On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

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.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

How do you work that out?

Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

There's no propaghanda, just facts.

Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.

Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.

Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.

The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.

The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.

I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.

Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.

No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.