A World Without Fertilizer

Sounds like a bunch of manure to me Brad.

And Brad, I'm riffing off on the organic future part, not the phosphorus supply, which does sound like a real upcoming problem.

On the P needed for glyphosate issue.  It's worth mentioning that roung-up ready sugarbeets are going to wide spread production this year, and will be an additional crop vying for a limited supply.

As an organic farmer, I'm quite curious about jet's dismissal of organic farming as "manure". Care to elaborate? What's your field of work/study and how does it inform your views on that?

Regarding the phosphorous shortage, I can't say whether or not that's for real. But the current practices of industrial conventional farming are quite comparable to our overall economy's practices, in that they rely on an ever-increasing spiral of resource consumption which is, in the long run, unsustainable both environmentally and economically. When you base your agriculture on synethic inputs, of course you're going to eventually run out of said inputs.

Monsanto's vision of farming relies on requiring farmers to purchase fertilizer and pesticides in ever-increasing amounts. Their stock doesn't go up by encouraging conservation and less consumption. Besides, there are far more problems with the use of genetically-modified crops and synthetic fertilizers that are not directly related to phosphorous use, and which we  may or may not get into depending on whether this thread goes anywhere.

literate,

It was a joke.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any pressing issue I have with organic farming, other than it can be shitty work.

Well said Hobo.

I'd recommend this to you (he's a bit on the lefty side mind you, (very lefty) but you should get something from it) www.amazon.com/.../ref=pd_bbs_sr_1

"Besides, there are far more problems with the use of genetically-modified crops and synthetic fertilizers that are not directly related to phosphorous use, and which we  may or may not get into depending on whether this thread goes anywhere."

I'd definitely be interested! I'm familiar with the criticism that Monsanto leaves farmers indebted to them, but I'm sure there's a ton more besides...

literatehobo i have to take issue with your statement

 "Monsanto's vision of farming relies on requiring farmers to purchase fertilizer and pesticides in ever-increasing amounts. Their stock doesn't go up by encouraging conservation and less consumption."

If you look at the RR technology you can see that, because glyphosate is a non-selective and very effective herbicide, producers don't need to apply as much total herbicide versus a conventional variety.  I think it's more fair to say Monsanto (and Bayer, Syngenta, or Pioneer) want you to buy more product form them (at a higher cost vs the generic, obviously).  Not buy more and more product over-all.

Additionally it's fair to note the these large biotech companies are working on N-fixation is crops like corn, which would lead to huge profit losses if they only cared about selling fertilizer.

I would think it be more fair to knock Monsanto on there marketing of biotech. traits and triple stack varieties in places that don't need the technology, and producers are in essence paying for technology they'll never see a benefit from.

It's called Agribusiness Brad.

The miracles of the marketplace have created hybrid seeds with lower yields that force farmers to write a an annual cheque.

Hybrid seeds also eliminate the trade in seeds by farmers outside of the multinationals control. The global concentration of hybrid seed patients (that's patents on food BTW, the very basic essential of life) into the hands of a small concentration of multinationals effectively laid the ground for the GMO seed revolution.

The private monopoly that we have today was enabled through "vertical integration" which brought "economies of scale". Rockfeller's funding of Jimnah coincided with the roll back of carefully constructed US governemnt regulations on health, food and consumer protection, which of course was escalated under Regean's drive for freedom.

Freedom has also resulted in such delights as the "terminator" seed, or Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, which is a seed that won't reproduce. Thereby ensuring that the vast majority of farmers (third world), who are too poor to be able to pay Monsanto's licence, have to...well pony up the dough or maybe even get an IMF loan.

As Henry said: "If you control oil, you control nations, if you control food, you control people".

Jet,

No worries. The internet just doesn't know how to convey humor.

Brad,

Oh, where to start?

(1) GMO crops actually encourage pest problems. Let's say you've got 1,000 acres of soybeans engineered to take a specific pesticide. No matter how often you spray that field, you will never kill 100% of the insects giving you trouble. It's just not possible. The 1-10% remaining will naturally be the ones that are most resistant to the given pesticide (farmers are subject to Darwin, too, whether or not they want to believe it). Thus, you start the next year with a population of pests breeding from the top percentile of pesticide-resistant genes. So you spray them with the same pesticide again, and I think you can guess what happens. Thus, not only do you naturally breed super-pests with ever-increasing resistance to a given pesticide, you have to apply more and more of that pesticide in an attempt to keep up with the problem. Monsanto, of course, has no problem with both selling more pesticides every year, but also researching ever-new and different pesticides in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve. Works wonders for their profits and shareholders, but it traps farmers into that cycle of ever-increasing reliance on purchased inputs. You also generate the side problem that these extra-resistant pests are going to spread to other folks' fields, causing them more trouble.

(2) GMO crops raise our risk of crop failure due to disease or weather events. When you have monocultures of genetically identical crops, one event can/will wipe out the whole thing. One 1,000 acre field of one type of corn is far more likely to be wiped out by an event than 10 100 acre fields of 10 different types of corn. Historically, there are hundreds if not thousands of varieties of corn, each with their own subtle differences in immunities, resistance, climate preferences, etc. We have almost entirely eradicated that genetic diversity and replaced it with only a few varieties that may work better under just the right circumstances, but on a larger scale are far more susceptible to problems. If a new corn disease ever arises that happens to like a specific Monsanto corn, it could wipe out most of the American corn industry in one swoop. And this gets more likely every year, for the same logical genetic reasons discussed above for pests.

(3) As you note, Monsanto (and its colleagues) has created a culture of dependency among grain farmers, such that many feel they are locked into buying from the company rather than doing anything themselves. Monsanto has actually successfully sued farmers for saving seed, and has even sued organic farmers whose crops were contaminated by GMO pollen for “copyright infringement”. With Monsanto’s encouragement, the Federal Government has changed crop insurance policies such that farmers can now get lower rates if they plant GMO crops, because these crops are supposedly lower-risk.

I can keep going, but my wife is already very annoyed that TNR has started this blog, as I am spending far too much time on it and not enough working. We are attempting to exploit a very rainy and stormy day to get our seasonal planting plans and field maps in order, and this is not helping!

Thanks for paying some attention to these issues, though. Let’s just start with those three complaints and go from there.

Yikes! The Ignorant Populist you're facts are a bit off.

Hybrid varieties are used because they are higher yielding, using a mechanism called heterosis where by the offspring has greater fitness then either parent.

Also not all crops are hybrids or patented.  If you enjoyed any pasta lately it most likely came form a publicly released (via public university) variety of durum.  

The terminator technology is not being used at all in any crops, so you can't fault a company for having knowledge.

Brad

What literatehobo is saying in his scenarios 1 and 2 is for the most part true.  However, the problem isn't the biotech companies it's the farmers.

A producer with any common sense rotates crops from year to year.  Within the rotation they should alternate grasses (corn) and broadleaves (soybean).  While true that both soybean and corn are round-up ready, if a producer has a problem with resistant weeds they can apply additional grass herbicide in the years they plant soybean and then additional broadleaf herbicide the years they plant corn.

Resistant weeds or any other pest are important to deal with, that's why responsible producers use more then one tool to control pest.  They'll use a scheme called integrated pest management (IPM) which uses many different methods to control pests.  A good IPM that uses mechanical (tillage), cultural (rotation), biological (predators) and chemical (glyphosate) techniques to control pests.

On #3 Farmers are no more locked into using monsanto's products then i am locked into this blog.  They'll choose to buy seed and technology from what ever company they want, just like i choose to do this.

Peter,

At risk of sounding a snob, which I am, I am far less likely to take seriously the comments of someone who cannot capitalize or use apostrophes correctly. My writing is not perfect, but attempting to debate scientific agriculture with middle-school writing does not combine well.

That being said, a few quick notes. Could it be that Monsanto is working on N-fixation in corn because the nutrional depletion of our farm soil has gotten so bad that no amount of fertilizer can now make up for it? What purpose does N-fixing corn serve when a simple rotation of legumes and winter cover crops within corn plantings will fix and preserve N perfectly adequately (and did for centuries until Monsant got its hands on farming)?

Regarding your comments on hybrids, you are correct that hybrids are often higher-yielding and more uniform, and the nature of the seed/variety is very dependant on the crop being discussed. One cannot lump everything into one basket, although I think Iggy is on the right track in his comments. The downside of hybrid seeds relates to my comments above, regarding the increasing concentration of seed varieties into a few more susceptable varieties that set us up for both local and worldwide problems down the road.

One last note to all reading this, keep in mind that all this debate is about only a few specific crops, some of which are not even really good. Most Federal subsidies go to corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and sugar. Cotton is not food, commodity corn and soybeans require serious processing to become food, and only wheat and sugar are used in something remotely like their original form (the cornfields of Iowa don't grow edible corn; eat that stuff and you'd have to see a dentist. It's not sweet corn). There are no/few subsidies for vegetables or fruit; keep that in mind as it relates to our health crisis.

Peter, I welcome the debate. Please forgive me, if I'm a bit hysterical, I've spend years in the Spine.

A couple of thoughts:

Are you saying that hybrid seeds, as sold by the multinationals, do not have a built in protection against multiplication? There are negatives to using hybrid seeds, are there not? What about possible yield improvements from traditional practice, as opposed to having to use high yield hybrids that are very dependent on chemical inputs?

Wheat, rice, soybean and cotton are not normally grown from hybrid's, so my pasta was rather tasty but outside the point I'm trying to hysterically make.

The terminator gene WAS the great white hope of the industry, and may still make a comeback. It's lack of use, is certainly not down to any ethical concerns from those evil multinationals...

I'm pasting the below copyright lawyers:

Andrew Simms of Christian Aid, a development charity, said the move was a major reverse: "Terminator technology was the lynchpin of a strategy to protect corporate royalties in developing countries.

"Up until last year, the US Department of Agriculture [who own a key patent] expected that within a short period of time you would not be able to find seeds that did not use terminator technology."

Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth said the move was an attempt by the food giant to win favour in the press. "It is only a gesture and it will cost them nothing. There is nothing to stop them introducing it at a later date."

End copyright infringement.

So, if it wasn't for conspircacy left-wing nuts putting the spotlight on this technology, we'd already have to deal with the terminator gene in crops.

literatehobo is right on so many levels regarding the many negative aspects of the endless cycle that Monsanto and their counterparts have managed to trap farmers in. While there are certain benefits to engineering/breeding certain crops for higher yield, Monsanto et al are not really interested in saving the world. Their interests lay in creating a dependent market for their products only.

The worst part is many farmers are required to sign contracts that they use Monsanto's Roundup Ready crop seed in order to use Roundup. And while Monsanto can stand there and public say GMO crops pose no danger to non-GMO crops within proximity to that, corn crops in Mexico are showing signs of RR-GMO traits  and GMO-crops are illegal in Mexico.

Another fine example of Monsanto's cure for no ill is their GMO-alfalfa crop for alfalfa farmers. Which in essence has created a super-weed that doesn't stay put and then is cross-pollinated to produce the next round of resistance.

literatehobo also brings up the dangers of monocrops being susceptible to single disease crop failure or susceptible to pollination failure by honey bees which pollinate 80% of the food crops in the U.S.

Many organic farmers are turning to native and wild pollinators to do what honey bees aren't doing.

But what these reports point out in no uncertain terms is that a shite-load of the world is out of balance and much of that is of our own making. Perhaps the phosphate shortage would result in continued growth of urban and rural farming coops.

Here are a few articles about the alfalfa issue and the growing issues w/ bees and pollinators. These are a bit old but High Country News tends to be months ahead of the MSM curve on many of these issues.

www.hcn.org/.../hcn.Article

www.hcn.org/.../hcn.Article

www.hcn.org/.../hcn.Article

I think you're downplaying the level of monopoly in the agribusiness area Peter.

Consider this:

4 large corporations control 84% of all beef packaging in the US

2 GMO giants control 60% of US corn and soybean seed.

And so...

You might say, so what?

There are cases of extreme abuse, for example 40 Million pounds of antibiotics are used every year raising food animals, most commonly Peniclllin and Tetracyline. The result? An epidemic of food related diseases in humans resulting from eating meat pumped full of antibiotics, and that's the USDA hysterical view, not mine. Not to mention the emergence of bacteria increasingly resistent to anti-biotics.

Or take giant dairy factory CAFO - their cow's leaked fecal matter into the ground water pushing nitrate levels of drinking water up over 400%.

Why? Because we need to "get government of our backs" and deregulate key industries that are essential to the public good. Technology is neutral but private monopolies are inherently a bad thing.

No wonder the Pentagon's national defence university issued a paper: "Agribusiness is to the US what oil is to the Middle East."

On the Monsanto N-fixing issue, I agree that the state of the soils on most agricultural land is terrible.  But a potential N-fixing Corn would be a huge benefit in helping to combat the degradation of the soils, not a hindrance.

Where I live we can expect a 40-50lbs N-credt from a legume as the previous crop.  To reach 140bu/a yield for corn there is a recommendation of 175lbs of N, planting legumes alone won't meet the N-demand.

Producers are planting higher yielding varieties with a higher N requirement.  If we want to go back to a time where we can do a legume-corn rotation there is going to be some loss of yield,  and unless a producer taps into a high value market (like organic) they won't be as profitable.

I'm not as convinced that hybrids are contributing to a problem of uniformity.  I can't speak for corn, but in canola at least, hybrids that have parents that are very far apart genetically tend to yield better versus a hybrid with two genetically close parents.  So although the seed the producer is buying is all very genetically uniform the parents the seed companies use to make the hybrids is very genetically distinct

On Populists question about do seed companies having build in mechanisms to restrict multiplication.  If you don't count contracts, then no. The fact that it's hybrid seed means that all the seed produced from the plant will segregate into 3 distinct genetic populations,  50% will remain as high quality as the hybrid is, but the other 50% will revert back to the lower quality of the parents.  For a producer the cost of saving the seed might not out weigh the loss of quality the seed has.

I need to say this:

GMO really isn't the best term to describe these traits in question.  If you think about it all crops are GMOs, every selection made is for a desired trait, which in-turn changes the genetics of a population.  Transgenic is more accurate because traits are transfered across species.

I'm totally with you on the beef thing.  

I don't mean to down-play the monopoly the big companies have on technology, because they own most the traits.  However, producers always have a choice on what crops to plant.  I am just wary of blaming Monsanto for meeting the demands of the producers, who are really just meeting the demands of the consumers, who just want cheap food.  Monsanto and their ilk aren't wonderful by any means but we can't blame them for meeting our demands.

Peter,

And WHY is the state of soils so terrible? Because of the increasing influence of industrial agriculture. You're giving a perfect example of the cyclical argument that Monsanto uses; the worse things get, the more we need fertilzer inputs and soil modifications, despite the fact that this type of agriculture creates that problem in the first place. No organic farm needs the levels of inputs you're talking about, because we manage our soils correctly in the first place. You actually capture the difference quite nicely by saying

"Producers are planting higher yielding varieties with a higher N requirement.  If we want to go back to a time where we can do a legume-corn rotation there is going to be some loss of yield,  and unless a producer taps into a high value market (like organic) they won't be as profitable."

One of the fundamental problems here is that industrial agriculture is addicted to ever-higher yields, with no regard to the consequences. There is a natural limit to what is appropriate to plant and grow in any one piece of land, yet industrial agriculture insists on violating that limit through over-production and planting on marginal land, thus creating the cycle that is so profitable to Monsanto and so damaging for farmland and farmers. There is a culture in modern grain farmers that says you're a failure if you don't increase your yields every year, regardless of the consequences to soil quality and commodity price.

You can claim that ever-higher yields are necessary for farmers to stay in business, but that fact is that over the last 50 years of industrial farming, we continue to lose farms at an alarming rate. It isn't working for most people, those higher yields have kept the price low and degraded the soil to the point that more and more small family farms go out of business, sacrifced at the altar of higher yield and effciency. The system does NOT work. Organic is the first recognition that there are values to farming and food beyond profit and efficiency, and a demand for more sustainable, sensible practices that will overall keep more farmers in business than 10% more soybeans squeezed out of an already overused field.

Also, you're missing the point on hybrid diversity. It's not that the hybrid crop is identical within itself, it's that the hybrid overall contains less genetic diversity than a comparable heirloom variety. Also, though this is not the fault of any individual hybrid, the rise of uniform hybrid varieties has obliterated so many of the different heirloom varieties that together compromise a greater pool of genetic diversity. Look at it this way: if we bred a certain type of warbler that sang just the way we wanted it, and that warbler replaced almost all the other warblers in the world, we would lose a great deal of resistance to various bird diseases. Our hybrid warbler might well have a diverse internal population, but at a larger scale it can't possibly compare to the natural reserve of genes that 1,000s of naturally evolved warblers contain, and you're setting yourself up for problems.

This is the last I can post today. Thanks for contributing to a valuable discussion that's far more worthwhile than horse races. We're obviously on different sides of agriculture, but I appreciate your time, and informed opposition is far better than ignorance. I'll check back on this tomorrow if I can, but I am generally not in front of a computer so it's difficult to keep up with these discussions. I wish TNR had started this blog over the winter!

My area of expertise isn't agriculture, but I've found the discussion, my early comments excluded, interesting.

Some questions for the more informed, corn for example, the more corn knowledgable than me can maybe help me.  How do heirloom varieties stand up to Puccinia sorghi (rust)?  How do they hold out against Ustilago maydis (smut)?  How does a stand of heirloom tolerate light to moderate hail?  Heirloom varieties, some growing up to 10 ft., have broader leaves than modern hybrids, thus reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the lower areas's of the plant reducing their yield. And, once knocked into leaning over by hail, these broader leaves cover more of the leaves of neighboring plants thus reducing their yield.  Wind also causes this problem, so stalk strength is another factor.  An area modern corn hybrids focus on is stalk strength to prevent plants from leaning or falling and covering leaves on neighboring plants, thus reducing yield and suger production.  How large and deep are heirloom corn plants root cluster?  Again, a stable plant prevents the afore mentioned problems.  Admittedly going 'for the gusto' for yield can play into the profit margin of the the super conglomerates, Monsanto and Dupont.  But, if a modern hybrid can produce more ears of corn on a single plant with a useable sugar concentration than an heirloom variety, doesn't that reduce the number of plants that have to be planted, thus reducing areal land, water and fertilizer usage?  How do heirloom varieties stand up to drought resistance?  And how about that granddaddy of them all, how do heirloom varieties hold up against Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) (European Corn Borer)?

So I'm just asking for help on these issues.

Finally, this photo may contain one answer to to Brads question, on Tuesday earlier this week, I drove by one of these (the eight wheeler) being filled before being led off into the fields in my area:

www.jhoule.com/.../pageallfiches.asp

May everyone (myself included) eat a little shit every now and then.

(and yes, that's a crappy joke)

Literatehobe,

I agree with your belief that the state of agriculture today is non-sustainable and not the best long term plan a farm could make, but I think blaming the technology companies isn't the solution.

I agree that there is a need to maintain genetic diversity, but i don't see how asking producers to use lower quality heirloom varieties solves any problems.  The hybrids build off the advances within the heirloom varieties and why not take advantage of that?  To continue your warbler analogy, the new hybrid warblers are just replacing older types of warbles that we developed.

Jet,

To answer your question about disease tolerance of hybrids v heirloom you'd have to ask a corn breeder.  But keep in mind that any resistance trait that are in the newer varieties was most likely first identified in an heirloom, or open pollenated variety.  

I'm not familiar with the heirloom varieties, but for all the resources they take up modern hybrid corn only produces 1 ear.

Peter,

I will fully agree that "blaming the technology companies isn't the solution". I focused on that in this discussion because I think their role in this issue needs to be more widely understood, but it is far from the only factor. As I believe you alluded to earlier, the fundamental factor driving all of this is consumer demand. If people did not insist on the cheapest food possible, regardless of consequences, we would see a very different agricultural system. It's the same dynamic as Walmart; whatever that company's sins (and they are many), ultimately it's the Ameican consumer demanding cheap goods that fuels Walmart's success. I have little sympathy for rural towns that complain there are no jobs left, when the same folks flocked to every Walmart that opened and undercut all the regional businesses that gave them their jobs. Detroit auto workers complaining about their company's condition should ask themselves how long ago they started choosing cheaper goods, undercutting all the other American manufacturers whose employees purchased their cars. So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around in the entire agricultural sector. Blaming Monsanto isn't the answer, but acknowledging that its practices have contributed greatly to the problem is important.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that we all switch back to heirlooms. I have no problem with hybrids per se. I'm pointing out that the justifiable use of hybrids often leads to a loss of overall diversity, and we need to balance our use of improved strains with maintaining a diverse genetic bank overall. For example, farmers all over the country shouldn't be planting the same hybrid, because local conditions are going to be different between, say, ND and OH. So we need to find a balance there. This is where my criticism of Monsanto et al. comes in, because they are one of the largest factors pushing for uniformity in agriculture.

You're absolutely right that all varieties have been "improved" somehow; the bad heirlooms have long since been weeded out. My argument is that industrial agriculture has long since tipped the balance too far toward uniformity and yield over diversity and sustainability.

Jet,

"if a modern hybrid can produce more ears of corn on a single plant with a useable sugar concentration than an heirloom variety, doesn't that reduce the number of plants that have to be planted, thus reducing areal land, water and fertilizer usage?  How do heirloom varieties stand up to drought resistance?"

In theory, yes, and this is why I have no problem with hybrids per se. Naturally breeding hybrids is simply good practice; farmers have been creating their own hybrids for thousands of years, which eventually become heirlooms if they've been around long enough and developed into open-pollinated varieties.  The danger is when we get over-reliant on just a few types. Also, your scenario breaks down when modern agriculture becomes addicted to ever-higher yields. You're assuming that a farmer planting a hybrid will be aiming for the same yield as he got with an heirloom, and hopiing to reduce land use and inputs. That's not what happens. More likely, that farmer now goes out and plants the corn even tighter, and on even more land, so he can squeeze even more producion and profit out of the same piece. This race to the top/bottom explains much of the degredation of our soil and resources. Our current vision of farming is closer to factory production than true agriculture.

If we shifted our agricultural mindset to "appropriate production for climate and soil conditions" rather than "maximum production that science can squeeze out", we would effect a great deal of positive change in our agricultural system.

"If we shifted our agricultural mindset to "appropriate production for climate and soil conditions" rather than "maximum production that science can squeeze out", we would effect a great deal of positive change in our agricultural system."

While defensible enough as a statement of fact, it is an incredibly naive and US-centric statement of policy principle:

Take a look at the third (blue-green) map on this page: sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/.../hanpp.html.  Note East Asia and the Indian subcontinent.  Human appropriation of the ecosystems total ability to product iw already in the 60-100% in these areas.   They have no reasonable choice other than to maximize production, if they wish to feed, house and clothe themselves, and offer an improving quality of life for their children.

Now, that doesn't make convential agriculture the right answer, or organic the wrong one, but let's open our eyes beyond the incredibly rich and sparsely populated (by humans) soils of temperate North America, when we talk about tuning down our emphasis on production.

LiterateHobo,

 Agreed.

But they do plant different varieties in ND and OH.  ND has a shorter growing season then OH so if ND farmers planted the OH varieties they wouldn't yield well at all.  It gets even more stratified in that producers in southern ND plant longer-day varieties and producers in northern plant shorter day varieties.

However, if you're talking about how all of these different varieties are cut from the same tree, i agree that this is not a great idea

sdemuth...I think we need to keep a distinction between producing food grains for export and direct human consumption like rice, legumes, wheat, heirloom corn, and the high industrial demands for grains grown specifically for manufacturing ethanol and food additives like high fructose corn syrups and soy additives. The majority of corn now grown in the US is not for food export but is being converted to ethanol and refined sugar products.

And it's not U.S. centric to expect more food to be locally grown. Why? One, local economies can develop their own local agriculture. Globalized food exports doesn't necessarily benefit the recipients when local farmers, already practicing low intensity farming are forced out of business because of cheap subsidized imports with lost nutrient value due to shipping, the treatments needed to preserve the foods for transport and ironically enough...the taste.

One of the bigger issues that is not said is that in addition to the high intensity farming practices - fertilizer inputs, pesticide and herbicide applications, soil nutrient depletion - that are associated with monocrop production and especially corn is the high water demand as well.

In several areas of the southwest, California, and the midwest, you have increased salination of the soils due to high intensity farming and the salts that leach out of the soils due to irrigation techniques. Not only do you end up in an endless cycle that literatehobo talked about it also forces an endgame. A good example is by the time the Colorado River theoretically reaches the Baja of California it's salinity level is equal to the seawater. And I say theoretically because it's drawdowns for irrigation and consumptive use means no or very little water reaches Mexico.

Food shortages, coupled with potable and usable water sources will only increase around the globe. If you want a good example of how to turn fertile valleys into desert think of the Fertile Crescent. High intensity irrigation and farming techniques that took centuries to deplete the carrying capacities of those soils. We've managed to degrade the natural carrying capacity of soils in the US in 80 years!

Couple the coming energy shortages, threatened water supplies, rising fuel costs and raw material competition with China, India and elsewhere and the whole large scale farming practices will shrink. Localized farming will become the norm again. Certainly not at the level of pre-WW2  but I would predict that we'll see a shrinking of the large scale distribution of cheap junk foods because they'll become more expensive to make due to scales of economy and demand. More localized food production will take place on a smaller scale and even a return to seasonal food consumption.

The bigger issues are that the industrial high yield farming practices of non-food crops, marginal nutritional food quality crops and the degrading water qualities will only become more exacerbated by maintaining a status quo system that currently showing signs of breaking. How we address these issues so that we can ensure the US maintains high quality agricultural products for the foreseeable future is imperative but a knee-jerk reaction on the side of high-yield or death doesn't address the fact that the system is breaking down.

Very quick lunchtime comments:

Peter,

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I shouldn't have implied that all farmers plant exactly the same variety as that's obviuosly not true, but all the commonly used varieties still represent a concerningly narrow slice of the overal genetic pool. This, as you agree, is not a good thing.

singlespeed,

Well said, capturing much of what I might have added with more time. Thanks.

singlespeed: My whole point was that not maximizing production looks like an elitist (US-centric) option when you are in a part of the world where humans already claim nearly 100% of the available biological production.  You respond with a non sequitor - a critique of the US system that says OUR system is unsustainable.

I don't necessarily disagree with your critique of American agriculture - but in a global context, talk about producing less food and fiber, so we can be more ecologically correct, is likely to be received as fundamentally elitist.  That's my point, and until it is addressed by the local-organic movement beyond hand waiving, they will continue to lack credibility in my eyes.

Can organic heirloom tomatoes really feed the world? That’s the question Paul Roberts asks in a new article