Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
26. Or - think of it in a different way and it makes more sense
Thu Dec 12, 2013, 12:03 PM
Dec 2013

If you were given a few square feet of land, your choice of plants to grow, and unlimited time to care for them, do you think that (after a few trials) you could produce more food for that few feet than a modern farmer does in the same measure of land? Of course you could, and no great expertise would be required. If you have the time to optimize the plant mix, the watering and fertilizing, and make the most of every square inch with a succession of plants throughout a growing season, and give individual attention to your crops, of course you can outproduce, on a small scale, a professional farmer.

Look at "square foot gardening", for instance, which is currently a bit of a fad. It mixes varieties of plants in a way as to optimize the yield of a very small plot of land. It has a very high yield, and is very labor intensive.

Look at traditional practices, which have been very similar at various times and places. Farming, until recently in history, was the occupation of the majority of humans. Mostly it required a great deal of labor, and this was met in most cases by a high birthrate and large family sizes. On the death of the head of family, a common tradition was to divide the farm up between living males. Over time, of course, this often led to very small plots of land being intensely cultivated, in a way similar to "square foot gardening". The result was a very high yield per acre.

Look also at modern experiments on optimizing self-sufficiency, such as the "you can feed your family on 1/4 acre" thing. It can be done, there have been several studies, both practical and theoretical, and they all demonstrate higher yields per acre than modern mechanized agriculture. (or 1/10th of an acre - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NCmTJkZy0rM )

I don't mean to be overly argumentative, but I thought this was all common knowledge.

Again, modern agriculture optimizes profits, not yield.

took them long enough niyad Dec 2013 #1
No doubt they were right for their time, and worth exploring again, but that's only half the story. Geoff R. Casavant Dec 2013 #2
Yup! ffr Dec 2013 #5
The question no one wants to answer BrotherIvan Dec 2013 #10
I'll answer it LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #11
Nations are not isolated islands in a global economy NickB79 Dec 2013 #20
Exactly LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #22
The only thing farming innovations and crop improvements have ever done truebluegreen Dec 2013 #13
K&R DeSwiss Dec 2013 #3
The main problem however, is that it's hard work and... ffr Dec 2013 #4
I read a study which disagreed - that Asian traditional methods had the highest yield bhikkhu Dec 2013 #6
If that were true LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #12
Real farmers don't, but mechanized corporations do--Better Living Through Chemistry! truebluegreen Dec 2013 #14
Source? LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #24
You can't plant a 1000 acres of wheat or corn pscot Dec 2013 #15
It is true, but it is labor intensive bhikkhu Dec 2013 #16
I've seen no evidence of reduced yields LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #23
That's not the claim at all bhikkhu Dec 2013 #25
Or - think of it in a different way and it makes more sense bhikkhu Dec 2013 #26
Sorry LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #27
I suspect that you don't actually care at all, but here's a few anyway: bhikkhu Dec 2013 #29
Thank you LouisvilleDem Dec 2013 #34
You seriously can't follow a well reasoned argument without an outside reference? kristopher Dec 2013 #30
Sustainable agriculture is the future . . . Geoff R. Casavant Dec 2013 #7
Unless sustainable agriculture doesn't exist The2ndWheel Dec 2013 #9
If the only factor was pesticide use and species extinction, then that might be a good argument jeff47 Dec 2013 #8
Again, that's just not true bhikkhu Dec 2013 #17
You are talking about rice. One crop. jeff47 Dec 2013 #18
Bio-intensive, labor intensive agriculture produces 2-6 times the yield of industrial ag bhikkhu Dec 2013 #19
No, the papers do not say that. jeff47 Dec 2013 #21
You need to spend a summer on a working farm pscot Dec 2013 #28
Have you ever worked in the terraced paddies of China? kristopher Dec 2013 #31
I'm sure I'd remember if I had pscot Dec 2013 #32
How do you think the responses to bhikkhu's posts here kristopher Dec 2013 #33
There was some pushback pscot Dec 2013 #35
The dieting analogy is a good one kristopher Dec 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Turns out those old-fashi...»Reply #26