National Geographic Series on Food

Starting with the May issue, National Geographic Magazine is running an eight part series on "The Future of Food", which touches on some of the things that have been discussed here in recent threads. I thought some of y'all might enjoy it,

Thanks, Willy.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

I had to register, but so far that seems to have been free.

They make the same point that I've been reading lately about energy: the low-hanging fruit is still in reducing waste and relatively painless forms of "consuming less" (or consuming smarter).

I also like the way they resolve the "debate" about how to supply enough food as population rises: GMOs, even more modern agriculture, organic agriculture, or traditional agriculture. All of the above are needed, each where it makes the most sense.

Rick--Thanks for that link. I had just purchased the magazine because of the article; didn't think about getting it online. I wonder how a mag like NG can offer their content free?

I enjoyed the article, too. It reflects the concerns that prompted me to open the thread about organic practices being the "only choice" a few weeks or more ago.

Added: The striking bits of information in the article were the statements that humans farm an area the size of South American and run livestock over an area the size of Africa. I'd seen those areas represented as numbers (square miles/hectares/whatever), but comparing them to a known landmass is much more meaningful. As backyard farmers (for the most part anyway), we on DG tend, I think, to see agriculture as a very peaceful and pastoral process, when it is really quite destructive in terms of taking from Mom Nature and her lions and tigers and bears or pine forests and prairies and instead converting it for our own use.

This message was edited May 12, 2014 5:16 PM

There was also a diagram ("Step One") that seemed to break down the entire surface area of the planet into "cropland", "pasture" "unusable" and "in use".

The only "convertable" area looked like forest, desert, tundra and "erosion". Of those, maybe only 'forest' CAN be converted to agriculture. Next came "pasture", and the author did suggest that fewer people would starve if less beef was produced.

The idea that "all the above ideas" are needed makes sense to me. Maintain high yields but use organic methods and high-tech methods together, instead of brute-forcing high tech methods that are not sustainable. Increase yields in Third World countries using the "both" styles where practical.

Fantastic article. Thanks for sharing

Much as I have always enjoyed National Geographic, there were some big holes in the data and over-simplifications in their conclusions. For example, the insinuation that pasture/grassland/forests CAN be readily converted to cropland is pretty naive. In many cases that land would already be crop land if the conditions were right. Poor soils, shallow soils with rocky subsoils (or none at all), excessive slopes, no access to water for irrigation, too much water and/or seasonal flooding, poor drainage, high salinity, extreme temperatures - all are reasons that many grasslands and forested areas will NEVER be practical crop land unless we either redefine "crop" or discover a very cheap energy source that would allow us to fundamentally change the conditions (pumping water in/out, manufacturing and transporting fertilizers, even moving the products to areas of the world where they're needed).

>> the insinuation that pasture/grassland/forests CAN be readily converted to cropland is pretty naive. In many cases that land would already be crop land if the conditions were right.

I agree with you about 90-95%. I must have skipped over their insinuation and mentally inserted "Yeah, right, where [i]possible[/i].

I am guessing that some forests (like rainforests) are "under-utilized" by agriculture partly from location. Just because most rainforest-clearing projects turn into red mud and then erosion doesn't prove that EVERY forest is incapable of being 'upgraded' to arable.

Most, yes. And if a field is already used as pasture, someone probably would be farming it if it were practical.

As climate changes, I expect many areas to change their optimum land-use category. Hopefully we can adjust crops and practices to keep most arable land productive.

Maybe changed climate will bring some marginal lands into production if we're smart enough to manage that well, and not just destroy them with bad management.

My fear is that climate change won't be gradual and consistent over 50-year and 200-year changes, but rather go through a period of somewhat chaotic change during which we don't know from year to year or decade to decade what to expect locally and how to manage for it.

And one cheerful researcher was quoted in an MIT "Tech Review" article as speculating (or claiming) that insect pests and plant pathogens will typically adapt to changed weather faster than crops can, or faster than seed companies, or faster than farmers.

Old-style GMO techniques and conventional plant breeding might also have been too slow to cope with erratically-changing climate, but there is hope that CRISPR will let us rapidly mix-and-match genes from wild relatives of the same species without the fears aroused by transgenic DNA.

I dunno what you are looking at--Step One in what I read says: "Freeze Agriculture's Footprint". Maybe spend the money to buy the actual magazine instead of reading it for free online.

>> "Freeze Agriculture's Footprint"

OK.

I suppose an alternative interpretation would be "we had better not TRY to bring marginal lands into cultivation because that will usually fail". You're probably right that the article did not say that.

I tend to remember not so much what an author SAID as what I thought he OUGHT to have said.

The "Freeze" comment is exactly what I think, and have been thinking. We need to quit taking land from Mom Nature (IF we can do so and still feed NINE BILLION people). I don't think the point is about marginal lands so much as it is about the fact that we have already taken a hell of a lot of land from its "natural condition" and turned it into land to make food for us. The comparisons to South America and Africa were stunning to me. Agriculture IS NOT friendly--organic or "chemical". Agriculture needs to be EFFICIENT!

Don't mistake my message--we need to feed people before we save snail darters or spotted owls--but we need to realize the cost is to our environment--and our future.

Well, that was a rather snotty remark I made last night. No excuse for it at all. My sincere apology.

The June issue of Nat Geo is now online--it seems to be about aquaculture.

No problem at all.

Remember that I lived in New Jersey for a while, and people express themselves very freely there.

As an old Monty Python sketch said, about nailing people's heads to the floor: "Well, it's better than bottling it up, isn't it?!?"

If it bothers you (not me), you can always edit it to say what you meant in different words.

Deleting my remark seems kinda cheesy (tho I did delete an entire rant a couple of months ago)--better to let folks figure I'm just an A##.

I will say that I find it hard to read the online article, the way it seems to scroll both sideways and up/down. Having paper in my hands (harder on the environment--oh no!) is more comforting to me in my geezer years.

I have some relatives from the NE and (stereotype warning) they do seem refreshingly honest at times.

>> refreshingly honest

"Refreshingly honest"! That's TOO kind!

The NJ state bird is actually the middle finger, extended.

I was driving towards some intersection and saw a sweet young girl driving towards it from the opposite direction, speeding up so she'd get there first. I was so much closer that I got there first anyway, and took the turn first, "cutting her off" as they call almost every driving maneuver in NJ.

This sweet young thing leaned out her window and screamed foul abuse at me ... for doing what she was trying to do ... but doing it first.

As you say, she was "refreshingly honest".

- -

The SF TV show "Babylon 5" had one character who had received some para-military training (including unarmed combat skills). He had just finished beating up an entire BAR full of mean, rough-looking men.

He remarked that his trainers had "said I had a lot of repressed anger".

"But I'm not repressed any more!"

But their delis are to die for!

I agree.

The NE has delis and diners and pizza and bagels and (NJ/NY) rude people.

The PNW has beer and coffee and salmon and polite people.

BTW, here's an article about using tiny UAVs (drones) including helicopter-style UAVs, for agricultural mapping and crop surveys:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526491/agricultural-drones/

I want a flock of really cheap autonomous ground rovers the size of small cats, trained to pull weeds.

In the United States we have lost some of our prime agricultural land to growth and urban sprawl. Most of the cities were settled where the ground was the best and with time most of the best land has buildings and houses on it. With modern agricultual practices we are able to better utilize marginal land than we could in the past.

Thanks. I wouldn't have thought that charcoal would neutralize acid soil, but I guess so.

it reminds me how much civilization depends on fertile soil.

Low productivity agriculture dictates low population density,
which dictates no cities and little specialization of tasks and skills,
which dictate relatively little teaching, learning or innovation.

And low population density means that innovations don't spread and stimulate other innovations very well.

Jared Diamond, the author of "Guns, Germs and Steel" made a case that population density and specialization of labor (crafts and learning) came from early development of efficient agriculture and led to cities, technology and civilizations larger and more complex than tribes and clans.

Regions with easy transportation (plains) tended to share ideas faster than regions with poor natural routes of travel (mountainous). Progress towards technology tends to depend on "cross-fertilization" of many innovations.

Those gave head starts to a few centers of civilizations that developed specialized labor classes including soldiers as well as artisans and teachers.

Regions and tribes that lacked local crop species suitable for efficient agriculture lagged behind the luckier regions, and sometimes only acquired agriculture when they were conquered by a nearby state that got a head start from easy-to-domesticate grains or cattle and favorable geography.

http://www.ahshistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GUNS-GERMS-AND-STEEL.pdf

My take is that we don't want to convert any more land for agriculture, whether good or bad but improvable soil.

As to charcoal, which I am perhaps erroneously equating with wood ashes, it should be as good as lime for raising pH. Down here in the great SW (nice people and good chiles), folks are cautioned not to add wood ashes to our already alkaline soils. Wood ash has potash, which is good, but high pH, which is bad.

>> As to charcoal, which I am perhaps erroneously equating with wood ashes, it should be as good as lime for raising pH.

I was thinking about "biochar" which attempts to minimize the ash and maximize the "charcoal".

But I would assume that producing charcoal without advanced technology WOULD produce a lot of wood ashes, and you sure are right, those neutralize acidity.

I've heard the claim that biochar is "good for soil" but never really understood how or why.

In the link you posted, they may have said "charcoal", but the side-product "wood ash" might have been what really corrected the acid soil.

I too have heard about biochar and its "wonders", but never looked into it. Not sure if it's a truly good thing or just marketing hype. Anyone out there who can chip in on this with accurate info?

Guns, Germs, and Steel was a good read.

I was impressed that the link above offers a free PDF download. I haven;'t checked yet to see if it includes full text, tables and figures.