A food production time bomb?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My sister tells me that no-till agriculture is becoming more popular in Zambia and has many advantages.

I read the Wikipedia around the time this thread first appeared. It's quite interesting, it clearly saves labour and, intuitively, treating the land in a more natural way is going to preserve it. However what are the yields like and could it actually be used on a major scale given there are a lot of people to feed. Also there'll be opposition to it from plough manufacturers, and prompting their supporters to become "no-till skeptics" producing lots of pseudo-science to try to disprove it? 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
My sister tells me that no-till agriculture is becoming more popular in Zambia and has many advantages.

There are many advantages to no-till agriculture that are obvious. Some that are no so obvious. Here is a good article on the subject.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/no-till-farming-zmaz84zloeck.aspx?PageId=1#axzz2YH9bSexR

I prefer not to make myself a human guinea pig and Mr. Campbell regrets making himself one. He could barely walk. Think of how scary that is.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There are many advantages to no-till agriculture that are obvious. Some that are no so obvious. Here is a good article on the subject.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/no-till-farming-zmaz84zloeck.aspx?PageId=1#axzz2YH9bSexR

I prefer not to make myself a human guinea pig and Mr. Campbell regrets making himself one. He could barely walk. Think of how scary that is.

Food production and population go together. with food I' don't think we are running short just the top end of a western diet might become a bit more expensive ... with population though it's like 'no sex please we're rabbits' thats what the video I posted earlier was about, that's the time bomb I see.

The more bull there is around the less chance we have of finding answers, its a bit like the catcher in the rye story I think. (A cliff hidden by a field of rye)

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/no-till-farming-zmaz84zloeck.aspx?PageId=1#axzz2YH9bSexR

I prefer not to make myself a human guinea pig and Mr. Campbell regrets making himself one. He could barely walk. Think of how scary that is.

Thanks for that. I am still reading through it, but I will read it all.

I must point out that herbicides are a lot less popular in Zambia, partly because labour is cheaper and farms are smaller, and imports are relatively expensive.

So, do you use no chemicals at all in your farming? What about things like household insect sprays? Those have always concerned me as they have great big warning labels. However, sometimes the insects are just too much.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thanks for that. I am still reading through it, but I will read it all.

I must point out that herbicides are a lot less popular in Zambia, partly because labour is cheaper and farms are smaller, and imports are relatively expensive.

So, do you use no chemicals at all in your farming? What about things like household insect sprays? Those have always ...[text shortened]... rned me as they have great big warning labels. However, sometimes the insects are just too much.

However, sometimes the insects are just too much

yes, just think about locusts. I guess they would be very difficult to control without insecticides!
If you had the choice between spraying against locusts with poisonous insecticides or face famine for the sake of pleasing some environmentalist extremists, I think you would be a fool to choose the latter (I am not implying here that all environmentalists would be so unreasonable as to say you should not spray even under those extreme circumstance -but there are a few crazed enough that they surely would).

Originally posted by humy
If you had the choice between spraying against locusts with poisonous insecticides or face famine for the sake of pleasing some environmentalist extremists, I think you would be a fool to choose the latter .

We were actually talking about the risk to the person spraying (the farmer, or house owner) rather than the risk to the environment. Some insecticides are harmful in the short term but not too bad for the environment long term.

I must also add that DDT was used in Zambia to control mosquitoes (and thus malaria) long after it was banned in the US. In fact, I believe it is still being used. This is because it is a very effective insecticide and sometimes peoples health is more important than the environment. In addition I believe it is not used in such large quantities for malaria control as when used on crops.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We were actually talking about the risk to the person spraying (the farmer, or house owner) rather than the risk to the environment. Some insecticides are harmful in the short term but not too bad for the environment long term.

I must also add that DDT was used in Zambia to control mosquitoes (and thus malaria) long after it was banned in the US. In fa ...[text shortened]... ion I believe it is not used in such large quantities for malaria control as when used on crops.

I am not an expert on this particular issue (but am on some closely related issues) but my strong suspicions are that, from the limited information I have on this, until science comes up with better alternatives, DDT is generally worth the environmental cost for use against the spread of malaria at least in poor countries but is not quite worth the environmental cost for use against insect pests on crops because there are at least in most cases reasonable and less environmentally costly albeit not so cost-effective alternative insecticides for controlling most crop pests.

I don't know if the same would be true for in Zambia but in the UK most insecticides used these days are highly selective and have either low toxicity or even no toxicity to humans! Pyrethrum is just one example of such an insecticide but there are many more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We were actually talking about the risk to the person spraying (the farmer, or house owner) rather than the risk to the environment. Some insecticides are harmful in the short term but not too bad for the environment long term.

I must also add that DDT was used in Zambia to control mosquitoes (and thus malaria) long after it was banned in the US. In fa ...[text shortened]... ion I believe it is not used in such large quantities for malaria control as when used on crops.

I just read an interesting article about ddt. It's from 2004, but it makes a very good case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thanks for that. I am still reading through it, but I will read it all.

I must point out that herbicides are a lot less popular in Zambia, partly because labour is cheaper and farms are smaller, and imports are relatively expensive.

So, do you use no chemicals at all in your farming? What about things like household insect sprays? Those have always ...[text shortened]... rned me as they have great big warning labels. However, sometimes the insects are just too much.

My brother took over the family farm. I am not a farmer now, but I grew up on one so you could say I used to be. As far as I know my brother does not use any chemicals. My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called. That is the only chemical that my parents used and they regretted it later. Some of it leaked into the soil and a lot of soil had to be removed to clean up the site.

I grow a garden every year and I grow some potatoes. The potato beetles can be pretty bad if you don't get on them and kill their eggs on the underside of the leaves early and it is easy to miss some. I don't use any chemicals when gardening. I grow organically 100%, but I can understand why potato farmers use insecticide. I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is organic approved and he says it works well. Next year I plan to grow Tansy near my potatoes to see if it really reduces the beetles as much as I have read it does.
I have a can of mosquito repellent that contains deet. That is the only chemical I use but I don't use it much. There are natural mosquito repellants than can be substituted.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My brother took over the family farm. I am not a farmer now, but I grew up on one so you could say I used to be. As far as I know my brother does not use any chemicals. My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called. That is the only chemical that my parents used and they regretted I use but I don't use it much. There are natural mosquito repellants than can be substituted.

My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.

Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.

I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is organic approved and he says it works well.

that just shows the irrationality of organic farming; nicotine is a chemical and far more toxic and less selective than most modern insecticides. Nicotine has caused more deaths and does more environmental harm than most types of modern insecticides.
The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!).
I guess organic farmers just decided to label nicotine as 'organic' in the hope that simply labeling it as 'organic' magically makes it completely safe to use.

Have you considered using pyrethrum insecticide against those beetles?
It is non-toxic against warm-blooded creatures such as birds and humans -it will not kill you! It is even used by organic farmers even though, just like ALL insecticides, its active ingredient is a chemical! It is sometimes extracted out of the dried petals of Chrysanthemum flowers which naturally have this insecticide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrum BUT, the pyrethrum manufacture in chemical plants is chemically identical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.

Originally posted by humy

My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.

Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.

[quote] I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is ...[text shortened]... entical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.

"Nicotine has caused more deaths and does more environmental harm than most types of modern insecticides."

Nicotine does not cause more deaths. You are being irrational.

http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_62.php

Originally posted by humy

My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.

Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.

[quote] I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is ...[text shortened]... entical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.

"science defines DDT as an organic chemical!"

DDT use has been banned since 1972 in the USA. It is not like organic farmers can use it. You are being silly. If you want to tell us the difference between organic chemistry and non-organic chemistry go ahead, but reserve your ridiculous propaganda for less intelligent people.

Originally posted by humy

My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.

Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.

[quote] I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is ...[text shortened]... entical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.

Nicotine is addictive, but the main cause of death from smoking is tar and smoke damage, nicotine's part in that is that it keeps us smoking. Ingesting nicotine isn't ideal, since nicotine stimulates cardiac tissue, but it's no worse than a few expressos - otherwise the medical community wouldn't recommend replacement therapy.

The chemical evolved as an insecticide and it makes for a good one as there's no obvious problem with environmental impact at the site it is used. The risks to human health are a lot lower than DDT (which should be reserved for emergencies).

The potential problems that spring to my mind are:

What is the ecological impact of production?
Will it knock out predator species (ladybirds etc.) but not adequately wipe out the pest species?
Does it linger in soil or degrade nicely?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Nicotine is addictive, but the main cause of death from smoking is tar and smoke damage, nicotine's part in that is that it keeps us smoking. Ingesting nicotine isn't ideal, since nicotine stimulates cardiac tissue, but it's no worse than a few expressos - otherwise the medical community wouldn't recommend replacement therapy.

The chemical evolved as ...[text shortened]... .) but not adequately wipe out the pest species?
Does it linger in soil or degrade nicely?

Yet another lesson in checking facts before posting. The LD50 in rats is 50mg/kg, but only 3mg/Kg in mice. It's estimated at around 0.5 - 1.0 mg/kg in humans. Which is like smoking 60 cigarettes at once. It's use as an insecticide tailed off because of it's impact on mammals. It will be unavailable for sale in the US from 2014. It is prohibited for organic farming. Most cases of nicotine poisoning are from its use as an insecticide.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"science defines DDT as an organic chemical!"

DDT use has been banned since 1972 in the USA. It is not like organic farmers can use it. You are being silly. If you want to tell us the difference between organic chemistry and non-organic chemistry go ahead, but reserve your ridiculous propaganda for less intelligent people.

You really should check your facts before making a moron of yourself by spouting out such crap.
A simple check of you facts by a quick google would have done the trick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

“...An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. For historical reasons discussed below, a few types of carbon-containing compounds such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (such as CO and CO2), and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon such as diamond and graphite, are considered inorganic. ...”

So, according to the standard scientific definition of an organic compound, and all organic compounds are organic chemicals by definition, that makes DDT an organic chemical for its molecules DOES contain carbon and it isn't any of those exceptions. If you don't believe me, just look up the chemical formula for DDT and see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT -see the carbon backbone?

I already explained to you the arbitrary irrational unscientific way organic farmers define the word "organic" but you didn't take any notice.
So, this is not my “propaganda” (as you said) but just everyday conventional standard scientific terminology which is and always has been at odds with the moronic vague terminology used by organic formers.
Please, next time, check your facts.