I'll go ahead and jump in, Pete. Goodchild has done some good work but this
is junk. I can't quite agree that a lot of people will require more arable
land than we have. At some extreme, sure, but we have a long way to go
before we make efficient use of the land (and freshwater) we have. And
we're going to run out of other essential resources long before that. Our
ecological footprint in the Western world and all.
Pimentel's "small and limited" study didn't prove
organic lowers yields by
2/3 at all. That's absurd by any standard. Other studies in developing
countries show dramatic increases with organic. Goodchild fails to mention
the fact that without cheap oil there will be no industrial food production
anyway. It's organic or nothing.
Another case of ignoring the effect of peak oil is "if 100 percent of the
people are living on 10 percent of the land, then the land may have so many
people, roads, and buildings on it that a good deal of that land will be
unavailable for farming". But if conditions get bad enough that most people
have to move where the food is grown, then they won't have enough gas for
vehicles to justify more road building. In fact, a lot of roads would be
torn out to make room for food growing. He thinks the problem of
"disappearing farmland" - suburbs, development and freeways etc. - would
just keep growing in spite of the end of cheap
oil.
His "simple arithmetic" is too simple. Worse is his straw man argument
about cow manure. He's arguing organic needs to divert scarce arable land
to feeding cows to get manure for growing, and apparently he thinks cow
manure is the only way to grow organically.
This odd claim is just not true: "To support human life one must be growing
grains and similar crops high in carbohydrates and protein, and these foods
must be in quantities large enough to supply three full meals a day, every
day, for every person in the household." But grains really aren't the most
efficient source of those nutrients, and certainly not the most efficient
use of arable land to feed people.
It sounds like he's never grown food himself.
paul
tradingpost@lobo.net*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 6/30/2009
at 7:42 PM Pete Vukovich wrote:
>Can I just say I think a lot is wrong with it? There are some facts in
>it, and some numbers, but not much in the way of clear thinking. The
>conclusion that a lot of people will require more arable land than we have
>is essentially correct so it has that going for it.
>
>Overall his understanding of organic production is pretty much on par with
>the neurosurgery skills I get from watching the science channel. Life's
>like that people often confuse getting some information with having
>information. I do it all the time myself.
>
>
>--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Tradingpost <
tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote:
>
>From: Tradingpost <
tradingpost@lobo.net>
>Subject: [Livingontheland] Peak Oil And World Food Supplies
>To:
livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 1:37 PM
>
>
>what's wrong with this picture? a lot of things come to mind, but i'll
wait
>for the rest of you ;-)
>
>paul
tradingpost@lobo.net>------------------------------------------
>
>Peak Oil And World Food Supplies
>
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild290609.htm>By Peter Goodchild
>29 June, 2009
>
>Only about 10 percent of the world’s land surface is
arable,
whereas the
>other 90 percent is just rock, sand, or swamp, which can never be made to
>produce crops, whether we use “high” or
“low” technology or
>something in the middle. In an age with diminishing supplies of oil and
>other fossil fuels, this 10:90 ratio may be creating two gigantic problems
>that have been largely ignored.
>
>The first is that humans are not living only on that 10 percent of arable
>land, they are living everywhere, while trucks, trains, ships, and
>airplanes bring the food to where those people are living. What will
happen
>when the vehicles are no longer operating? Will everyone move into those
>“10 percent” lands where the crops can be grown?
>
>The other problem with the 10:90 ratio is that with “low
technology,”
>i.e. technology that does not use petroleum or other fossil fuels, crop
>yields diminish
considerably. As David Pimentel showed in 1984 in his
>“Food and Energy Resources,” with non-mechanized
agriculture, corn
>(maize) production is only about 2,000 kilograms per hectare, about a
third
>of the yield that a farmer would get with modern machinery and chemical
>fertilizer. If that is the case, then not only will 100 percent of the
>people be living on 10 percent of the land, but there will be less food
>available for that 100 percent.
>
>Incidentally, my use of Pimentel’s study of corn is mainly due to
the
>fact that, although his analysis is only a small and limited one, it
>provides a handy baseline for other studies of population and food supply.
>In general, a vegetarian diet requires far less of the world’s
resources
>than a carnivorous one, although I have my doubts about the dietary wisdom
>of avoiding meat entirely. More specifically,
corn is one of the most
>useful grains for supporting human life; the native people of the Americas
>lived on it for thousands of years. Corn is high-yielding and needs little
>in the way of equipment, and the more ancient varieties are largely
>trouble-free in terms of diseases, pests, and soil depletion. If it
can’t
>be done with corn, it can’t be done with anything.
>
>Actually, of course, there is a third problem that arises from the first
>two. This is the fact that if 100 percent of the people are living on 10
>percent of the land, then the land may have so many people, roads, and
>buildings on it that a good deal of that land will be unavailable for
>farming. This problem of disappearing farmland is certainly not a new one;
>for centuries it seemed only common sense to build our cities in the midst
>of our paradises.
>
>Let us play with some of these
numbers and see what happens. These are
only
>rough figures, admittedly, but greater accuracy is impossible because of
>the question of how one defines one’s terms, and even more by the
fact
>that everything on this poor planet is rapidly changing. The present
>population of the Earth is about 7 billion, but there is no point in being
>more specific, since the number is increasing daily. Nevertheless, 7
>billion should be a large enough number to make us seriously consider the
>consequences. (What other large mammal can be found in such numbers?) When
>I was born, in 1949, there were less than 3 billion, and it amazes me that
>this jump is rarely regarded as significant. These 7 billion people in
turn
>live on only about 29 percent of the surface of the Earth, i.e. on dry
>land, which is about 148 million square kilometers.
>
>Of that 148 million square kilometers,
the arable portion, as I said, is
>only about 10 percent, or 15 million square kilometers. If we divide that
>15 million square kilometers into the present figure for human population,
>we arrive at a ratio of about 470 people per square kilometer of arable
>land.
>
>Is that last ratio a matter for concern? I would think so. A hard-working
>(i.e. farming) adult burns about 2 million kilocalories
(“calories”)
>per year. The food energy from Pimentel’s hectare of corn is about
7
>million kilocalories. Under primitive conditions, then, 1 hectare of corn
>would support only 3 or 4 people — or, in other words, 1 square
kilometer
>would support 300 or 400 people. And all of these are ideal numbers; we
are
>assuming that all resources are distributed rationally and equitably. (We
>are also assuming no increase in population, but famine and the
attendant
>decrease in fertility will take care of that matter very soon.) Even if
>every inch of our planet’s “arable portion” were
devoted to the
>raising of corn or other useful crops, we would have trouble squeezing in
>those 470 people mentioned in the previous paragraph.
>
>Given such figures, I have little patience with writers who sprinkle the
>words “alternative,” “sustainable,” and
“transition” over every
>page. Simple arithmetic is all that is needed to show that such a lexicon
>is unsuitable.
>
>Nor can I do anything but shake my head when my “organic
gardener”
>friends tell me that they can grow unlimited amounts of food merely by the
>liberal application of cow manure. Eliot Coleman, Andrew W. Lee, and other
>recent writers on “low-tech” agriculture (not to mention
any farmers of
>the old school) agree that if cow
manure is used on a hectare of farmland,
>for the first year of crop production at least 100 metric tons are
>necessary, and after that about 20 tons per year might be adequate.
>However, cows take up land. Another older but valuable book is Frances
>Mooore Lappe’s “Diet for a Small Planet,” in which
she points out
>that one cow requires over a hectare in pasturage; that is in addition to
>the hay, grain, and other foods that the animal is given.
>
>How many cows are needed for all that manure? I neither know nor care. All
>that is certain is that the use of cows to keep a garden in production
>would multiply the necessary land area enormously. There would also be no
>mechanized equipment to deliver the manure. The knowledge of animal
>husbandry, under primitive conditions, could certainly not be learned
>overnight. But I can say from experience that reality hits when
the sun is
>going down and the shovel is getting heavy.
>
>Many of the false figures that appear in discussions of the future are the
>result of armchair gardening of the worst sort. Growing a tiny patch of
>lettuce and tomatoes is not subsistence gardening. To support human life
>one must be growing grains and similar crops high in carbohydrates and
>protein, and these foods must be in quantities large enough to supply
three
>full meals a day, every day, for every person in the household. We must
>also consider that in apocalyptic times it will certainly not be possible
>to stroll over to the tap and use a hose to pour unlimited amounts of
water
>over one’s plants; on a large garden, the water is whatever the
sky
>decides to send.
>
>There may be an odd solution or two. There are parts of the Earth where
>population is actually decreasing in absolute
numbers, as people
mistakenly
>come to believe that country living is too hard. Well, yes, being squeezed
>out by multinationals is definitely too hard, but I’m talking
about
>subsistence agriculture, not trying to survive by picking beans for a
>dollar an hour. Another partial solution may be a return to foraging,
>especially for those who choose to live in that non-arable 90 percent.
>Hunting and fishing have become unfashionable hobbies, but for the
>physically fit these skills could be a lifesaver; over-harvesting is
>certainly a concern, but the great majority of westerners are far too weak
>to spend a day plowing through underbrush.
>
>The seacoast has possibilities that intrigue me. In various coastal areas
>it is traditional to grow potatoes by placing them on bare rock and
>covering them with seaweed. Even without a boat it is possible to get a
>meal by
gathering shellfish.
>
>Nor should we totally discount the practicality of animal husbandry. There
>are many parts of the world that are not suitable for agriculture, but the
>same land might produce wild grasses or other vegetation that in turn
could
>feed domesticated animals. Under primitive conditions the density of human
>population in such areas would have to be very low, and the danger of
>over-grazing would always be there, but the truth is that there are large
>parts of the world that supported a pastoral life for centuries.
>
>I don’t have much patience with cobbled-together happy endings,
but I
>think there are answers for those who are single-minded enough to go after
>them. Remember that you can’t save the whole human race, you can
only
>save a few people; learn to use a gun and an ax; head for the country. Oh,
>yes, and get yourself a
reputation as a good neighbor; they may not
>actually adopt you, but they might help you out when there’s
trouble.
>
>Peter Goodchild is the author of “Survival Skills of the North
American
>Indians,” published by Chicago Review Press. His email address is
>
odonatus@live.com.
>
