposal area for inedible animal parts. He also needs packaging material, even if it's just butcher paper and string, both of those must be manufactured somewhere. Immediately you see his need for housing these facilities is greatly expanded from yours, that he will need more reliable electricity than you, that he will need real doors and real climate control to prevent flies and rot.

Sally Mae Breadmaker must have a large supply of flour if she's breadmaking for several hundred people. So someone has to be growing a lot of (hopefully varied) grains and someone must be milling those grains into flour and packing that flour into containers/bags. Someone else needs to be producing those containers. The mill will also need to be large, climate controlled, insect and rodent free, and have such a storage facility.

500 people, according to current consumption figures, will eat 90,000 pounds of wheat in a year, most of it consumed as bread/bread products. A loaf of bread averages 1 pound. Sally Mae must make about 250 loaves of bread every day, 365 days per year, to provide for the entire community. She needs around 160 pounds of flour per day, or a minimum of 58,000 pounds of flour per year. And someone needs to grow, cut, thresh and winnow 12 to 15 acres of wheat (or mixed grains) to produce that amount of milled flour. Add more for all the other uses people have for grains, including oats for rolled oats, which also require milling, and home baking and cooking.

Back to Sally Mae's bakery - a loaf of bread (after rising) takes about an hour to bake. If dedicated Sally Mae bakes 10 hours a day, she needs to bake 25 loaves per hour to meet demand. She needs some serious ovens in order to do that, since an average home oven (electric, gas, or wood-fired) might fit 6 loaf pans. Minimally she needs to have four average ovens going 10 hours a day. That's a lot of fuel.

I am not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that you don't explore your ideas far enough to identify logistical realities.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26731
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."
Well that certainly is a well-reasoned and persuasive argument.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26732
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100.  I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26733
You are an idiot Dave
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26734
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."
You definitely mischaracterized Pingu's argument by ignoring those points. Lying by omission.

Calling them bullshit doesn't make it so.  Reasoned argument and evidence could if they were bullshit.  Bit they ain't bullshit, and you don't do reasoned argument and evidence.

Of course the evidence has been presented many times, but you don't dare stand up and acknowledge it.  What a craven coward you are.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26735
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100.  I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.
Or one.

Your expectations are anally extracted. 14th century Davie-doodles again!
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26736
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100. 

What's an order of magnitude or two after all?

I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.

 ::)
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26737
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."
You know, every time you bring up this off-topic obsession of yours, I'm going to remind you that your heroes -  Allan Savory and Mark Shepard, to name two - accept this "bullshit".  They seem to regard it as foundational to their takes on ecology.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26738
...and pretty much refutes Pingu's argument about historical  food surpluses  by farmers.  I think if Pingu looked at the details of historical surpluses, she would see an awful lot of slave labor.

Which is what you are proposing, Dave, remember? 

Dave, clearly, in the past, much of the physical work was done by humans and animals (horses, mules, oxen). Now it is done by machinery (using fossil fuels). 

That is problematic because of GHGs.  But farmers are very well placed to produce renewable energy (wind, solar, biofuels). 

Meanwhile your ruminants continue to fart.
I will talk about methane again later... Suffice to say now that it's not a problem with HMG.  That's already been studied.

To me, "slave labor" is not what Walter Haugen does  with his 2000 3000 labor hours expended for 2.1 3.8 million plant food calories. Or what I am proposing ... say 80% of the population involved in food production where surpluses might be 50-100% higher than one's personal need.

To me, slave labor is when you've got plantation owners sitting in their ivory towers puffing cigars while 100 slaves toil in the heat for 16 hours a day year-round to produce farm surpluses.
Pingu ^^^^
Bluffy, have you any actual examples of what you fantasize?
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26739
You are an idiot Dave
Coming from you, I wear this as a badge of honor.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26740
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."
Another Bluffoonic "tell", resort to hyperbole, the more outrageous the better. Bluff, bluster, bravado.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26741
Why yes,  I do know what a kilometer is.  There's 40,000 of them in the quarter meridian of the earth that passes through Paris.  Oh wait. I mean there's 40,011.
Oops this is the entire circumference I think.

 In any case, the sharp knives in the drawer will note that I am poking fun at the originators of the metric system who picked such a variable quantity as a quarter meridian for their reference standard  whereas the ancient system was based on a non-variable reference standard - the polar radius of the earth.
Are you sure it wasn't based on badgers? 44,444,444 sounds pretty special.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26742
You are an idiot Dave
Coming from you, I wear this as a badger of honor.

Yes I know.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26743

No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100.  I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.
How are they even baking bread?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26744
OK let's revisit this ....
Quote
I'm not saying nobody should keep a goat if they like fresh goat's milk.  I'm saying that your idea that "hyperlocal food production" is some desirable end goal is full of flaws.  This is because:

    Food production takes a lot of space, and animal food production more so that veggies.  Whereas other kind of production (whether of goods and services) typically takes a lot less.
    It is relatively easy, with veggie production especially, for farmers to produce more than they need for themselves


Therefore it makes sense for farmers to spread out on agricultural land and non-farmers (good and services providers) to cluster in market towns and cities.  Sure it's great if those town/city dwellers also produce some of their own food - and many do.  And it's also great if they mainly get their food from local (not hyperlocal necessarily) sources, e.g. the farmers in the surrounding land.

So I'm saying that there is something wrong with "hyperlocal" food prediction as a general principle - too much "hyperlocal" food production would be very counter-productive in terms of sustainability.

Pingu's argument seems to be ...

1) All food production takes lots of space ... but veggie less than animal ...
2) Veggie (including grains?) food production is relatively easy

Therefore only a few should do it and make surpluses for the rest who don't do it.

First, if we are talking about "non-industrial veggie food production" I don't think it's that easy to produce surpluses.  Walter Haugen produced 3.8 million food calories (enough for 4 people) in 2009 on 3000 hours of labor (1266 food calories per hour).  That's a hell of a lot of labor.  I myself have NO desire whatsoever to spend that much time each year on food production for myself or for anyone else.  My current system produces 400,000 cal on about 1 hour per day (365 per year) (1095 food calories per hour and it's not even close to being optimized.  When I add the cow, I should be around 2 million food calories per year on the same labor (5479 food cal per hr).  Joe Hopping produces at least 30 million food calories per year on 500 hours of labor. (Say 1500 if you add slaughtering and packaging each animal so it's ready to cook and eat ... say 2500 if you add in the cooking and food prep labor so we compare apples to apples with milk food calories) ... so that's 12,000 food calories per hour.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that my model of 80% of everyone producing 80% of their own food would create logistics nightmares.  I don't see that.  If I live in a "Sustainable Subdivision" with say 500 residents where all subdivision services are within walking distance (or biking) and I'm one of 10 "dairy guys" (or gals) in the subdivision and there are 10 meat producers and 10 honey producers and so on ... why would it create logistical problems for me to walk over to Joe's to buy (or trade for) meat?  Or to Fred's to buy honey?  Or to Sally Mae's to buy her award winning breads?

You leave out so much.

Joe Meatman has to have a clean butchering area, a cooler large enough to keep fresh meat, a freezer large enough to keep frozen meat, enough clean water to sanitise, enough hot water to sanitise, a method of dealing with fresh animal hides, a safe disposal area for inedible animal parts. He also needs packaging material, even if it's just butcher paper and string, both of those must be manufactured somewhere. Immediately you see his need for housing these facilities is greatly expanded from yours, that he will need more reliable electricity than you, that he will need real doors and real climate control to prevent flies and rot.

Sally Mae Breadmaker must have a large supply of flour if she's breadmaking for several hundred people. So someone has to be growing a lot of (hopefully varied) grains and someone must be milling those grains into flour and packing that flour into containers/bags. Someone else needs to be producing those containers. The mill will also need to be large, climate controlled, insect and rodent free, and have such a storage facility.

500 people, according to current consumption figures, will eat 90,000 pounds of wheat in a year, most of it consumed as bread/bread products. A loaf of bread averages 1 pound. Sally Mae must make about 250 loaves of bread every day, 365 days per year, to provide for the entire community. She needs around 160 pounds of flour per day, or a minimum of 58,000 pounds of flour per year. And someone needs to grow, cut, thresh and winnow 12 to 15 acres of wheat (or mixed grains) to produce that amount of milled flour. Add more for all the other uses people have for grains, including oats for rolled oats, which also require milling, and home baking and cooking.

Back to Sally Mae's bakery - a loaf of bread (after rising) takes about an hour to bake. If dedicated Sally Mae bakes 10 hours a day, she needs to bake 25 loaves per hour to meet demand. She needs some serious ovens in order to do that, since an average home oven (electric, gas, or wood-fired) might fit 6 loaf pans. Minimally she needs to have four average ovens going 10 hours a day. That's a lot of fuel.

I am not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that you don't explore your ideas far enough to identify logistical realities.
Back in the old days of hand drafting on vellum, it was not uncommon to run across the note:  "details omitted for clarity". Usually employed when the drafter didn't have a clue.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26745
You are an idiot Dave
Coming from you, I wear this as a badge of honor.
Now you know how we all feel.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26746
:facepalm:

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26747
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100.  I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.
Regardless, they'll still need the same amounts of ingredients and energy and it's a lot more efficient to prepare and bake large amounts of bread than to do a few loaves.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26748
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26749
You are an idiot Dave
Bluffy would have to expend a huge amount of effort to even rise to the level of idiot. And we all know how allergic he is to effort.
Are we there yet?