<Coal in an Engine does not need Fischer TropschThe Oil DrumUS News and World Report looks at Ethanol>
<DrumBeat: February 5, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: February 7, 2007>

259 comments on DrumBeat: February 6, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on February 6, 2007 - 8:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Leanan,
I ran across this while doing a bit of research on another posters link to a guy named Pain in France who uses a methane digester for all his energy needs.

Anyway...I ran across this in one of my college text books. It does give you a bit of a chill down your spine. From the book: "SOILS; An introduction to soils and plant growth" by Donahue, Miller and Shickluna. A standard college horticuture textbook still in use today, revised of course, but soil science hasn't changed all that much.

Page 153, TABLE 7-3 "Costs and yeilds at two locations of seven vegtables grown using commercial fertilizers and pesticides(chemical garden) compared to similiar gardens grown according to recommendations for organic gardening (1972)"

SITE 1

Chemical garden
Cost, total $147
Cost chems & ferts $12
Cost, hauling organic fertilizers $0
TOTAL YIELD lb's 1,768

Organic garden
Cost, total $212
Cost chems & ferts $0
Cost, hauling
organic fertilizers $22
TOTAL YIELD lb's 384

SITE 2

Chemical garden
Cost, total $119
Cost chems & ferts $12
Cost, hauling organic fertilizers $0
TOTAL YIELD lb's 1,056

Organic garden
Cost, total $111
Cost chems & ferts $0
Cost, hauling
organic fertilizers $22
TOTAL YIELD lb's 150

Source; R.C. Lambe and J.G. Petty, " 'Chemical Garden' Out-Yeilds 'Organic' Garden," Agri-news newspaper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 4, No 2(Feb 1973),1,3.

I won't debate if thier results are skewed by funding, and alot of knoledge has been gained in the 'Organic' realm since 72', but if these numbers are even relatively close...this isn't a pretty picture.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sgage on February 6, 2007 - 9:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"I won't debate if thier results are skewed by funding, and alot of knoledge has been gained in the 'Organic' realm since 72', but if these numbers are even relatively close...this isn't a pretty picture."

Not even remotely close, and probably not close even in '72. It sounds like total bullshit propaganda. Sponsored by Monsanto and whoever.

Organic yields today are typically 80-100% of "chemical garden" (ugh!) yields. The thing to keep in mind is that the chemical garden produce is mostly water and cellulose, and the organic produce actually contains nutrition. I.e., poundage of yield is irrelevant. The point isn't pounds of stuff per acre... it's human nutrition per acre, sustainably.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
semaley on February 7, 2007 - 10:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Add to this the synergy you get by growing more than on thing in a field and whole new dimension for measuring yield will emerge. Corn was never grown alone, until Europeans applied their own agricultural knowledge (or lack of). In fact, maize wasn't even eaten or used the way we see today. Soaked in wood ash, the nutritional profile changes significantly. This is to say nothing of the multitudes of plants cultivated in ways the Europeans wouldn't even recognize as a food production system. Science seeks to isolate to understand. However, nature depends upon synergy.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on February 7, 2007 - 5:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

many confuse hybrid sweetcorn (for kernels) with cornmeal varieties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SpeedEBikes on February 6, 2007 - 10:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I garden purely organically and from my 600 square foot back yard garden I get about 500 lbs of produce a year. From an urban lot surrounded by buildings and trees (ie only get partial sun) in the middle of Chicago.

I'd put my yields up against those of any conventional agriculture regardless of whatever magical chemicals and genetically modified seed they might use.

Most of the folks worrying about food shortages are probably those who don't know how to feed themselves.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fleam on February 6, 2007 - 11:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

SpeedEbikes horray for you, you're a member of the landowning class. From what I see around me, the vast majority of Americans are not of the landowning class and never will be.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SpeedEBikes on February 9, 2007 - 7:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The point I was trying to make is that fossil fuel based inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc) are unnecessary to produce adequate supplies of food. Perhaps your point is that our socio-economic system will prevent land from be appropriately utilized? That's a risk but it is not a problem without solutions.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.