More on GMO's

[Forester]

I don't really have an opinion on the bill, but the more food forests I see and taste, the more convinced I am that the "problems" GMO's attempt to treat are just symptoms of monoculture. When plants mature in an area of great biodiversity (e.g. in a food forest), they grow up stronger -- and tastier. I'm not saying there will never be problems in polyculture -- there are often short periods of imbalance in nature -- but with all the talk of how certain "strains" of species are more resistant to disease, it's important to note that the environment that shapes the development of the single life of a single plant has an enormous effect on that plant's health and disease resistance. Monoculture is a good way of growing weak plants.

[Rob Tucker]

I don't get it. We are seven billion hungry people on this planet, and that number increases daily, and people think that world hunger will be solved with small diversified heirloom gardens? Give me a break.

[Forester]

Rob, the short answer to your question is "yes."

First, I agree that population is the underlying problem. If we're ever to solve any of our problems, that has to be addressed.

Second, I'm not saying that polycultural farming has higher yields -- frankly, I don't know. (Though I wouldn't be surprised.) But what I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt is that, even on a small urban lot, you can grow enough food to feed a family of four and never depend on any other source of food. I know because there are families who do it here in Los Angeles. There is one family near me in Pasadena who does it, and they have more food than they can eat or sell. Which is fine -- they just compost it and put it back into their plants.

The qualifier to your question is that you used the word "heirloom." You can start a food forest by designing it. You just have to keep biodiversity in mind and work with nature instead of against it.

[Rob Tucker]

The short answer is "no".

One productive farmer can feed 500 or more. There is not enough fertile land on earth to provide each family of four with an urban growable lot and not that many people really are interested in farming at all... of any kind.

It sounds like pure fantasy to me. For those that want to great. They are free to do so and I hope they succeed.

[wax]

Rob is right. The other part of the equation is that Forester states that "population is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed. Now we get into massive government type controls. As an Earth community it is far wiser to deal with growth as a given than to think that someone somewhere will stop people from reproducing. Furthermore - who gives anyone the right to control such a thing. Forester, what if your parents had been assigned the number "zero" as their allowed increase? No, that would not work. Better by far to plan for a way to produce and distribute sufficient food. If some is not needed - that can be dealt with.

[Forester]

Rob, productive soil can be built. The fact that families have built productive soil in Los Angeles is a testament to that; without irrigation, this place is a desert. And if a tiny, urban, Los Angeles lot can feed a family of four, then your average family is in a good position to grow their own food, since most single-family lots are larger. Whether people are "interested" in doing it is beside the point. The point is that they can. As the costs of shipping food across the country/world increase, it will become more important to realize that you don't have to outsource food production to a couple of guys in Iowa and Kansas.

Wax, I don't think government controls are necessary. At some point, people will realize that we live on a planet of fixed resources and that infinite growth is not possible. I think change will come about via education and cultural changes.

[Rob Tucker]

An interesting and short read from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02...-s-frenemy

" the movement to eliminate genetically modified crops — GMOs — from food is turning out to be organic's false friend. The non-GMO label has become a cheaper alternative to organic."

[peteadams]

"your average family is in a good position to grow their own food, since most single-family lots are larger"

Your "average family" in the U.S. does not live on a single family lot. The majority of our population lives in packed urban areas in apartments, condos and tiny lots if they have a house at all.

"Whether people are "interested" in doing it is beside the point."

No, it's the entire point if your position is to have any meaning at all. People left the farm in droves starting in the late 1800's. They're still leaving and they are not returning. It's a big assumption that they could even afford to - where are the jobs Mr. Forester? Very few people want to become serfs simply to grow all their own food. And almost no one grows all their own food. This neo-back to the land movement doesn't begin to address the vast amounts of basic grains (wheat, rice, corn) that are required to feed our ever-growing urban population.

As for land productivity, a study in Nature indicates the hardly surprising conclusion that only under ideal conditions can large scale organic methods even begin to match conventional methods (summary only available): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v48...11069.html

[Forester]

You guys are putting up straw men. Or perhaps you're just misunderstanding. I have said nothing against GMO's, and I have said nothing about "organic" vs "non-organic." All I've said is that growing food in complete ecosystems -- polyculturally -- may very well pre-empt the problems that GMO's try to solve. (Polyculture vs. monoculture is a completely different dichotomy than organic vs. non-organic. In fact, I'm pretty sure most certified organic farms are monocultural.)

PeteAdams: If you would read back a few posts, you would see that Rob basically said that the idea of people growing their own food was a preposterous way to fight hunger. So no, whether people are "interested" in growing their own food is not essential to my point whatsoever. My point is that, if people can grow their own food, then they can avoid hunger. And guess what? Most people have the ability to grown their own food if they really want to.

Most Americans live in detached, single-family housing. In fact, from 2000 to 2010, it trended toward single-family housing rather than away from it.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/0025...hed-houses

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

One productive farmer can feed 500 or more.

---

So it would take less than 400 farmers to feed the entire Big Island?