3 ms·

using fossil fuels Can you explain what does fossil fuels have to do with this? And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we subs

by antris 13y ago

using fossil fuels Can you explain what does fossil fuels have to do with this? And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we substitute something else What does this mean? Really. I don't understand this at all. Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs Can you name examples of this "brittleness", how it is caused and how it has affected the food supply when compared to another way of farming (and what that other way exactly is)? making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we're really setting ourselves up for a fall Can you explain how having 80% of our food supply sharing the same genome is setting ourselves up for a fall?

burningion 13y ago
Sure thing! Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil fuels in agriculture: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. As for the taking away something when we substitute something else: Biological organisms have a general amount of energy their capable of taking in and processing. Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy. It means that "cost" of energy is spent in producing that side effect, and not elsewhere. IE not in defense against other organisms. As for the "brittleness" of genes: The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly.
- burningion 13y ago
  Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess: For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950... Brittleness of genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity Potato famine in general.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  And the fuel and energy use don't end with transportation. You've got food processing (canning, drying, milling, and other processing), refrigeration, and packaging as well. I suppose you could toss grocery store and restaurant operations into the mix as well. And the real multiplier for inputs: raising livestock takes vast inputs. Even if you don't eat soy directly, if you're eating beef, pork, poultry, or dairy, you're eating food very likely raised in large part based on soy protein. (And just for the record: I'm an omnivore).
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Oh, and meta note: that OSU page (apparently created using Adobe PageMill) uses graphics to generate bulleted lists. fbog.
- antris 13y ago
  Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. My question was more about the connection to Borlaug. What does Borlaug have to do with fossil fuel usage. The link you gave does not make this connection at all, and neither does the Wikipedia article. How Borlaug could have fed these these people without using fossil fuels and how did he advocate fossil fuels specifically as a technology? Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy Organisms get their energy from the sun through photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with their genes. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly. Sounds like the case you are making is that there is a higher risk of losing the whole yield at once. While that may be true, what you are describing is a risk. Considering that GMO plants make considerably more yield, the farmer has to weigh the risks and benefits. This is common to for all businesses. GMO yield would be more expensive than non-GMO yields if the risks were too high. Farmers aren't stupid.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anon1385 13y ago
>Can you name examples of this "brittleness", how it is caused and how it has affected the food supply when compared to another way of farming Not the parent but yes. Look at the history of banana cultivars. Up until the 1950s the most common variety of banana grown commercially was the 'Gros Michel'. Vast tracts of banana plantation of this single variety were wiped out by Panama disease which spread around the world. A different cultivar, the 'Cavendish' was found to be resistant to the strain of Panama disease that afflicted the Gros Michel. The transition was at great economic cost and it was fortuitous that a resistant variety of banana was discovered. http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PanamaDiseasePart1.aspx http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Pana... The first trades relied almost entirely on ‘Gros Michel’ (28,32). In many ways, ‘Gros Michel’ is an ideal export banana. It produces massive bunches of large, flavorful fruit that are so resistant to mechanical damage that they could be shipped intact. The downfall of ‘Gros Michel’ was its extreme susceptibility to Panama disease. Panama disease was first reported in Australia, but became most important in the monocultures of ‘Gros Michel’ that were used by the trades in the Western Hemisphere. Panama was one of the first countries to experience major epidemics. It caused staggering losses in the trades before production areas converted to Cavendish. Between 1940 and 1960, 30,000 ha were lost in the Ulua Valley of Honduras, and in a decade complete losses were recorded in operations of 4,000 ha in Suriname and 6,000 ha in the Quepos area in Costa Rica. If one compiles figures up to 1960 and considers the substantial costs that were associated with plantation establishment, losses of approximately $400,000,000 can be attributed to Panama disease. Using a conservative conversion rate, this would be at least $2.3 billion in 2000 figures, and would be even greater if costs were included for unemployment, abandoned villages, unrealized income, and expenditures to maintain social stability in the affected regions. I'm sure you can guess what happens next. A strain of Panama disease that affects the Cavendish has appeared: http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PanamaDiseasePart2.aspx http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Pana... The confidence that Panama disease would not affect the Cavendish clones was shattered in the early 1990s. New Cavendish plantations began to succumb throughout Southeast Asia, the home of banana. This represented the first time that Cavendish was affected in the tropics in the absence of predisposing factors. The appearance of TR4 in Southeast Asia has changed this assessment. Once again the banana on which the export trades depend is threatened with destruction by Panama disease. Also affected are the important plantain cultivars that feed some 400 million people, as well as numerous cooking and dessert cultivars. In total, TR4 threatens more than 80% of the world’s banana production. Activities to monitor its spread and develop contingency plans for its arrival in other areas should be started as soon as possible.
pageld 13y ago
As a 1st world farm kid who regularly still 'helps' during fall and spring, this is what I have experienced. My parents don't run a ton of acres, but they definitely make a living off of it. Fossil Fuels/Brittleness It 'used' to be everyone at least rotated crops every year (corn, soy, wheat, corn) to put nitrogen back in the soil in a more natural process. Now, the rotations are more like corn, corn, corn, soy, corn. Since the soybeans aren't there to put nitrogen back in the soil, farmers use literal tons of oil produced nitrogen. When gas prices are high, my dad's not complaining about the 300 gallons of diesel a day per tractor he's using. He's talking about the increase in nitrogen prices. The price increases have made it so that farmers used to be able to break even at about 2.50 a bushel for corn. Now its something like 4.50. That's a huge jump when you're now getting 200+ bushels per acre and in the 1990's 170 bushels was a great year. Diversity A few years ago (can't quite remember) there was a huge scare of European corn borer destroying all of one type of corn. It was the crop equivalent of the bird flu scare. It turned out to not happen, but the possibility is still there. Now that we're less diverse one 'superbug' or bad weather year could take out everything.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Now that we're less diverse one 'superbug' or bad weather year could take out everything. This could also happen even if you were more diverse. Look at what happened to French wine grapes.

by antris 13y ago

burningion 13y ago

Sure thing! Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil fuels in agriculture: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. As for the taking away something when we substitute something else: Biological organisms have a general amount of energy their capable of taking in and processing. Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy. It means that "cost" of energy is spent in producing that side effect, and not elsewhere. IE not in defense against other organisms. As for the "brittleness" of genes: The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly.

burningion 13y ago
Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess: For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950... Brittleness of genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity Potato famine in general.
dredmorbius 13y ago
And the fuel and energy use don't end with transportation. You've got food processing (canning, drying, milling, and other processing), refrigeration, and packaging as well. I suppose you could toss grocery store and restaurant operations into the mix as well. And the real multiplier for inputs: raising livestock takes vast inputs. Even if you don't eat soy directly, if you're eating beef, pork, poultry, or dairy, you're eating food very likely raised in large part based on soy protein. (And just for the record: I'm an omnivore).
dredmorbius 13y ago
Oh, and meta note: that OSU page (apparently created using Adobe PageMill) uses graphics to generate bulleted lists. fbog.
antris 13y ago
Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. My question was more about the connection to Borlaug. What does Borlaug have to do with fossil fuel usage. The link you gave does not make this connection at all, and neither does the Wikipedia article. How Borlaug could have fed these these people without using fossil fuels and how did he advocate fossil fuels specifically as a technology? Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy Organisms get their energy from the sun through photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with their genes. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly. Sounds like the case you are making is that there is a higher risk of losing the whole yield at once. While that may be true, what you are describing is a risk. Considering that GMO plants make considerably more yield, the farmer has to weigh the risks and benefits. This is common to for all businesses. GMO yield would be more expensive than non-GMO yields if the risks were too high. Farmers aren't stupid.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anon1385 13y ago

>Can you name examples of this "brittleness", how it is caused and how it has affected the food supply when compared to another way of farming Not the parent but yes. Look at the history of banana cultivars. Up until the 1950s the most common variety of banana grown commercially was the 'Gros Michel'. Vast tracts of banana plantation of this single variety were wiped out by Panama disease which spread around the world. A different cultivar, the 'Cavendish' was found to be resistant to the strain of Panama disease that afflicted the Gros Michel. The transition was at great economic cost and it was fortuitous that a resistant variety of banana was discovered. http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PanamaDiseasePart1.aspx http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Pana... The first trades relied almost entirely on ‘Gros Michel’ (28,32). In many ways, ‘Gros Michel’ is an ideal export banana. It produces massive bunches of large, flavorful fruit that are so resistant to mechanical damage that they could be shipped intact. The downfall of ‘Gros Michel’ was its extreme susceptibility to Panama disease. Panama disease was first reported in Australia, but became most important in the monocultures of ‘Gros Michel’ that were used by the trades in the Western Hemisphere. Panama was one of the first countries to experience major epidemics. It caused staggering losses in the trades before production areas converted to Cavendish. Between 1940 and 1960, 30,000 ha were lost in the Ulua Valley of Honduras, and in a decade complete losses were recorded in operations of 4,000 ha in Suriname and 6,000 ha in the Quepos area in Costa Rica. If one compiles figures up to 1960 and considers the substantial costs that were associated with plantation establishment, losses of approximately $400,000,000 can be attributed to Panama disease. Using a conservative conversion rate, this would be at least $2.3 billion in 2000 figures, and would be even greater if costs were included for unemployment, abandoned villages, unrealized income, and expenditures to maintain social stability in the affected regions. I'm sure you can guess what happens next. A strain of Panama disease that affects the Cavendish has appeared: http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PanamaDiseasePart2.aspx http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Pana... The confidence that Panama disease would not affect the Cavendish clones was shattered in the early 1990s. New Cavendish plantations began to succumb throughout Southeast Asia, the home of banana. This represented the first time that Cavendish was affected in the tropics in the absence of predisposing factors. The appearance of TR4 in Southeast Asia has changed this assessment. Once again the banana on which the export trades depend is threatened with destruction by Panama disease. Also affected are the important plantain cultivars that feed some 400 million people, as well as numerous cooking and dessert cultivars. In total, TR4 threatens more than 80% of the world’s banana production. Activities to monitor its spread and develop contingency plans for its arrival in other areas should be started as soon as possible.

pageld 13y ago

As a 1st world farm kid who regularly still 'helps' during fall and spring, this is what I have experienced. My parents don't run a ton of acres, but they definitely make a living off of it. Fossil Fuels/Brittleness It 'used' to be everyone at least rotated crops every year (corn, soy, wheat, corn) to put nitrogen back in the soil in a more natural process. Now, the rotations are more like corn, corn, corn, soy, corn. Since the soybeans aren't there to put nitrogen back in the soil, farmers use literal tons of oil produced nitrogen. When gas prices are high, my dad's not complaining about the 300 gallons of diesel a day per tractor he's using. He's talking about the increase in nitrogen prices. The price increases have made it so that farmers used to be able to break even at about 2.50 a bushel for corn. Now its something like 4.50. That's a huge jump when you're now getting 200+ bushels per acre and in the 1990's 170 bushels was a great year. Diversity A few years ago (can't quite remember) there was a huge scare of European corn borer destroying all of one type of corn. It was the crop equivalent of the bird flu scare. It turned out to not happen, but the possibility is still there. Now that we're less diverse one 'superbug' or bad weather year could take out everything.

derleth 13y ago
> Now that we're less diverse one 'superbug' or bad weather year could take out everything. This could also happen even if you were more diverse. Look at what happened to French wine grapes.