View Full Version : Hmm...
September 08, 2010, 22:26
Not saying I agree or disagree - just keeping an open mind knowing that we have too many eaters on the planet at the moment...
September 09, 2010, 08:54
As a farmer, I don't believe there is any conspiracy of the magnitude depicted in the video. My brother and I raise mostly wheat and lentils. The video talked about cattle and I am not very knowledgeable regarding the current situation in cattle.
It seems to me that most government entities involved in world hunger are interested in growing food and distributing it to the "poor" countries. This has been going on since WWII or earlier. It has been a dismal failure. Just look at Africa and Haiti. The population rapidly grows to match any amount of food we can give to them. The middle east would be the same except they have oil to buy the food, but their population is growing rapidly without bounds and they could not possibly feed their current population in the area they live in.
I can firmly say, we are way beyond the point where we could support the world's population without fertilizers (based on natural gas) and herbicides (based on oil). When these resources run short, food production will fall and we will not be able to feed the world's population. The population density in the US is low enough, we can currently feed ourselves and export about 80% of the wheat we produce. When Canada, Australia and the US stop exporting all that food, Africa, Haiti, and the middle east will experience famine beyond anything the world has ever seen before.
I believe it is a time bomb waiting to go off and I don't see any way of defusing the bomb with any means we would consider ethical. The video depicts a conspiracy of the elite to thin the herd to a more manageable level. It might be true, but I don't see the effects of it here on the farm yet.
September 09, 2010, 13:41
Those were my thoughts on the video clip...tin foil hat stuff.
Fertilizers and Petroleum products are what makes the agricultural world go 'round right now. Oh, and cheap energy to run the machinery, pump the water and move the results to where it gets eaten. We really shouldn't expect to support the current world population at it's current level with the cream of 1930's technology. If we are forced to bounce back to the cream of 1890's technology, then all bets are off and even the US is going to be hurting for food.
I know that I can support the family on about 15 - 20 carefully selected acres here on the margins of the Willamette valley area. That includes taking into account bad harvests occasionally and other ills that befall a subsistence level agricultural set up. That is definitely not the case with most of the world.
Lots of talk on the interweb about forcing farmers and ranchers to do all sorts of stuff with chipping and such...haven't seen it though. There is lots of good science about sustainable agriculture available, lots of really good heirloom / open pollinated seed stock available too. Lots of good arable land available as well. That paradigm won't support the current world population levels.
I'm not seeing the practicality of the UN taking over and controlling most food resources and in turn using that to control population though. It may seem like it would work at the macro level, but not so much on the level of the hungry person looking for their next meal. Hungry people tend to get REALLY creative. (and conservative)
September 10, 2010, 08:00
Read "The Last Centurion" by John Ringo.
It explains alot about modern agriculture and what would happen without modern fertilizers and pesticides.
September 10, 2010, 21:01
I'm with Nick on this for the most part. We are being lied to most of the time inasmuch as total gran supplies on hand by the USDA (supposedly the farmer's friend, yeah right) and other reporting agencies. We are no longer (for at least the last 20 years or so) a local supply/demand market. We are a world market, and if local suppliers can't get sufficient cheap supplies of needed grain from U.S. farmers, they call up their Indian or Aussie, etc., suppliers and have it shipped. That's pretty much why this Russian wheat predicament is having market affects worldwide. No one keeps sufficient supplies for their own use anymore, instead counting on other countries to fill their needs when the time comes. Russians are having a tremendous shortage of wheat yields this year, and the rest of the world didn't really have as much on hand (carryout) as we had been told all these years. In fact, some agencies had so much as intimated that if the U.S. didn't raise any wheat for several years, we still had enough. These kinds of comments are what are used to keep prices artificially low. Nick's comment in Haiti and other like countries is spot on, just like feeding a pack or rats, the pack just keeps on growing as long as we keep on feeding them.
The "greenies" do more in this country to stifle the food supply and disrupt the chain than anyone else. The crappy economy the last year or so but the kibosh on livestock demands, and some trimmed back herds to reflect the decrease in demand, but the greenies got vast amounts of federal land in the northern states shut off from being leased by large beef cow heads. Millions of head of momma cows went to butcher last year due to no place to graze. Greenies felt like wild horses needed this land more than we needed to eat. Get ready to start paying more for you beef in the not too distant future when demand finally picks back up and the supply isn't there.
The U.S. farmer can oversupply this earth in a heartbeat if given the opportunity, but re-itterating the comment above, the more we feed the rats (the third world and welfare folks) the more they breed. It's a vicious circle.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.