4 ms·

Very well put. > Synthetic fertilizers are hugely beneficial, but they are in part necessitated by, and directly enable (in a cycle, see), crop monocultures th

Very well put. > Synthetic fertilizers are hugely beneficial, but they are in part necessitated by, and directly enable (in a cycle, see), crop monocultures that don't allow the soil to replenish its fertility. Yes. The article gives the impression that modern organic and permaculture farms are basically using medieval techniques, when that's far from the case. I hope the author does know better.

creato 6y ago
Do these alternatives scale at a cost that people can afford? I tried googling for permaculture information (like cost per unit of food) and I only found absurd cult-like propaganda or people complaining about the myths of permaculture.
- NegativeLatency 6y ago
  It doesn’t take permaculture levels of agriculture to make it better than it is now. For example insurance companies dictate how and when farmers apply chemicals, the insurers are influenced by petrochemical companies and are also risk adverse. So while we could do better with more careful and targeted application of chemicals there’s not a huge incentive to at a systemic level. The risk is too high for farmers to try and do something different, because the insurers dictate the terms
- danielheath 6y ago
  It’s confusing because you have so many dimensions of scale - labor input, land use, water consumption, etc - that you can point out advantages to almost any approach. The last century has seen massive farms using high tech kit, in part because they can lobby for grants and subsidies more effectively. They are not water efficient as a rule, and they tend to suffer inefficiencies because the people managing the land have no skin in the game, but they are profitable because they can move large volumes of produce and get their machinery paid for by the government.
- tarsinge 6y ago
  Intensive organic farming seems to work, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier for an example with numbers.
p1necone 6y ago
> I hope the author does know better. I hope the author doesn't know better - I'll take genuine ignorance over dishonesty any day.
ekianjo 6y ago
> permaculture farms Where are these magical permaculture farms that solve all problems and are cheaper to produce than every other technology out there? It would be wonder that such a solution would exist and literally no single country in the world has converted to it.
- meekmind 6y ago
  > Where are these magical permaculture farms that solve all problems Your comment reeks of cynicism. Obviously we can't solve "all" problems. I think many small or medium-sized agricultural operations would have elements that might be considered "permacultural", some more than others. > are cheaper to produce It depends on what you mean by "cheaper." Are you considering cost to produce, cost to the consume, cost to the environment? These are all very different and our current system is optimized for a small subset of cost constraints while almost entirely ignoring others (e.g. long-term ecological impact, health impact). > no single country in the world has converted to it We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology). Further, I think it's fair to say that if industry applied improved science and technology with an integrative approach, we could have permaculture, limit labor constraints, minimize ecological damage, and have comparable yields. I would argue that the reason this hasn't happened at scale is due primarily to political reasons and not because permaculture doesn't work. If you want some examples of farms actually implementing permaculture there is a documentary called Fresh (2009) which documents a couple of farmers in Shenandoah Valley and Milwaukee who worked to create sustainable farms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwR44T69_Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwR44T69_Is
  - jjk166 6y ago
    > We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology). Medieval and earlier farms were horrifically unproductive and unsustainable. Land had to lie fallow for nutrients to be replenished, and even when there were actually plants growing, output was low. In an average year, a medieval european farm could expect to produce between 7 and 15 bushels per acre, and as little as 4 in a bad year. Compare this to a modern farm that can produce 60 bushels per acre. Medieval farms would harvest about 4 seeds per seed planted on average, a bad harvest may not leave enough to plant for the next year, modern farms on the other hand reap 30 to 40 seeds per seed planted. Europe's population remained stagnant for 1000 years as any increase in food production would lead to a reduction in grazing area, which in turn meant less manure was produced and lands could not be sufficiently fertilized. Famines were frequent and severe. Medieval agriculture wasn't sustainable, it was inescapable. Only the crisis of the late middle ages and the ensuing deaths of millions forced systemic changes which allowed europe to break out of its vicious cycle and lead to real quality of life improvements. Just because something is better than what came before does not mean it is perfect, and it's worth considering other ideas. But pre-industrial agriculture was terrible, and anyone romanticizing it either has no idea what they are talking about or is actively trying to deceive you.

creato 6y ago

Do these alternatives scale at a cost that people can afford? I tried googling for permaculture information (like cost per unit of food) and I only found absurd cult-like propaganda or people complaining about the myths of permaculture.

NegativeLatency 6y ago
It doesn’t take permaculture levels of agriculture to make it better than it is now. For example insurance companies dictate how and when farmers apply chemicals, the insurers are influenced by petrochemical companies and are also risk adverse. So while we could do better with more careful and targeted application of chemicals there’s not a huge incentive to at a systemic level. The risk is too high for farmers to try and do something different, because the insurers dictate the terms
danielheath 6y ago
It’s confusing because you have so many dimensions of scale - labor input, land use, water consumption, etc - that you can point out advantages to almost any approach. The last century has seen massive farms using high tech kit, in part because they can lobby for grants and subsidies more effectively. They are not water efficient as a rule, and they tend to suffer inefficiencies because the people managing the land have no skin in the game, but they are profitable because they can move large volumes of produce and get their machinery paid for by the government.
tarsinge 6y ago
Intensive organic farming seems to work, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier for an example with numbers.

p1necone 6y ago

> I hope the author does know better. I hope the author doesn't know better - I'll take genuine ignorance over dishonesty any day.

ekianjo 6y ago

> permaculture farms Where are these magical permaculture farms that solve all problems and are cheaper to produce than every other technology out there? It would be wonder that such a solution would exist and literally no single country in the world has converted to it.

meekmind 6y ago
> Where are these magical permaculture farms that solve all problems Your comment reeks of cynicism. Obviously we can't solve "all" problems. I think many small or medium-sized agricultural operations would have elements that might be considered "permacultural", some more than others. > are cheaper to produce It depends on what you mean by "cheaper." Are you considering cost to produce, cost to the consume, cost to the environment? These are all very different and our current system is optimized for a small subset of cost constraints while almost entirely ignoring others (e.g. long-term ecological impact, health impact). > no single country in the world has converted to it We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology). Further, I think it's fair to say that if industry applied improved science and technology with an integrative approach, we could have permaculture, limit labor constraints, minimize ecological damage, and have comparable yields. I would argue that the reason this hasn't happened at scale is due primarily to political reasons and not because permaculture doesn't work. If you want some examples of farms actually implementing permaculture there is a documentary called Fresh (2009) which documents a couple of farmers in Shenandoah Valley and Milwaukee who worked to create sustainable farms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwR44T69_Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwR44T69_Is
- jjk166 6y ago
  > We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology). Medieval and earlier farms were horrifically unproductive and unsustainable. Land had to lie fallow for nutrients to be replenished, and even when there were actually plants growing, output was low. In an average year, a medieval european farm could expect to produce between 7 and 15 bushels per acre, and as little as 4 in a bad year. Compare this to a modern farm that can produce 60 bushels per acre. Medieval farms would harvest about 4 seeds per seed planted on average, a bad harvest may not leave enough to plant for the next year, modern farms on the other hand reap 30 to 40 seeds per seed planted. Europe's population remained stagnant for 1000 years as any increase in food production would lead to a reduction in grazing area, which in turn meant less manure was produced and lands could not be sufficiently fertilized. Famines were frequent and severe. Medieval agriculture wasn't sustainable, it was inescapable. Only the crisis of the late middle ages and the ensuing deaths of millions forced systemic changes which allowed europe to break out of its vicious cycle and lead to real quality of life improvements. Just because something is better than what came before does not mean it is perfect, and it's worth considering other ideas. But pre-industrial agriculture was terrible, and anyone romanticizing it either has no idea what they are talking about or is actively trying to deceive you.