On 07/08/2018 16:54, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.

Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
population figures in case you were interested.

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today. Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
sometime before 1850.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bull**** is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries.

What are you questioning?

We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
you questioning that?

Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
conventionally. Are you questioning that?

If you're questioning either, tell us why,

If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
or about 24 million.

Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.

It's not fear, just fact.