Critical Feeding V Organics, Microbes & better Soil Management

 
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields.
So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they do
exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars whilst
the land behind them pays a devastating cost.


The full cost we can only guess at... but for starters much of the land
now needs to be rotated, with some of it barely farm-able at all. Lots
of locked out P and K, making land deficient in iron and other micros,
nitrates almost literally poured into the water supply.


Dare I even mention soil bacteria and the recent e.coli outbreaks?

Are we really upsetting the balance and need to add back what we have
taken away in an attempt to re-address it? Or, do we carry on as usual,
chasing the dollar and slaughtering the bio-diversity?


Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in amazing
harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here...
thank you for reading.




--
VickyN

 VickyN wrote:

The cost in buying fertiliser and applying it is not always justified by
even the short-term returns, that is it is applied in excess of the optimum
in some cases for reasons other than being demonstrated to be cost
effective.  OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the world's
population by organic methods.  There may be some focus on this issue over
the next few decades as sources of mineral phosphorus compound become
exhausted and the cost of nitrogen fixing rises with energy costs.



Land always needs rotation, especially so if you grow a monoculture.  This
is not limited to where chemical fertilisers have been applied.


Dare you explain the connection between the state of soil bacteria and
humans poisoning themselves by employing poor food handling practices?



This question cannot be addressed until our collective decision making
processes adequately take into account long term effects.  Many current
problems in the developed world with resource management, agribusiness and
the balance between development and the environment are tied to what the PR
companies can crank out before the next election, not what may happen in a
generation.


Please provide some evidence for that claim.  What are the costs of that
method compared to others?  How do you feed cattle or sheep hydroponically?
Would that be cost effective?

David

 
I saw something just recently that said it could be done.  I was surprised
by the comment and meant to follow up on it, but didn't.  I'll have to try
to figure out where I saw the comment and let you know.  I do remember
thinking that the source wasn't silly so it was worth following up on.


It ain't, so we'd all have to be vegetarians/vegans and I'm a confirmed
carnivore.

I know there is one cattle feeding hydroponicy gizmo out there as a
neighbour bought one.  He's one of those dopes who buys every possible thing
that could ever be needed on a farm including a 150K John Deere Tractor (for
a cattle farm!!!).  Even he found the hydroponic unit was too expensive to
run to feed his cattle from it.

 
Hmmm... How about laboratory meat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Could be perfected someday. Who needs nature? See the movie "Silent
Running"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

I know, I know, I have been reading too much science fiction, way too much
science fiction :)

The future is a hard one to predict.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R  (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

 Nad R wrote:

Any laboratory grown meat has to have an energy source to build the tissue.
Theoretically it could come from come atomic reactors but would that be more
efficient than taking it from the sun?  Farmers spend their lives bottling
sunshine.  We need to learn how to do it sustainably.

D