 | DrumBeat: January 22, 2008 | The Oil Drum | The limit of the statistic R/P in models of oil discovery and production |  |
The Fallacy of Reversibility
Posted by Stuart Staniford on January 22, 2008 - 11:00am
Why Peak Oil Actually Helps Industrial Agriculture
Claas (Caterpillar) Lexion 570 combine harvester in action. Image courtesy: Wikipedia.
This argument has never really made sense to me, but my recent explorations of food prices and biofuels have sharpened up my conviction that the thinking behind this position is mistaken. In this piece, I'm going to first document that some influential peak-oilers do in fact believe this, then try to discuss what I think the reasoning is -- it's not usually made very explicit but it depends on something I'm calling the Fallacy of Reversibility. Finally, I'm going to lay out why I don't think things are going to go the way the proponents of relocalization expect, at least not any time soon.
Relocalization Quotes
The idea that "peak oil" was something that society was going to have to reckon with began amongst scientists with backgrounds in the oil industry - most famously Hubbert himself, and then elaborated by Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Ken Deffeyes, and others.These oil industry scientists - what I will call the first wave of peak oil thinkers and writers - were mainly interested in estimating when peak oil would be, and the likely supply side mitigations (or lack of them). The implications of peak oil for agriculture was not a major focus. However, a second wave of journalists, writers, and non-profits have been doing a lot to spread the word about peak oil - Richard Heinberg, James Kunstler, Julian Darley and the Post Carbon Institute, the staff of the Community Solution, and others have all written books, held conferences, and started non-profits to warn the world about the dangers of peak oil. Given that the world as a whole has been doing its best to stay in denial about peak oil these outreach efforts have been a valuable service -- certainly I have learned a lot from them. At the same time, these writers bought to the table an agenda about society in general, and agriculture in particular, that I believe lacks an empirical foundation.
Let me start with a quote from Jim Kunstler:
We have to produce food differently. The ADM / Monsanto / Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and will require more human labor. The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally. This situation presents excellent business and vocational opportunities for America's young people (if they can unplug their Ipods long enough to pay attention.) It also presents huge problems in land-use reform. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and skill for doing these things has to be painstakingly retrieved from the dumpster of history.The Community Solution also believes that the current agricultural model cannot be sustained, though they are concerned about the ability to manage the transition:
Reliance on large-scale agribusiness, driven by vast energy consumption, has resulted in an agricultural monoculture that is simply not sustainable. But where are the tens of millions of small farmers who will be necessary if we are to return to locally grown food crops? And what about all the food that is being used for feed, and now, for fuel?The Post Carbon Institute is attempting to build model farms of the kind that they believe will be required post peak:
Using science, proven tools, and evolving methodologies the Energy Farm Initiative seeks to demonstrate systems of agriculture that can sustain both farms and communities in the face of climate change and peak oil. This program weaves threads of the Relocalization vision into a fabric of local currency, local food and biofuel systems, revitalization of local industry, and community cooperation.Another writer who has been very influential in getting the word out about peak oil is Richard Heinberg (including reportedly reaching former President Bill Clinton). I profiled Richard here. In December of last year, he wrote:Our aim is to build flexible systems that reduce dependence on high energy inputs and produce food and reliable renewable energy for local users. The steps in which this transition is manifest is the Local Energy Farm Initiative.
The aim of substantially or entirely removing fossil fuels from agriculture is implicit in organic farming in all its various forms and permutations - including ecological agriculture, Biodynamics, Permaculture, Biointensive farming, and Natural Farming. All also have in common a prescription for the reduction or elimination of tillage, and the reduction or elimination of reliance on mechanized farm equipment. Nearly all of these systems rely on increased amounts of human labor, and on greater application of place-specific knowledge of soils, microorganisms, weather, water, and interactions between plants, animals, and humans...I have to say that I really don't like the sound of "at a forced pace, backed by the full resources of national governments". As JD, of Peak OIl Debunked, noted recently there is a history of attempts to forcibly reallocate land to urbanites: it's mainly been attempted by dictators, and the results have made the countries in question bywords of disaster (Cambodia and Zimbabwe are examples in recent decades).Because ecological organic farming methods are often dramatically more labor- and knowledge-intensive than industrial agriculture, their adoption will require an economic transformation of societies. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel food system will take time. Nearly every aspect of the process by which we feed ourselves must be redesigned. And, given the likelihood that global oil peak will occur soon, this transition must occur at a forced pace, backed by the full resources of national governments.
The most thoughtful advocate of relocalization I know is Jason Bradford, who is quantitative enough to have investigated his own area, the rural Northern California county of Mendocino, and discovered that the county probably could not feed itself:
Out of 2,246,400 acres of land in Mendocino County, 94,039 acres or 4.19 percent is considered prime agricultural soils (NRCS-USDA figures). Of that amount, much is unavailable and covered by roads, highways, cities, parks, and other land uses. While growth is very slow in Mendocino County, settlement patterns have tended to occur in areas dominated by prime soils. Only one third, or approximately 35,000 acres, of prime farmland remain available for agricultural use. Besides the unavailability of prime farmland, changes in hydrology as a result of agricultural and other human uses have affected the quality and use of prime farmland.I think as Jason investigates further, he is going to find more reasons for pessimism about this path.The Caltrans EIR implies that in about a ca. 20 year span, Mendocino County went from 69,000 to 35,000 acres of prime farmland, down from and original endowment of 94,000 acres. This does seem like a remarkably high rate of loss, totaling 34,000 acres or about 1700 acres per year for 20 years. In either case, whether the real figure is closer to 69,000 or 35,000, both are far from the estimated need of ca. 95,000.
The Fallacy of Reversibility
So, the second wave peak oil writers see us as abandoning the combine harvester and returning to this kind of scene:
Raking hay by hand. Image courtesy: University of Minnesota.
Let me try to summarize what I believe the underlying logic of their position is. What is certainly true is that pre-industrial societies generally use a lot less energy, and have a much larger share of their population involved in agriculture than industrialized societies do. Jason Bradford did a nice analysis a few weeks back, and I made this graph based on his analysis:
Clearly, as countries have gone through the process of industrialization and development (roughly moving down the curve to the right), they have come to use more energy in general, and their agriculture has become far more mechanized and involves a smaller fraction of the population.
Another view of the same process can be seen in this World Bank graphic, which shows both the share of agriculture in the labor force and in gross domestic product, but this time plotted against GDP/capita:
This reminds us that countries that have far higher portions of the labor force in agriculture don't just use less energy, they are also far less wealthy. (Note that the scale in this graph is logarithmic and cuts off around Argentina - the full graph on a linear scale would have a sharply curved hyperbolic shape much like the energy versus agricultural population one from Jason's analysis).
So I think the argument of the relocalization advocates essentially is that, since we were using a lot less energy before we were industrialized, and our population was primarily agricultural then, and peak oil implies we will have less energy in the future, or at least less liquid fuel, then it must be the case that the agricultural population will grow again. In other words, having coming come down the curve in the graphs above from the top left to the lower right, our society will now start to retrace its steps back up the curve.
This implies that the process of industrialization and development is a reversible process. We in the developed world have evolved from low-energy high-agriculture societies into a high-energy low-agriculture society. So the thinking goes that we can/should/will reverse that process and go back to something like what we were 200 years ago (at least on these large macro-economic variables).
Now, coming from a background as a scientist, there are many reversible processes familiar in science (and indeed in everyday life), but there are also a lot of irreversible processes. Some examples of reversible processes - if you lift up a weight, you can set it back down again into the same position it was in before. If you blow up a balloon, then, up to a certain point, you can let the air out and get back more or less the uninflated balloon you had before you started. If you pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir, you can let it down again, and the lower reservoir will be in little different condition than if you hadn't bothered. If you freeze a liquid by cooling it, you can warm it up again and have the same liquid.
Here are some examples of irreversible processes. If you let grape juice ferment into wine, there's no way to get grape juice back. If you bake a cake in the oven, there's no way to turn it back into cake dough. If you ice and decorate the cake, but then accidentally drop it on the floor, there's no way to pick it up and have anything approaching the same cake as if you hadn't dropped it.
So when you industrialize a society, is that a reversible process? Can you take it on a backward path to a deindustrialized society that looks in the important ways like the society you had before the industrialization? As far as I can see, the "second wave" peak oil writers treat it as fairly obvious that this is both possible and desirable. It appears to me that it is neither possible or desirable, but at a minimum, someone arguing for it should seriously address the question. And it is this failure that I am calling the Fallacy of Reversibility. It is most pronounced in Kunstler, who in addition to believing we need a much higher level of involvement in agriculture also wants railways, canals, and sailing ships back, and is a strong proponent of nineteenth century urban forms.
I am going to christen this general faction of the peak oil community reversalists. This encompasses people advocating a return to earlier food growing or distribution practices (the local food movement), folks wanting to bring back the railways and tramcars, people believing that large scale corporations will all collapse, that the Internet will fail and we need to "make our own music and our own drama down the road. We're going to need playhouses and live performance halls. We're going to need violin and banjo players and playwrights and scenery-makers, and singers."
And before moving on, I stress that I'm not making an argument that our time is in all ways better than earlier times and that nostalgia for the past is entirely misplaced. Nor am I making an argument that peak oil does not pose a massive and important challenge to us. Instead, I'm making an argument that society is unlikely to reverse its trajectory of development, regardless of what we might like. Calls for it to do so are a distraction and get in the way of figuring out what we really need to be doing, and what the real options and dangers are.
Why it Won't Be So
Although the reversalist approach to peak oil covers many dimensions of society, I'm going to confine my attention in this piece to the proposition that agriculture is likely to revert to eighteenth or nineteenth century approaches in the face of a slowly contracting oil supply. My central tool for looking at the question is going to be the factors going into the profitability of industrial agriculture. If it's the case that agriculture is going to revert to a manual low-energy process in the face of peak oil, then that should show up in the profitability data. Here are some natural predictions we might make:- Industrial farming is less profitable at high oil prices than at low oil prices.
- Now that we are at, or close to, peak oil, industrial agriculture is beginning to show signs of strain, indicating it may break down in the future, allowing alternative approaches to take over.
- Industrial farmers use more labor in the face of high oil prices.
- Farms are starting to get smaller now that peak oil is nigh.
- In developing countries, where the farmers never unlocalized in the first place, the dynamics are changing to favor small subsistence farmers over larger mechanized operations.
Agricultural Profitability and Oil Prices
Most of my analysis is based on the data compiled by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the average costs of growing various kinds of crops. This data is based on national surveys of farmers and represent an average for all farmers (some will be doing better than the average, some worse). Let's start with corn:
Average cost structure and revenue of US corn farmers, per acre, 1975-2006. Source: USDA. Costs have been adjusted to 2006 dollars via the BLS CPI-U.
Here, the various colored bands are the different costs of producing corn, expressed in 2006 US dollars per acre of land planted in corn. The heavy black line is the revenue per acre of selling the corn. The big picture is that very little money is spent on labor (indeed, agriculture in the US is highly industrialized), that costs have been coming down over time, and that farming in recent decades has been an activity with modest and unpredictable profits (that graph represents a business I would not want to be in). The cost reduction per acre is particularly striking given that yields per acre have been improving steadily over this period - farmers have obviously gotten enormously more productive over time (all that machinery and those fancy chemicals really do work as advertised, it seems).
It's worth quickly noting that most of the spikes of better profitability come at times of high oil prices (1975, 1979, and 2006). We will explore this more systematically in a moment.
Here is the same thing for wheat:
Average cost structure and revenue of US wheat farmers, per acre, 1975-2006. Source: USDA. Costs have been adjusted to 2006 dollars via the BLS CPI-U.
The story is similar, except that both costs and revenues per acre are lower, and profitability is even worse.
To look at the relationship between profitability and oil prices for the sectors as a whole, I took the profit margin (revenues - costs)/revenues, but excluded land and unpaid labor from the costs. The reason for excluding land is that I would expect land prices to mainly reflect the profits being made on the land, so including them in costs is confounding understanding the profitability of the sector (obviously, an individual farm has to worry about the land costs, but the land is only worth anything because people are farming it, so it's a confounding effect at at sector level). I excluded unpaid labor as owner's compensation which I consider more a form of profit than a cost. For that definition of profit margin, for the three main arable field crops, we get this graph:
Average profit margin for US farmers on three main field crops, versus oil prices. Profit margin is computed without the land rent or unpaid labor cost components, 1975-2006. Source: USDA and author's calculations for profit margin, BP for oil prices in 2006 dollars.
There is a very weak upward slope to all three lines (ie in the direction of better profits at higher oil prices). In an effort to reduce the noise, I produced a weighted average according to the planted acreage of the three crops:
Acreage of three main field crops in the United States, 1975-2007. Source: USDA.
and thus got this graph:
Average profit margin for US farmers on acreage weighted average of three main field crops, versus oil prices. Profit margin is computed without the land rent or unpaid labor cost components, 1975-2006. Source: USDA and author's calculations for profit margin, BP for oil prices in 2006 dollars
The relationship is somewhat stronger - profits are a little likelier to be higher when oil is expensive, but oil prices explain only about 12% of the variance in profit margins. The relationship is just barely statistically significant (p = 4.9%), but I wouldn't set too much store in it, given that the regression is not controlled for any other factors that might be explanatory.
But certainly, there is no evidence for the idea that farms are less profitable at high oil prices - that inference is completely unsupported by the data since 1975.
The analysis does not include 2007, since the cost data are not available yet, but it is likely that 2007 had high profit margins (since crop prices were very high), and certainly it had fairly high oil prices. I will argue below that this is a harbinger of the game-changing role of biofuels, which will tend in the future to make industrial farming more profitable as oil prices rise.
Labor Usage in Arable Crop Production
Let's turn for a moment to the use of labor in the farm system. If it was the case that peak oil was promoting a return to a more local, less industrialized, style of agriculture, we might expect to see usage of labor correlated with oil prices - when oil prices are high, farmers are differentially likely to prefer to do things manually and use less expensive fuel to get the job done. So I looked at the total labor input (both paid and unpaid) into the crop versus oil prices:
Average labor expended per acre by US farmers of corn, wheat, and soybeans, versus oil prices 1975-2006. Both are converted to 2006$. Source: USDA.
What we see is that wheat and soybeans show essentially no meaningful relationship between oil prices and the amount of labor per acre that farmers use. They use the same low amount regardless. Corn farmers actually spend less on labor when oil prices are high, for reasons that are unclear - however the relationship is quite strong (r2 of 43%) and very statistically significant (p = 0.005%).
So again, there is no evidence in the data for the reversalist idea that farmers might need more labor when oil prices get high on account of peak oil.
Biofuels and the Future of Industrial Agriculture
A possible objection to my argument thus far is that, although we may be at or near peak oil, nonetheless we haven't seen anything yet in terms of how high oil prices could go - $100/barrel is nothing, and when we see $200/barrel or $300/barrel, then the situation will change, industrial agriculture will fall apart, and the reversalist future (which is really the past) will start to play out.Now, I certainly would not discount the possibility that oil could get to $200/barrel. With an income elasticity near 1, we would expect to see oil usage expand by a few percent a year due to global economic growth if prices were constant. Since supply has not been increasing at all for the last couple of years, higher prices have been required to balance supply and demand. Since elasticity of oil demand is more like 0.05, it takes several tens of percent of price increases each year to balance the missing single percentage point increases in supply that aren't occuring. That's how we got to $100 oil. If supply continues to be flat, it's quite possible oil will get to $200 in a few years time. On the other hand, if the credit-collapse recession in the US turns severe, as it certainly could, oil prices could fall a lot instead. If we do manage to get a boost in supply from the 2008 megaprojects, that will moderate prices also, at least for a time.
But what I would argue is that if oil gets to $200/barrel, industrial agriculture is likely to do very well. I pointed out in Fermenting the Food Supply that corn-ethanol has been profitable even without subsidies at times in the last few years, and that whenever oil prices go up sharply, there is a huge spurt in the growth of the biofuel industry. This creates an arbitrage between food prices and fuel prices, and mean that the former must go up whenever the latter go up (since the biofuel industry can very easily use most of the global food supply without adding more than a modest fraction to the fuel supply). This next graphic summarized the key point:
Bottom panel: capacity of ethanol plants at year end, in production and under construction, as a percentage of total ethanol potential of the entire US corn crop in that year (left scale), together with year on year change in that percentage (right scale). Top panel: oil prices (annual average in $2006). Sources: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service for corn production, National Corn Growers Association for conversion efficiencies, and Renewable Fuels Association for ethanol plant capacities. Oil prices are sourced from BP.
I suggested earlier that the growth rate has a lot to do with oil prices, and I've made that more explicit in the graph above with the green lines. When oil prices spike up, a year or so later we have a new burst of ethanol capacity under construction (which then comes on stream 1-2 years after that).This has had a lot to do with the high crop prices of the last two years. Thus, if we get $200 oil, I confidently expect a new burst of growth in crop prices and for farm revenues to go up a lot. If we look at the average costs over the last thirty years:
Average cost structure and revenue of US corn farmers, per acre, 1975-2006. Source: USDA.
we can see that some costs are of a kind that scale with energy prices. The "fuel" component is certainly that way, but fertilizer is almost entirely made from natural gas and will tend to go up in periods of high energy prices. And, for safety, I've also included chemicals, most of which have petroleum or natural gas as the feedstock (though I imagine most of the value is added in manufacturing, rather than in the raw fossil fuel input). However, the rest of the farm costs don't have a direct relationship to energy costs (the various forms of labor, cost of capital, etc). So with this decomposition, the history of corn farm costs and profits looks as follows:
Revenue of corn farmers, together with cost structure decomposed into hypothesized energy price scaling and energy price independent components . Costs exclude the land rent or unpaid labor cost components, 1975-2006. Source: USDA.
As you can see, the non-energy components have not increased much at all since 2002, but the energy-related portions have been increasing sharply. All costs were high in the 1970s and early 1980s (when not only were energy costs high but interest rates were extremely high too, so that capital costs were very great).
So going forward, I expect to see significant increases in food prices and farm profitability (with a significant caveat for the possibility of a credit-induced severe recession). The following hypothetical scenario for what happens to the corn curve if both energy and corn prices increase by 15%/year in real terms, while other farm costs (eg labor, cost of capital) stay flat in real terms. As you can see - industrial farmers do very well in that case:
Revenue of corn farmers, together with cost structure decomposed into hypothesized energy price scaling and energy price independent components . Costs exclude the land rent or unpaid labor cost components. Actuals for 1975-2006, and scenario (not forecast) for 2007-2013 based on 15% annual increases in energy-scaling costs and corn prices, with flat other costs. Source: USDA.
Clearly, farmers making money like that will not be selling out to hordes of the urban poor trying to go back to the land, nor will they need to employ them. Instead, the farmers will simply outbid the urban poor for the energy required to operate the farms (and in the US, the farm sector only uses 2.2% of all petroleum in the country).
Farm Size Trends
Farms in the US have been getting steadily bigger for a long time. The reasons are very simple: there are substantial economies of scale in industrial farming - it's desirable to keep the expensive machinery and administrative labor working at maximum capacity, which means spreading it out over as much land as possible. That leads to this kind of graph:
Operating profit as a function of farm size in the US, 2003. Source: USDA.
Small farms lose money at a great rate, and only large operations make a profit. This is a recipe for larger farms as the small ones sell out to their wealthier neighbors. As the share of energy in the cost structure grows, this graph may moderate a little (since fertilizer and fuel usage are likely directly proportional to acreage). However, there is nothing in high energy costs that will make it reverse - it will still be beneficial to spread the non-energy costs over more acreage. Thus although the trend of increasing farm size may slow, there is nothing to put it into reverse.
And in the developing world, another important factor comes into play. As we discussed last week, over half of all households in rural areas in developing countries are net food importers, even though the vast majority are involved in agriculture somehow. Thus, rising food prices will place tremendous stress on very poor households that grow some food, but not enough to live on. They may be forced to sell their land to larger landholders that produce a surplus. Thus, we may see the exact opposite of what the relocalization movement might predict - farm sizes in developing countries may increase in the face of peak oil.
In Conclusion
I've argued in this piece that industrial agriculture is likely to be stronger and more profitable when oil prices are high, not weaker. So the reversalist future of local food production on smaller farms with higher labor input will not come to pass as a result of peak oil. The industrial agricultural sector owns most of the land, and will be in an excellent position to increase their land holdings as remaining subsistence farmers fail or consolidate in the face of high food prices. Industrial farmers will have no reason to sell out to improverished urban dwellers. Thus the industrialization of the land is not a reversible process any time soon - it is a fallacy to think so. The reversalists are expressing wishful thinking and nostalgia for the past, not a reasoned analysis of how the future is likely to play out. And urbanites worried about their future should not be looking to buy or rent a smallholding as a solution to their problems - industrial farmers are extremely efficient, and there is no way to compete with them except by becoming one.
Selected Food, Agriculture, and Biofuel Articles at The Oil Drum
Stuart Staniford
- Death Rates and Food Prices
- Fermenting the Food Supply
- Food Price Inflation
- Global Land Use
- Will biofuels always be hopeless?
Jason Bradford
Robert Rapier
- A Debate Proposal for the Ethanol Lobby - Let's Get It On
- Mythbusters: Ethanol and Foreign Oil Displacement
Kyle
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
The ELP Plan: Economize; Localize & Produce
IMO, we are headed for the never ending boom/crisis in the food and energy sectors. Whether it is a boom or a crisis for a specific person is largely dependent on whether or not you are involved in something related to food and/or energy production.
Regarding the Electrification Of Transportation (EOT) movement, it’s interesting to compare total energy consumption in the EU versus US (the EU uses about half as much energy per person as the US). Of course, this is also related to their high energy consumption taxes. However, I suspect that very few people would now argue that the US system is superior. The other question is whether we can go back to what we once had and what the EU now has, regarding EOT. As Alan Drake has pointed out, we did it before in the US, with minimal fossil fuel input.
Regarding the larger topic of farming, it seems to me that the obvious comparison is the small Amish farm versus industrialized farming. My recollection is that the yield per acre on Amish farms is lower than industrialized farms, but the profit per acre is higher.
http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2000/12/15/3df6412ab088c
An economic comparison of traditional and conventional agricultural systems at a county level
M.H. Bender
Accepted December 15, 2000
Thanks for this lead Jeffrey. One of my concerns has been the reliability of a lot of common statistics gathered by the government. It is very difficult to find comparison data on different scales and methods of production because alternatives to the industrial ag model are relatively scarce in the U.S. and those who pursue them do so in a kind of parallel universe with their own norms of communication. I simply don't know if they are even on the radar screen when looking at USDA census data.
Jason,
One book you might get ahold of is Traditional American Farming Techniques, ISBN 1-58574-412-3, Lynons Press. It's a reprint of a 1919 (IIRC) farm book, 1086 pages. I highly recommend it. It has a lot of good information on "farming" including such things as horse "efficiency." Essentially, there are certain sized farms that use horses more efficiently. If you get up my way, I'd be glad to loan it to you. I'm in the phone book.
Todd
PS The Garden Club is still screwing around in setting up a Terra Preta presentation.
Todd, you recommended the book a week or so ago and I purchased it online from Deepdiscount. It is amazing the breadth of knowledge agriculturalists had at that time, especially in regards to soil management and cover crops such as alfalfa and clover. For someone like me who has a small farmette, it will be very useful. I’ve been browsing through it for the last week.
I too ordered it a few weeks back when Todd recommended it. Its a thick bugger and I've had trouble keeping it out of my fathers mitts. Much of it over my head, but I guess thats the point of ordering it.
I just ordered it also. Thanks for the tip.
Stuart is probably correct about the continuing growth of industrial agriculture. The merging of the energy markets with the food markets means that the price of both shall move upwards in lockstep. Both our engines and our bellies will face progressive starvation.
This is even now being played out in the third world. Their farms are industrializing and growing food, fiber and energy for export, leaving the billions living on less than $5 a day to be priced out, with little chance of gaining access to cultivable land.
There are several questions: will those hundreds of millions quietly starve? At what point will there be revolution? What form will that revolution take; nihilism and suicide vests? retro Maoism?
I suspect that, at least in the first world, massive bankruptcy, combined with massive foreclosures and rising food and energy prices, will force democracies to turn to increased redistributionist policies, protectionism, and possibly fascism.
I could be mistaken but I think that revolutions are started by the middle class with input from guilt ridden or disaffected uppers. The poor pick up the torch a bit later as they are more likely concerned with finding the next meal.
I believe you are right.
Actually, revolutions are often started by first world elements within third world countries (Lenin & Mao, Pol Pot, and Sindero Luminoso in Peru; western educated/influenced leaders leading largely uneducated workers and peasants). But revolutions can also be started by reactionary third world leaders like Ayatollah Khomanei.
As Stuart's analysis sinks in, I realize this is the worst news I've heard in a long time.
Agribusiness -- a product of the "age of oil", -- has been primarily concerned with producing food and fiber. It dominates the best soils in the world, and is still in the process of displacing traditional farmers.
If the food markets hadn't merged with the energy markets, we would expect that we would now be experiencing "peak agriculture" along with "peak food". This (hopefully) gentle decline would give societies time to convert to whatever replaces agribusiness.
Instead, agribusiness is switching to producing motor fuels, so "Peak Agriculture" is now divorced from "peak food."
As agribusiness increasingly grows biofuels for our vehicles, it profits even as it diverts land and energy away from feeding people. Thus, peak agriculture is a long way in the future, while peak food is now, with a vengeance.
Furthermore, as we look at Hubbert's curve as it descends into the Oldavai Gorge, we are right to wonder at what point industrial agriculture no longer functions properly.
Can steel for tractors and combines be smelted using renewable energy? Can fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides compete with ethanol and biodiesel? If they cannot, then it is difficult to see industrial agriculture surviving beyond mid-century. And if it continues to grow up to the end, we may see a spectacular crash.
Meanwhile, of course, we can project that global famine is coming on like a freight train.
I've got serious doubts as to whether we'll see the current corn-based industrial agriculture continue as far as midcentury in much of the US. Many areas depend on nonrenewable aquifers for their irrigation, and have only a 20-25 supply of water remaining. We're going to run out of water long before fossil fuel limitations seriously constrain American agriculture.
Depending on how we use the last few years worth of it, we will either transition to some sort of available-rainfall based agriculture in much of the midwest, or experience another dustbowl.
..or you could charge properly for water, and use some of the many conservation techniques available, such as are common practise in Israel, for example.
Conservation would slow the depletion rate, but not solve the problem that we're trying to irrigate with a nonrenewable source of water. Even if we launch a massive conservation effort next year (which realistically, isn't going to happen) we will likely see exhaustion of several major aquifers within my lifetime.
We can smelt metals with nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal power.
Whether this trend is bad news for you personally depends on your income level. With a high enough income you'll be able to buy more expensive food and put more expensive biodiesel in your gas tank.
But is competition for agricultural product between food and biofuels really the worst possibility here? Seems to me not. What would be far worse is if agriculture has a very low EROEI. Take away the oil and we have a hard time running agriculture if that is the case.
By contrast, with a high EROEI from agriculture while part of the agriculture will get shifted to producing energy at least the remaining part that produces food has energy from its own fields to power it. I find that comforting. I just have to earn enough money to afford to buy the resulting product.
So you and me and 100 million others can afford food on the table. The other 6.4 billion (plus interest) can all go to hell.
I wonder if those "others" will let me enjoy my meals in peace....
Yes, at least on a small scale. CSP arrays can produce a lot of heat, or a large WT array could produce a lot of electricity for an electric furnace; maybe both could be combined. It might be possible (indeed, we DO have to figure out how to MAKE it possible) to set up sufficient capacity to recycle metals from old worn out equipment in order to make new equipment.
If we can't manage this, then sooner or later we will fall all the way back in the neolithic.
Hi Todd,
Just ordered it. Thanks! As a newbie to farming I appreciate good leads.
I don't have any idea what your last name is, but know another farmer around here who wants to talk to you. Would love to go to a Terra Preta presentation so please let it be known in Willits when it is happening.
You do know my first and last name and I am in the book too...or contact the WELL office to get a message to me.
Jason, I think this is a very good point. And we are that particular case in point. We just purchased 13 acres of "black dirt" muck soils 60 miles from New York City. This is soil that is only allowed for farming and not development because of its particular geological formation and lack of suitability for a septic system.
Most farms are large enough, 75 acres and up, to qualify for government support and protection and therefore must "register" with the USDA. Because we are so small, we don't qualify for the government programs and are therefore "unregistered."
I know of several other farms who are in the same category. One is owned by a man from Bangladesh who farms 15 acres planting just two crops of which he saves his own seeds. He sells his produce on the street in Queens. In the winter he farms in Florida and ships his produce to New York. He is definitely not on the USDA radar screen. Another is a couple who grows 3 acres of vegetables and herbs in their backyard and sells via a farm stand by their house and a 25-member CSA -- also "unregistered."
Many of the farms who are traditional "onion" farmers (25% of US onions are grown here in Orange County, NY) are now diversifying into vegetables and selling via Farmer's Markets, farm stands and CSA because they can make more money on fewer acres in a more satisfying way.
This is interesting. I just started a new, very little farm, and know that my little operation is off the radar for USDA and suspected it might be the case for others.
You can register via the ag census, which is due soon:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/Report_Form_&_Instructions/2007_Report...
Farms that get government assistance or have submitted this in the past automatically receive a form in the mail. Otherwise, you have to know about it. And as you say, small farms might not be eligible for the subsidies and so aren't in the loop.
Hello westexas,
A good friend of mine sells seed in extreme Southeast MN. Lots of Amish there.
This year they are RENTING OUT THERE FARMS.
Higher grain prices mean HIGH cash rent.
The Amish can currently make more money renting out their land to a real farmer than they can by farming it themself.
As profits on the farm rise with Peak Oil, the efficient operators will BID HARDER than ever for land. Inefficient operators (Amish) will increasingly rent their land to them.
The Amish of SE MN switched to making furniture.
Hi there Farmer, I rent out my money so I can do the things I feel are valuable to do, painting, music, gardening. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't make more money using it myself, it just means I value things other than money. Maybe the Amish just prefer to do more cabinetry which as far as I know is not something they just 'switched' to.
It really is sad to see what we have done to this world in the name of efficiency and greed rather than what we could have done in joy.
My apologies for moving upthread...
Stuart, as always, very impressive stuff. If you will remember "The Tragedy of the Commons", in capitalist societies land, over time, usually winds up in the hands a few families and due to our tradition (from English common law) of marriage and inheritance tends to stay there. Hence, property taxes were conceived of as a vehicle to force turnover of unused and unproductive land. Rising food and agricultural prices would certainly benefit those already entrenched in the endeavor. However, if food prices continued to rise in excess of the local GDP and inflation rate the price would eventually reach a point of no return, impossible to afford. Of course, this cannot happen in rational and free markets. If wheat and/or corn rose to $50, $75,$100 per bushel and animal flesh rose to $50 per lbs, the consumer would react. Front lawns and back yards would cease to exist, crop production would occur, co-ops would be formed, and entrepreneurship would flourish, much to the chagrin of the "second wave' folks, Kuntsler, et al.
The "consumer" would also react in other ways. They would be thinner. They would have fewer children. During this time the world would continue to slip further down the backside of bell chart. During the Great Depression we had no shortage of Farmland, oil, or labor, and we had far less than half of today's mouths to feed. Yet food was prohibitively expensive.
The "Second Wavers" for the most part are not only lacking in any economic training, they are colored politically, and seem to see things through the shaded lens of their politics. But I would not count on Industrial Ag to continue to provide incredibly cheap food - and therein lies the rub. To ever more expensive food prices, what will the social, economic, and political reaction be? Political science is not my strong suit, but it would seem that THAT is the devil in THIS detail.
Er, I thought this was exactly what the second wave folks were predicting? A mass movement back toward producing our own food? This is exactly what happened in Cuba, although there situation is different than what is likely to happen in peak oil: Cuba had an instant dropoff in fossil fuels, while the during peak oil we can expect a slow decline.
When we had minimal fossil fuels we had a much smaller population. We need high yield farms to feed a much larger population.
If large scale mechanized agriculture does not have a high EROEI then we are going to get awfully hungry. My hope is that the EROEI of farms is already high enough or will rise fast enough due to technological advances that large scale mechanized agriculture will survive. I think every rational person should hope for this.
Thanks for the in depth research on this topic. Though I agree with the general concept that industrial ag. will not be felled by higher oil prices, and in fact it may flourish...I think you are ignoring the potential for discontinuities, such as shortages of fertilizer and oil for processing and distribution. The shift that new line Peak Oil thinkers are talking about involve this larger scale discontinuity where oil (and nat. gas) is not just expensive, it is potentially scarce.
So though you may be correct in the short term, I wonder about your prognostications after a decade or two of depletion...
I agree that we need to consider the discontinuities.
You only need to look at the current situation in South Africa, where large industrial agriculture is encountering (previously rare) power blackouts. This leads to spoilt fruit and milk that can not be cooled, cows that can not be milked, and tends to bunch up other usage, such as irrigation, into large power-demand spikes taxing an already precarious grid. Farmers are coping in the short term by installing generators. It would be interesting to look at South Africa after another year of this to for trends against big farming or for small farming.
Francois.
I, too agree about the discontinuities. I was, in fact, surprised as I was reading the piece, which otherwise appears thorough and well-argued, because it failed to include this most basic of the assumptions of a world with reducing energy availability: systemic collapse or disequilibrium.
If one is talking about a period of transition from one primary energy source to another which is roughly stable, Stuart's argument may hold. It might be possible to transition and the primary forces might end up being economic ones. But that is ignoring the basic premise of those he is critiquing, that severe disruptions to the economic, financial and social systems will occur if Peak Oil occurs too fast or to abruptly for adaptation.
Further, the idea of "going back" isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of many people's views. I, for one, see the collapse of institutions and social structures as a positive sign not because I love anarchy, but because I believe we can maintain some of the core infrastructure and social fab5ric while transitioning to a holistic lifestyle that uses technology to create synergy with, rather than separation from, nature. In a simplistic example, the Enertia and Earthship homes come to mind.
Cheers
I have a deep respect for Stuart's line of thinking and have been struggling with understanding barriers to reversibility for a few months now. I think Stuart is correct that there are philosophical reasons behind promoting what he terms reversibility, but they involve much more than just the notion that energy decline will force the shift. Even though Stuart may be correct that short-term economic forces may promote further consolidation and industrialization of agriculture I view this as totally disastrous for the following reasons. (I also realize there is a big distinction between what I want to happen and what is likely to happen!)
Other reasons include:
1. Food security and system shocks (as noted above); better to build resilient alternatives ahead of time.
2. Top soil depletion. Soil biology is killed by chemicals fertilizers; for example, ammonia injections cause soil sterilization, followed by a bacterial bloom as highly soluble nitrogen becomes available, which then leads to a consumption of soil organic matter by the bacteria, which causes soils to compact, loose tilth, be more subject to erosion, etc. I suppose it is possible to disentangle industrial production methods from soil-killing methods, but big ag corporations are tending to promote their products, whereas the local and organic crowd has a better grasp on soil biology.
3. The Phosphorus (and other nutrient) cycle. Food and dry matter (e.g., straw) contains mineral wealth mined by the nanotechnology of root systems and incorporated into above ground biomass. Removal of these minerals depletes the soil. Industrial agriculture allows a huge geographic disconnect between production landscapes and consumer populations. Ultimately, the biological waste-stream of the consumer population needs to be returned to the productive soil ecosystems. Anything else is unsustainable and will lead to famine in the long run.
4. Climate change. We should be looking for ways to use soils to store carbon. Agriculture should be a net carbon sink, not a source. Finding the tool sets that are labor efficient and can run on renewable energy only would be a wise policy, and these tools are likely to be of a different scale than the behemoths in current operation. Smaller scale tools may mean more operators, and smaller land-management units.
5. Managing agricultural complexity. Monocroping is a very unnatural way to distribute organisms over a landscape, leading to investments in poisons to prevent disease/pest outbreaks, which end up not working in the long run anyway. With a small labor force compared to the land base, however, it is very difficult NOT to monocrop because humans become overwhelmed by the complexity of managing a diversified production system on a large scale.
6. The long view. Short-term economic incentives may very well play out as presented here, but those who don’t trust the wisdom of this way of thinking and who are considering what are the consequences of these decisions decades from now want to promote a transition that has a chance to work absent reliably available and cheap fossil fuels.
7. Meaningful work. It behooves a society to consider its long-term purpose and to seek ways of connecting labor towards achieving that purpose. As the Amish example points out, doing so leads to social cohesion and stability, which is a good basis for general happiness in the population.
I very much agree with the points made by JB and would add the following (without committing JB):
1. My central tool for looking at the question is going to be the factors going into the profitability of industrial agriculture. I question the relevance of and focus on profitability. Destruction of the planet has been profitable so far. But that doesn't support the argument that it should or can continue. Sustainability of industrial agriculture should be approached in the same way we approach peak oil: estimating the physical resources themselves, not the profitability of continuing their extraction.
Soil depletion, erosion, loss, is a world-wide phenomenon that is worsening. (Lester Brown) Reversing that depletion is crucial. Doing so will be labor-intensive. And it will require intelligent, skillful labor.
Of course industrial large-scale agriculture is more profitable -- it externalizes costs! And the more soil that gets detroyed, the more profitable it will become. That's the whole point.
2. There is also the question of transport. The logic of localization depends on transport. Or rather, the logic of industrialization depends on global markets, both for consumption and supplies. When global transport becomes more and more expensive, there will be a need, more than a need: no choice but to localize. Kunstler's arguments hold up IMO. (Although large cities are superior to subsurbs in many respects, they too will become unsustainable.)
3. There is something between reversibility and irreversibility. I too do not think we can just turn the clock back a hundred or more years. We have to a certain extent burned our bridges -- we have impoverished our natural environment. It will not support our current population without high energy expenditure. We cannot simply return to the agriculture of 100 years ago which was, it is true, much less productive. We will have to both reduce our population AND learn how to do agriculture in a new way. But I haven't heard anyone say that the productivity of modern industrial agriculture can be sustained with declining energy inputs.
There is already a huge mass of people in the world who have moved off (been driven off?) the land into sprawling urban slums surrounding third world cities. The decline of the high energy economy is going to throw hundreds of millions more on this heap. There is but one way: make rural life livable and self-sustaining, reverse this trend. I say rural, but I don't mean just rural: I think here again I agree with JHK -- small dense urban congregations that are surrounded by agricultural areas.
4. Stuart does a great service in stirring up this debate, especially the reversibility issue. How much of modern science and technology will we be able to sustain in the coming decades and century? We cannot go on as we are, and yet we cannot just go back either. We cannot predict the future. But we can at least look at the likely constraints on what the future will be. Stuart isn't guilty of this, but others always drag in future technological progress -- spending an inheritance that may or may not be there. If one takes away that, then maybe it's at least possible to start making some very rough calculations of what the coming generations will have to work with in terms of energy, soil, water, metals. etc. My belief is that the are going to have to move towards a garden earth, i.e. learn how to coax nature/biology into replacing from her (cultivated) skin what we have been forcibly extracting from her bowels. I doubt that it can be as much.
dry matter (e.g., straw) contains mineral wealth mined by the nanotechnology of root systems
Nanotechnology?
Is that what fungus is now, "nanotech"?
There's a bit of irony there, huh? Intended.
Indeed. There are also several questionable premises and statements within the argument - such as this assumed prediction:
"Industrial farming is less profitable at high oil prices than at low oil prices."
Why would anyone predict this, based purely on production/input costs? Profitability has nothing to do with the cost of producing/delivering a product alone, but everything to do with the ability to charge proportionately more for it than it costs to produce and deliver. It doesn't matter if it costs more to produce food if you are able to sell it for a corresponding increase in price. All SS showed was that food prices can increase. So what? Short term profitability for one sector is not the problem - sustainability of the whole system is.
They don't say it. It's easier for Staniford to argue against something he made up than something someone said.
Industrial farmers will only do well financially if they are able to increase the price of their produce in line with the increasing costs of all their inputs. When oil gets to ~$250+ a barrel and fertilizers become very dear, the masses, increasingly unemployed by then, are not going to be able to afford the sky-high food prices. Result: a mass return to home-garden, backyard cultivation, and sidewalk/public park food growinga la Cuba. Before long, falling sales revenues and heaps of unsold, rotting, expensive produce will drive the mega-farmers to the wall.
Or government-run "work farms," a la Kunstler.
Or government-run "work farms," a la Kunstler.
Leanan--
I never said any such thing, nor is it part of my view-of-things.
--Kunstler
'Reversibility" implies not only direction, but distance. Why would reversibility stop at small family farms making butter and cheese and vegetables for the affluent consumer through farmers' markets? Why not reverse to pre-Industrial medieval estates? Wouldn't the large ag corporations be in a position to become the barons of the New Age?
Or what would prevent even further reversal to tribal society -- hunting and gathering by a very much reduced population?
I think we can't really foresee these things, but only model them. Industrial agriculture as we know it in the post-industrial age relies on a huge, and to some extent, hidden infrastructure that is extremely complex and very much at risk.
Tainter is not wrong. He didn't make any specific predictions, that I am aware of, though. He just observed that in the failure of complexity lies the destruction of complex civilization.
Thanks Mamba for mentioning the elephant in my room.
What the heck happens when the average person can't afford the increases?
Scale works exactly in reverse and destroys your business!!!
In order for this analysis to be viable to me it has to answer that question. We have to be thinking net loss of production of stuff and get our heads our of the dollar measurement paradigm. When you are have invested in producing big volumes you will perish if those volumes shrink.
I realize the question isn't easy to answer, but to me it is a given that the large-scale fails it we scale back far enough.
Now, have far back are we going to scale? :)
After reading Stuart's rather long and extensively documented commentary, I can't help wonder if he has any idea what happens on a farm? Have you any idea how large most farms are? I live in the farm belt, and I can tell you definitively that if you drive out into the countryside, you will see VAST farms and nary a person for maybe hours or even days in those fields. Everything that is done in order to produce our immense agricultural wealth spews from the nozzle of a diesel or gasoline tank or from a natural gas well.
Most of the small farmers (20-1000 acres) I know also work full-time somewhere else. Often their spouses work as well. Why? Because their farms don't pay. Not enough to actually live on. The ones who still subscribe to the old, pour-fossil-fuel-on-the-ground and fire up the sterile sponge method of farming uniformly say that without anhydrous ammonia, diesel, pesticides, and fungicides, their yields will drop by sixty to ninety percent. Many in the short-grass prairie will be unable to farm at all.
While all the graphs and the economic abracadabra mumbo-jumbo may seem to make a convincing case, you seem to lack the actual on-the-ground knowledge or the common sense needed to make a factual and accurate assessment. (If you really want the low-down, call Wes Jackson at the Land Institute.)
Someone here mentioned the Amish. In my area, both the Amish and Mennonite outperform the chemical farmers handily. And that means both in strict dollars-in and dollars-out and in energy-in and energy-out terms, after subtracting ordinarily hidden subsidies in the form of pollution, dollars from the government, erosion, sterilization of land, and destruction of ecological diversity. And sometimes even with all those externalized costs.
Anyone championing the idea that agriculture will not have grave difficulties if fuel prices increase, has not been to the Dakotas where people are finding it difficult to get fuel at all.
What you are not seeing is that the farmer who has no fuel, will not plant. PERIOD.
What will happen, I think, is that people in areas where there has been a fairly recent history of truck gardening, and self-sufficiency, and who still have the land to do so, will plant their own gardens. This will supplant the 1500 mile Caesar salad and all that. Which is fine, but we will need protein. It is that lack of the protein grains which will make life unbearable. It will be a lack of grain feed to the cattle that will prove a problem.
No matter what, higher fuel prices will mean higher food prices. That is a fact. When you see people making a choice between driving and eating, then you will see real economic ruin. 'Cause, you know what, they will eat.
If they don't have the money to buy fuel, they will hardly be out there propelling our salad shooter lifestyle with more BS purchased willy-nilly from local Mal Wart in our BS economy. That means fewer jobs, and the cycle spirals down.
The fact is, you have no idea. You are, at best, a babe in the woods. At worst, you are a clueless technophile who is hanging onto the techno-paradigm for all it's worth. Which, my friend, is not a hell of a lot.
Amish and Mennonite farms are successful largely because their use of family labor to the fullest extent. The younger ones are used for weeding the garden and vegetable crops, the older children are used for the more physical chores such as stacking hay and milking. I have always been impressed by the children's work ethic and ability to take on tasks and responsibilities.
But this requires lots of children. At modern society's consumption rates, that would be obviously unsustainable in a very short time frame, at Amish consumption rates, it is not so obvious whether or not it is sustainable at today's population size. As I understand it, around Lancaster, PA the farms have been divided up into progressively smaller and smaller units for succeeding generations, to the point now that land is expensive and the farm sizes are not feasible for supporting a family.
Just as there is labor utilization and machinery utilization aspects to making farming profitable, there's also horse utilization rates too......
In the medium- to long-term, I believe they will, but in the short-term, I doubt it. ;)
Oil won't get to $250 per barrel unless some can afford to pay it. If they can then biomass energy will be similarly higher in value and hence farm products will be similarly high in value. Hence farmers will be able to buy enough to run their operations.
If large scale farms have an EROEI substantially higher than 1 then mechanized large scale agriculture survives. If they have an EROEI lower than 1 then that form of agriculture does not survive.
Stuart,
As always, a well-argued point. Probably also one of the more controversial essays you have written. I understand what you are saying, and have argued a similar point on some other subjects: While Choice A might be the better choice for society, due to (politics, short-sightedness, greed, etc.) we will almost certainly pursue Choice B.
For me, the issue of growing my own food is one of security. In the long-run, I don't want to rely too heavily on others to produce my food. I want to have an ace in the hole, so to speak. Plus, I really enjoy gardening, and it is something I want to pass on to my kids. Do I think it would be valuable if everyone developed some basic gardening skills? Yes, I think it would moderate price pressure on food, which I see continuing to become more expensive as energy costs spiral higher and biofuel mandates are regarded as the best way to mitigate peak oil and high oil prices.
Not controversial at all IMO except here at TOD. Stuart hits the nail on the head. See my post in Drum Beat. Peak Oilers should recognize other fallacies that I have often pointed out. Peak Oil is not fallacious IMO, but some of the arguments now becoming attached to it are. If these erroneous arguments are not corrected or abandoned as erroneous, it now reflects on the Peak Oil idea itself to those who are just becoming familiar with PO. Peak Oil thinkers should be careful to weed out fallacious arguments.
Practical, I admire your tenacity and respect the fact that you are a farmer, but your continued bias towards the viability of corn ethanol is the most fallacious argument of all. Ethanol is a prime example of the Tragedy of the Energy Commons. Say for example the average energy gain for the whole world is 8:1. Then ANY sub 8:1 energy technology is accelerating the use of high energy gain remaining fuels. Ethanol at a paltry 1.3:1 eats up our natural gas, oil and coal stocks MUCH MUCH faster than if we didnt produce it at all. I call it a Tragedy of the Energy Commons, because indeed (and especially due to subsidies) entrepreneurs and farmers (who own the land) can make money at this while the rest of society is worse off (much worse off). Your land ultimately will make you much more money and have a better overall value to society with something other than corn combined with coal or gas into vehicle fuel. You just don't see it yet. Or maybe you don't care.
This argument does not make sense. If I invest one unit of energy in producing corn ethanol and get 1.3 units of energy in return, then to get another 0.3 units of net energy I do not need to extract any fossil fuel whatsoever (at least under the simple minded assumption of economic equivalance of the various forms of energy). We clearly exploit energy sources with a range of differenct energy balances. As long as the energy balance is positive for a particular source net energy is being produced. Of course other aspects of ethanol production (soil loss, water loss, removal of land from food production, etc) probably make it a bad idea.
It does make sense.
Society is run off of a HUGE energy gain. I'm not sure what it is, but lets call it 8:1. Society is 'growing' (but one could argue 'slowly') at this average energy gain - this large payoff subsidizes our roads, hospitals, insurance, social services, etc. and much of it can be considered an 'externalized cost'. If we take some of our remaining high gain energy and get a 7:1 return on it, then everything else stays constant (if non energy inputs are equal). If instead, we take some of it and generate a .3 return on it, it shrinks the growth in the system as a whole. The specific operation will be fine, as you say, they have paid their energy cost and may even profit. But our infrastructure and systems are built on much higher energy gain, and require high energy gain to maintain. This was discussed in Charlie Hall's paper here.
An easier way to think about it is what if we ran out of oil, but had 86 million barrels a day of ethanol. Would that 'matter' to society? You could look at it 2 ways: 1)of the 86 million barrels of ethanol, 66 were needed to get them (86/1.3). 2)to generate 86 million barrels that could be used for 'roads, infrastructure, investment, repair, etc.', you would need 286 million barrels of ethanol, which would then 'free up' the .3, which would be the 86 million. (Yes, ethanol uses nat gas and coal and diesel, not all 'oil', but the general premise is correct)
And, as you have correctly pointed out, the non-energy inputs for bio-energy are 'not the same' as for fossil energy. More land, more water, more pesticides, etc are needed per unit of energy. (This was discussed here)
Claiming that the relatively low energy return of ethanol makes it economically inferior to fossil fuels and therefore incapable of supporting the same level of economic production as these superior fuels is correct. However, claiming that an energy source with a low but postive energy balance "eats up" the supplies of superior fuels is incorrect arithmetic. I am not trying to support corn ethanol as energy source, but making factually incorrect statements does not help to support your position.
If ethanol was on top of all other fuel sources, then your comment would be correct and I would modify my statement. But ethanol is being used primarily to replace other fuels - so the point of my initial statement is correct. (e.g. its not 86 million barrels of oil per day PLUS ethanol, its 86 million bpd which INCLUDES ethanol... The tiger eating its tail....
Suppose we have 200 units (energy units not volume) of high EROEI fossil fuel available to us each year. If we invest 100 units of this fuel (along with soil, water, labor, etc) in the production of corn and produce 130 units (energy again) of ethanol. This out implies that either we have 30 extra units of energy or that we can extract 30 less units of fossil energy. This process is not speeding up the depletion of fossil fuels, although it may be incredibly foolish because of the consuption of non-energy resources such soil and fresh water.
No.
Firstly, we totally agree on the consumption of non-energy resources, soil, fresh water ,etc. so lets put that aside.
The economy grows because of energy gain. Technology and labor help, but without what Roscoe Bartlett calls 'energy surplus' we can't have growth. We are used to a certain energy surplus - in fact, much of the annual surplus in energy just goes towards maintaining our current trajectory.
Liken it to a trust fund junkie. His fathers advisor invested his $1 million into something that made 20% a year for a long time. The trust fund child got to spend 200k a year and built his life (mortgage pmts, car pmts, trips, gambling money, etc.)on that 200k. The market changed/advisor was fired, etc and now the only option is another advisor that makes 5%. 5% is clearly better than nothing, but $50,000 is not enough to pay for the lifestyle that this guy had become accustomed to. So the guy has to either eat into the 1 million principle, or learn to live on 50k a year.
In your example, we can invest that 200 units and get 1600 back (1400 net), or we can invest it in corn ethanol and get back 260 (60 net). Yes the corn ethanol made money for the guy who did it, and it also created energy. But society needs 1200-1300 in energy gain minimum to maintain itself. So the greater % that is allocated to small energy gain technologies, the more society is going to have to use next years 200, and the year afters 200, etc in order to get their 1200 minimum required. This is why allocating resources to small energy gain ideas is accelerating the usage of our stockpiles.
I have already agreed with the statement above as applied to corn ethanol as an energy source; Corn ethanol is economically inferior to fossil fuels. It cannot support the automobile economy or a growing stock market for decades into the future. Please quit repeating assertions that I have already conceded to be true.
The statement that I was critizing was:
An energy producing process with a positive energy balance does not suck energy out of the economy. It may suck other production resources (such as soil, water etc) at an unacceptable rate per unit of net energy produced. But to claim that it sucks energy out of the economy is failure to understand the very concept of energy balance.
Read back up 3 comments - I stated that if we are developing a 1.3:1 energy gain technology on top of the existing pile of annual energy, then you are correct - it pays for itself. But that is not the case, we are using this 1.3:1 energy gain technology, to replace part of our existing pile of energy. Huge difference. In the former, its extra energy. In the latter, it means the sunk costs in the economy won't be met with the paltry energy gain, and we will have to eat up our existing pile faster. You are aware that the new 'record' of oil production last month included over 1 million barrels of ethanol, without which it would not have been a new record.
So, in conclusion, an energy producing process with a positive energy balance does not suck energy out of an economy that starts from scratch, but it DOES suck energy out if the economy has fixed and growing energy needs AND this energy source is replacing something that had a higher gain. (this happens to be case on corn ethanol but will be the case on any quality adjusted fuel technology below the recent energy gain average - here I don't mean EROI - but energy gain/surplus - which is EROI X Scale).
I feel quite strongly that I am correct and this is a vitally important point that most people miss - I know you are long term poster here and I respect your comments and have learned from you - if this still isn't clear email me offlist so we don't further derail Stuarts mechanized agriculture post.
Nate,
Clearly, you are correct. A shrinking energy supply (in toto) is a shrinking energy supply. If that shrinks, then the economy shrinks.
Pretty easy concept.
Sounds reasonable, Nate. We have 200 barrels of oil equivalent. If we invest all of it in getting more oil, we might get, say, 1600 barrels, of which 1400 is the energy gain and goes towards building our economies. If, instead, we divert 100 barrels to ethanol production, we end up with 800 barrels from more oil production and 130 barrels from ethanol production, giving an energy gain of 730 barrels of oil equivalents. It seems clear that we then need to add 670 extra barrels of stocks, or increased production, to get the same amount of energy as we'd expected to. So existing resources get used more quickly (if that is possible, if not, we use existing supply more quickly and our energy availability declines more rapidly).
Tony
This way of thinking is incorrrect. Energy producing processes with postive energy balances do not compete with each other for energy feedstocks. Considers the sum of all of our above the ground energy reserves (pile of coal, pipelines full of natural gas, stockpiles of refined motor fuel, etc). An energy producing process takes some amount energy out of these stockpiles and a later time return every bit of fuel it borrowed plus some extra (I am assuming a positive energy balance). This process does not prevent any other positive energy balance process from operating in parallel using the same stock piles. When energy is being used to produce energy the concept of a fixed energy budget is meaningless.
Hi Roger,
I hate to jump in because I went round and round with RR on this a while back, but also because I think the costs of ethanol are being externalized, particularly water costs, and I don't like seeing food go to fuel. But I agree with you. The slight-of-hand that Nate is using is that he ignores the oil feedstock when refining oil, but you have to include it when making ethanol (system boundaries have to be drawn that way I have been told), so you get this 8:1 number for oil refining and 1.3:1 for ethanol, and all the "awl bidness" folk say QED.
BUT... for grins, lets suppose all the oil you had in the world was 1800 barrels. When that is gone you are out, kaput, no more. Then you can ask what will I do with this. Well you could pump and refine it into diesel using 200 barrels and ending up with 1600 barrels of diesel. 8:1 OK well and good.
Or you could take take that 1800 barrels less pumping cost (let's say negligent for argument sake) and produce 2340 (1.3 x 1800) barrels of oil equivalent in ethanol.
Now for further grins, let's assume that the usage is 540 barrels per year. Having pumped and refined diesel you will be out, kaput, done, in about 3 years, but when making ethanol, each year, when a new crop is planted you will still have 1800 barrels, and now you have a sustainable energy supply. Woohoo!
Now these "ethanol haters" will rightfully claim that we can't replace our current FF useage with ethanol, ignoring the fact that they have been spouting nonsense about efficiency of oil versus ethanol. But with the right ethanol production from say celulosic sources, we could ease the burden on the oil consumption extending our nonrenewable resources, particularly so, if we also agressively conserve oil and recycle some of the water used in ethanol production. Here you will be told that the "devil is in the details", because there is no viable celulosic process. But hold on now, GE just invested in just such a process, with the idea that they could build many plants and replace about 15% of the FF use in the future. The first plant goes on line this year if everything goes perfectly :). Anyway, you'll go blue in the face arguing with some of these folk as they set system boundaries to ensure that oil refineries appear efficient compared to ethanol, wihtout a thought for extending the present supply of FF.
--Ben
That sounds quite convincing, Ben. There is a story by Robert Rapier about this very question: The Energy Balance of Ethanol versus Gasoline. I'm not sure any consensus was reached (it's another long thread, so it would take a long time to read again), however, a few themes emerge, for me.
One is that the BTUs that go into ethanol production are from already processed resources, as far as I'm aware, it is not crude oil. If I'm right, the comparison of inputs to ethanol, versus inputs to gasoline, is like comparing apples with apples. What I'd like to see is a full appraisal of all energy resources that go into ethanol production versus those that go into gasoline production. What would be the likely result of such a comparison? Well, that would be speculation, wouldn't it?
Another theme is the disputed EROEI of corn ethanol. I've heard some proponents, even scientists, claim that not all BTUs are equal. Well that seems a subjective assessment, to me. Either ethanol is net energy positive or not. Pimentel claims that it is not, but he usually gets derided by those who want the reverse to be true.
Lastly, as fossil fuels deplete, ethanol production may have to start using itself to produce itself. In this situation, I'm not sure it would fare too well. If that kind of situation prevailed now (only oil used to make gasoline, only plants used to make ethanol) then the energy balances would be very different.
There are other factors that may reduce ethanol's balance over time and have deleterious side-effects, but these have to do with environmental damage and top soil depletion and would probably warrant a whole new thread in itself.
The slight-of-hand that Nate is using is that he ignores the oil feedstock when refining oil, but you have to include it when making ethanol
You were wrong the last time, and you are wrong now. You are not making an efficiency argument. The argument "what if there was no more oil..." is not an efficiency argument. You are correct, if there was no more oil, then it's a different argument. But then if there was no more oil, the whole charade would come tumbling down anyway.
The oil feedstock is ancient, captured solar energy. You do not include that when doing the energy balance, any more so than you include the corn BTUS - recently captured solar energy - when doing the ethanol EROEI. (What you do include is the portion of the BTUs that were due to the fertilizer). This is what you, and so many others who are confused on this issue do not see.
What is counted in the ethanol EROEI is the energy it took to grow the corn, turn it into ethanol, and purify it. What is counted in the gasoline EROEI is the energy to extract the oil and to refine the oil. The portion of the feedstock BTUs that amount to captured solar energy are not counted in either case. Ethanol proponents wish to count them in the case of oil but not ethanol, which is why they say nonsensical things like "It is more energy efficient to produce ethanol than to produce gasoline."
QED.
I disagreed with you last time and I do so again. You ignore the crude oil feedstock as though it was not an input to crude refinement. In doing so you come up with this specious argument about efficiency. Moreover oil *is* a finite resource and production *is* constrained, so the main issue really should be about "can ethanol production increase our total energy production without hurting us more in other ways.
This 8:1 ratio is misleading. You don't get 8 BTUs out from 1 BTU in. That is called perpetual motion and violates the first law of thermodynamics. What really happens is you input 8 BTUs of crude plus 1 BTU (also from crude in steady state) to refine it, and get 8 BTUs out. 9 BTUs in, 8 BTUs out, so your efficiency in refining is 8/9 or less than one. In ethanol production, the sun's energy is captured in the growth of the feed stock for the ethanol production so that with 1 BTU of oil plus sunlight you get 1.3 BTUs out, so with respect to the BTUs of oil consumed, your efficiency for ethanol production is 4/3 or greater than one.
So here is where you will claim that I haven't drawn the system correctly, but as before, I think your argument is sophistry.
I am going to tackle this one. I think it is only a misunderstanding from describing different parameters as to why this discrepancy of opinion has occurred.
.
I will rephrase this. I am not looking at how much energy is in the feedstock as it is going into the refinery.
You take the ethanol feedstock from the field and load it into the ethanol refinery machine, and add 1 BTU of outside energy from somewhere, and put this into the operation, and take out 1.3 BTU of energy.
After subtracting your input, you are left with .3 BTU of extra energy to use where ever you wish.
.
Now, I also need to know how much energy I put into the tractors to seed, till, harvest, and transfer the feedstock to the ethanol refinery machine. I am not sure if this 1 BTU used in the process includes this energy above, so please tell me.
.
Now I will tackle the crude issue. This is what Robert is saying.
In this case, Robert is not counting the BTU of the crude going into the refinery.
You take the crude feedstock from some well and load this into a big refinery and add 1 BTU of energy and VOILA, that is just enough energy to extract and take out 9 BTU of refined oil product out the refinery. If it was 9 BTU , then after I subtract the 1 BTU I used, I have 8 BTU to take away.
.
Now, as above, I also need to know how much energy I used to pump that volume of oil out of the well, then move it to the refinery. I would expect that generally that would be only a fraction of a BTU and not that significant.
.
But I also have to add the total amount of energy it took to dig the well, and add the total amount of energy it took to dig all the dry wildcats before I found this well that produced. This is what is now starting to make oil less and less attractive to drill for, because the well has to put out enough energy for drilling an equal amount of new wells to find at least as much oil and enough more to use in society.
.
I disagreed with you last time and I do so again.
And as I said, you were wrong last time, and you are wrong again.
You ignore the crude oil feedstock as though it was not an input to crude refinement.
As you ignore the corn feedstock. You are treating the BTUs from corn differently than the BTUs from oil, and this is why you come up with the wrong answer. Look carefully at your second paragraph. The error is glaring. Here's a hint: In oil production, the sun's energy is captured in the growth of the feed stock. Just as soon as that sinks in, you will understand why you are wrong on the efficiency issue. The efficiency greatly favors oil. We can argue about other aspects, but the efficiency issue is settled.
Once more, with corn: You spend BTUs to fertilize and grow the corn, to harvest the corn, and to produce the ethanol (which is soluble in water, and energy intensive to distill). Those are the BTUs charged against your process. What is not being charged is the captured solar energy, which is how you can input a BTU and get more than a BTU out.
With oil: You spent no BTUs fertilizing or growing the ancient biomass. The earth has processed it into crude oil (which is insoluble in water, and not as energy intensive to distill). Where you do have to spend energy is getting it out of the ground and refining it. Those are the BTUs charged to the process. Just as in the case of corn, what you are not charging against the process is the captured solar energy. The excess BTUs that you got out are simply due to the ancient, captured solar energy.
So here is where you will claim that I haven't drawn the system correctly, but as before, I think your argument is sophistry.
Pointing out that your argument is comparing apples to oranges is not sophistry. And this is not rocket science. This is straightforward.
Here's a test. You and I each get one barrel of oil to invest as we please: Into oil production, or into ethanol production. Who will return the most BTUs from their investment?
As far as this test goes, if I deny you the crude inputs that you rapaciously squander as though they are nothing, I will win every time. And if my needs are modest, I will continue to have energy from that renewable resource long after you have pissed away your pitiful fuel allottment.
If you were a despicable sort you could always murder others and take their allotments as well. But if you don't want to be seen as the rogue that you are then you better hide your actions under another piece of sophistry and call them a "war on Terror", instead of the murder and theft that it is. But I've gotten sidetracked. No one would really do that.
I take it with this diversion off into murder and terror, you recognize that the efficiency argument is lost. If people understand that both ethanol and oil represent captured sunshine, but a lot more inputs were required to get it out of the ethanol, they understand why it is far more efficient to produce gasoline than ethanol. That is the efficiency argument. When you start making arguments along the lines of "but we will run out of oil", understand that you are no longer making an efficiency or energy return argument. But when you try to defend ethanol with the efficiency argument, and then accuse others of spouting nonsense for correcting it, know that you are actually the one guilty of that charge.
On the test, I still don't think you understand. You will use your allotment to produce exactly the same allotment of ethanol. If I give you 1 BTU of fossil fuel, you will produce (plus or minus) 1 BTU of ethanol. (It would really sink in if I gave you 1 BTU of ethanol, and said "Go produce more ethanol.") You will also produce some by-product, which you may be able to use. However, in the process you will have other negative externalities that are not captured in the BTU process, such as pesticide runoff and soil erosion. I will have negative externalities as well, but since you need fossil fuels to make your ethanol, you absorb some additional negative externalties.
Nate's main point is correct: Society is being run off of a very high EROEI. People don't understand what it means to move to a lower EROEI. You clearly don't, as you don't understand the level of fossil fuel "subsidy", so to speak, that underlies certain of our "renewable" fuels.
I guess it depends on how you look at the problem. Using some of that available energy to produce more conventional oil and more natural gas, for example, is much more energy efficient than using it to produce ethanol. So diverting that proportion, results in a smaller net gain that it otherwise would have. I guess that if there is now no more conventional oil or natural gas to be produced, using what is left in the system to produce any positive gain fuel is fine.
Nate, I've read and reread this thread and I just don't understand your argument. Maybe I'm just being thick.
You mention the 8:1 energy gain that society runs on as far as extraction of new energy resources is concerned, and the 1.3:1 from ethanol is obviously far less than that. But to say that this means it's using up our energy faster than we otherwise would seems flawed. I think the reason that it's flawed is that it assumes that the energy that's being invested to create ethanol could be invested elsewhere to yield a 8:1 energy return. I don't think this is true, and this is the key point. I think pretty much all energy that can possibly be invested at that rate of return given the present infrastructure and energy resources is already being invested. I think the energy that's getting sunk into ethanol production is energy that would have been spent in some other way (say, making food) or simply stored. What you've really lost is the opportunity to put that energy into some other beneficial use for a year, in addition to depleting some of the various other resources necessary to produce ethanol (water, topsoil, etc), in exchange for a rather paltry energy return.
To return to your trust fund analogy, I'd put it this way. "Son, we got a 20% return on your million dollar principal, just like last year. I couldn't invest any more at that rate of return even if you had it; I'm all out of opportunities. Anyway, here's your check for 200K. Feel free to go ahead and spend the entire amount or leave some in the vault for next year, just like you normally do. I do have a new opportunity for you, however. If you want to take some of that 200K and invest it, I can get you a 5% return (not as good as our usual 20%, but hey, it's something). There's only one catch: you'll have to give away a 2 foot strip of land on the eastern edge of the estate. Your call."
Am I missing something? Are you saying that there are other readily available ways to invest the energy currently being devoted to ethanol production that would result in much higher energy yields? If that's the case, then I finally understand what you're trying to argue here.
Yes thats part of what Im saying. We can only get so much stocks and flows per year out. So to invest the diesel, coal, natural gas, etc. into corn ethanol, or any other low energy gain system, means we are using some of our pile to return a smaller amount of energy than the rest of the energy is producing. Obviously, if an ethanol producer could instead drill a hole in Iowa and produce 8:1 crude oil, he would do so in a second, but those opportunities have largely disappeared. I recommend reading Joseph Tainters Resource Transitions and Energy Gain to get a better sense of what I'm talking about.
And the reason that replacing the 8:1 energy with a 1.3:1 energy uses our resources up faster is because we have a fixed amount of consumption predicated on the 8:1 total gain (8 x the scale). Look at it this way - the EIA already has included ethanol in their 'oil' numbers. What if in 10 years we have 43 million barrels of ethanol and 43 million barrels of oil instead of 85 mbpd of oil and 1 mbpd of ethanol we have today? Will society have used more or less natural gas and coal in that situation, everything else held constant?
Modern civilization is built on some minimum, but quite high, energy gain system
I will be writing a post on this next week - so read that Tainter piece and bring some questions...;-)
(p.s. I'm sorry I can't do more than a theoretical example here but the data just doesn't exist. But to do the example in dollars as opposed to energy would be pretty much worthless, as we can always just print more dollars)
I just don't buy this whole line of reasoning. We have potentially very large amounts of very acceptable EROEI wind, solar, and nuclear energy available to society. Our problem is to figure out how to run our society off them, but the challenges associated with that (intermittency, storage etc) are not really EROEI problems.
What if we can't run our growing society on them? Isn't the real problem that we just can't imagine running our societies sustainably and so will probably force a collapse as we try, increasingly desperately, to do so?
If we could accept a non-growth, sustainable, society, then we could start to get our heads around trying to get there. The longer we don't try to get there, the more likely it will become impossible (without huge pain and probable collapse).
You can't use large amounts of acceptable EROEI wind, solar and nuclear to drill for oil and run our transportation system in anything less than a decade. And it is unclear to me that the EROEI of nuclear is high and/or increasing. We are primarily concerned with liquid fuels, and the amount of energy coming out of the natural gas usage and crude oil usage going back into energy production has increased and will continue to increase faster, the more that the EROEI of oil declines. None of the above would matter as much if society were able to conserve or use less. But I am skeptical on that front - call it the Fallacy of Actual Conservation. Conservation in modern society will equate to less growth or negative growth, which will have other implications via all the discussions above.
You can't use large amounts of acceptable EROEI wind, solar and nuclear to drill for oil and run our transportation system in anything less than a decade
In seven years a major fraction could be done IF THE SAME LEVEL OF EFFORT USED TO DEVELOP CANADIAN TAR SANDS was applied. Electrify all 33,000 miles (or at least 30K) of the railroad lines deemed "strategic" by the DoD. And finish out Phase I of Urban Rail and have small parts of Phase II open and more within months of opening. Transportation bicycling has the largest potential adaptation curve, and MUCH could be done in 7 years. And enough wind turbines etc. to power them.
Note that existing hydroelectric power plants could be retrofitted and expanded and simply maintained better to generate 5% more power than they do in 7 years. Add some small hydro, geothermal and who knows how much solar PV in 7 years.
The job would not be finished in 7 years, but more can be done than you imagine.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I personally do not think that EROEI is ever the right metric for determing the economics of energy production. The cost per net unit of usable energy delivered is the correct metric. Energy balance plays a signifcant role, but it must be energy balance calculated in context of the whole system required to deliver energy in a useful form. Even for fossil fuels, merely calcuating the efficiency of coal or gas burning power plants cannot tell you what net usable energy is going to be delivered from a given quantity of coal or gas unless the effects of turning plants up and down to keept the grid voltage within required tolerances is also calculated.
I agree that the effects of intermittancy on net energy delivery are ignored by many enthusiastic supporters of solar and wind energy.
We have had relatively stable monetary growth and stability for decades. What if monetary growth, via a protracted depression contracts immensely, or alternatively, what if we have Weimar Germany type hyperinflation by central banks (who can print fiat currency at the cost of paper and ink) pay for real stuff with paper dollars? Then does the 'cost per unit of usable energy' accurately give you your metric? Would it even be in the same ballpark?
I am well aware of the problems of ERoEI. But I am also aware that net energy analysis won't become 'important' and 'accepted' until its too late - far too easy to rely on the market.
I agree absolutely. Instead of saying "the correct metric" I should have said "a better metric within the context of a reasonably healthy system of private finance capitalism". I do not believe in purely technocratic solutions to the problems we are facing. We need to abandon the competitive pursuit of ever increasing levels of private wealth in favor of the cooperative creation and maintenance of stable community wealth.
We already have alternatives that are a half or third the price per million BTUs and yet people insist on using oil. Why is that? Convenient storable form.
Sure, we can get power from electricity. But we are still waiting for A123Systems, EnerDel, and other battery companies to make electricity more suitable for transportation.
Even if the EROEI for corn ethanol was 1 then we'd still end up using corn ethanol as a way to convert other energy sources into liquid fuels.
Even if the EROEI for corn ethanol was 1 then we'd still end up using corn ethanol as a way to convert other energy sources into liquid fuels.
Within the margin of error, it is 1. Plus some animal feed that gets accounted as a fraction of a BTU.
If the subsidies weren't there, what we wouldn't be doing is converting natural gas into ethanol. We might do so with coal, but look at Brazil. They don't waste their natural gas inefficiently converting it to ethanol. They have a large CNG fleet (much larger than ours in the U.S.) That's what we would do if the subsidies weren't in place - burn the natural gas directly in CNG vehicles.
.
This is my entire point! You say that the energy being devoted to ethanol production is replacing energy that would have been devoted to producing more energy by some other means (and at a higher rate of efficiency), and that's the assumption I haven't seen properly clarified.
Let's say the world gets 8 units of energy per year. 1 unit is used to create next year's energy, at a return rate of 8 to 1. The other 7 units are used for other stuff, i.e. powering society. The question comes down to whether the energy being employed to produce ethanol is being carved out of the 1 unit previously assigned to energy production, or snatched from the other 7, at some cost to society (less food, for instance). If it's being taken out of the 1 unit assigned to future energy production, it's clearly a terrible deal, i.e. if every bit of energy being devoted to ethanol production is being directly taken away from other perfectly feasible and available alternative methods of production that produce much higher returns, it's clearly stupid.
But if the decision is being made that our energy hungry society is starting to require more than our previous allotment of 1 unit of energy be devoted to energy production, and if additional high efficiency means of producing energy are not readily available, spending some new energy on a lower efficiency production method is, well, less stupid. Still maybe a bad idea, but not necessarily idiotic.
Anyway, I'll read that Tainter piece when I have time and maybe all will become clear to me :)
I have been having an offline discussion with Nate about energy balance, and as a result I have come up with an idea which I think clarifies the issue of 'competition' for energy reserves from different energy prooducing processes. This idea is the working reserve of energy. When we need energy on an day to day basis we do not go out and dig up coal or drill a gas well; We take fuel of a working reserve of energy (e.g stock piles of coal, pipeline networs of natural gas, tanks of refined transportation fuel, etc). The size of this reserve is not fixed but is chosen based on practical considerations.
Low energy balance processes require larger working reserves than high energy balance processes. There will of course be excess costs associated with maintaining these larger reserves, and there may also be short term economic hardship (e.g. forgone economic production) associated with expanding our reserves by the necessary amount. But once reserves of an appropriate size are established then energy producing processes with different energy balances can operate in parallel with each other without competing for reserves. Energy is taken out of the reserves by energy producers, and at a later date all of this energy is returned plus some extra. The extra energy is utilized by economic processes other than producing energy.
Works for me :)
Hi Nate, and I admire your tenacity in fighting the good fight by continuing to argue with neoLudites about corn ethanol. Sort of interesting to think that the New view of how the world would be best served has reversed from a mechanistic one back to an organic view. Ned Lud would be proud, if slightly dizzy:)
Robert,
Self reliance is unachievable. You need police, doctors, dentists, people to make clothes, etc.
If we are going to lose a huge amount of the existing specialization of labor you need something even more than a farm: Weapons and a group of very loyal allies who will join you in defense of some small territory.
Really, think it thru. No trading system for food? Cheaper to grow your own food than to buy it from specialists? At that point you are living in such a primitive society that you'd better have infrared goggles, hunting rifles, claymore mines, and a lot more to set up your own local area of law and order.
Wishing for something doesn't make it happen. Equally, wishing that something won't happen will not avoid its happening.
if the energy, chemical dependent modern industrial farming practice has made the soil more fertile, water table higher, water ways healthier, aquifer fuller then, yes, high fuel price alone may not be able to reverse the trend. otherwise, "irregardless" the fuel price, the trend has to change. maximizing short term profitability regardless the long term consequences is the trend unlikely to change any time soon, though.
Exactly. If fossil fuels were the only resource needed for agriculture that we were using at an unsustainable rate, then things might be different. And the economics cease to matter once you run out of topsoil or water.
The fact that you can fall ninety-nine feet from the top of a hundred foot building and still be accelerating does not necessarily mean that you'll still be accelerating after falling the hundredth foot.
Thanks Stuart, for your effort and thoughtful analysis.
I wonder how you would integrate into your thinking on agriculture the issue that is often brought up with reference to oil prices, that is, externalities and politics (the so-called "above-ground" factors, but the agricultural ortholog in this instance)? If so few individuals will be directly involved in agriculture, the converse is that they will have little numerical voting power. Significant lobbying influence, maybe, but the voters are eventually heard in a democracy. Unless that changes in the future too.
I am not taking a position either way, but I can imagine that if things get bad enough for the masses, especially the land-poor and those in urban areas, then they will vote for relief programs that could get paid for by taxing those who have the money/capital (perhaps such as the large-scale farmers, if your study is accurate). There will certainly be a visceral response, if more people are paying very high food prices, to blame the producers. Isn’t this what happens when people pay high gas prices…they blame the producers and scream for their politicians to do something about it?
How do you see these factors coming into play?
Maybe it will. Britain didn't get universal enfranchisement until 1928. Property only entirely ceased to be a voting qualification for men (but not for newly-enfranchised women) in 1918. For much of the 19th century, the amount of property needed to qualify for a vote excluded nearly all Britons apart from wealthy landowners and farmers from elections.
It strikes me that disproportionate influence at the hustings may prove to be an aspect of agriculture that returns strongly during the long emergency, as hunger persuades landless and shell-shocked masses to part with their rights - 'temporarily', of course - in return for food.
I believe that industrial agriculture - with preferential access to oil and gas products - will be essential to attempts to mitigate the effects of dwindling fossil energy production. On depleted soils, it's our only chance. Maybe later, when people adjust to a new paradigm of contraction and dispersal, the smaller population (it will be harder to stave off epidemics, post Peak, than to prevent starvation) will have the time and inclination to build sustainable localised farming.
But what's the betting that some Big-Ag cartel (APEC?) will prevent them.
HE
"Make sure the voters are really hungry before you tell them to give up their cars"
I think the prices of agricultural products will also depend upon how globally produce is traded in the future, and whether protective tariffs insulate western countries from the increasing relative wealth of east-asian economies. If these goods are traded globally as they are now I imagine Stuart is right, but I think there will be massive pressure on western politicians to reduce global trade, to provide for local populations, even as far as price fixing. Where production of price controlled goods becomes unprofitable. Just thoughts though - good article Stuart.
Though I disagree with your premise Stuart, I think it is interesting to explore assumptions made on the part of many Peak Oilers. One of the main tenets has been that the small family farm will re-emerge as the large industrial conglomerates fail.
I think this is highly unlikely. In the event of a long economic recession, small farmers will have an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. The trend has been towards larger scale operations and I think that trend will continue. Larger scale operations allow for efficiency that maximizes profit, even if it comes at the cost of worker rights.
At the same time, I think we will see an eventual movement towards human and animal labor when oil and fertilizer become more scarce.
So I agree with you that large scale farming is far from being over. But I would disagree with you that industrial ag. can survive in perpetuity.
If the large industrial farms fail, then just how the hell will you get your Wheaties®?
If the large scale farm cannot use fossil fuel to do its farming, there will not be an industrial farm. PERIOD.
There is nothing sillier than watching people who have never worked, owned, or perhaps even driven by a farm make such specious comments about farming.
Stuart - thanks for your continued hard work on delving into this topic.
As I have written you offline, I have several problems with this analysis:
First, it follows the general line of economic reasoning, which I might call 'The Fallacy of Economics' - that correlation and "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) reasoning is circuitous and therefore has pretty much zero explanatory value. It seems to explain things at the time, but then changes 3 years later. Your 'very strong R^2 of .43 could have of in reality been explained by a variety of other factors.
Second, I view Peak Oil (and the unfolding Credit Crisis) from a probabilistic standpoint. There are TOO many variables in play and therefore the best one can do is create a 'mental distribution' of the possible outcomes and continually update it with weightings based on how events unfold. Your view that industrial agriculture will thrive borrowing oil and gas from the rest of the economy because of the importance of food is possible. But also possible is short-fall risk - that modern complexity disrupts a system heavily dependent not only on oil and gas, but on fertilizers, pesticides, tractor parts made overseas, etc.
Third, Thomas Homer Dixon and others on this site have suggested that in an expensive energy world, redundancy and resilience may replace the ubiquitous economic objective of 'efficiency'. Certainly thousands of food centers around North America are more resilient than several concentrated ones. You are correct in stating I don't have the data to support this. Thats part of the problem with Peak Oil - we can't PROVE anything until it's happening. But to assume the same rules that held in the 70s,80s and 90s will hold going forward is naive. We had very cheap oil then and the first derivative of efficiency in farming was still increasing.
Fourth, this analysis overlooks a rather important fact that oil is finite and dollars are not. While Saudi Arabia seemingly would ultimately trade us oil for food, the greater world at large may not always send real resources in exchange for abstract ones. If there are hiccups in supply at any point, that disrupts the highly sensitive just-in-time food system we have set up. Local agriculture, or at least more than we have now, would act as a buffer to this. Also, if this credit crisis continues and does prove to be the 'greatest bubble in history', the lessons of farming from the 1930s may have bearing -many farmers lost their farms and sold them for pennies on the dollar because they were broke.
Fifth, the standard deviation of weather events, especially over 1-2 decade periods is high, and one could argue with GCC might be getting higher still. If we ever were to experience a 'Dust-Bowl' condition or something of similar scale, the concentration of food production under large scale mechanized ag for everyone would be at risk, whereas if there is more localized food infrastructure, there chance that this crisis becomes systemwide would be diminished. Again, shortfall risk.
Finally, in your scenario IF the US continues to specialize in large scale agriculture in an expensive oil world ($200-$400 oil), then this oil and natural gas will be borrowed from other productive parts of society, thus accelerating an already large disparity between the haves and the have nots. Already the top 1% in the US make 50% of the income. If industrial agriculture continues to scale, that would seem to make wealth inequality even greater, especially if there isn't enough food to export (the last time we didn't export wheat was 1973, and I am told we are considering it again in 2008). If we have much more inequality in US and globally, the social seams may unravel. Local agriculture, or at least more of it, seems a natural equalizer.
You may be right. Heinberg/Quinn et al. may be right. What does the precautionary principle suggest?
To expand a bit on this thought Nate, localized food production...generally utilizing a much wider range of plant varieties and substrains...is also a great buffer against catastrophic crop failure due to virus/fungi/etc infestations (i.e. "plantdemics") which are always a nonzero risk to huge monocultures.
Stuart assumes that there is a market for his product even as "the poor" are priced out of that market. Further, Stuart's position continues to assume a growing market for agricultural products even if population begins to reverse. Also, Stuart's position assumes no discontinuities in fertilizer, pesticide, or other resource availability. Finally, Stuart's position is spoken in complete isolation from other ongoing trends, not only in peak oil but also in regards to climate change, loss of arable land, water table depletion, etc. I find this to be one of the weakest papers I have ever seen Stuart do at TOD.
While there is a chance that Stuart is right in the short term, I would not bet at all that he is right in the medium or longer term.
Well, the replies of Stuart's detractors have significant weaknesses, too.
Just compare BAD and DAD. BAD: Big Agricultural Demon, DAD: Daddy Family Farmer. BAD has 10 million acres under cultivation in Alberta, Ontario, Iowa, Kansas and Georgia. DAD has 200 acres in Kansas.
Now imagine what happens to BAD if a drought wipes out Kansas agriculture one year, and three years later Kansas has rains and Georgia does not. Who will be alive and well after five years?
What happens if fertilizer gets so expensive that you have to squeeze out the last bit of efficiency to make a profit, including using the latest expensive technology?
Both cases, DAD goes bankrupt, BAD survives. BAD has the resources to react to change, DAD does not.
You forgot about the massive US Government subsidies to keep BAD in business. There's only one mention of this in this whole thread, and nothing in the charts. The only thing that keeps BAD in business is that the taxpayers pay twice: once in taxes, and once at the supermarket.
Check this out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid/day1/
"Farming operations that **once** produced major crops such as corn, rice, wheat and cotton are paid a fixed stipend each year, along with extra payments when prices for those crops are low." - for a total of $9.4 billion/year.
Suppose the subsidies cease - then BAD dies soon after. When will subsidies cease? When government can no longer afford it... that day may come sooner than people think, since our national debt is now $9.1 trillion. If ever the days of 15% prime come back, interest payments alone will be $1.5 trillion/year - which means instant default - and no more farm subsidy. Do the math and figure it out.
Stuart really screwed up this time, but it's true, it's not peak oil which will do Big Agribiz in, it's debt service, both in terms of "land rents" and national debt.
Hi stream,
Thanks for bringing this up.
re: "...for a total of $9.4 billion/year."
I, too, was wondering about how subsidies come into an analysis, as well as the role of corporate farming v. non, what the relative percentages are of each one, and where the subsidies go as a function of either 1) legal status or 2) size of farm.
Is it even possible to analyze "Agbiz"? Are the books open enough? Does "Agbiz" "own" across the board? Or, like some small farmers, rent? What are the tax penalties/breaks - in addition to subsidies? And how do these work out as factors helping to propel the trends of the last 50 years of so?
What have been (until now) the driving factors for increased consolidation and/or decreasing of the "small family farm"?
Will these factors continue to be the ones in play?
What is the most desirable farm policy, given the oil/NG numbers we see here at TOD?
I'm reminded of an interview I heard w. the author of "Free Lunch", David Cay Johnson. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591841917/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Sometimes the "corporate private" is really "corporate public tax utilization" masquerading as "private" in the traditional sense.
Wow, I think I have yet to see such specious reasoning as I see in "biologist's" report (if that really is your name.)
<< I find this to be one of the weakest papers I have ever seen Stuart do at TOD.
I agree, to write about industrial agriculture without discussing things like top soil depletion, rapidly lowering water tables, and just basic water shortages in general, which are all very easy to see as real world events if you've paid any attention at all to industrial farming practices, seems slightly odd, especially in the context of the oildrum, which seems to be doing a much better job than most other sources of information when it comes to creating a more holistic view of events.
Topsoil degradation is so utterly visible if you have ever seen a modern industrial farm field that it's actually somewhat frightening, this is basically dead soil currently, at least it is where I've looked.
Also, failing to connect in the entire web of oil based supply that feeds into that industrial farmer seems to be a fairly major failing in this analysis.
It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but I seriously doubt it will look as nice as this analysis would have us believe. To be even slightly convincing, you have to look at least at water and topsoil issues along with the other economic matters. What's most odd is that for years I would read the economists say that with oil prices high, we'll just find more oil, and here we have the same exact argument re crop production....
I was writing about the effects of peak oil on agriculture specifically, not about all the ills of industrial agriculture. Soil erosion is a long-standing and gradual issue that has nothing to do with peak oil, per se. I suggest checking the soil conservation service maps of wind erosion loss estimates, and water erosion loss estimates. Water erosion is the main one (except locally in dry areas of the west), and the average is 2.5 tons/acre/year, which is around 0.6 kg/m^2. At a soil density of, say 1.5 g/cc, that's about 400cc of loss spread over 10000cm^2 each year. So we lose 0.4mm/year in soil height, or an inch every fifty years in round numbers - worse in some places, better in others. Will this ultimately be fatal if not addressed? Yes. Does it have any macro-level implications at all in the next few decades? No.
Sigh. It's incredible the number of myths that can persist for years, despite the fact that it is possibly to falsify them with 10 minutes work on Google looking for the actual data.
But even in this restricted area, you didn't really do that at all, all you wrote about was a micro case view of the farmer alone, not the system around him. What's the point of that? He doesn't work in a vacuum, the moment he enters into industrial production he becomes part of a much larger industrial system, not an autonomous entity farming away happily, he depends on all the elements, all of which require energy and resources to produce. So even in that more limited way, the article was fairly pointless, and really does not clarify any real issue at all from what I can see.
I for one have no way to predict what will happen to that larger industrial web that he sits suspended in, and neither do you I suspect, nor anyone else here. But that's what the real question is.
Eroding and degrading are not the same thing, as you know, dead soil is just not... healthy or alive, but might be persuaded to stay in place more or less, or at least to vanish more slowly over time. For some reason whenever someone starts doing an economic analysis, they seem doomed to start to ignore real resources, don't ask me why that is, it just almost seems built in, has been for at least 150 years in economics. Marx did it, and it seems that tradition lives on....
Its a bit long, but an EXCELLENT title for a post!
Speaking of which, I feel like beating my head against a wall when ever I read somebody saying "farmers won't be able to get fuel".
If agriculture only uses 2% of the fuel, and everyone has to eat, and people are protesting in the street about the prices of food, and politicians are still politicians, then surely we can rely on the government, out of populist, rable-rousing self interest, to make sure farmers have priority access to fuel supplies.
The logical place for the last million barrels per day of production, 50 years from now, will be in farmer's tractors, even if everyone has to walk.
Don't tell me people won't give up their SUVs. They will when they get hungry enough.
As an example, Australia, right now, subsidises diesel for farmers. That subsidy is likely to continue and increase in the future, in order to keep the price of bread affordable.
Because if people can't afford bread, they start burning their leaders in effigy in the streets, which makes politicians nervous.
By the way - if people can't afford to buy food from farmers, they are not likely to be spending much money on fuel either. Demand destruction (for oil) can come through high food prices as well as high oil prices.
Well done Stuart.
The U.S. subsidizes fuel for agricultural purposes as well. That's why they put the red dye in it, so that we'll know which fuel goes in the pick-up and which goes in the tractor. The red stuff isn't taxed, ala subsidy.
Once people get pissed about a lack of fuel and/or bread, the transportation system that gets fuel to the farms isn't going to hold up very well. At that point, all the subsidies in the world won't make a lick of difference.
Its more like 10%, when you consider that getting food from the farms to the people uses fuel. Much of what is produced on farms today is also processed and packaged, which requires additional fuel. Considering US domestic production is only about 5 mbpd (and bound to decline in the future), and feeding the population will take about 2.5 mbpd, that not a lot of leg room. While I don't expect exports to go to zero, I expect fall significantly since at some point exporters will begin to hord their remaining reserves. The US also imports all of its NPK fertializers and a significant amount of pesticides, since production of these resources have been relocated near low cost natural gas resources (in the case of Nitrogen fertializers and pesticides).
Other factors include maintaining and replacing worn out equipment. Virtually no manufacturing plant takes raw material at one end, and ships final products at the the other end. Every manufacturer depends on materials and parts that are made by some one else. When the economy goes into a depression, going to drive a lot of these material and parts suppliers out of business. And lets not forget about the energy inputs for building and maintaining equipment.
While I agree that we can not go back to 18th Century Agraculture, we also cannot expect to maintain existing agraculture production. Even if Western contries are some how able to maintain food production, poor countries will not.
The poorer countries which have very large populations will begin to destablize (as the already have done so in Africa and Pakastan) Systems that maintain sanitation, clean water, and bring in food will begin to fail as the mininum resources required to maintain them become unobtainable. This will inevetually lead to violence, mal-nutrition, and disease. People from these regions will leave their home as refugees, to neighboring regions. Not only will these mass migrations destablized other regions, they will spread diseases. Sooner or later, diseases and destablizing forces will reach western nations. The logical outcome of our future is a global dieoff, that will eventually reach all regions of the world. Whether this process takes years or decades, no one can be certain. However I suspect that if a panademic evolves out of the chaos, it won't take long for it reach all around the globe.
I think that in industrialized nations, the populations will begin to cut back on healthcare, and they will consume food that is high in calories but low in nutrition (because its cheaper). The degration of nutrition will weaken peoples immune systems, and the lack of proper medical care will speed up the development of super-bugs or drug resistant strains. The common diseases that killed millions in pre-20th century will rise again as antibiotics lose their effectiveness. Lack of capital to fund research in new antibiotics will fall as consumers cut back on healthcare. We already have a few untreatable strains of staph and Toburculosis. It probably won't take much to create many more untreatable strains.
TechGuy said:
'While I agree that we can not go back to 18th Century Agraculture, we also cannot expect to maintain existing agraculture production. Even if Western contries are some how able to maintain food production, poor countries will not.'
After this point, it seems to me that you assume that this is obvious, rather than try to substantiate it.
It is not too clear why this should be the case.
If it is mechanised agriculture which is held to cause the problem, there is far less of it in Africa and Pakistan than in the West, so presumably they should be less affected.
Energy inputs are also far lower, although in Asia at least there are substantial inputs of fertiliser.
I remember in the 60's, it was commonly thought that famine in Africa and more particularly in South Asia was inevitable, and that shortly, with many feeling doomed because of high rates of population increase.
The green revolution falsified that expectation.Of course it is always possible to say 'just you wait, it's coming!' but perhaps it is unwise to wholly discount the possibility it not happening.
For example, although in my view for the foreseeable future it seems completely daft to me for Germany to go for PV power, as in the winter they get around 3% of rated capacity, that investment does mean that prices are being driven down for the much more favourable environment of the tropics, where you don't need to wildly over-specify to obtain a reasonable amount of power, and you also don't need to build a grid if you haven't got one.
This on it's own should help agriculture a lot in those regions, as you can pump water and so on much more easily, so maybe not everyone there is so inevitably doomed as you seem to assume!
It appears you completely miss my point. Before reading. forget about agraculture for the moment. Assume the below content has nothing to do with agraculture::
Lots of Poor countries are destablizing because lack of energy resources. These resources are essential to maintain the economy, as poor people lose there source of income, and cannot purchase food and other essentials, they riot, steal, do what ever it takes.
Second, as energy resource decline, basic services such as will santitation fail. Waste begins to collect on the streets, increasing the risks to disease. Lack of energy and cash for individuals means less or no access to medical care. Instead of seeking treatment, they remain infected, and spread the disease to others.
If basic services cannot be restored, people will migrate to other regions (refugees), bring violence and disease with them to where ever they travel too. This spreads destabilization and disease. Eventually these issues will reach western nations.
As examples I recommend reading the new reports from Zimbabwe and Kenya. Some of the violence has spread to Kenya which is now destablized. Eventually destablization will travel north into Egypt and from there into the Middle East and Europe.
Aquifers are depleting around the world. When this is no water left, there is nothing to pump. On the way down of course, the wells need to be re-drilled ever and ever deeper. You cannot drill a well using PV, nor can you use PV to make pvc and steel piping. PV also fails when the wells become very deep as it takes a lot of energy to pump water from very deep wells.
In addition farming will be very difficult in regions lacking security. People from urban regions will travel to farms, steal produce, grain, livestock, equipment (including PV panels) and machinery. They will take that stuff either to consume for themselves or sell on the blackmarket for cash.
Virtually all of the poor Asia regions rely on fertial valleys constantly renewed from rivers. Unfortunatly in China and other nations, the populations are converting the fertial river valleys into urban development (must as the west has already done) or the are building hydro dams which are permenately flooding the river valleys. Farmers in China are being forced to farm much less fertial land as they are displaced. (Google for the "Three Gorges Dam" and farming). You will discover these Asian nation are being forced to purchase chemical fertializers as they are forced to farm less fertial land that is not self renewable.
In the areas you specify, Zimbabwe and Kenya, it is by no means clear that their main problem had anything much to do with energy resources.
Tribalism might be a much more proximate cause, although the extreme misgovernment consequent upon the politics has resulted in energy shortages along with shortages of just about everything else.
Aquifers are indeed being depleted, although precisely because the resources to drill wells and so on has been a lot more limited in much of the third world the problem is perhaps more acute in areas such as the US than in much of the Third World.
The conversion of farmland to urban areas in China and elsewhere is also a real problem, but has largely been predicated on the fact that farmland is presently relatively valueless.
An increase of need could lead to fairly simple measures being taken - green roof technology and cut and cover mean that it is not really essential to loose any green for urbanisation to take place.
Whilst many of the issues that you draw attention to are real enough, your inference that they are insurmountable obstacles appears to me unwarranted.
I was a lot more pessimistic in the sixties, when it seemed population growth would never cease and that areas like India and China would be lands of perpetual famine, rather than the rapidly industrialising powers we currently see.
That is not to say that everything in the garden is rosy, and their are plenty of grounds for genuine concern, especially in Africa and disfunctional states such as you reference.
Anecdotal evidence from certain regions, especially when it is clear that their problems go far beyond just energy, is not really a solid case for total universal collapse though.
Yes, and the nonsense that industrial agriculture 'wrecks' the soil is another.
Using glyphosate ("roundupTM")to kill weeds and "no till" direct drilling of seeds, organic matter in cereal-lands slowly builds up.
There may be issues of soil compaction, but these can be remediated.
Remember, an acre of land is an acre of land because that is what could be ploughed at oxen pace in a day, allowing for rest and feed.
Big machinery can 'walk faster' than oxen, and the swathe of land dealt to is vastly larger than what could be done by the best and biggest team.
Remember, these are annual cyclic plant crops - there is only ONE growing season, one window of time to plant the seed, one window of time to harvest. If you don't have big machinery, even if you have a thousand acres, you don't have the time to prepare it all before you are into your growing period afr enough the last planted won't mature.
What a multiplier fossil oil is! Thats why we can have civilisation.
Set aside an area for oilseed canola, soy, hemp, whatever. Use it to power agricultural machines. Thats one 'solution' for large scale agriculture production.
Ration oil is another. When oil is increasingly hard to come by, the ration cards will be in farmers hands. Obviously. Some industrial corn ( for corn syrup for crap 'food', for example) will not be authorised for ration card. Some corn to 'marble' yankee beef in feedlots will not be authorised.
But wheat and legumes for mass consumption WILL be provided, and the most effcient providor, without a doubt, in big ag, big machinery, big intellectual application of science.
Yes, veg and fruit can and will small-scale. Hell, they're 90% water! Expensive to oil-ship nationwide (except by rail, canal and coastwise).
Grain is dry calorie store, soy, even more energy dense. Dried properly and stored properly, it won't spoil, needs no refrigeration has years shelf life.
Gas for drying may be expensive, and thus food expensive, but, days end, govt will 'take' the gas one way or other, in the common good.
There may be all sorts of difficulties in lines of supply of infrastructure, but at days end, farming trumps all (even the military) for access to whatever it takes to keep the enterprise going.
Lorenzo
¨Using glyphosate ("roundupTM")to kill weeds and "no till" direct drilling of seeds, organic matter in cereal-lands slowly builds up.¨
I wonder if the organic matter is building up because the soil organisms that break it down are sensitive to the roundup?
Speaking of falsifying....
Yes, cherry-picking your quotes is fun, isn't it?
Because of the growth of population on an exponential scale, the increased use of non-sustainable agricultural techniques, and the expansion of infrastructure, the rise in the amount of eroding soil also increases apace. That means that the doubling time for soil loss is significantly less than it was at the beginning of our raping of the continent. In other words, your implying that soil loss is not that much and presumably won't increase belies your ordinarily careful examination of quite simple physical ideas.
Oh, P.S. It takes 500 years, on average, to recover one inch of topsoil.
Not to mention the Roundup resistant weeds! I saw entire wheat fields taken over by superweeds this summer, fields that had Roundup Ready soybeans the year before. This particular farmer had virtually no crop, a lot of good $9 wheat did him, he can't pay his land rent, so much for modern agriculture.
RE: btu,
You did NOT see a wheat field growing "Roundup resistant" weeds.
One can not apply Roundup over a growing wheat field, because no wheat is currently roundup ready.
If the farmer's weeds were of the dicotyledon broadleaf type, he could have applied, Bronate, Ally, Widematch, 2,4-D,or about 50 other herbicides with a mode of action COMPLETELY unlike glyphosate.
If the weeds were grassy, He could have applied, Puma or Olympus, again totally unlike glyphosate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000milemargin and 72MYZ have it CORRECT.
Soil loss comes from excessive tillage. There are 2 ways to kill weeds.
1) Tillage, which destroys old plant residue, kills earthworms, destroys soil structure, AND LEADS TO EROSION.
2) Herbicides, which leave the old dead plants on the surface, making a MULCH. Mulch cover and a NONdisturbance of soil leads to LESS erosion.
The "Dirty Thirties" or "Dustbowl" occured not due to lack of rain. There were many drought in the last 6 years worse than many of the years in the 30s.
The reason for the dust storms back in the day was LACK OF HERBICIDES.
If you want MASSIVE soil loss, and low yields, just take away herbicides.
I know what I saw and that was a wheat field full of chemical resistant weeds that was in Roundup Ready soybeans the year before. There was also wheat fields in the region that did not germinate on last year's RR soybean ground. Roundup is not the friendly chemical you think it is, your failure as a farmer will be due in part to your blind faith in toxic rescue chemistry.
Smaller scale gardeners and farmers have a third option: mulch. Mulch has the advantage of not only suffocating weeds, but also retaining soil moisture (a huge advantage, that) and (if organic materials are used) building up the soil.
Mulch is not practical on a 1000 acre field. It is practical on some crops up to a few acres.
It may not have to do with peak oil per se, but it does have to do with mechanized row crop monoculture which is essential to industrial agriculture.
Why should we only worry about the next few decades? Hubbert predicted in the mid fifties that global oil production would peak near the end of the century and the general attitude was: "Heck, that's more than four decades away and maybe longer. What moron would worry about events that far off? Let's build more toys and destroy and pollute until cold, hard, grim necessity forces us to do otherwise." And by the way, what is that you expect to happen in the long term? Are you anticpating that fusion will make us so energy rich that we will be able to grind up bedrock to make soil?
Sigh. Is it too much to expect that intelligent, knowledgeable people who have some understanding the long term implications of our economic activity should encourage people to think about something other than their own personal comfort for the next several decades?
Finally, in your scenario IF the US continues to specialize in large scale agriculture in an expensive oil world ($200-$400 oil), then this oil and natural gas will be borrowed from other productive parts of society, thus accelerating an already large disparity between the haves and the have nots.
Fossil fuels get outrageously expensive, domestic industrially produced food gets more expensive, does this create a bigger market for imports of non-industrially produced food? I don't know enough about this to say, but if there is still enough food produced worldwide in a manner less dependent on fossil fuel, maybe the difference in price would offset the expense of transportation.
In thinking this through, it is one more piece in favor of the notion that the growing and distribution of food would likely become more fragmented. Hundreds of localized arbitrages would begin to be felt. If industrial ag. gets way profitable, this means high prices likely in the face of low employment and increasing poverty. I will buy or barter local food that I can afford before buying more expensive industrial food from 1500 miles away.
Here's another short term prediction: There is enough 'fat' in the American consumption of food that a deep recession will actually cut the profits of big ag. companies sharply because people will have to cut back on the more expensive foods and learn how to cook rice and beans again instead of using hamburger helper.
That seems way way off the mark.
I'm pressured for time at the moment, but wikipedia says the top 6.37% households earn roughly 1/3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
I meant wealth, but income is very high as well. I too am in a hurry and can't find the link to a recent arcticle discussing the $billion+ paydays for hedge fund managers, etc that skew the 2006 and 2007 results (which are not included in this paper)
"Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze (pdf warning) Ed Wolff continually does analyses such as these - the numbers are difficult to come by and require heroic assumptions - the link is to his latest paper of 2007 which includes statistics through 2004. I believe the concentration of wealth is now as high as anytime in the last 100 years except 1929.
Another thing to factor in is that these megafarms are becoming corporate assets, i.e. ADM and with the high price of oil and a credit crunch the time could come that a sovereign fund or another foreign investor starts to buy those corporations and/or the ownership of our farms and they end up in foreign hands.
Instead of the Saudi's trading us oil for food, they could become the actual or beneficial owner of our croplands. As they are in the energy business the farms could be bought up by Aramco, or a SABIC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation) type entity could buy them (like they did GE plastics). In order to use them for biofuels, or to feed their own growing population, as they would have access to fertilizers from SABIC and fuel from ARAMCO they could operate the farms at less costs than a US operator. Petro dollars could pick these farms up one by one through quietly buying the assets of distinct and various companies and farms (as they are now grabbing up pieces of our financial markets) and we could wake up one day be beholden to a foreign power for our food security.
What would happen if we exported grain in the midst of a food shortage? The poor would suffer but when this starts to hit former and current members of the middle class then TSW really HTF. The haves will be far fewer than the have not's.
Whoof, darn good comments Nate; covers all I had to say and then some.
Farms getting larger and more industrialized seems mostly a case of continuing to choose efficiency over resilience in the short term under the tacit assumption that evolved systems don't collapse, which involves the confluence of so many fallacies it's daunting to list them. Still, in the short term that will be continued.
I love the "Fallacy of Reversibility" and was hoping it would be better used. It's a great fallacy! You can't run evolved systems in reverse! So I endorse the general concept of this fallacy as my favorite part of this article. Others have noted that "discontinuity" isn't explicitly considered by SS here, which I was glad to see mentioned since to my mind discontinuities are a large PART of a "fallacy of reversibility" as I might frame one.
I don't think that those I know who are planting gardens believe they are reversing time or evolution. Rather, they don't wish to starve and realize that there are a lot of things which have to happen just right to get grain from a field in Iowa to their mouths. So there will be the trappings of earlier times in some ways, but different. There will be forward evolution from the remains of untenably complex and non-resilient systems which collapse, and that evolution will be constrained - as evolution always is - by the thermodynamic choices foreclosed by prior events.
Anyhow, thanks SS for a well-laid-out argument; it's delightful to have a site to visit where even the stuff I can't agree with is of such high quality.
and just because I can, I'm going to highlight this pull-quote from Nate's comment:
This is well put and deserves a post of its own; it encapsulates a large portion of my own view and I recommend it as a conceptual frame. As always, YMMV.
(disclaimer: on codeine)
I think that the idea of "reversibility" is sophistic when used in this context.
There will not a be reversal of the film whereby we see:
No, I think that the better term would be "spectacular failure" followed by an eventual return to that pre-industrial model.
Cherenkov,
The situation you describe is certainly absurd, but technically it can happen. The Fallacy of Reversibility that you and Stuart Staniford describe is not actually a fallacy it is just improbable, very improbable. All processes are reversible, the smoke flowing back into the chimney, the cake jumping off the floor and reforming and even unbaking into dough. I know it hurts everyone's head to hear this but technically it is true, humor me for a second.
In intro to thermodynamics one will come across the following two pictures:
The professor will tell you that in the first picture there is a gas in the box on the left and a vacuum in the box on the right. Someone removed the divider for a moment and the gas distributed itself equally over the available volume until equilibrium was reached, a higher entropy state than the initial state. Teach will say that entropy is always increasing.
Teach will probably say that entropy is often called the arrow of time; since all processes are reversible the student cannot tell which image was first and which was second unless the student calculates the entropy of each, the one with the lower entropy happened first.
Then much later in the semester the professor will ask the students to calculate the probability that an evenly distributed gas in a box will all be in the left half of the box at some later time. If there is one gas particle in the box the odds are 1 in 2. If there are two particles in the box the odds are 1 in 4, 3 particles gives 1 in 8, etc. The same principle holds for all other processes. The odds of a broken glass recombining and leaping off the floor and back onto the counter is 1 in several times the life time of the universe measured in nanoseconds. Unlikely, but it is possible.
Which brings me to the actual point. Agriculture is not going back to the 18th century and it isn't going forward in the FF intensive, monocropping, unsustainable, modern agrobusiness mode either. While both are possible the odds against each one are staggering, something akin to 1 in several times the life time of the universe measured in nanoseconds. Both scenarios are myopic and highly improbable, what we are headed for is something else.
The framing of this debate is misleading. This is not a question of Luddites and reversalists vs. agrobusiness and industry. The real question is what is the best way forward.
Most of the people on this site posting about their progress toward becoming sustainable farmers are doing so because it is the best safety net for them as individuals in these uncertain times, not because they believe that the world is going to convert to Hobbiton when the oil taps out. If there were a global discussion about PO and GW mitigation then we wouldn't be hearing dissident posts of people heading for the hills. It is the expanded modern agrobusiness and endless Business As Usual exponential growth nonsense that drives the back to the land crowd.
Whenever you encounter a paradox, damned if you do, damned if you don't, you have to take a step back, realize that it is a trick question and figure out the trick before proceeding. In essence the system isn't working the way the invisible hand promised us it would. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that the question between full steam ahead and full stop is a trick question. So the appropriate question to ask, the correct framing of the debate, is how to redesign the invisible hand that brought us to this point in the first place.
*Incidentally, I like the Luddites, just because they lost doesn't mean they were wrong. If skilled artisans and craftsmen had won out over the dark satanic mills would we be facing civic apathy, PO, GW and a financial collapse?
-Tim
Peak oil, global warming, and economic collapse are not the problem, they are the symptoms of the problem. The problem is a collective action problem and an inability to make good long term plans.
...1 in several times the life time of the universe measured in nanoseconds.
Those of us who do not have several universe-lifetimes in which to perform the experiment, shall continue to employ the term "irreversible".
Ah, but if the glass is something important to me, I can pick up the pieces and reassemble them myself. In which case the probability has just jumped to 1:1.
We are actors within the system, and that changes things. We are intelligent and willful and can make choices. The future is not cast in stone but can be influenced greatly by our choices.
Most of the debate here centers around what kind of choices we are making and what kind of futures might flow from them.
We certainly COULD make choices that would result (intentionally or unintentionally) in something that looked more or less like a reversion to an earlier era. Whether we should or will make such choices is an open question. While some individuals are making choices consistent with a reversal strategy, at least up to now that does not appear to be the preferred pathway for the vast majority of society. Whether or not we'll end up with a reversal anyway as an unintended consequence of our collective decisions is uncertain and debatable, but quite possible.
A brilliant, data-driven, thoughtful analysis, as is often the case with Stuart's work.
However, I'm going to ignore the substance of this essay (which I'm still thinking over) to make one minor rhetorical point. As you know, the difference between the reversible and irreversible processes you describe is that the latter involve big increases in entropy (cake falling and floor and scattering all over), and the former do not.
It is therefore very ironic that an archetypal reversalist like Kunstler also frequently claims that our society is greatly increasing in entropy. If he were using the word in about the same way that the rest of the world understands it, this would guarantee the irreversability of our society.
There is, however, exactly one way that entropy can be decreased locally-- with a big increase in energy from an external source. But I'm guessing Kunstler doesn't expect that to happen.
Perhaps if entropy is maximised under our 'free-market' capitalist system, in reponse to the obvious economic and other crises that are upon us, governments might impose laws and regulations to allow us to begin the very painful rebuilding of our thermodynamic/societal potential. This would probably involve trade protectionism for example, and the reintroduction of banking, and energy saving legislation. Probably not until we're in desperate state though.
There is another way to decrease entropy for a society : global catastrophe and subsequent indenting of demography.
This has been proved over and over again with a lot of variables like the age of first parturition. As society evolves in peace, the age of first preganancy scatters a lot which increases the entropy for this variable (by definition). Then a global catastrophe occurs resetting the variable. The age of first birth giving becomes homogenous again (around 20 years).
In the case of agriculture I would indeed agree that we won't revert. We don't have the tools, the knowledge, the skill to go back. Gardening is nice but still relies on available seeds, fertilizer, tools and so on, si it is no option in a disrupted world. So, in the case of a huge discontinuity, increased competition for resources (like war ...), which society will fare better ?
Staniford has overstated his case; even if it were true that a few writings of a few peak-oil-aware people are too sanguine about our chances for relocalization of agriculture, most of us don't think such processes will in any sense be a 'reversal' of time, or a simple retrofit of 19th-century methods onto our current situation. The idea of 'victory gardens' and the like are an advocacy for a means to address worse-case disruptions that might occur in our food supply.
The example of Cuba in the early 1990s was a 'real-world' experiment in dealing with an immediate oil crisis when the former Soviet Union collapsed. The creative use of small-scale farming prevented famine. That is a well-documented case study that Staniford declined to consider. That the Cuban people rediscovered the advantages of oxen over horses was worth noting--not that anyone has any romantic attachment to oxen, plowing fields, or growing food by hand!
As someone who does garden by hand, the relative advantages of both rototillers (petroleum and solar) and oxen come to mind, particularly when I have to use a pick or an ax to clear out tree roots.
I have learned that some crops, like collard greens, can survive the winter in Ohio. If suddenly there were a complete disruption of the food supply, I might be reduced to eating (and defending?) wilted collard greens in some worse-case scenario, but I'd be thankful I had planted them?
The precautionary principle should be guiding us in our advocacy. In general, Staniford has relied on economic analysis to make his argument and without laying out his numerous assumptions. It is essentially an argument that 'economies of scale' prevail. Ho hum. Mr. Staniford, I have a degree in economics to sell you!
"Conventional energy economics is a value system masquerading as mathematics. At its heart is one key assumption: the future is worthless and the environment doesn't matter." -- James Udall
It's funny you brought up Cuba. They were not the only one forced to Kick the Oil habit.
North Korea had the same event hit them for at the same time, for the same reason.
However they chose the Centralized Mechanical route, not unlike what Stuart talks about.
Not a Good Out come.
Drawing Lessons from Experience;
The Agricultural Crises in North Korea
and Cuba
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/111703_korea_cuba_1.html
BRAVO!!!
Cuba and N. Korea.
Perfect examples.
Good job gentlemen. Economic hoo-haa debunked in posts that are one one-hundredth the size of the original.
Excellent.
I looked at the referred article.
It in no way falsifies the analysis - large scale, machinery-based and science-based farming of vast, flat, deep pararie soils in North America is likely to be
a) profitable (social 'subsidies' of various shifting levels a given, as subsidising the profitability of food production is subsidising your own ability to exist)
b) priority for existing USA and imported oil use
To hold up a dictatorship with inefficient market signals, no dispassionate advice, hopelessly compromised planners and scientists (everything the 'great leader suggests is "brilliant"), no significant deep soil pararie lands, no private eneterprise or capital etc - as a proxy for the situation obtaining and likely to obtain in future in North America is - if you compare and contrast the geography, history, climate, and governance of the two for a moment - perhaps a little ill-advised.
Cheers,
Lorenzo
Pigs are good at cleaning out tree roots. Put some corn down a hole near the stump and let them do the work.
cfm in Gray, ME
Anyone want to trade a couple of pigs for my degree in economics? I will have the name changed and frame it for you. It comes from a first-tier university.
Ahh...that really made me laugh. Craigslist ad for the '10s!
Excellent post. Since you have a degree in economics perhaps you could answer this: Is there anything of substance in conventional economics besides the worship of 'economies of scale' to the exclusion of all else?
I have been trying to figure this out for some time.
Please Google for United States food exports to Cuba, and you'll find that Cuba is far from a success story, North Korea is even worse, since millions of N.Koreans are starving. I believe that China, S.Korea and other nations also provide food aid to N. Korea, and yet there still is famine.
There is no way for the globe or the US, or any major power to go back to 18th century farming without a massive dieoff. That said, Those that can secure their own food production will likely fair better than those dependant on industrialized farming. A dieoff is going to happen no matter what actions are taking because we are in deep population overshoot.
Of course if you truely believe that N. Korea and Cuba are paradise, I recommend you relocate to one of those countries.
My family visited Cuba about 3 years ago. We saw lots of small-scale agriculture, some with oxen. We also saw lots of large-scale agriculture - which I assumed was mechanized due to lack of people around. We did not see any urban agriculture in Havana, which is often talked about.
The latter is consistent with google earth, though I don't know what the age of satellite data is. It's hard to look at the large scale farms due to poor resolution.
Let's look closely at the preceding post from "TechGuy". First, let's throw away North Korea but keep Cuba in the discussion. North Korea's leadership is based on a total lie and cares not at all for its peoples' well-being. Castro's Cuba, while heavily controlled, is a more nuanced situation where the government does work to provide good health care services and a stable life to the inhabitants. I am not a Castro lover or hater, so do not go crazy.
Now, what appears to have happened in Cuba is an important opportunity to learn what might be done successfully as oil (and natural gas) become extremely expensive or not available in other parts of the world. They adopted recycling of farm waste, maintenance of used cars rather than discarding them prematurely, and organic farming methods.
It seems to me also that there is likely to be a die-off, but how large I believe can be influenced by our actions. If we successfully maximize farming output with sustainable methods, and learn what works and does not work from early experiences such as that in Cuba, what is wrong with that? We need to avoid turning everything into a political argument... we need to learn from each other where possible.
The previous post's final statement "Of course if you truely believe that N. Korea and Cuba are paradise, I recommend you relocate to one of those countries" reveals an impulse that lowers some of the thoughtfulness earlier in that post. I don't know if anyone says Cuba is paradise - is there a paradise or anything close to it anywhere on the earth? Doubtful, although maybe in som households here and there. The sarcastic invitation to relocate into North Korea or Cuba shows a desire to fragment rather than join together. I think we all know that life in Cuba is very limited in resources. However, for those who are short of oil and some other supplies, it is a worthwhile case study of how to manage in such an economy. Again, this is not political. As one Shakespeare character (in "Romeo and Juliet") said, "A plague on both your houses". In other words, if we could only stop seeing everything in terms of winner and loser, and two sides against each other, it would be much easier to solve our problems.
If you read my first post in this drumbeat, you can see my view on the effects of global destablization and the spread of disease that will almost certainly prevent a "limited" die off.
Unbelieveably, many drumbeat contributers do believe Cuba is a paradise. Like Fossil fuels, my patience isn't infinite. We have covered that Cuba example is not a solution to declining energy resources more than a dozen times in drumbeats. The Cuban example in fact increases support for dieoff, because Cuba is dependant on US grain exports to meet is food requirements, and Cuba still used fossil fuels for it domestic agraculture production.
My primary objective is to simply convince more people to take measures in their own hands rather than wait for some systematic gov't supplied solution thats never going to happen. The choice is simple; either make your own preprations for your future survival or suffer the consequences of your inaction.
Look around today, there are no massive projects to mitigate declining resources. In fact just the opposite is happening, All over the world, countries are becoming ever more dependant on fossil fuels. We aren't building mass transit, we aren't building water canals to bring new sources of water to replace depleting aquifiers. Our gov't is still more focused on trivial issues, such as birth control, the housing bubble, illegal immgration, socalized healthcare, and a dozen of other issues that are virtually meaningless considering the magnitude real challenges coming up fast.
I'll jump onto a 'Reversability' subthread, here.
I did appreciate the clarification of those things which are and are not Reversible, like 'UNBaking a cake', as opposed to UNinflating a balloon, etc.. But I think the argument needs to extend into some more pertinent details relevant to the Scale of various types of AG.
To stay general for a moment, I was reminded of the 'Reversability' (NOT!) demonstrated by Ferris Bueller, as he tried to 'unwind' the miles on the Sportscar by running it in reverse.. and of course ultimately DEConstructing the car itself by crashing it down into the woods.. two fine examples of UNSuccessful Reversability. Despite his best attempts, the story was still moving forward.
In my workshop, when I need to drill a big hole through a 2-by, I can use the Hole-saw, and I've had some success with a New and Sharp Spade-Bit in the 1990's Drill-press in some cases, but depending on the type of wood I'm cutting into, I will often be glad I still have my grandfather's Bit and Brace, which has been extremely successful at such things, and operates quietly enough to let me hear the MP3's of my favorite 70's Fusion Rock band (Gentle Giant) playing on a Laptop. (If the laptop dies, I'm hoping my daughter takes up the Banjo, so I can finally build that Hammer Dulcimer and learn to play some Joplin and Monk on it..) Am I a 'Reversalist', a 'Fogey', a 'Hippie'.. I also use Pandora.com, so you may say I'm a streamer, (but I'm not the only one). I am a big believer in keeping useful tools available in my toolkit, while trying to learn what NEW tools are out there, and getting rid of the 'Backwards' tools, habits and assumptions that keep us from 'getting there. And so to deride the love of some older things because they evoke a Nostalgic feeling, does little to address whether that wheel they dream of reinventing wasn't also highly functional, resilient, durable, etc.. and which may well have contributed to the fond memories of a life that included such implements and processes.
People who advocate for a '4-in-hand' team and a bit of bluegrass might be seen as hopelessly backwards, but is the same standard applied to someone who advocates for "Peace through High-altitude Bombing Campaigns and will only listen to Kenny G and Air Supply"? Which is to say, some of our assumptions are absolutely ANCIENT, others relatively recent but so quickly outdated.. and while they have an EFFECT and make a lot of NOISE, as with Massive Bombardment Strategies and certain 80's hair-bands, we still seem capable of overlooking the fact that they ~may~ have been basically INEFFECTIVE or objectionable.
Is this 'Reversalism', or rediscovering something that 'worked, but we fixed it anyway.' ? We still use the wheel, it's old but it keeps coming around, squeaky or not. That hovercraft was a neat idea, but who can fill the tank these days?
I don't know that BIG AG is going to be 'the Brontosaur that doesn't have enough Acacia forests left to feed it' and die from it's unsustainable scale. I would expect that businesses will try to adjust their risks and resiliency as the writing on the wall gets more attention.. I also think that individuals and families who feel increasing food-insecurity and financial stress will look towards actions that offer some relief, which means some will find gardening, others will support local farms and CSA's and farmers markets.
I guess I really just wanted to weigh in on the uncareful characterization of 'Reversalists', which I see as an obsolete label right out of the gate. "What do you mean you're Hungry again?! You're grandfather was Hungry all the time.. he'd eat one meal, get hungry again and just eat another one! What good did it do him? He died! Eating is so old-fashioned.."
The increase in energy locally will be from human labor. Right now there is a huge untapped potential of human energy in the US society. I sit here typing on a keypad with my metabolism on idle when I could be out trellising my grape vines and burning some unused energy.
Another point about those of us who might be considered 'reversalists.' Many, like myself (and Robert Rapier -- see earlier post) are 'hedgers.' I enjoy the rural lifestyle and growing my own food and foraging, etc. This is also a great hedge for future unemployment, high food prices, food unavailability, etc. regardless of beliefs about reversibility.
I don't know Kunstler reasoning, but shouldn't he say that our society is reducing in entropy? We are getting more organized, not the other way around.
Anyway, that arguments based on society's entropy are always bad. All our organization is so minimal that we could displace its entropy to a gallon of burning oil.
I think you've got the right direction. As civilization becomes more advanced, entropy decreases. As it falls, it increases.
All that being said, I think that Stuart's article is excellent within the context of what he's describing. Based on the data that's available, it appears that large scale agriculture becomes more profitable as oil prices go up. He is not trying to hypothesize how potential dicontinuities will effect industrial level agriculture, but what could be expected if things continue as they have been without serious changes.
I do not believe that we're going to be able to avoid discontinuities. Instead, I think that the ADMs and Mesantos of the world will ramp up production to fill a perceived need for their product, make enormous profits for a short while and then run into a brick wall. There are a couple of possiblities for the proverbial "wall." There could be acute climate changes that affect large portions of the world; oil prices could go up to the point where the large businesses charge too much for the majority of their customers and they go bankrupt; or some other event could come up that disrupts the ability of any large, multi-national organization to operate profitably.
In the long term, we cannot continue to expand without limits. Even if we were able to temporarily overcome our energy limitations, there are material limitations. They exist at the planetary level, and even at the stellar level (if we somehow made space travel economical.) We, as intelligent beings, need to stop and think about what we're doing and how our actions will effect the lives of our descendants 1,000 generations down the line.
Scott
"We must strive to become good ancestors." - Ralph Nader
"As civilization becomes more advanced, entropy decreases. As it falls, it increases."
Actually, no. Entropy decreases only within the civilization, but in order to get there, overall entropy increases within the larger system, in this case the biosphere. In Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life?", he explained that "a living system exports entropy in order to maintain its own entropy at a low level ". Likewise a civilization.
Going further, "When we measure the area around complex organisms and ecosystems, we find that they are keeping themselves cool, pushing heat away from them, in such a way as to accelerate the natural production of entropy. Ironically or paradoxically from one point of view, but quite naturally from a more “holistic” standpoint, the complex system is more effective at accomplishing the natural goal of entropy production than a simpler, less organized system." From Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric D. Schneider and Dorian Sagan.
Thanks, r,
Interesting reference.
I suspect that he means the dissipation of a one time resource. Since that one time resource also enabled the current population, without that support, we, our bodies, will also fall prey to entropy as our organized energy is dissipated.
You guys really put a lot of effort into your essays. I don't have time this morning to try and absorb all this, but I will comment anyway. Yours seems to be a type of Soylent Green argument in a way.
Forgetting about peak oil for a moment, at least what I observe around my local area is quite the opposite. Local farmers markets are thriving. I have started getting my dairy products delivered from a local creamery - people take their kids there to talk with the cows they are getting the milk and butter from, its all organic yada yada yada... Also, finally (being in Virginia this took too long) a few pig famers from downstate have started selling in our local farmers market. Now it is true that I don't know of any local grain being sold or local flour mills, but local bakeries are springing up everywhere.
OK, so around here this phenomena is driven by a few factors. 1) people are sick and tired of tasteless vegetables and want stuff like exotic garlics and heirloom tomoatoes 2) people are worried about hormones in their dairy and meat 3) crunchy people like the idea of "organic" 3) the whole McDonalds - "every place and everything is like everywhere else and everything else" trend has run its course 4) people around here have more money than your average place and spend it on stuff like this
The last point might support your thesis. Although I wonder, because in recent months with the price of store-bought factory-bread and factory-meat and factory-dairy rising, the cost of the farmer's market foods have not risen nearly as much. The prices are much more comparable now (and the farmer's market quality is still that much better). I wonder if that is because for the factory-farmed food, the cost of the raw materials is the largest percentage of cost while labor is small and for the small organic farm the opposite is true ? Anyway, that is what is happening in my local area.
"The last point might support your thesis."
Well, exactly, that's where we'll have to stay tuned. In harder times, folks might not have so much time in which to wallow in yuppie angst over "hormones" (or cell phones or coffee or some other soap-opera crisis du jour), nor so much money with which to indulge those irrational emotions. They might simply go for price.
The big farmers' market in my area used to be the place to go for both price and quality. With respect to price those days are largely gone - the vendors have long since wised up and yuppified. And although a huge crowd shows up, it's still a fairly small minority. The vast preponderance of the food economy follows the normal industrial pattern.
So I'm wondering whether you live within commute range of the District. If so, the same pricing phenomenon may come to you. After all, beltway bandits and Federal officials are good marks. They tend to be highly affluent, and to have long commutes affording abundant time in which to scare themselves witless over the latest "study" proclaiming half a standard deviation of statistically insignificant snake oil as ultimate truth.
Commute range ? You mean like walking distance ? Yes, I can (and have) walked into the district, although bike is a little more expediant.
The point of what I was saying is that a local economy is on the upswing where I am, and its not only food but that is the most mature. The cause of development of this economy was not price originally but quality of product and quality of life. And, I found it interesting that the difference in price of local and non-local foodstuffs was becoming less.
Hi all! Just to confirm the trend of "regional grown products" it's a very big trend in Europe, even Supermarkets are playing this card big time now !
...and one disturbing thought: in the US, the are more firearms than people in circulation, did anyone evaluate the "disruption factor" of armed civil unrest in his predictions ?
I gues there are fundamentally different types of agriculture and that's why you guys don't agree:
- grain farming is difficult to do in your backyard and profits most from industrialization. Produce can be transported by ships.
- vegetable farming can be done in every garden and the produce is perishable. Indurstial production needs trucks (high diesel consumpion) or even airplanes for transport.
- milk production is in-between: difficult to do in your backyard but milk is perishable
The answer on the industrial/local production question will be different for each one of these. Local veggy production is already doing well.
I think that's right. I would add that it seems that grain/flour quality is less affected by industrialization as well although at too large a scale you start to lose variety of product.
What about meats ? The addition of locally farmed pork and lamb is relatively new to our farmer's market but it also seems to be a big hit. I don't eat much meat but people tell me it is much more tasty. No chicken yet - which reminds me of a friend who is here on a work visa from poland. She says she will not eat chicken in this country because it has no flavor. I asked what chicken is supposed to taste like. She said it tastes like chicken! True story.
There is another issue. Overwhelmingly, people don't trust big businesses. I'm not like that, myself. For the most part I trust them to do everything they can to deceive and cheat. Certainly to destroy. Even to poison.
Shop on!
cfm in Gray, ME
A very interesting piece.
It seems to me that one of the most likely consequences of peak oil is economic upheaval, including large unemployment from conventional industries. I had assumed that more people would be employed in agriculture since unemployed folks will be a cheap exploitible resource, and agriculture will always be. You make a fair case that farms wont be the employment sink for the masses. I struggle to believe that factories will be a viable employment sink. So to for construction.
What is the post peak employment sink?
Stuart,
Let me make a few observations;
Yesterdays DB or possibly the day before, as totally chock full of a whole lot of conjecture and out right assertions by many many on TOD as to the subject of agriculture. MOST if not just about all of it was totally nonsense. Why? Because it was penned by those here with no experience in real agriculture of todays variety.
There were a very very few who actually work in this area. You could easiy tell by the various scenarios they spoke of and so the whole DB was a waste of time and energy.
Granted there were a few, like Doug Fir and Impractical who really do farm,but just how big is their operations? Over 1,000 acres? Less? A family farm? I don't really know but I am not buying that HighPlainsFarmer is a 'real' farmer. His area seems to be judging from his website mostly hype and he has yet to show any real credentials. Mosty just what he states and that background is very very short, especially in any prior foot print here on TOD.
So you are once more going to receive a large amount of psuedo-farmer nonsense and the whole topic will degrade. They simply google and cut and paste...and worse lots of it is WIKI based, which IMO is almost worthless.
What is needed is input from REAL hardcore people who actually work in big ag operations.
Specifically: Their methods of contracting in commodities
Who and when they use on-site storage
What equipment they use and what does it cost.
Their actual 'inputs', fuel,herbicides,insecticides,NPK
and very very much more.
Its easy to go to a farmers forum like 'newagtalk' and learn some of their attitudes and problems and some of the above, but I must add that a whole lot of nonsense is spread even there but of far more value that what passes on TOD.
Consider the statement yesterday that a brand new half million dollar combine was worn out in just one season!!!!!
First they don't cost that much. Second they are built exceedingly tough and very very easy to repair. I know cause I do some of that repair, electronic and otherwise(replacing feeder plates on the header,etc.
Ag is the weakest topic on TOD.
I applaud you for bring it to the fore but one must be careful to remove the chaff from the berry. Nonsense and tripe is dangerous as it gets a big boost just by being placed on TOD and then must be refuted but can't be easily refuted becuase the real , down in the dirt, knowledge is just not here in sufficient numbers.
Granted your post may not be germane to some of the points I bring up.
For instance its not just the farmer and his land that is germane. Its more the huge huge infrastructure that is required to support him. This means small town and farther out facalities that he can bring to bear on his operations. Tires, fuel, repair parts, expertise, hired help, nearby grain bins, tractor traiiler rigs to get the harvest to the bin, spray coupe by ag/chem businesses to spray his crops,and the list can go on and on. Most farmers now are tied totally to their cellphones. At rush time the cellphone is of supreme importance. As is a very good set of 4 wd drive vehicles as well as 1 ton service trucks and many backup parts and facalities such as welding equipment, compressed air and so forth.
To think of the 'farm' in yesterday sense is way out of line.
My friend who I work for as needed needs service right now on some bin blowers and is waiting on me to repair a few. I might have to replace some start and run capacitors. Without a viable supply all the corn in his bins can start to go bad. Its happening right now due to extreme weather changes. Lose a bin blower and you might lose a whole grain bin of corn. This can spell going negative on your profile line for the year.
Ag is not that easy to get a nandle on. I doubt more than maybe 6 people here have a good feel for the REAL agriculure opearations that are currently used all over this country .....
...and I speak only of grain operations and primarily in the MidWest and Upper South but much of what I speak of extends to all grain farmers.
They can't turn on a dime. They are extremely heavy in debt and the on going current financial crisis is not pleasant to consider since they are so heavily into the needs for a viable ,easy to tap , fluid currenty market. Just the commodity grain bin owners taking a big hit can possibly destroy all grain farming, IMO of course but thats the way it is. Barge operations ditto. Fuel to run 18 wheelers that most now own..ditto. and the list is very very long.
airdale--who won't be active in the future due to fighting for his life due to juset diagnosed renal cancer..so I am giving up on the fight for sustainity and just getting the hell out of Dodge and going to enjoy what is left of life as I once knew it. Flying aircraft, deep sea fishing, riding my Harley and in general sucking up as much fun and happiness as I can. My farm will be sold shortly and I will be traveling and not posting..but will be 'reading the mail' on ocassion.
All my divorce proceedings have been shredded as my wife just survived open heart surgery two days ago. I need to go help her recuperate and well as do so myself. If my cancer has metastasized I will have one year left. If not then perhaps 10. If so I expect to see the 'end game' starting but will not live to see it go down. In two weeks I intend to be laying on the beachs on the Outer Banks and stuffing myself with BBQ and seafood. Maybe a line in the water but no bait on the hook.
Farewell my friends and cohorts. Plan well for your futures. Get a good CAT scan and Bone Scan while the equpiment is still functional. I have had 5 in the last two weeks. I recommend them. As well as a good blood workup.
Airdale,
Very sorry to hear of your troubles. Go out and enjoy life, and let's hope for the best. Don't be a complete stranger.
Second Robert's post.
Please keep in touch.
I often used to think your situation (at your place) might lend itself to someone(s) wishing to learn from you firsthand. (Somehow I still hope this might become possible.)
airdale - I will greatly miss your well-rooted contributions. Good luck with your fight...and I don't blame you a bit for focusing on enjoying the time you have left.
Five scans in two weeks? Last I've read you take about 2 centigray per scan, though that's maybe just the cat scans. The linear no threshold model of radiation induced cancer maybe nonsense, but I'm still no sure it's a wise thing to do.
Sorry about the cancer dude. When I questioned your scans I skipped over that part of your post and thought you were healthy. I put my foot in it big time. Still, scans for staging cancer and scans in healthy people to check if maybe there's cancer are two differant deals.
One thing I like least about the peak oil movement is the assumption, by some, that after peak we can rely on herbal medicine and Reiki and be just as healthy. One guy said that his ten year old daughter was his family herbologist. While conventional medicine is far from perfect and, in fact, as a human enterprise, suffers from constantly corruption and incompetence of vairous sorts, alternative medicine has the same problems with fast buck artists and mistaken beliefs. I'd want to educate myself about any ailment I have by reading many sources and checking to see if what those sources say squares with my general knowledge of the world.
Specifically: Their methods of contracting in commodities:
Sell for seed. COOP sells x amt monthly to get yearly avg.
Who and when they use on-site storage:
Two 5000 bu elevators/dryers.
What equipment they use and what does it cost.
JD tractors, seeders, pickers, combines, sprayers.
Off brand, disks, cultivators.
Their actual 'inputs', fuel,herbicides,insecticides,NPK
and very very much more.
Too much of all, which is why I'm the black sheep in the op.
Consider the statement yesterday that a brand new half million dollar combine was worn out in just one season!!!!!
First they don't cost that much.
Item 2007 Caterpillar Lexion 595
Price $319,500 used.
http://www.usfarmer.com/equipment/showlisting.htm?id=188465
Second they are built exceedingly tough and very very easy to repair. I know cause I do some of that repair, electronic and otherwise(replacing feeder plates on the header,etc.
Yes, they are easy to repair, but that costs.
Ag is the weakest topic on TOD.
That's right.
And so sorry about your cancer. Way too much in my family, which brings
up hazards in the "workplace", if we ever get there, as a "fixed
cost" of today's farming methods. Thanx Monsanto/Bayer.
Wow ! Yes, enjoy what time you have left and maybe it will be 10 instead of 1 year left.
I am almost 4 years post colorectal surgery.
And yes, get as much time in the wind as possible.
Sorry to hear that airdale, may peace be upon you.
Airdale:
Thanks for all the info you have given us, I hope that you get the better news, and that you can enjoy your time in the sun.
I was very sorry to read the news, and can only wish you the best.
Heading Out
"I need to go help her recuperate and well as do so myself."
That's the way. I think helping her will be the best medicine for you.
Best wishes and good luck.
airdale, thanks for sharing the perspectives. there must be reasons for the dramatic change since your last posting about the illness. best wishes and be sure to bring yourself a version or two of LaoZi and ZhuangZi.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/laozi.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zhuangzi.htm
RE: Airdale,
I take great exception with your assumption that I'm not a "real" farmer.
Come out to Gann Valley, SD friend. My family's operation grows Spring wheat, winter weat, corn, soybeans, and sunflowers. We also run beef cattle, selling calvesto feedlots.
Its not a large operation, just roughly 4,000 acres. I also have a farm in ND separate from most of my family.
I'm also an agronomist, working with over 300 farms in SD, NE, and ND. My largest grower is 63,000 acres. They are a nice family.
I know crop insurance, ag loans, crop inputs, and yes I do operate farm equipment.
I you utter my name in Central SD, I guarantee you'll find out a lot about me from nearly anyone.
I think its UNBELIEVABLE to read all the talk about ag that this board by folks who actually know NOT the first thing about modern ag.
Ask me any question related to growing wheat, corn, soybeans or beef cattle.
I can off-hand explain anything you want relating to crop production ranging from use of inputs, obtaining financing, (I was an ag banker for awhile) pesticide application, seeding rates, irrigation, rotations, breakevens, marginal returns, and what its like to work 16 hours per day.
I can rattle off the make,and model of every sprayer, combine, planter and tractor on the market.
I know a considerable amount about hedging grain, basis contracts, futures and options, and the farm program.
I've forgotten more about modern production ag than you will ever know IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS.
I post here because I read so much that is SO FAR from reality on this board.
This post by Stuart is the first sensible thing I've seen yet on TOD.
If you can a farmer operating more than 10,000 acres in central SD that's never heard of me, I'd be surprised.
HighPlains - I was raised in South Dakota in the 40" & 50's. Thanks for your input and keep it coming. I enjoyed your posts the other day, and I was trying to post Stuart to make sure that he read them, but this article by him was not taking posts early this morning, which I inquired about over on the daily oil drum. It was obvious from your posts that we finally have someone on this sight who is an "intelligent" farmer. The compost crowd wants everyone to compost. Me? I am with my ancestors. I will use my god given talents in a way that maximizes my contributions and I will pay "you" to get my food. Logically, it can be no other way. And, if I have to ride a bike in order that you can run your combine, I will gladly do that.
Airdale: I wish you well and hope that you win your fight.
RE: Airdale,
On top of the statement I made in a post below, my father-in-law is also a farmer who lives 2 miles away from me. I do not work on that operation.
I do handle most of its business decisions however. The in-laws only own 2,500 acres, but they rent 10,368 more.
I'm of 4th generation farmer in SD.
I'm not an expert on global ag, but I follow closely the news on it. I read every farming publication, and made the front cover of more than one farming mag for some of the new ideas I've implemented.
Farming is not just my livlihood, its my life and my passion.
I started posting here to correct the GROSS mistakes you folks make while discussing it.
Most farmers disagree with me when I predict farms will get a little smaller in the future.
Stuart's post makes sense.
You people who predict a return to the 19th century in ag do so ONLY because that's what you want to see.
Bad news for you. It ain't gonna happen.
High plains,
According to the charts posted by Stuart corn and wheat farmers only make a profit once per decade and that single year's profit ain't that much. With costs so consistently higher than revenue it is amazing that anyone in America bothers with growing corn or wheat. This leads me to believe that those cost and revenue charts simply don't reflect the reality of farm economics. You claim to be the farming expert so could you explain how farmers stay in business by losing money 9 out of every ten years???
Farmers lose money on every bushel but make it up in volume.
Er, if you are loosing money on one bushel and sell more, you multiply the loss, not reduce it!
I think it was a joke.
I hope so! - but I've heard some dafter comments that were serious! - especially where economics are concerned. - check out the history of most socialist parties.
It is a joke/observation of a failed dot com in the petcare space. Sold dog food at close to or less than store costs and had free shipping.
Thus, every time a 50 lbs bag shipped, they lost money.
And, the history of the dot com has a tale where there was a meeting where the money loosing shipping policy was brought up and someone up the chain uttered the bit about 'making a profit in volume'
Thomas,
It will take about 30 minutes to explain it properly. I promise to lay it out completely in the next couple days.
It IS VERY true that most cropping years were money losers during the cheap oil era.
That's where LDPs (Loan Defficiency Payments) kick in.
The only way to explain it is to dig deep into the farm program, (subsidies) wich I will do another time.
The subsidies that allow grain to get produced below market levels ONLY kick in when grains are cheap.
Basically, grain production TODAY is currently VERY close to free market, although not entirely.
Lots of farmers currently think that grain prices will head back south any day now. The last year was WILDLY profitable, and most farmers are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
IMO, the key to farming profitably from now on is;
1) Paying attention to developements in oil markets. Watch oil/gas fundamentals.
2) As long as oil is in a long-term uptrend, don't hedge grain. Buy grain back on the board after making cash sales.
3) LOCK IN INPUTS!!! Take physical delivery of fertilizer, seed and chemicals a year in advance, for they too are in an uptrend.
The days of cheap grain ended with cheap oil.
In July of 2004, corn got cheaper than crude for THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY on a BTU basis.
How was this possible? Farmers were able to ignore market signals (market signals told him to stop producing) due to LDP and countercyclical payments from Uncle Sam, THAT KICK IN WHEN grain falls below target price. Bankers provided operating loans due to LDPs.
I feel that the inversion of corn and crude on a BTU basis is temporary.
The inversion that happened in 2004 made ethanol look viable.
Its sad that so many got sucked into buying ethanol shares.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The breakeven on an ethanol plant work like this, an ethanol plant can pay twice the price of corn that they recieve from ethanol. If ethanol is $2/gal then an ethanol plant can only afford to pay $4 for corn. This rule of thumb factors in sales of DDGS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An EXCELLANT article for TOD would be the stories of all the ethanol plants currently GOING BROKE, shutting down, or stalling construction, and not paying farmers for corn. -------- BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. There are 5 ethanol plants in Neb alone halting corn bids. Its getting UGLY for ethanol plant profitability.
Remember, these outfits are HEAVILY leveraged, they can't keep running the way that an oil refinery can when margins go south.
Biodiesel economics and plant shutdowns are even worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol is like any biz; it can't pay unlimited amounts for inputs.
The loss of ethanol from supplies is a BIG story for TOD I'd think.
airdale
What will happen when your soybeans are at the proper moisture content and you need to harvest immediately or risk crop loss and you realize that you are unable to fill your tanks because of gas shortages. Now multiply that scenario to 30% or more of the farms. Some large scale farms will continue, some will not. Crop prices will continue to rise and this will be necessary to guarantee a profit to conventional large scale farmers. However large scale agriculture will quickly price themselves out of most peoples ability to pay, and this model will fail completely when large numbers of farmers start to convert to draft animals and undercut gas powered farmers prices while still remaining profitable.
Nathan
airdale,
I was thinking of starting a comment "If airdale was here...", suspecting you might have an opinion. (of course I had no idea what exactly you'd say) I recall some remarks about the rapacious short sightedness of the current crop of agribiz practitioners, and how they won't have any topsoil left in 10 years for example.
Hey, sorry to hear the bad news. I have always valued your insights.
Now that I think about it, I need to spend less time online and more time living
Thanks to all who penned their wishes regarding my ordeal with the Big C. If its has metastasized to my lymph nodes I told them no chemo and no radiation. I'll play the cards I was dealt.
It is making a huge sea change in my life and lifestyle. I know now thatI will not have the ability to pull off this complete sustainable life style I hoped to.
HighPlains? As a real farmer, then please stay and contribute as much information as possible to this very needy subject on TOD.
To Doug Fir,Bruce from Chicago,Jason Bradford, and the rest of the real farmers here. You have a heavy load and a task to perform in telling it 'like it is' to help many prepare and deal with what big ag may morph into.
I won't be hauling grains anymore for the harvest or sitting in those big Ford 8790 tractor seats. Oddly enough it was my CDL(commercial drivers license) physical that led to my eventual diagnosis.
Tomorrow I have to repair my last bin blower and turn in my spare radios to my buddy farmer who is one of several I helped with the electronics ,etc.
Cats scans: I had 3 in two weeks plus a bone scan and a pulmonary test and some more local xrays for something on my lung. They wanted another set of xrays which I oked but the rest I demurred on.
I hope I can post in the future once again but right now...I will be recovering and then heading south to N. Carolina to grab what I can of what my future holds. I hope to move back to St. Louis with my son and wife later and am looking at a country house in West County with 3 acres. At least I can still garden and continue as before but on a far far lower scale and far far nearer to the 'maddening' crowds of St. Louis.
Cheers,
airdale-this is the best website which I have ever been involved with in all my years and years of working in Information Technology both within and without IBM. Prof Goose and all the rest can be proud. I salute you for your outstanding work.
I will miss you here.
Airdale, I have had a hard time responding to your posts since you disclosed you had cancer as I did not know what to say. What could you say to someone that has to face their own mortality so suddenly? I do believe your choice is one that makes sense, to enjoy the time you have left. As Warren Zevon said cancer makes you enjoy every sandwich you have left. I really enjoyed your posts here and on the WTDWSHTF forum, especially when you go off on a tangent and ruminate about country life and values. You’ve given me some good advice that I’m going to use, such as shepherding in my clover with winter wheat. Have a good time, and hopefully the cancer has not metastasized.
I will miss your posts Airdale. We may not always agreed, but I knew where you were coming from and your message was usually from heart felt knowing..
Take off, and drink in every cup you can.
As Warren Zevon said.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Fare Thee Well Friend.
We'll meet again in the by and by
Good luck to you airdale. We'll say some prayers for you tonight. So sorry.
I just want to say good luck to you Airdale and may your wife and you do the best to make yourselves some mutual support and enjoyment.
ciao,
Bruce
airdale:
Sorry the news isn't better for you. Hope it will play out for you as good as it possibly can.
I hope that you can find a few young men that will actually pay attention that you can talk to and impart some of your lifetime of accumulated wisdom while we still have you.
Airdale - Go in peace my friend. Todd
Airdale said
You make a very good case for the unsustainability of this complex system in a world with shrinking energy resources. In fact, you make "reversibility" seem inevitable.
Airdale,
I am truly sorry.
Take care.
SolarHouse
OMG.
I pondered the other day whether to respond to HighPlainsFarmer
when he stated that his State of the Art farm in SD
would get the oil, first and last.
Thank you for the Article.
Pray that it's not accurate.
First-
"The implications of peak oil for agriculture was not a major focus."
I've known since 1978 that there was a limit to Growth.
I didn't find the limit until I discovered PO and the Olduvai Gorge
in 02.
Second-
Ag is the worst mistake humans have ever made.
Only the elite ever profit from Ag.
Third-
Ag only exists as long as feed thru enregy surplus exists.
Think of it as a way to grow wealth in terms of humans.
Fourth-"their agriculture has become far more mechanized and involves a smaller fraction of the population."
Exactly. But only if you focus on one small chain of the energy
hierarchy flow thru.
Farming is the only industry that buys retail and sells wholesale.
Ex. I'm sure it takes more energy to build a six row cotton picker than that picker will ever use.
Five-"the evidence doesn't provide any support for any of these propositions"
You listed the propositions. You might as well describe Empire
that hasn't started collapsing.
The rest of the article shows charts. Starting with 1975.
No accident that.
These charts should start at 1971, because that's when the trauma of VietNam failure, gold decoupling, US Oil Peak, and the US worker's
wages never better.
I was in the field in 1975. Our neighbor had just bought three top of the line JD Combines. Just as expensive then in 75 dollars
as they are today.
Our farm was at the top. We believed everything you wrote above:
"So going forward, I expect to see significant increases in food prices and farm profitability (with a significant caveat for the possibility of a credit-induced severe recession)."
"Instead, the farmers will simply outbid the urban poor for the energy required to operate the farms (and in the US, the farm sector only uses 2.2% of all petroleum in the country)."
The chart the above quote references will never happen.
Finally:
We, or I should say my Dad, followed your advice, or Secretary Butz',
to be precise, thinking that prices would rise or stay flat at the
top from 1975 on.
That everything you posited would happen in our favor.
But they didn't. And the drag was unremitting until Volker's
crushing of inflation in 1980 caused bankruptcy.
There is a difference between sickle and combine with mules.
Mules will be the next step. That's why I've advocated a Mule Breeding Program (MBP) to compliment the multi fuel use electric
train system.
Thanks for the article. Very nicely done.
James
I pondered the other day whether to respond to HighPlainsFarmer
when he stated that his State of the Art farm in SD
would get the oil, first and last.
Pray that it's not accurate.
Like it or not, farmers (the big ones that bring in the big grains), the military, various 'public service' (snowplow, police, ambulance et la), and the 'upper level' members of the 'political leadership' will be on that short list.
So long as the government is in power - the people who align themselves with that power will do OK - aka the big farmers who get handouts to stay in business.
Ag is the worst mistake humans have ever made.
Only the elite ever profit from Ag.
And yet ag is why you are here. Both the person and the tools that bring us the Internet.
Our farm was at the top. We believed everything you wrote above:
.... 1980 caused bankruptcy.
Sorry to hear that your family lost it all - rather than thinking mules will save things - look towards the the other issues that killed your farm.
That's why I've advocated a Mule Breeding Program (MBP)
And it has been pointed out how animal power is a poor plan. Photons -> foodstuff -> Animals -> power is a poor conversion method.
Stuart
Your essay is very interesting but I do not accept all of your arguments about this low proftability of small scale farming. I am an employee of a 60 acre farm that employs 14 to 18 people year around. Beyond calculating success on the basis of profit there is living wage and support for extended families. By citing USDA statistics you are also including small scale farming that exist only as a tax shelter. Like the 'safe' driver that gets speeding tickets you need to look closer at your population of individual cases to decide if the individual driver is an insurance risk or if there is a niche for profitable farming in small scale agriculture. There are small scale farmers operating at a profit and I have witnessed this trend in urbanized areas.
Could I not argue that there is profit at both ends for market segments that are currently entirely captured by industrial agriculture, ie that which is dependent on air transportation and pumped water versus bulk commodities that can use ambient climate and easily store and shipped via rail or barge?
The discussion leaves open the possibility that 'go local' will become an initiative of industrial agriculture concerns.
They are best positioned to go local because they already have highly efficient systems and all they have to do to take advantage of the 'local' proximity advantage is to obtain land near mid-sized urban centers (often held by real-estate entities as land banks), install a portable infrastructure (i.e. offices, storage, dormitories for their workforce, etc. that are mobile and can be relocated inexpensively), and voila - instant local agriculture.
The farm will then plug into the local distribution network and command high margins if they choose to produce / market 'organic' foods from these operations.
Stuart,
Thank-you for this well researched bit of common sense. Agriculture was the first, and easiest sector of the economy to be automated, so will also be the first and easiest to convert to solar/wind power.
I am more skeptical about the 2500 mile box of corn flakes than the corn, and can envision boutique food processing, with the collapse of big food processing companies, breweries, and chain restaurants. That could only be an improvement, IMO.
EXCELLANT WORK STUART!!!
You are dead on correct.
Cheap energy is the ENEMY of rural countryside, and farms especially.
Poster - Mcgowanc claims above that the 1970s were good for ag (which they were due to enegy shortages.) Then he goes on to discuss the collapse of ag in the early 1980's.
Of COURSE ag collapsed in 1983!! Crude oil collapsed in 1982 -1983, inflation dried up, and cheap oil did to ag what it always does, it killed it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers will make more money off of high priced oil than oil companies.
Farmers will outbid anyone else for any fuel that does get produced, because they add the most value to that fuel.
Mules and horses eat one-third of all production they produce. This means throwing 1/3 of arable land away.
Since the introduction of cheap energy around 1915, the only times when ag shined was WWI, WWII, and THE 1970s!!
The 1970's were GREAT for ag.
We are moving into a PERMANENT 1970s.
The cheapest farmland is in eastern ND relative to production. BUY IT! Rent it out to a large commercial operator and smile forever!!
I remember the day that farmers got crushed.
Anyone remember Carter's grain embargo?
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=39346&mid=280368
That was as much to crush the American farmer as it was to punish the Soviets.
On January 4, 1980, using his most potentially effective response to Soviet military action in Afghanistan, President Carter cancelled contracts for the sale of 17 million metric tons mmt) of U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans to the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, he undermined the effectiveness of the embargo by allowing the delivery of another 8 mmt of U.S. grain which he felt were obligated to the Soviets under the 1975 U.S.-Soviet Grain Agreement. The objectives of such a policy were ambiguous from the outset.
Farmers are about to be crushed again.
You can bank on it.
The cheapest farmland is in eastern ND relative to production. BUY IT! Rent it out to a large commercial operator and smile forever!!
You live in the land of Lakota.
Better to start running Bison.
And get the Great Plains National Park.
You have how many inches of topsoil left.
And how deep do you have to go to get the Ogallala these days.
mcg-
You are viewing things from a non linear biological point of view. Almost all the other posters are viewing it from a economic point of view, linear and fixed. You are one level removed from the discussion, and viewing it from above. It would be a anomaly if the economic view survived, even in the short term.
Just my opinion.
Thank you. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. ;}
I always did hate economics.
Until I discovered articles like this:
STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS
By Herman Daly
"The first question asked of any critic of the status quo is: What would you put in place? In place of the growth economy we would put a steady-state economy. But such a theoretical alternative is not of great interest unless there is dissatisfaction with the business-as-usual growth economy. If you have eaten poison, it is not enough to simply resume eating healthful foods. You must get rid of the specific substances that are making you ill. Let us, then, apply the stomach pump to the doctrines of economic growth that we have been force-fed for the past four decades. Perhaps the best way to do that is to jump right into the growth debate and consider critically some fifteen to twenty general pro growth arguments that recur in various guises and either expose their errors or accommodate their valid criticisms."
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
The main developer of this site is Brian Czech, but he does work with Herman Daly:
www.steadystate.org
Ha. My high school has just Websense filtered dieoff.org as a "Political Organization," thereby denying access.
The Ogallala Aquifer does not extend into North Dakota.
There is no Ogallala aquifer in N.D. and only in 5% of S.D. and there it only exsists in the bad lands region where no AG is present.
Perhaps this all makes more sense if you substitute regression for reversability: i.e., Post-Peak will knock us backwards to some yet unknown technological niveau between the Stone Age and 1950 (however it plays out) and we'll take it from there. But Stuart's right, we can't exactly retrace our steps.
Stuart writes:
I've argued in this piece that industrial agriculture is likely to be stronger and more profitable when oil prices are high, not weaker. So the reversalist future of local food production on smaller farms with higher labor input will not come to pass as a result of peak oil.
To me, Stuart's essay demonstrates some of the limits of statistical analysis.
I don't see where Stuart has considered the social and political ramifications of the multi-faceted discontinuity that Peak Oil represents. My own notion of what's coming down is that there will be a great many angry economic losers clamoring for "relief," or "reform," or "revolution," and the one place this always leads to historically in a political convulsion is the seizure and redistribution of property. But that is only one consideration in the picture. Food production (and distribution!) is but one part of a larger complex system, off of which the wheels will be coming -- quite literally! In short, I think our society will become disorganized to the degree that Stuart's formulas will be more-or-less irrelevant. After all, you could have posed the same proposition to the Soviet politburo in 1933 -- but they were too busy preparing to kill all the kulaks and destroy their farm production for decades-to-come.
--Jim Kunstler
Forthcoming: "World Made By Hand" (a novel in which folks are farming locally and labor-intensively.)
Jim,
I wonder if Soviet agriculture might actually serve as a pretty good model for post-peak agriculture.
First, the chaotic and inefficient central planning that the Soviets imposed on their agricultural system might be similar to the problems that industrialized farmers might be facing post-peak in getting all of their fuel and supplies at the right time and then in getting the food distributed at the right time.
Second, it is my understanding that about half of Soviet food production came from tiny private gardens.
I've read that in the FSU, grains were (and are) produced on the large collectives and whatever has replaced them. Truck garden type vegies were produced in the private gardens. Yeah, that might give us a sense of where we're headed. Is there anyone like high plains on the board who farms potatoes? In my short growing season area, we can get excellent crops of potatoes in our gardens, but nobody does it commercially. It is hard to imagine machines doing a good job planting them (sections of potato) or harvesting them. I would see potatoes as a crop that could potentially be relocalized in some areas.
Hi Jim, Glad to see that both of us Gorillas are still around this year and despite odds prospering, best in this one:)
Jim points out one of the weaknesses of TOD (The Oil Drum, not Transit Oriented Development). And, that is the left-brain bias of its very intelligent writers. Being an engineer myself, I am supposed to be left-brain, but somewhere around the age of 34-35 my outlook began to shift. I became a little soft on my ability to crank through the drudgery of specialized thought in decomposing and analyzing parts etc, but in the process picked up an appreciation of the holistic, synthesizing way of looking at the whole. It's a process that continues.
Hi Stuart, looks like interesting reading for this evening, I would like to say on a quick run through that a similar case might be made for any area concerning oil where it involves making an income or profit that involves muscle, the leverage of oil is great. I do think though that there is one fly in the ointment, of continuing industrial agriculture despite price increase, in that if at some point we experience a general economic collapse (due most likely to the instability of a system through lack of fulsome energy)all bets would be off. Sort of like the end of the cod fishery on the Eastern seaboard, a sudden and dramatic dieoff.
BTW the world markets seem a bit dyspepsic this morning.
The main things that concern the profits in agriculture are:
1) Prices paid to farmers for goods
2) Cost of inputs for production
In an highly inflationary scenario which seems the most likely as debtor nations try to repay their massive debts, I imagine that price controls may well be imposed on farmers because of the political expediency of such a policy. This would, in the short term, reduce farming profits as the input costs continue to rise quickly. When we realise that we're not growing enough food to feed our populations, things might change. People will be growing far more of their own food by this stage. When labour is much cheaper, as a result of massive unemployment, the distribution (energy) costs and farm inputs will constitute the majority of the cost of food, and these will continue to rise as western currencies fall against our global competitors. Local production will be the only practical method of feeding some populations in the west.
In other words, I think that the political/social environment in which agriculture proceeds will be the biggest single determinant of it's nature; industrial or local. It will differ in the UK from China for example.
Andy
What about a simple energy returned on energy invested analysis? If, as is often claimed, industrial agriculture uses 10 calories in for every one calorie out, how can it thrive post-peak oil? At least, without ever-increasing subsidies? Or is this ERR in dispute?
Also there is the experience of Cuba, which I have read went from a farming system that was almost entirely conventional modern agriculture, with inputs of fertilizers and pesticides that actually surpassed the United States, to 80% organic farms, in only a decade following its artificial 'peak oil' in the early 1990's
Cuba has no private enterprise - when the re localization started it was within a context that can be described as simi-feudal. The opportunity for people to own and exploit there own holdings is key to understanding why its working out so far.
red-
Cuba also had radical democracy on a local level, with strong community ties and bonds.
Cuba is a dichotomy, with a strong dictatorial government above, but functions in a syndicalist model from below. Plus, Cuba had a well educated and reasonably healthy populace, a situation absent in the US.
The world may need to learn from the Cubans.
True - but in our case with strong private property rights as a major part of our cultural interface it wont evolve in the same way.
Look what happened to the South Los Angeles poor.
Big farms and corporations do not have any interest in selling any pieces land, even if they are only using half, or less of it, if for no other reason then to stop the competition from growing food on it.
As oil price increases, and food becomes more expensive, you reach the point where many people (especially the unemployed) can grow their own food cheaper then they can obtain it from the large farms. They also have all the incentive , and the time to do so.
Cuba put limits in place of how much land anyone could have. That removed large amounts of land from land owners and corporations, distributing the land to many people, and that helped get their food production up considerably. I believe that they are now in a position that when they have to, they can increase food production much easier then other parts of North America.
One of the provinces in Canada had limits on ownership of land and it has worked very well.
.
DocScience
http://www.angelfire.com/in/Gilbert1/tt.html
RE: strawbalebuilder;
Industrial ag produces 10 calories for each calorie input.
Currently corn farmers deliver a cheaper BTU to the marketplace than does the oil industry. (Example, there are millions of corn burning stoves in the USA, and they SAVE lots of money vs burning propane, heating oil, or electricity.)
To raise one acre of corn in Iowa, it takes;
10 gal diesel - 1.6 million BTUs
200 lbs anhydrous ammonia N fert - 3.5 million BTUS
1/2 gal of pesticide - 80,000 BTU
an acre of Iowa corn yields an AVERAGE of 172 bu/acre. That's an output of 68 MILLION BTUs. (There are 395,000 BTUs in one bushel of corn.)
Even wheat until the last 2 months made economic sense to burn in a stove instead of heating oil.
At $90/barrel crude, a corn burning stove breaks even at $6.13/bu. Corn is not that high.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is an economic FACT that a farmer will make TONS of money raising just $4 corn with $100 crude oil. $6 corn is a windfall.
Why?????
BECAUSE FARMERS OUTPUT WAY WAY WAY MORE BTUs THAN THEY INPUT.
If you want to see people starve, GO BACK TO THE HORSE AND BUGGY DAYS.
Back then 1/3 of all ag produce went to feed the horses that did the produce.
To say that tractors will NOT have fuel is to say that NO fuel will get produced, because NOBODY can bid more for fuel than a modern farm.
Go ahead and take fuel away for the sake of argument. What happens then?
Some of my neighbors have biodiesel crushers on their farm. They get over a gallon of diesel out of one bushel of soy.
Another neighbor has a small farm-scale ethanol plant.
If the day would come when ALL THE oil wells went dry,
IT STILL MAKES MORE SENSE TO MAKE ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL on the farm on a small scale than it does to REVERT back to horses.
Horses take away WAY MORE acres from food supply than does ethanol or biodiesel.
Nothing wastes arable land as much as horses and mules. Not even biofuels. Yes biofuels are inefficient and today require subsidies. That said, they waste LESS land than do horses.
In 1915, the USA WASTED 36 Million acres of prime land on oats for horses, and 75 Million acres on hay for horses.
Stuarts analyses is DEAD ON.
Kunstler's analyysis is just longing to back to a time that won't happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why have the Amish in Easten MN given up on crop farming in this last year? They quit grain farming and went to making furniture etc.
What did the Amish do with their land????
THEY RENTED IT OUT TO REAL FARMERS!!!
Why???? Because thanks to PO, real farmers (efficient ones) can BID HARD for cash rent on the land.
The Amish INEFFICIENT system meant they could get a BIGGER RETURN from the land by RENTING it out to a real farmer.
--------------------------------------------
GET THE HORSE AND BUGGY DAYS OUT OF YOUR HEADS FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we do have a total society collapse, Our neighbors will produce biofuels for the TRACTORS and combines. We'll fend off attackers with weaponry.
A Country Boy Can Survive.
I don't often post, but I find this area of investigation particularly interesting, and I particularly enjoy reading the diversity of opinions.
HPF,
I would like you to comment on the following observation from your above analysis. It seems too simplistic to me. In the case of draught animals, the entire lifecycle of the animal is paid for by the land. This includes manufacture of the animal, and repair of the animal in case of damage. There is rightly also a credit for the fertilizer waste stream from the animal.
My question is, in the area of modern mechanization, how do you account for the BTU expended in the mining and transport of the raw materials, manufacture of the tractor, repair of the tractor, and the high energy industrial economy that makes sure parts are available. Also, how much food does it take to feed those people who are necessary to operate the industries which provide this service.
From my simplistic thinking, it seems that modern agriculture has outsourced the manufacture of draught animals to the tractor manufacturers. Is this outsourcing still valid from an energy standpoint during decline?
I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thank you for contributing.
This is the difficulty of calculating embodied energy, or H.T. Odum's 'emergy'.
According to Wikipedia, emergy was developed as a refinement of embodied energy because "The term 'embodied energy' was also used by systems ecologists to describe the energy that had been used in, and accumulated into structure-development and which could be fed back into the system to draw in more energy."
It strikes me this is what you're talking about with your mining, manufacturing, maintenance etc - this is the structure-development that feeds back into the system. I'm curious about validity of the 10 in to 1 out, or HPF's 1 in to 10 out. Here is the result from one study, but it seems to me the means of accounting could change results rather dramatically:
"The energy ratio of output/input was calculated for all annual grain crops in both tillage systems using the actual yield data obtained and the provincial yield averages. These ratios were quite variable for both farming systems when the actual yield data was used (1.87 - 19.00 MJout/MJin). The ratios were lower and the variation was reduced dramatically when the provincial yield averages were substituted for the actual yields (1.62 - 9.27 MJout/MJin). Wheat after alfalfa and peas tended to have the highest output/input energy ratios (4.26 - 9.27 MJout/MJin) which was attributed to the reduced nitrogen fertilizer inputs. Flax grown alone had the lowest output/input energy ratio (1.62 MJout/MJin) and the ratios of wheat, canola and barley were intermediate and similar (2.79 - 4.16 MJout/MJin)."
Highplainsfarmer in one post has asserted that in his magic kingdom of dakota that he uses 1 cal of oil, mixes it with a little solar energy and ends up with 10 cal of food energy. His 1:10 ratio is somewhat at variance with the widely quoted worldwide ratio of 10:1. I have read the ratio for North America estimated at 40 to 90:1. I have spent several hours trying to tease out these statements of energy input/output ratios , examining the methodology used etc and I have concluded that TOD deserves better data if we are to have anything remotely resembling an intelligent discourse. The Highplains post takes three inputs: diesel consumption/acre, pesticides and fertilizer, assigns BTU values to them and measures the BTU content of 172 bushels of corn in one Iowa acre and arrives at the nearest thing to an energy perpetual motion machine I’ve seen. Somebody needs to tell his northern neighbors up in Tarsandtown that they can now shut down their wasteful operations which take 1cal of fossil inputs to net 1.5 to 2 cal of bitumen fossil output. It is no stretch to take this data and ask the staff at TOD to shut down their dog and pony show and turn off the lights on their way out the door. Highplains neglects to say how he arrived at his figures. Eg., how does 80000 BTU relate to ½ gal of pesticide, or 3 ½ million BTU being equivalent to 200 lb of Nitrogen ferilizer? If he is saying for example that it takes 3 ½ million BTU of natural gas to yield 200 lbs of ammonium fertilizer. That may be so. Does that include the energy inputs of drilling for the natural gas, piping it, building the Haber Bosch process plants etc.? Plants need phosphate and potash and water as well. There are holes in the Highplains post big enough to drive a Caterpillar Lexion 57 Combine through but I come from a long line of farmers and I would like data that is reliable and true that I can sink my teeth into and that data would have to include all the hidden energy inputs and subsidies that Highplains neglected to include in his posting. They would include the cost of the land, equipment, combines, trucks biildings, storage, transport, railcars, silos and grain elevators, grain dryers, farm subsidies, price supports etc etc.etc. It will be a lot of work!
Then there are all the attendant risk factors of agriculture like weather, droughts, pest resistance just in time inventory and transportation . I intend no disrespect for Highplains and his hardworking brethren because I need and respect your work and production but your chimerical business model looks pretty fragile if cheap oil is subtracted from the equation along with tax subsidies, , price supports, transportation system and so forth. A simplistic posting of 3 inputs and one output is hardly worth the bandwidth it’s printed on !!. I would respectfully ask you and Stuart to go back to the drawing board and try to give us a paper that includes real net inputs and outputs that make sense and please try to include as many sociopolitical, climatic, and agricultural black swans you can conjure up and please try to give sources and references to your data and your conclusions. Thank all of you for your work and your attempts to maintain civility by avoiding internecine rants. The comments to a TOD article are frequently more valuable than the original article.
Hugho said:
'I intend no disrespect for Highplains and his hardworking brethren because I need and respect your work and production but your chimerical business model looks pretty fragile if cheap oil is subtracted from the equation along with tax subsidies, , price supports, transportation system and so forth.'
Disrespect or not, you are calling him out.
The question is - can you substantiate it?
I await HighPlains rebuttal with interest.
WRT the 10 cal in but only 1 cal out may be due to what happens to food once it leaves the farm. The energy needed to grow and deliver 1 pound of potatos to a consumer is considerably less than what it takes to grow, process and deliver 1 pound of potato chips. Farm energy use runs around 7 to 10 gallons of diesel per acre. One acre of soybeans yields 48 gallons of biodiesel enough for 4 to 7 acres of cultivation. This is roughly half the land needed for feeding draft animals. The end of petroleum will in no way mean the end of industrial farming.
As other posters have mentioned -- this doesn't seem to include the embodied energy in the industrial equipment used. Energy for mining (or recycling), manufacturing, transportation and maintenance of equipment all have to be included.
Here in the UK the big growth in agriculture is the employment of cheap (immigrant) labour in rural areas at very low wage levels to process food. UK food production is very mixed. Large, US style high mechanisation farms in some areas, small, organic or family farms in others. It is the large farms that are importing labour, to the point of changing the social character of entire neighbourhoods. So I think when fuel becomes scarce and expensive, and UK unemployment explodes, we will see the BIG farms move increasingly over to manual labour, and further boosting their profits. I'm not sure if productivity will go up in terms of calories of food per acre, but that will depend on availability of fertilisers et al.
Social tension with the immigrant population is certain to increase, but many of these are from Eastern Europe, and will probably return home voluntarily when times get tough here.
It will be a big wake up call to UK society, which has become lazy to the extent that few young people would ever consider work on a farm. There is a lot of entitlement culture where the middle classes assume a university education paid for by personal debt, followed by a well paid job in an office somewhere, and 'working class' people expect at least a living social allowance if they cannot or choose not to work.
I think that the primary dividing line between the "winners" and "losers" (in reality, I suspect that it is more a question of to what degree one loses) is going to be the degree to which one is a net producer or a net consumer of essential goods and services--especially food & energy production.
From a biological point of view, monocultures always fail, as they are a easy target to exploit. From a tech view also, just look at the problems of a Windoz operating system, also a monoculture.
Degrading the enviroment, using monoculture (all eggs in one basket), and being dependent on external feedback for support, is a recipe for failure.
If you put things in small enough compartments, anything can be proved. Looking a complex systems seamsly opens one to deeper analysis.
"just look at the problems of a Windoz operating system, also a monoculture."
Sure, but what % of users right now are looking at your words through that unhealthy monoculture?
I would like to set up a Linux system, but the advantages of keeping WIN onboard still are outweighing the problems, and there are still lots of people out there to help you prevent or recover from WIN crashes..
Bigger might fall harder, but before it falls, it's still BIG. It's hard to say how many straws that camel's back will still be able to take.
I doubt they will return, they have come to the UK because it is much worse where they have come from - why assume with less energy in the world it will suddenly be better where they came from than in the UK?
IMO the future post 'peak oil', for a while anyway, will be the same for big agriculture and big oil companies - both will, or indeed must, be making profits.
But to be profitable using non-subsidised oil as their source of energy farmers will need new relatively high prices for their produce - so, much less will be demanded by consumers - the essence of the peaking phenomenon. Economies of scale suggest that it will be big farms producing most of the the food at lowest cost while there is enough spare energy in society to preserve the law.
In most parts of the world it is now very difficult to lead a nomadic lifestlye and legally 'live off the land'.
If worldwide free markets function for energy and the government doesn't make sure the farmers get cheap energy then it means we have 'peak food' which is not the end of food, but the end of cheap food!
There will be peak 'net exports' of food and societies (or even localities such as cities) that can't produce enough food (or something to exchange for food) will be in big trouble - unlike crude oil there is definitely no substitute for food.
If you don't have enough food the population can't continue to grow - in just the same way as without enough energy the economy can't continue to grow.
I sent this post to my ag/energy colleagues at UVM (who don't comment at TOD). Here was one response I thought worth sharing:
2) However, if land costs are figured in, basic economics tell us that rents should start to take up those profits i.e. land will start to get a return relative to its role as a solar energy absorber. Rather than farm profits increasing indefinitely, what we should see is a momentary spike in farm profits followed by a proportional rise in land rents. This always gets obscured by the fact that a lot of farmers own much of the land that they manage, but still, ag lease rates should reflect the profits that can be made from them.
3) We should only see reductions in labor when labor costs become cheap relative to energy, and we are a ways from that. I can still get a lot more grain in for the same money by using a tractor than paying someone to use a scythe. That will not change for quite a while.
4) Finally, grains always skew the picture. They are so industrialized that it will require a massive paradigm shift, not just changes in relative factor costs, to lead to a shift toward more labor in grains. I would expect to see instead that you would see a shift in vegetable production first, away from machines and toward human labor. Labor is already fairly competitive with energy in productivity terms. As land prices go up (as per 2), then farmers will want to increase the intensity of their production which will give a greater advantage to labor-intensive production.
In other words, subject to such factors as water availability, it's hard to argue against owning farmland, even if one just leases it out. And if one leases it out, some form of sharecropping is always an option.
Marc Faber's #1 Recommendation in January, 2007, in Barron's, was to buy farmland.
looks like a prime target for solving the declining tax revenue issue.
The G-men still gots to get paid you know.
I believe the notion that we will see the shift in vegetable cultivation going local and labor intensive first is correct. That is why I am focusing on that type of production system first. Also, it has a lower barrier to entry because you can yield a high return per unit of land and with less expensive equipment compared to other production types; e.g., grains, dairy, oil seeds.
For the grain farmers, I am most worried about transport and processing costs OFF the farm. Truckers, freight haulers, dryers and storage facilities...the farmer may have a hard time because the folks doing this work are getting crushed. If the buyers of your product are going broke how profitable are you?
Now, if you short-circuit the commodity system and produce food for a known set of local buyers then you have less risk of wide-system disruptions leading to a loss of buyers. Resiliency is built into this because it is decentralized.
But it is not easy to see how grain farmers isolated from their consumer populations can accomplish this. Maybe people need to move closer to farms?
"Maybe people need to move closer to the farms?"
Moving close to a modern industrial farm would insure starvation if you are hoping for something readily consumable. There is no garden, no farmhouse, no livestock, just grain bins, a locked metal storage building and empty chemical drums.
Grain, if it must be transported over land for any distance should go by rail.
For the time being, yes. The term I have heard for communities in the "heartland" is an ironic one--food deserts.
It already is, to a large extent. Even Lagos, one of the most densely-populated cities in the world, produces a bit under half its fruit and vegetables within the city limits. In Sydney they're expanding the suburbs over to the West, which produces two-thirds their vegetables.
As someone said above, grain skews the picture. I'd add, so does factory farming of livestock for meat, eggs and dairy. Fruit and vegetable production is already relatively localised and labour-intensive.
Sydney is one of the few places in Australia I definately don't want to be in WTSHTF. The whole place is a near-disaster as things stand, let alone when the masses can't afford to drive, and food doubles (again) in price.
Stuart
Does the link between oil prices/profit margin rely on the use of agricultural products as biofuels?
Within a few years, the disastorous effects of biofuels will
become painly visible to all. An international moratorium on biofuels may be possible to achieve, however high the profit margins. Such a moratorium is a goal towards which we should start working today.
How do the profit margins look when you take biofuel out of the equations? It would be great if you could analyse 1970s data and see if you're right there.
Stuart, you make a good case for why cereal farming will stay mechanized, and if I were among the powers that be in America, I would subsidize oil supplies to the grain farmers while taxing/rationing the rest of the country to press them to find energy elsewhere, just like in World War Two.
But that's just cereals, and man does not live on bread alone.
We need nutrition from meat, fruit and vegetables. As the price of grains goes up, so does the price of meat, to the point that it will soon be a relative luxury, and many farmers in the high plains might feel it more profitable to just lie fallow and raise grass-fed cattle. But in the mean time, we will need to get our nutrients from squashes, gourds, and vegetables, other crops that are not fully mechanized as it is, and which will have to be relocated. Most of these foods we get from the valleys of California, whose aqueducts might not be viable. And so these activities will probably have to relocate to the East Coast and to the Mississippi valley, and be done, dare I say it, in Kunstler-Heinberg type post carbon farms.
The production of cereals has been mechanized in the US since before the Oil Age; for example, McCormick's Reaper, patented in 1834, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_McCormick Remember, one doesn't need fossil fuels to run mechanical devices.
True, but I'll refer you to highplainsfarmer, who explains that the energy costs of feeding livestock to pull those reapers make it not worthwhile.
That hardly addresses the point, however.
You might keep some work animals, but far fewer than in an 1840 era farm, still use the advantages of well-designed machines, some pulled by this, some turned by that.
Mules, Biodiesel, Wind, Petroleum, Solar, Ammonia.. and Humans, whose modest strength might go a lot farther on some farm jobs than they used to with the right tools, or a 'little help' from one of the above.
"Not Worthwhile" is an absolute, while the truth on the ground will have a lot of Grayer blends.
Bob
Yes, as I mentioned below, we will see hybrid farming operations that will evolve over time. It also seems to have escaped people that the plow is a mechanical device, as is the digging stick. Where I'm at in Oregon lends itself well to a combined pastoralist/horticulturalist hybrid farm model which will depend on few liquid fuel inputs that should be eventually made in-situ. In the bioregion containing Iowa, the natural realities will differ and a different evolution will occur.
Yep - it's just the easiest stuff to commoditize and transport and handle in bulk.
There's a lot of good stuff to think about here, and there are definitely hard questions around reversibility.
However, the idea of "industrialish" farming in the midwest feeding points further away has been going since the Erie Canal opened in 1825, and it's a lot of why New York City managed to grow so explosively. Other areas closer to the city - Long Island, NJ, and Upstate NY - provided food that didn't like the long transport time.
I'm guessing that the long-term result would be complicated. Some easily stored and transported crops could be optimized for industrial farming, while other crops shift toward a more local approach.
There's also the big ugly question of soil depletion to think about - industrial farming itself will likely have to change over the long run.
I don't think any of the writers/thinkers cited believe in any sort of exact reversal of the sorts used in the examples. Rather, I think we see things as an evolution as the Wheel of Time moves ever onward. The example for this is the US economy itself: It is now considered to be de-industrial/post-industrial--the Service Economy. So what will fail and evolve in the near future is the Service Economy, not Industrial. And the reality of the Service Economy is that what's being "serviced" is mostly prosthetic--meant to artificially extend carrying capacity--and not need-based and located within a viable ecological footprint.
Tomorrow's farming won't be today's or yesterday's. It will be a hybrid, and will vary from one bioregion to another. And as the Service Economy collapses, many more folks are going to be working the land in some capacity than are doing so now.
Some quick googling says that typically we plant 80 million acres of corn in the US each year (more last year), and the government shells out about 5 billion a year in subsidies to farmers to grow that corn. Thats about $62/acre. That puts a somewhat different perspective on Stuart's corn profits chart. Makes it a lot easier to make money. Government intervention can severely distort the economics and make profits appear where there really should not be any. I would suggest that government policy is at least a big reason that there is no way out of the corporate model at present.
grondeau-
The reality is Zea Maya (corn) has domesticated us, and we are it's slaves. It has convinced us to plant huge amounts of it, to the detriment of our health and economic welfare. It cannot reproduce on it's own, and would disappear without our intervention.
So slaves, get to work polluting your body and planet!
Sounds like you have been reading Michael Pollan's - The Omnivore's Dilemma. Certainly a good commentary on present day agriculture!
GR
One concern I have about the ever increasing size of farms is that the family farm is basically facing extinction. The demographics of American farmers is frightening. The cost of land and large equipment, added to annual inputs is skyrocketing at a time our economy appears to be collapsing and the good ol' USA is losing its economic viability. Fertilizer production is already being imported from the middle east. As our large and small unaffordable farms come up for sale, is any law currently protecting them from SWF's??? I hope someone here can answer that, because otherwise it will continue to keep me awake at night.
"Market to Market" reported seed shortages of soy and wheat this past week--in this country. Monsanto has forbidden the American farmer to farm the old way and save his own seeds for next years production. That is affecting my region in the following way: "Monsanto gets OK for housing next to new plant"
Local farmers and suppliers are reporting shortages in obtaining fertilizer for this coming season.
About a year ago, there was huge ice storm which affected a very large area of my midwestern state. Costs to the local electrical utility were well over $140 million for repairs including helicopter services for a small population. Is that included in any of your graphs?
Trucking? (since rails have been removed from these areas)
Our current large farming system is very efficient, that I agree. That is, if we want beef, ethanol and corn syrup subsidization to continue in this post-peak world.
The entire US industrial and subsidized cheap-food farming system is unsustainable and undesirable. And a generally decreasing standard of living in a post-peak world will drive people to return to victory gardens and producing their own food.
http://science.reddit.com/info/664zi/comments/
http://digg.com/business_finance/The_Reversibility_Fallacy_Why_Peak_Oil_...
Late to the party--and not feeling all that well--today. Good discussion though, gang.
If nothing else was going on while the price of oil jumped by magnitudes, then Stuart's prediction might be right. Unfortunately I think there will be a lot of other things going on. Ie: if half the masses can't afford food then farmers aren't going to be seeing much profit.
Personally I think we can expect some pretty heavy subsidies to farmers when things get tight, and they'll go for a while.
Personally I think we can expect some pretty heavy subsidies to farmers when things get tight, and they'll go for a while.
You won't get 'heavy subsidies' without a plunge in ag prices .. The subsidies disappear in a rising prices
environment ..
Triff ..
Interesting post and discussion.
For the short term, in industrialized countries, I think Stuart may be right. Ag is a big sector with a lot of inertia.
In the long term, I don't think so.
One of the problems with Stuart's post is that the outlook is that of a physical scientist, who sees things in terms of the industrialized U.S. over the past century. For example:
The ideas of physical science cannot be transferred directly to agriculture, which is embedded in ecology and human society. Physical science shines when it comes to simple systems and direct relationships, but it stumbles when it ventures outside its realm.
For agriculture, one really has to look to ecology and history. World history is replete with examples of complex agriculture that have failed or reverted to simpler ones. For example, irrigated agriculture systems in the Mideast failed over time due to salinization.
Another common problem is farmers depleting the soil of its nutrients. This was a huge problem in 19th century Europe - battlefields were dug up for bones to use as fertilizer. Yields drop, and farmers tend to move on (if they can). We have temporarily "solved" the problem of nutrients with the Haber-Bosch process for nitrogen and mining for other nutrients. I'm particularly concerned about phosphorus, which exists in limited supply (Peak Phosphorus).
When we move to the social sphere, there are multiple reasons why industrial agriculture could decline or fail.
The big systems tend to break down, and when they do, it is small-scale agriculture that pulls people through. In our recent history, we in the U.S. had the Victory Gardens during WW2. I remember during the 1970s, a spurt of gardening activity when food prices were skyrocketing.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Thanks for a very informative article Stuart.
I'd just like to emphasise that whilst much of your case is based on the US, the argument you make applies even more to more densely populated countries like the UK.
Any attempt to revert to 19th century style agriculture there would rapidly result in the deaths of the great majority of the population here, in my view, and it's collapse to very low levels in the chaos involved.
If this is correct then it really makes no sense to plan on the basis of such a reversion, although of course the population collapse we are here hypothesising may happen due to peak oil.
It makes a lot more sense to think how we could cope and keep everyone fed using a lot less energy, or energy in forms not involving fossil fuel.
The future would therefore seem to me to be more high-tech, not less.
Two technologies which would help would be agrichar with pyrolysis and vertical farming.
The agrichar route would produce the energy needed for the farming operation on-site,more profitable with high oil prices, and would also lock up carbon and increase soil fertility.
Vertical farming would reduce the expense and fuel costs of transporting food, and allow the monitoring of inputs to regulate them precisely and avoid run-offs of nitrogen fertiliser and so on.
Presumably in this restricted space battery operated farm equipment would work fine.
For the UK, if it is a choice between starving to death and authorising the construction of the few nuclear reactors required to run them, one may perhaps hope that reason would prevail and that the almost entirely theoretical risks from radiation and so on would be weighed against societal collapse and mass certain death.
For those with unalterable objections to nuclear power, although it would be vastly expensive you could also undoubtedly power such a system using wind turbines pumping water in vast polders in the North sea to provide constant power, and that alternative although hugely costly would still be an awful lot better than starving.
In short, if we want to survive at all in countries like the UK, the future of farming is high-tech, not low tech.
I wish all you people would keep in mind that during the big war, people ran IC engines on biomass gasifiers, and did so with success. This is simple tech, readily available on the web, and there were millions of examples of its effectiveness.
You don't need to stuff it into a horse, a ford will do just fine.
And you sure don't need to turn it into booze or grease first.
And do remember that fams grow biomass. Any kind will do.
We feed our family from a garden that has no fossil fuel input, Not fertilizer, not fuel, not bug killer, not nothin' but air, soil, sun, sweat and a little intelligence. And we have been doing it right here for about 45 years so far, and every year it produces better and more stuff. We eat from the garden all summer, and can what otherwise won't keep for winter.
200 yrs ago everybody did it.
OK, you nitpickers, we use some fuel to get those nice little packages of seed every spring. But we don't have to. Our good old neighbors didn't.
Of course there are too many people for that now! Fact is, there are too many people for anything. So?
wimbi said:
'Of course there are too many people for that now! Fact is, there are too many people for anything. So?'
If a 'plan' involves the assumption that many or most of the people for whom it attempts to provide die, it runs into the difficulty that those selected by whatever means to die tend to object, and in practice it leads to conflict and the disintegration of that society - for just one example from history, you can take the collapse of the Old Kingdom, the pyramid builders, in around 2400-2200BC during a wholly disastrous drought.
High tech solutions may avoid this - of course, maybe we will screw up, but if so how are we worse off than we would be if we cold-bloodedly tried to recreate some agrarian dream, knowing that many millions would surely die.
I agree with the point that although agriculture might struggle to produce enough bio-fuel for everyone to drive a SUV, it could surely provide enough to power itself.
Hi Dave,
I am not sure if high tech is necessary even in Britain. See this document:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/
There was also a recent global analysis that showed how green manures could fix sufficient nitrogen to support the global population:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
Don't feel like debating these articles in detail right now, but just wanted to point out that industrial agriculture may not be "a necessary evil" after all.
Very informative links, Jason - thanks.
I will study them with interest, and certainly would not seek to rebut merely to support my high-tech thesis.
I just get a bit anxious when some of the debate on this forum focusses too intently on the US, which certainly has greater resources and hence more alternatives than somewhere like the UK.
Thanks again for the links - they are reassuring.
The in-utility of subsidies is clearly demonstrated by the move to lower-yield dairy cattle in New Zealand, in fact I feel that many of the excesses of agri-business in the EU is directly related to ill-advised subsidies.
In fact I would not only agree but would actually take the argument in some respects further.
Germany is perhaps a good example of what can be achieved.
Many roads in urban areas there are build using cut and cover methods, which although more expensive means that effectively no land area needs to be covered by asphalt for the purpose.
The widespread use of green-roofs also mean that future expansion to the housing stock could be undertaken without loss of habitat which could encourage wildlife, or in an emergency even be used for the growing of food.
Simple alterations to planning permissions would achieve this.
I suppose you could even take random samples of the soil at intervals of perhaps 5 years and, since we have subsides anyway, weight them against farmers who have allowed their soil to degenerate.
I do feel though that high-tech is both important and useful, and indeed things like GM foods will help to keep many fed.
In particular I disagree with links that you gave in other posts advocating steady state economics at this time, as I feel that more growth is both necessary and desirable, but that, as they say, is another story! ;-)
Siwmae pawb!
This year, for the first time, I shall be following Fukuoka's assertion that NO fertiliser, organic or inorganic, is necessary to maintain soil-fertility and yields, so long as there is sufficient leguminous ground-cover and leguminous component in the crop on the ground to green-manure it. Actually, he did scatter a thin bit of duck manure most years, which I will have this year, along with the humanure from my composting loo. (Not going to waste it, since it's available.)
Incidentally, I think it's right to say that Fukuoka has for years been matching or out-producing his conventional-ag neighbours' output, with his 'do-nothing' (really, 'do-very-much-less') farming methods, to the extent that they have been asking to learn his secrets. Remember, three of his slowly-developed rules are: No till, no weeding, no fertiliser.
The results here will be made further imponderable by the fact that this year will be the first that all my beds will now be supplied with first-year terra-preta soil, made right here by the application of home-made char.
I heard just a few days ago that F has finally retired altogether, and may actually have quit his farm and left it to his heirs. He's not far short of a hundred now. Enough.......
I heard just a few days ago that F has finally retired altogether, and may actually have quit his farm and left it to his heirs. He's not far short of a hundred now. Enough.......
I'm surprised that this assertion has not drawn comments. Agriculture is at best a combination of science and art (and a lot of work), but there is no magic about it. Claiming that one can perpetually take crops off a piece of land with only nitrogen replenishment by legumes, and no soil depletion, strikes me as an assertion of magic.
I don't care what sort of reputation Dr. Fukuoka has, this does not pass the BS meter test.
The BS is the idea that mainstream 'science' knows so much about inputs and outputs from the soil. The amount of trace minerals used by plants is actually quite small. Most of the growth and development is produced from the sun and the carbon dioxide in the air turning to sugars,etc. Microbes in the soil break down rocks and sand into the other elements necessary, as well as other inputs converted by worms, etc. The earth periodically replenishes the soil with volcanic dust in the fertile areas. The quantitative question isn't "How much land does it take to feed me?", but rather "How many people can I grow with the living soil in my place?"
Nature has grown millions of species of animals for millions of years without petroleum, without manufactured phosphorus or lime. The processes already exist in nature for high productivity and maximum potential without destroying the soils and ecosystems. We just have to be smart enough to stop producing all the OTHER crap we don't need and contaminating the system that was there before we tried making money to please the priests and kings.
I think highplains has some valid points about economics of farming. So does Stuart, but in the end, we have to look at the REAL LONG term effects of our actions upon the land. Heavy fuel use means heavy equipment. The more we dig, the more fuel it takes to make up for the wasted soils.
NoTill practices improve on the fuel use part of the equation, but unless they are done organically (www.newfarm.org), then the pesticide use will still prove that our cleverness outpaces our wisdom.
Cooperation instead of Competition, less is more, animals have their place: eating grass, not grain.
As oil prices climb and rationing takes place, of course the central planning farms will get the oil, but let them. If people can't buy processed foods, then the system of making grain-based processed foods will become less and less viable. People won't be able to buy processed foods or ethanol for cars when there isn't cheap oil to provide them with a service economy.
As Suburbia declines, more fertile land near cities opens up for smallholders to grow food within reach of cities and alternative transport.
Personally, I'm banking on no-till, staple veggies, and doing electric car conversions on the side.
See you all later, as I think it's getting closer to the time for me to pull the 'net plug permanently. I may or may not be back for more abuse, but you guys are doing great on your own. Just remember to go out there and put the ideas into practice with your neighbors, rather than waiting for all this debate to be embraced by the PTB.
Dmitri's newest is good:http://www.energybulletin.net/23259.html
Especially the part where he basically says what I've been saying, Buy less, buy local, buy only what you need. Buy tools, take your money out of the markets, don't listen to the government, and turn off the TV. Close the Collapse Gap.
another shameless link: http://www.acresusa.com
auntiegrav, Thank you for the straight talk, I have posted a link to AcresUSA myself from time to time. My discovery of the Acres folks about 15 years ago has put me on a very solid financial footing with regard to my farm. Life in the soil is one of the most misunderstood and little known subjects, yet it is essential for life on Earth.
Another good link for soil biology and farming is:
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/
The reason nature works without fertilizer inputs is that the animals die and poop about where they eat, thus closing the nutrient cycling loop. Soil biology can help mine soil minerals more effectively and petrochemicals kill that biology, but if the minerals are being exported and the waste products of consumption (e.g., human feces and urine) aren't returned to the soil, then eventually even the best soils, tended by the best practitioners, will deplete.
This by itself is one of the best arguments for a local food system I can think of. Or do we think the human waste from Las Vegas is going to be hauled back to Illinois?
Jason, thanks for the link.
Volcanic dust!!!??? Omigosh, am I going to have to wait for one of the Three Sisters to erupt to replenish the garden?
Yes I know about micro-nutrients, and something about soil fertility and how it occurs. Jason has put it most succinctly, however, in terms of 'mining' the soil, shipping off the 'stuff' to far away places and not getting it back.
Bottom line is this: One cannot produce crops on the scale of industrial agriculture and ship them away on a continuing basis without replenishing the soil on a more-or-less equal scale, without seriously degrading the soil.
The rest of your post I basically agree with. My point remains about soil mining and mythical methods that produce food without any input.
I'm not familiar with Fukuoka's work, but if he is using organic mulches, then those are eventually decomposing and adding to soild fertility just as surely as if compost was being incorporated into the soil.
An expanding role of advanced, modern agriculture may not be just determined by profit margins for the farmers in the future. As I pointed out in a 12/14/07 Drumbeat post, there is a tremendous push going on amongst the movers and shakers of world affairs, in both politics and science, toward an agri/ethanol future. If there is enough advance in agri-science in areas like crop yields, development of nonfood, more universally grown designer fuel crops that don't infringe as severely on food supply, and especially in improving the EROEI of these next generation fuel crops (like cellulose) that actually start displacing significant amounts of oil, it may be good for more than just the large scale farmers.
The push toward fuel crops as opposed to CTL, LNG, and the other, vastly better EROEI options that would appear to be more easily scaled up to the vast oil replacement level needed may have to do with CO2. You can debate all you want on whether human caused CO2 is any great problem. But the truth is one side is not going to convince the other during these critical peak oil years. And whatever we do is going to have to be legislated, meaning that it probably can't be a big CO2 problem. It is here that fuel crops hold a vast advantage in addition to their being renewable:
Ideally, a fuel crop is carbon neutral because it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows and then just puts it back into the atmosphere as you burn it in your fuel tank. These reasons may explain why ethanol plants are sprouting up much faster than CTL plants, LNG terminals, or anything else.
Wow Stuart, Now you've gone and done it. Nothing like a good down to the knat's ass analysis to fire up the emotions in the TOD community.
The complexity of the effects of peak oil and the various potential outcomes are the fodder of intense personal analysis for me and I'm sure for most of us. It is precisely this level of complexity and the unknown reactions to the inevitable adversities which leave peak oil an open question.
The truth is we won't know until we are looking in Simmon's proverbial rear view mirror what the outcome is going to be for any of us. By the way, I am one of those who farm more than 5000 acres. Will the issues of water, availability of parts, cost of transportation, social unrest, stupid government policies or reactions, trump the more logical portions of your analysis? Only time will tell, but I will quarantee you that it will never come out exactly as any of us think it will. Humans just aren't that predictable.
$200 per barrel oil will look more like a discontinuity than a continuity. While I think Stuart is right in questioning the Kunstler agrarian vision, I think there might be an error in using historical data to predict across that discontinuity. One can't hold "everything else equal" in either case. I for one don't see how large farmers will necessarily do better - that diagram of a couple weeks back of the share of the economy going to energy production [Hall] comes to mind. At least not if people are cold and hungry. Governments fall over that - and deservedly so.
It does seem an easy jump to more gardens; there are plenty of historical examples. But beyond that, we're all guessing.
cfm in Gray, ME
Stuart's post does not cover most of the crops grown in California, which are primarily green vegetables and fruit. These crops tend to require refrigeration, and have a very low calorie value per pound shipped. They are already relatively labor intensive, except the labor is migrant workers. Such crops would be most severely affected by extreme oil prices, and most favorable for relocation. Barring a Savinaresque scenario, I expect to continue getting most of my staple grains and oils from the midwest and the high plains, but more and more of my lettuce and crucifers from my own garden and local growers. Speaking of oil, there is a large olive growing center about 125 miles from my place, but the only olive oil produced is from a couple of boutique outfits. I predict this will change in the next 15 years.
A good post even if it is very general and non-specific. The lumping together of all farms and farmers together must give unreliable conclusions in many areas.
I recall in the late 70's as an agriculture student, being told that the difference between California and Florida was Manual vs. Machine. Flordia apparently just did not have the low cost migrant workers to depend on so thay managed with machines. We were also told the inexpensive migrant workers have made California what it was and that as a nation unto itself, it would have had the 10th largest GNP in the world. Obviously this all ended up in your mix Stuart. The comments that suggested that this site is short on agricultual expertise is quite apparent from both sides of the spectrum.
In the Vancouver, BC area we are paving over our farm lands at an alarming rate to the point that we will always have to import the majority of our foods. Regardless of the costs of shipping and growing, those left who can still farm for a living will probably do quite well thank you very much, as they won't have to be as competitive with the currently cheap, oil transported foods from around the world and especially California and Mexico. We are going to need fast refridgerated railway cars in a hurry as many truckers just cannot make a living any longer. I will try and check out Mr. Kunstler on Thursday, see whats new with that reversalist!
Stuart - a wonderful counter - intuitive (?), thought provoking and challenging piece. I suspect you are right - for the foreseeable future. And by that I mean for so long as The System survives it is difficult to see a market driven scenario that will see us peasants return to the land.
The clinching piece of data is the fact that US farming accounts for only 2.2% of US petroleum consumption. OECD populations are going to face a number of choices in the decades ahead - how to priorities use of the available energy? Since agriculture uses so little there will be very little downwards pressure there for two reasons - the product is so vital and the energy savings to be made are so tiny - so things will continue as before - and that is as you point out a continuation of a trend towards greater industrial control.
I still haven't gotten my head around agri-energy economics fully as yet - I don't think anyone has. I think I might challenge the notion that modern agri-business is efficient - but there in lies its durability. Perhaps someone else would care to comment on the yield gain from fertilizers et al - I seem to recall the yield gain was low relative to the energy applied. Thus, if we do have fertilizer shortages the impact is de-geared. But when fertilizer production uses about 2% of nat gas supply, what will we have come to to decide to not make the stuff? Current shortages I believe must be due to supply chain / reorganisational matters. There is no way at present that we do not have enough nat gas to make all the ammonium nitrate we want.
In the years ahead folks will choose to drive smaller cars and go on fewer vacations. They may choose to share their apartment. They may also choose to eat less - and more of locally produced food. They will do this out of economic necessity - the price of energy will be so high that they will choose to make these savings.
What happens if The System fails is another matter.
Euan
PS - the highest quality energy on The Planet must be a rare Aberdeen Angus Steak, a fine Bordeaux and chips:-) An interesting project to look at the ERoEI of this delightful meal and adjust that for an energy quality factor.
Looking at the state of the western financial system, it's hard for me to imagine it not failing over the next two to five years.
This is another example of narrow boundary analysis. How much oil is needed to create the equipment and fertilizers and pesticides at the factories (not the actual nitrogen going into the fertilizer but the process)? How much is used to package and refrigerate the grown products? How much energy is used to distribute the food to all areas of the country? If we add all these externalized costs up, it is a much higher number than 2.2%. That 2.2% is of course necessary to grow the food - but when we discuss 'industrialized agriculture', we have to do so in a wide boundary analysis - how much of US petroleum consumption gets the food grown, packaged, kept fresh and delivered to the points of consumption? Stuart - it would be great if you could have this done by next Monday...;-)
Yoooon said:
So in the short to medium term we need to recognise many incremental energy savings that can be made.
What do we give up first? Coffee, wine, tobacco, tabaso, steak, bread, sex, 225 bhp?
But I agree it is high time Stuart stopped loafing around.
I'm thinking that 225bhp will be the last thing most people want to give up (although declining sales of big V8's here in Oz may make a lie of that statement), but I wouldn't want to give up sex.
The classic on-line paper about this can be found here:
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/archives/1994/01/01/energy_use_in_the_us_food_s...
Hi folks
Usually a lurker here, but I've just thought of an answer to the question "If we add all those externalised costs up, it is a much higher number than 2.2%"
It's most likely to be the ratio between average food costs and incomes, I would have thought. The USDA "Agriculture factbook" gives 10% for 2001, which would be in the right area. The ratio has been dropping for some time, so is likely to be slightly lower than that figure now, say about 9.5%?
Just IMO.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm
sf
Euan,
To get a good handle on N,P,K for ag you might want to look at some Univ of Ky ag pubs that show 'crop uptake' in terms of N,P,K for various crops.
For instance for corn the uptake will be expressed in units of N,P and K as a general rule.
The huge suprise for me when I read the pub was the amount of uptake for hay.
The U of K has most of these pubs online or you could contact any of the ag profs there who surely are listed on the home page. Univ of Ky is very active in our farming communities here.
This then is the bummer. Just how much of these nutrients per bu of corn, wheat or beans get taken away with the harvest. What if any remains in the residue? Many questions they will likely have the answers to. As well as other land grant Universities. I am just familiar with their pubs.
It seems to me that if we are going to pull this off them some good ag professors tied in with the 'extension services' and ag engineering are going to have to be enticed to come forth(even visit and participate in this website) and give 'hard' answers to some of the many questions now and in the dire upcoming future.
airdale
Just to make it clear what this "uptake" business is all about.
You can find tables that give you the nutrients contained in different farm products. What you do is look over those tables and make an estimate of what your fertilizer needs are going to be to replace what you just removed by harvesting and sending it away. You need to adjust for your actual yields.
For example, if you grow 1 acre of barley and do a great job, you may yield 40 bushels of grain and 1 ton of straw. That will set your acre back 50 lbs of nitrogen, 20 lbs of phosphate, 40 lbs of potash and 19 lbs of calcium in the form of lime. If you yield 20 bushels, cut those figures in half.
Think about where the replacement nutrients come from nowadays, think about peak oil, connect a few dots....
As good a point as any to throw in my own two cents' worth. (And nothing critical said here is directed at Euan, btw) But what we see in the general run of 'Oooooooohhhhhhh naaaaaahh, Stuart ...' comments is a simple _assumption_ that the system will fail and therefore ...
Yeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaa! [insert twanging banjo solo and the sound of ricocheting bullets here]
No more hated Big Ag or SUVs or whatever. Those hills are a-callin'!
Well it's all unsupported faith-based BALLS, isn't it. 'Stuart is wrong. Why? Well he has to be wrong, doesn't he, because Peak Oil by definition means total societal collapse, innit. See?'
Let me point out that no one here has any idea how Peak Oil is actually going to play out. Horror of horrors, we might get through it relatively unscathed. It may well be survivable. It depends on depletion rates and societal reactions, amongst other things.
So now Stuart is earning a few dirty looks for contradicting Drumbeat dogma, but not too many harsh words because after all, it's Stuart Staniford, a high-quality intellect well-nigh impossible to defeat in argument and otherwise loved when saying something that might be consonant with the doomer message.
I say pay attention, people. Get past your own blinkers.
The same advice might be offered to you. It is not dogma that is generating all the negative posts; there is a lot of reasoning in there too, if you care to look.
I think that there are two phases to peak oil, the first of which you capture, the second of which you don't. The first, is rising prices due to flat production. The second is shortages due to falling production. The second case has very different dynamics and effects than the first.
A very interesting and provocative piece, Stuart.
I'll not rehash the criticisms my colleagues have made above, however I do want to explore another integrative line of argument.
One thing we have learned here at TOD is that the growth paradigm will do everything it can to persevere. "It" will use increasing efficiencies, "it" will use the institutions of government and capitalism--where "it" will use rational self-interest. We lead very comfortable lives because of what "it" does--and we sure do like our comfort.
"It" will continue to grow--until it cannot. (This is Nate's point above in a much pithier form.)
Still, I think I agree with Bart and Yoon and others above that, for the forseeable future, Stuart is correct regarding this portion of the pie. Empirically, the case makes a LOT of sense--and yet, we want to balk at the idea because it conflicts with our normative ideas of what the future will be like under certain conditions.
Does Stuart's piece suffer from a ceteris paribus assumption--sure (at the core of every piece of research are sets of assumptions...); we cannot hope to capture every variable of a probabilistic view in every model we put together either (This is JHK's point above), but we can try to present a parsimonious generalizable explanation and then duly noting the strength of the rule and the exceptions to it.
But, it seems to me that this juxtaposed discussion, which is one of the best I've seen here for a long time, really demonstrates the conflict between the normative and the empirical sides of what we increasingly think we are going to face in the coming years.
Writ large, self-sufficiency is lost on us as a world. We have grown dependent on complexity and focused expertise to such an extent that we now know very little about our cars, or our homes, or our land. When tragedies occur in our world, we look to government or corporations for assistance, not to ourselves--whether it is for medical assistance or food or water or loans or...you get my point. That is not going to change any time soon--in fact, those corporations and institutions, on a daily basis, are making sure that as many people as possible are hooked on to that teat with a tenacity that makes your eyes roll back in your head.
Remember, simply put, the libertarian perspective is that government should not be a collectivization of resources and that we should return to self-sufficiency and self-determination by choice and control our the resources that we own. But, unless you have a) that ideological makeup, b) those resources, and c) the will to use them, "you" have not done so.
Instead, "you" live in the world of teh internets and driving 40 miles in your car at lunchtime eating MickeyD's listening to sports talk radio.
And yet, isn't it the case that many here understand that the only way to really get out of this mess is centralized control of resources through massive policy change?
This interdependent conundrum is absolutely fascinating to me.
Contrast that normative desire for, but lack of, self-sufficiency and self-determination with the rational, efficiency-seeking, corporate dystopia, further contrasted with the understanding of the tragedy of the commons/centralized control of resources.
And in that, you see the future in which this is all going to go down.
Prof Goose, an interesting response.
Of course you do not need telling that this is a philosophical rather than a technological rejoinder, and perhaps embodies some of the assumptions which Stuart was questioning.
Supposing that you are correct in your inference that no greater use of energy would mean the end of growth, and that assumption is at least open to some argument since progress has been made on reducing the energy intensity of production, then it is still possible that other sources such as solar could provide amply for more growth for a long long time to come.
But supposing that you are correct, however much it may be the case that some self-sufficient agrarian alternative is possible in the US, in my view it is surely impossible at the population density of the UK (higher density agrarian societies like Bangladesh are based on tropical rice growing)
Since a 'plan' for such a reversion, or libertarian perspective in your terms, would appear to entail the death of the great majority of the population, then perhaps it is not unreasonable for most of us to go along with the high-tech alternatives and try to make them work.
And since there is no absolute shortage of energy, but rather problems in bringing nuclear or renewable sources to market and to technical maturity, perhaps we have good prospects of success.
Prof. Goose -
"And yet, isn't it the case that many here understand that the only way to really get out of this mess is centralized control of resources through massive policy change?"
By that, I take it that you see no way out of this mess other than via a strong centralized government, presumably guided by a team of enlightened academics and technocrats (such as yourself, perhaps) that will have the absolute power to force the unenlightened ruled masses into doing the right thing(s). Correct? (Or close?)
This appears to be the same sort of thinking that created FDR's New Deal (on the more benevolent end of the scale), and Mao's Great Leap Forward, Soviet Five-Year Plans, and the likes of Pol Pot (on the more sinister end of the scale). The history of most of these massive collectivized efforts is hardly encouraging and is replete with all manner of misery and injustice. In the long run, the concept of an all-power centralized government and the concept of personal liberty are mutually exclusive.
Maybe in dire circumstances this is what will be needed, and maybe this is where we are inevitably headed. I have no way of knowing. But I strongly challenge the implicit assumption that 'collectivization of resources' will automatically be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Human ingenuity, left unmolested, can accomplish great things; poliburos never do.
The anthropological evidence suggests that two types of societies can withstand severe stress that can lead to collapse - small, loosely organized, tribal groups, or large, centralized governmental structures. Don't cry at me that this is what history shows most strongly. That's just the way it is. To get out of this box, we may need to think out of the box. So far we have refused to do that sort of thinking.
Note: I am not suggesting that it is impossible for us to escape our current trap, just that the historical record doesn't give us good odds.
'...we now know very little about our cars, or our homes, or our land.'
And yet strangely, not living in the U.S., I do live next to people that build (factory floor), engineer (design), repair, and otherwise master the technology of automotive construction and maintenance. And next to people that do actually manage the forest, run the local sawmill, and who know how to make a roof frame for a multi-family house using little more than their muscles and hand tools. Roofs which easily last a couple of generations, I might add. Or the people who actually quarry and manufacture the various building materials for walls and floors. And of course, I live next to farmers, while the town has consistently expanded its cherry orchard (over 500 trees currently).
'Instead, "you" live in the world of teh internets and driving 40 miles in your car at lunchtime eating MickeyD's listening to sports talk radio.
And yet, isn't it the case that many here understand that the only way to really get out of this mess is centralized control of resources through massive policy change?'
And again, not living in the U.S., I see my neighbors investing in major home insulation, solar hot water heating systems, PV grid feeding systems, while biomass district heating and co-generation is becoming common to replace existing oil or natural gas fired home heating systems in a number of communities in the region. Or the local geo-heating plant going on line near Bruchsal. I watch the ICE and TGV high speed trains run by, while taking the streetcar over the national rail grid into downtown Karlsruhe using the local streetcar grid.
Though interdpendent, none of this is involves 'centralized control of resources,' (leaving aside the trains, at least in terms of scale) though it does involve fairly massive, democratically enacted policy changes (hated though such changes may be by major utility companies).
This always makes me wonder why American thinking is so incapable of anything but binary juxtapositions. This is not related to the problem of merely American-centric thinking, which is a separate issue - as if literally billions of people care anything about what happens in the U.S.
'And in that, you see the future in which this is all going to go down.'
No, I'm sorry, I really don't see it at all, at least not where I am. But can I imagine it for America? Sure, no problem at all. However, I can't imagine America ever being anything but a fairly small slice of the world we all share.
I would agree that as long as we can hold things together, industrialized agriculture is vastly superior to any manual approach. Without huge numbers of horses, and food for the horses, we would be much worse off than even people 100 years ago.
I think that with peak oil, or even "peak oil lite", you reach a financial system discontinuity pretty quickly. The financial system discontinuity is likely to lead to a political system discontinuity. Once there are financial system and political system discontinuities, I am not sure what happens. It is possible these discontinuities will not happen for many years. More likely, the discontinuities will come much sooner - perhaps when the rest of the world figures out what we are doing to the food supply, and decides to retaliate by selling US bonds.
I think there are a lot of feedback loops that we really don't understand. It is easy to miss these, and come to conclusions that make sense only in a world where one can buy and sell large tracts of land, large farm equipment is produced, roads are regularly maintained, and stores have adequate electrical power for operation. Once we start to lose some of these things, the whole system - including industrial agriculture- will fall apart.
Gail--
Industrial Agriculture is a fight against entropy, as simple systems need external energy, while a complex system can be counter entropic.
We are looking a a narrow view with industrial Ag, and as long as the current superstition based economics are applied, it makes sense. However, anyone paying attention should be getting a bit nervous at the moment.
Stuart, This is excellent work!
I am no fan of industrial agriculture and the culture of "farming the government" but you rightly state that energy costs are and have been a small portion of farm production costs. Biofuels can and will be produced on the farm to power the machinery that has replaced the manual labor in raising commodity crops.
Farm machinery lasts a long time and can be repaired, the older machinery is built better than new and the country is awash in older, repairable, farm equipment.
I buy food from my local co-op and in no way support industrial, chemical agriculture, I am a firm beleiver in organics and soil building. With that said, industrial agriculture will continue on into the future, the farm equipment may not be new but we will not be farming with horses on a major scale.
The profitabilty charts are sobering, it would be interesting to know where US agriculture would be today without farm subsidies.
Thanks for mentioning subsidized agriculture. Assuming the subsidies will continue indefinitely, industrial agriculture will reign, at least until substituting labor for energy is profitable. We're a ways from that, I suspect.
Some more factors to add to the problem.
Big acre farmers have not only economies of scale, but intergenerational learning. You and I might take several years of trial and error to learn how to tend certain crops which farmers already know. They also lack squeamishness, not just chopping the head off a chicken but applying pesticides at critical times. Backyarders will waste years getting their nerve up.
I'd guess (since I haven't been there) that Cuba had fewer endless miles of paved over suburb. Who is going to rip up these housing estates when there is no fuel for bulldozers?
What happens when urban service industries collapse? Cashed up customers at farmer's markets have jobs in education, finance and administration. One day many of these consumers may not have the income to buy even basic items.
Quite! Which leads back to Prof. Goose's thoughts up thread on centralized Government. It's not as if droves of IT managers are going to turn up on farms in their short-sleeved shirts and loafers exclaiming "let's put on a brand new post industrial small scale communal agrarian society right now, here in the barn!"
The reality will be:
Group One - Some people who have the knowledge and means to grow food
Group Two - Some people in charge of food and energy distribution, backed up by forces of law and order
Group Three - Me and everybody else; more or less unemployed (mostly less); hungry and dependent on Group Two to maintain enough control for everyone to stand a chance of getting a bite of the stuff produced by Group One.
In the absence of locally-organised plans made ahead of the actual crisis, it's likely IMO that a heavily centralised and not necessarily benign party bureaucracy will fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the credit finance system and the service economy (aka taking in each other's laundry).
That is why I am starting a Peak Oil community in my own town.
This article also has a fairly large unacknowledged false premise - that sufficient food crops will actually continue to grow at expected yields in the increasingly polluted, sterilized, monoculture environments being created by giant agribusiness. Unfortunately for your article, the answer is no. We are long past the point of diminishing returns - the soil is getting exhausted and when that happens, no amount of spraying more petrochemicals on it is going to help. It will essentially become unarable.
You really need some argumentation to back up your post.
For a start, you say:
'sufficient food crops (won't) actually continue to grow at expected yields in the increasingly polluted, sterilized, monoculture environments being created by giant agribusiness.'
So, what is the rate of increase, is it universal, or localised?
If is is not sustainable, when is it likely to decrease, and at what rate?
Could it be remedied, for instance by the use of agrichar?
You may be correct, and I am particularly concerned by the rate of draw-down of aquifers, but really it is useful if you bring some data to the party - blanket statements are not so helpful
The questions he raised are the questions that the original analysis needed to ask to be meaningful. As you note, without any facts to back up such premises, either positive or negative, the original article is essentially meaningless, because it also presents exactly zero facts to back up the assumption that soil, water, etc, will continue to produce at present rates into the future. Why was such an oversight allowed to occur here on the oil drum? I don't know the answer, but I do know that if you don't look at the true material of production, in this case, the climate (changing quickly and unpredictably), soil (clearly degenerating to some factor, at some rate, that I'm sure is graphable), and water, what on earth is being discussed?
The resources in question in farming are not merely oil but soil, water, and climate. Obviously oil is critical in the entire process, just like it is in fishing, but it's not the main thing. Talking about less core resources simply masks this simple fact. It's like talking about climate or water instead of the size of the reserve when talking about oil drilling. Obviously those are factors in oil production, but they are not the main factors, and I think highplainsfarmer is right to point this out, but unfortunately, he doesn't complete the point.
I applaud highplainsfarmer for presenting the micro view of his industry, but in the macro view, it's no more satisfying that reading about a deep sea trawler captain confidently predicting that no matter how high fish prices go, he can always bid on the oil to power his vessel, ignoring that fact that there are unfortunatley no more fish to be had, which is the current circumstances in much of global fishing.
And the trawler captain is far less tied in to the status quo than the farmers are.
All very interesting, but the answer wasn't found in this article, not even the real questions, unfortunately. Food production is going to get pretty interesting no matter what happens, and I don't pretend to have any crystal ball, although of course the only people long term who are 'right' are those who point to truly sustainable alternatives. The industrial way of farming is clearly unsustainable on any material level, though I'm sure it will continue as long as it can manage to do it, just like everything else like it, including cars etc.
As Stuart has noted elsewhere in the thread, the reason he did not deal with those other issues in his article was that was not what the article was about, but rather challenged the assumptions of those who declared modern agriculture unsustainable specifically because of energy inputs.
He also rather effectively in my view rebutted in another post in this thread those who would argue that soil depletion is likely to have major effects within the next 50 years.
You can only argue one point effectively at a time, and in your post you make no attempt to provide any backing for your sweeping claim that:
'The industrial way of farming is clearly unsustainable on any material level'
this sort of statement is in no way useful as it does not address what will run out and why, or if in fact when these shortages and weaknesses become more critical they may be addressed within what is essentially the same system.
For example, the draw-down of aquifers in the US is clearly unsustainable, and will be reduced or eliminated at some time in the future.
Alternatives though seem even more capital intensive and high tech than what is going on at present, ranging from much tighter monitoring of inputs all the way to greenhouse cultivation and so on- it is hard to see some sort of mom and pop labour intensive operation being able to fund or manage this.
Hmm, to me it seems pretty much just basic common sense to point out that a way of producing food that uses almost exclusively non-sustainable inputs is itself clearly unsustainable. Simple logic. So I assume that's not what you are asking about.
Water running out is clearly a big one, especially when you consider that it's the urban dwellers who can outbid the farmer for the water, just as the farmer could outbid the urban dwellers for fuel. That's regional, of course.
The total disruption of the natural topsoil production process is another one, but it's slower and won't have the same dramatic short term impact. Monoculture is another one, which will pop up in fascinating different ways around the planet. Hmmm, let's see, what else is there?
It's worth remembering just what the problem that the green revolution was supposed to solve was. And what time scales we are looking at here. My guess is that what we will see with industrial food production is a fairly familiar looking curve, with a steep rise when it went fully industrial and non-sustainable to meet higher and higher demand (stop me if this sounds familiar)... surely such logic a not a mystery to TOD members?
I doubt you or I will resolve this issue here, in words, but, like with peak oil, any long term planning would be well advised to anticipate the failure of any non-sustainable system, but that of course probably will not happen to us.
Whilst the contribution of inputs other than energy may be important, I really feel that Stuart's thesis needs answering on it's own terms ie would energy shortages lead to more or less centralisation of agriculture?
This is because it is always important to get away from generalised unsupported statements which 'everyone' is bound to agree with, and down to brass tacks.
To illustrate why this point is important, lets suppose that some of the new energy initiatives are successful, and that algae biofuels and perhaps, say, high altitude wind power essentially solve those issues.
If those who argue that energy is the limits to agricultural production were correct, then the problem would be solved.
For others though, this would make little difference, as if limitations apply to different inputs, say phosphorus or water, then the situation would remain grave.
So for me the detailed analysis that Stuart provides here is always valuable, and needs assessing on it's own terms.
The energy crisis is not occurring in isolation and will not be solved in isolation.
In numerous studies, monoculture yields were tracked over time and seen to decline, or, changes in farming techniques were made back to using sustainable small farming techniques and yields were seen to increase in comparison to industrial farming techniques. The percentage of difference between monoculture agribusiness techniques and sustainable small/medium farm techniques varies greatly by crop and location, of course, but the overall trend is unmistakable. Some quick references (studies and books):
Asian Rice Bowls: The Returning Crisis?
By Prabhu L. Pingali, Mahabub Hossain, Roberta V.
…two studies on the effect of applying animal manure (specifically cow/poultry manure applied at 4-5 tonnes per hectare) showed an increase of upland crop yield of 25-100%. This was compared to applying manure at 2 tonnes per hectare, or to applying commercial fertilizers [per package instructions]…
Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming
Miguel A. Altieri
Division of Insect Biology
University of California, Berkeley
… Cycles of nutrients, energy, water and wastes have become more open, rather than closed as in a natural ecosystem. Despite the substantial amount of crop residues and manure produced in farms, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recycle nutrients, even within agricultural systems….
… Commercial farmers witness a constant parade of new crop varieties as varietal replacement due to biotic stresses and market changes has accelerated to unprecedented levels. A cultivar with improved disease or insect resistance makes a debut, performs well for a few years (typically 5-9 years) and is then succeeded by another variety when yields begin to slip, productivity is threatened, or a more promising cultivar becomes available. A variety’s trajectory is characterized by a take-off phase when it is adopted by farmers, a middle stage when the planted area stabilizes and finally a retraction of its acreage. Thus, stability in modern agriculture hinges on a continuous supply of new cultivars rather than a patchwork quilt of many different varieties planted on the same farm…
… The need to subsidize monocultures requires increases in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, but the efficiency of use of applied inputs is decreasing and crop yields in most key crops are leveling off. In some places, yields are actually in decline. There are different opinions as to the underlying causes of this phenomenon. Some believe that yields are leveling off because the maximum yield potential of current varieties is being approached, and therefore genetic engineering must be applied to the task of redesigning crop. Agroecologists, on the other hand, believe that the leveling off is because of the steady erosion of the productive base of agriculture through unsustainable practices (3)…
… The loss of yields due to pests in many crops (reaching about 20-30% in most crops), despite the substantial increase in the use of pesticides (about 500 million kg of active ingredient worldwide) is a symptom of the environmental crisis affecting agriculture. It is well known that cultivated plants grown in genetically homogenous monocultures do not possess the necessary ecological defense mechanisms to tolerate the impact of outbreaking pest populations. Modern agriculturists have selected crops for high yields and high palatability, making them more susceptible to pests by sacrificing natural resistance for productivity….
… Chemical fertilizers can also become air pollutants, and have recently been implicated in the destruction of the ozone layer and in global warming. Their excessive use has also been linked to the acidification/salinization of soils and to a higher incidence of insect pests and diseases through mediation of negative nutritional changes in crop plants (8)…
Allelopathy in Ecological Agriculture and Forestry
By Shamsher S. Narwal
Pg 146…inhibitory compounds in the aqueous extracts from soil under wheat monocultures with conventional and no tillage inhibited the growth of wheat seedlings by 32 and 10% and and shoot growth by 19 and 21% respectively. Continuous monocultures of wheat decreased tillering and crop yields of wheat owing to the accumulation of allelochemicals in the soil. The allelochemicals may change the hydrophillic nature of the soil colloids and thus directly inhibit the germination of crops…
…continuous monocultures of corn…increased the soil toxicity…reduced yields [varied by location and original soil condition]…[and] soil sickness was [also] observed in continuous monocultures of rice…beans…[and] continuos monoculture of sugarbeets lowered its seed germination from 77 to 33%...
Yield responses to breaking the sugarcane monoculture
M.J. Bell1, A.L. Garside2, N.V. Halpin3 and J.E. Berthelsen2
1QDPI, Kingaroy Qld.
2BSES, Townsville Qld.
3 QDPI, Bundaberg Qld.
… In all experiments the effect of breaks/rotations was to increase yield of the plant sugarcane crop by from 14 – 84% compared with sugarcane monoculture. The type of break and its duration had some effect on the magnitude of the response, but all breaks had a positive effect on yield at all sites through effects on stalk number and stalk weight. Positive responses continue to be recorded in subsequent ratoon crops….
A summary of the role of agribusiness:
Your Money Or Your Life!: The Tyranny of Global Finance
By Eric Toussaint
Pg 194 …In fact, the green revolution was the tool chosen by the agribusiness MNCs as a profitable response to the [supposed under-utilization of arable land by small farmers] using science and techonology and above all, without making any changes to the organization of agrarian society [that is, without land reform – leaving arable land in the hands of large wealthy corporate landowners instead of returning to a paradigm of medium and small family farms].
…as the green revolution has grown in strength, traditional community structures have become dependent on technology that they neither created nor control. This so-called revolution has been a boon to multinational corporations. The agribusiness industries of the north have imposed various seed varieties on [monoculture farms]. These varieties did produce favorable short-term results, however, over time they have been disastrous in a number of ways. First, they require ever greater purchases of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and so forth since these imposed varieties are genetically programmed to deteriorate after a generation. Second, when the costs are calculated, the performance of these varieties is no better than those obtained through traditional selection and improvement techniques. Dependance, on the other hand, has grown enourmously on machinery and fertilizers, all provided by [the giant agribusiness conglomerates and their allies].
….Finally, the green revolution has produced a number of other harmful effects. It was carried out to the detriment of communal lands… It has led to a severe impoverishment of biodiversity, an increase in plant diseases (traditional varieties were more resiliant), and soil exhaustion. …It requires much greater irrigation than traditional crops, and the massive use of inputs has left huge tracts of land saline [unarable]. Consequently, the ecological balance has been irredeemably destroyed through the intensification of these monocultures...
As for agrichar:
The potential role of Agrichar in the Commercialization
of Dynamotive’s Fast Pyrolysis Process
Terrigal, NSW
April 27-29 , 2007
Desmond Radlein,
Andrew Kingston, CEO
This study notes that "very little is known about biomass yield increases on char application. Ranges of 0-300wt% have been reported for crop yields..."
Zero percent, of course, means that some crops were shown to receive no benefit whatsoever. And "very little known" would necessarily imply that it is basically unknown whether or not any yield increases observed for those crops that did benefit will be sustained after years of repeated applications. In other words, it's a big unknown.
Thanks for that, Ahavar B!
Now that is what I call a substantial post!
BTW, I am no great fan of agri-business, it is just that with the level of subsidies common in the industry it is damnably difficult to work out what is truly economic, and what is purely a product of ludicrous agricultural support systems, which here in the EU have resulted in subsidised production ruining third world farmers whilst simultaneously farmers here have grubbed up every hedgerow and decimated wildlife.
Referenced arguments such as you have made here are a great help.
Although I must not put words into his mouth, I suspect that in his post Stuart was also specifically arguing a narrow case, and rebutting that energy use as such would lead to different agricultural systems.
Quick question:
Is the same land/acreage under corn cultivation in 1977 that produced 90 bushels/acre now producing 151 bushels/acre in 2007?
2nd quick question:
If the answer to the first question is "no", then how much of the corn acreage of 1977 has been retired/banked for at least a few years and/or is not presently contributing to the 2007 corn yield?
3rd quick question:
How much of the land producing the 2007 corn crop was not farmed (in corn) in 1977?
They are not posed as trick questions...
Skip:
The amount of acreage hasn't changed much:
I don't know to what extent the acreage has moved around, though I would guess not much.
In east central Nebraska the answer to 1 is yes. The pasture land seldom changes and the crop land is rotated between corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and an occasional wheat field. Oates rotation was discontinued in the early 50's. The same crop land has been in continues use for more than 100 years. There is very little set aside land as the crop potentials are simply to great to be economical for goverment payments.
Your corn production chart is missing some important information - how much of inputs in chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer is required now per acre vs 1977? How many times have the farmers had to drop the variety of corn they were using to adopt another variety? I would guess about 10 times in 20 years, or every 2 or 3 years, based on the number of steep dips in production. Is that realistic for the foreseeable future - that a new variety can be developed every couple of years, forever? At some point you've genetically modified everything that can be modified and still call it "corn." How much of that production used to be heirloom varieties grown by family owned farms that are now GMO varieties grown by agribusiness contractors (family or otherwise)? What is the saline content of the soil now vs. 1977, and how much longer before it becomes sterile? What is the nutritional value of the corn now vs. 1977? What is the GMO induced allergic reaction rate increase since 1977?
And, most importantly: Is the government data in this chart any more reliable than the government's employment data? Inflation data? The national debt? Just curious.
This is a thought-provoking post, as usual!
However, this does not convince me and I suspect it won't convince most of the "reversalists." What you've done is shown that the case for reversalism has some fairly serious anomalies to explain, and further that there are quite a few ambiguities in just what we're talking about. The impulse is not, however, to say, "wait a minute, maybe it's not ‘back to the land' after all," but rather to comb through the data and find a mistake.
First of all, it's not completely clear what is meant by "reversalism" or "reversalist
tendencies" in agriculture. Does reversalism mean that we go back to the 14th century, or just the 19th? Or 20th century organic with solar-powered tractors? Or hunting and gathering? "Reversalism" could mean more farmers per unit of food produced, which would have my vote. But it could also mean smaller farms rather than larger farms, or abandonment of large machinery, or vegetarianism or veganism, or any number of historical versions of agriculture, or some combination of the above. There are some huge differences here.
The intuitive argument for some form of reversalism is that fossil fuel becomes scarcer it will become more expensive in relationship to labor. At some point, if energy becomes expensive enough, more labor-intensive looks a lot more viable in terms of economics. Exhibit A is Cuba, which suffered exactly the kind of catastrophic collapse of oil for agriculture which we might see in the future for the whole world, albeit rather suddenly. Even under a dictatorship committed to large-scale mechanized agriculture, we see the reversalist fantasy pretty much played out.
The counter-argument to "Cuba" is that the collapse of oil supplies in Cuba was much more sudden than even the pessimists expect that oil and natural gas supplies will collapse, and that in the transition we will actually see, it is likely that other things may occur to prop up large scale mechanized agriculture. For example, we might see society increasingly allocating a greater percentage of ever- diminishing fossil fuel resources to agriculture. We might see a crash program of solar-powered tractors. We might see Canadian tar sands oil going to pesticides. So yes, with enough commitment, we might keep large-scale mechanized agriculture going for quite a while: everyone else would be riding bicycles, but those big farms would still have large machinery operated by just a few farmers.
The real question here is whether large-scale industrial agriculture will collapse, and this question is too complicated to resolve cleanly. You first have to define what you mean by "collapse." Such a collapse might be economic, which is the scenario that Stuart is envisioning, or it might be political, as in a land-reform President takes over in 2020 and legislates large farms out of existence, or it might be some sort of combination. There are a lot of economic subsidies for large farms as opposed to small farms, aren't there? There are both political and economic reasons why large farms do better than small farms; some of them have nothing to do with energy efficiency (or even economic efficiency in the absence of subsidies).
Then there is the question of what will replace it if it does, which no one has really addressed in detail. What really needs to be addressed is whether labor-intensive farms (or small, or organic, or biodynamic, or name-your-reform-of-choice) are more energy efficient than large farms, and if so, at what point the subsidies which are being fed to the large industrial farms become counter-productive economically or politically. There's also the question of what kind of energy we can sustainably produce via wind, solar, and so forth, how quickly it can be ramped up, and how much of it we can channel into agriculture. In short, you really have to ask the whole question of what sort of economy we will have post- peak, and how agriculture will fit into this economy, and that's really complex.
There's another issue which may actually be of greater importance here than peak oil, and that's soil erosion. Soil is eroding about 5 to 10 times faster than it is being formed in the United States (worse in Africa and Asia). Also, even in the absence of peak oil, food production has pretty much reached a plateau, and food production per capita has been declining since the 1980's even in the face of cheap oil. Stuart mentions as possible evidence for a reversalist tendency: "Now that we are at, or close to, peak oil, industrial agriculture is beginning to show signs of strain, indicating it may break down in the future, allowing alternative approaches to take over." I think this criterion is amply satisfied, even in the complete absence of peak oil.
And one final issue, which almost everyone also overlooks: eating low on the food chain, vegetarian or vegan. About 2/3 of the cropland in the United States goes for animal foods. It's not as bad on a world-wide scale, but no matter what your agricultural system -- organic, industrial, or whatever -- you lose energy whenever you eat higher on the food chain. This criterion does not necessarily eliminate all animal foods, but it takes care of most.
Stuart has exposed quite a bit of ambiguities and problems in the "reversalism" ideology, which bear further scrutiny.
-- Keith Akers
Keith, very good post.
I think you have put your finger on the main issue, sustainability and soil building. This can only happen with crop rotation, green manure (plowdown) crops and quality compost. Cheap energy and synthetic fertilizer have taken soil health and the percentage of organic matter to critically low levels. Even a crash course for building depleted soils will take 4 to 5 years with some taking 10.
That's a very considered and important post, Keith.
Stuart seems to me to have done a good job in arguing that energy shortage as such is unlikely to bring about the end of mechanised agriculture.
The caveats you enter seem to me to have some weight.
For a start, it is very difficult to determine what is the optimum size of farm, or what size optimises energy inputs all the time the whole system is skewed by vast subsidies.
In addition you have what is effectively mining at the moment of both the soil and water resources, as well as inputs like phosphorus.
It is perfectly plain that this is not sustainable.
The question is what replaces it - a high-tech, capital intensive system which measures and regulates flows of all resources might work better than some labour intensive system.
Your point about the huge extra inputs needed for meat is also well-made, but even then I feel I should remind a lot of folk in the States that high density countries in the Northern hemisphere such as the UK are much more limited in their responses than you are there, and that even with the most vigorous economies it is perhaps hard to see how the need for very intensive agriculture of one type or another is not vital to keep everyone alive.
Another valid point which has been raised elsewhere in the thread is that although agriculture may directly consume only around 2% of energy use, distribution, processing, packaging and so on are far more energy intensive, and you also have the energy needed to run the factories to build the tractors and so on, as well as mine the ores and process them to build them.
Overall, you might be talking about a guesstimated 10% of total energy use to obtain food.
Although that amount is large it is surely do-able though.
Thanks, DaveMart (and thanks, too, BTU). My more or less random thoughts:
1. I can't recall the source, but "someone" who was knowledgeable said that one casualty of using large machinery was the decline of contour farming, which reduces soil erosion. It's easier to just keep going in a straight line than follow the contours of the land. This doesn't preclude all machinery, it just means the operator will have to take more care, it will take longer, thus more human labor. Thus, any regulatory efforts (legal or otherwise) to promote contour farming will promote more farmers per unit food output.
2. I have no idea how soil erosion could be tested so that, e. g., those who preserve soil could be rewarded through economic incentives (or eroders could be punished).
3. My understanding from David & Marcia Pimentel's "Food, Energy, and Society" which is a great book, is that U. S. energy in the food system is about 17% of total energy.
4. Their book really is pretty good at hashing out the facts. A lot of this energy goes into processing. They analyze a can of corn (p. 192) and find that it takes about 3000 Kcal to get a can of corn which contains 375 Kcal in food energy. 1000+ of that goes into the can itself. They also compare agriculture just with human power to agriculture with human and animal power, and to agriculture with human power and machinery.
5. Another surprise, according to the Pimentels for most foods traveling to the store to get the groceries takes about as much energy (slightly more actually) as it does to transport the goods to the store in the first place.
6. In the frozen north, you may have no choice but to eat some animal foods. I don't claim vegetarianism as a panacea. However, the "factory farms" that have given us cheap, affordable meat just take about 3, 5, 10, or 20 times the water, land, etc. to produce than just eating plants directly. Even grazing competes with other human possibilities for the land, such as switchgrass or timber. Vegetarianism is technologically feasible today, and would have other health benefits. In the Second World War, Norway had greatly restricted meat consumption due to the Nazi occupation. The death rate fell. It went up again when the war ended.
On this basis, I think "eat local" is, while certain helpful, not the most significant thing in saving energy in agriculture. It's certainly important, but not eating processed foods and eating low on the food chain is the low-hanging fruit, energy-wise. In the long run soil erosion is probably more serious a problem in agriculture than energy, and I don't know quite what that means in terms of what we need to do as a society.
Keith
The article basically assumes business as usual but with high oil prices. I find this strange. The greatest energy consumption of modern agriculture does not happen at the farm. It happens at the machine factory and in the food distribution system. If food distribution and storage system cannot be maintained or if the background industry (machines, spare parts) cannot be maintained then the farms will be in trouble. We have a just in time system for food currently, if that breaks then the farms will not be able to sell their products in time.
The other issue is unemployment. What will the people do without a job?I do not believe that all can be employed in the energy / mining sector - unless these reverse to manual labor.
We have one good example where exactly small-scale agriculture has prevailed: Cuba.
I think industrial agriculture will continue in the richest countries for quite a while (unless society breaks down), in other places it will break down.
Just a quick note that I am gone on business today and won't be able to participate much in the discussion. Tonight, I'll try to post a rejoinder to the main themes that emerge in the comments. I have one question though that would help me respond to those who argue that the main error in thinking is ignoring societal discontinuities, and that once discontinuities are taken into account it becomes clear that the relocalization vision is the right one. Could you lay out the scenario of a) how much the available oil supply falls in percentage terms, and how fast, b) what aspects of societal infrastructure fail roughly when as a consequence of that, and c) why a small relocalized farm close to markets (ie cities) will be better placed to survive these infrastructure failures than a large industrial one far from cities.
I have to admit I've been excitedly checking back to see the 'discontinuity' scenarios laid out with plenty of hard numbers. But they haven't appeared here yet. Hopefully they are being supplied by private email.
One has to wonder: is it, in fact, quite hard to produce such scenarios?
George A wrote:
You have to do all the research. Basically, the same job that was already done by Meadows et al and by Tainter. So all the like of us have to do is to read up on it.
The key is in the nonlinearity of the cross-coupling feedback mechanisms, all of which operate at different timescales which in turn are functions of the dependent variables. A set of linear differential equations does not produce bifurcations. You need nonlinearity. The above set of authors and their colleagues are the ones who invented that sort of analysis in systems theory.
No, it's not back of the envelope stuff. You need the ideas, the set up, and the data, and the only easy part is the first :-)
ciao,
Bruce
Alas, I see that no-one took up that challenge, and so the processes by which the relocalization is supposed to come about must remain very ill-defined. I would just ask the people who are advocating this on what basis they are confident it is a useful course of action if they cannot articulate the likely time frame and mechanism by which it is to come about?
Let me address the main critique raised in the comments that seems to me to have much force, which is this one of discontinuity. As our honored guest Jim Kunstler put it:
Clearly, I confined my analysis to the context of a more-or-less free market system continuing to operate, and within that context, I didn't see that anyone put too much of a dent in my thesis. However, I do agree that if society came under enough stress from high food and fuel prices, we would expect to see social discontinuities. In the western democracies, the first thing I would expect to see is the imposition of rationing by national governments, which would have the effect of sharing the available food/fuel around so that everyone gets some minimal amount to get by, rather than some people getting far more than others. In that circumstance, I don't expect to see any serious dislodging of industrial agriculture - food production and distribution are generally recognized by government as critical infrastructures and I would expect to see them prioritized during rationing. Freight transportation only takes up 8% of vehicle road miles, and therefore less than 5% of oil usage. Food production takes up only 2% of oil usage. So I can see no plausible scenario in which there would not be enough oil to power these systems. If we do nothing else but produce the remaining domestic oil stream, grow food, and fix the infrastructure required for those things, those are going to be the highest priorities, and there is more than enough oil to do it for a long time to come. If you want to differ, please put numbers on what you think is required and why you don't think there will be enough.
Beyond that, I agree that if events became extreme, there is a possibility of social disorder, riot and revolution. I think this a far more serious risk in poor countries in the near-term, particularly if biofuel induced food price increases continue for very long (we have already reached the rioting stage in a number of countries). However, if wealthy countries seriously mismanage their response to the situation, it could happen there too at some point.
But the nature of revolutions is essentially impossible to predict. A German in 1923 (the year of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch) would have no way to predict that it would be Hitler in power in a decade or so. A Russian in 1910 could not have successfully foreseen Lenin. Should one have been a Communist, or a Fascist/Royalist - in one country, one choice got you a position in the hierarchy after the revolution, while the other landed you in a labor camp or a gas chamber, but in the other, it was the other way around. Which to pick? A Frenchman in 1989 could not have foreseen Napolean, who would conscript the Frenchman and send him off to die fighting in foreign lands. So, if, at some point, there is social breakdown and revolution in one or more countries, there is no reasonable course of action ahead of time that can be guaranteed to have a good outcome. In the Archdruid's useful terminology, that is a predicament, and not just a problem.
In particular, having a smallholding will not be slightest protection against being interned, conscripted, lynched, exiled, having one's own land seized in some ill-advised land reform, or all the other dangers of living through a revolution. There is no particular reason to think that the eventual winners of the revolutionary struggle will share the relocalization ideology, and therefore no guarantee that they will follow that agenda. Revolutionaries often have very ideosyncratic and wrong-headed ideas about how to run society (see Pol Pot), and they often take a bad situation and make it far worse. In the US, we're just as likely to end up living in a fundamentalist Christian theocracy as anything else, if our current political system were to be overthrown (as the largest faction of zealous intolerance, they'd at least have a head start in the revolutionary struggle). I don't see that being a relocalist farmer would be much advantage in a society like that - bible study would be more useful.
So again, I would like to understand what do reversalists think is the reasonably likely path by which their actions are going to lead to the relocalized vision with any great confidence of success?
My own view is that if we cannot hold our existing social order together, then we will all probably be very badly screwed. Therefore, it is imperative that we find solutions to the problems that the existing order faces and campaign to change those things it is doing that are very dangerous and problematic (food-based biofuels, carbon emissions). Either we are going to get to a mid twenty-first century that involves most of the planet living at least tolerably prosperously in a modern economy mainly powered by carbon-free sources, or all bets are off and no-one has a remotely reliable strategy for coping with what is going to happen.
And I simply don't see how the reversalist vision helps us in that task, since I just don't see any remotely smooth path from where we are back to relocalization.
In unrelated points - Airdale: I'm very sorry to hear your news and I wish you luck. If this community is any source of solace to you and others in similar troubles, that may be one of the better things we have done. If you need material or emotional support in some way, I would encourage you to ask here in the hope that someone will be in a position to help (they may not be, but it may be worth asking)
Jason - I deeply share your sense of the tragedy of what is being lost in the sixth great extinction. Clearly, much has been lost, and a lot more is going to be lost, though I salute the best efforts of conservationists to preserve as much as can be preserved.
It's quite clear form my previous posts in this thread that I think that your basic thesis is likely correct.
However, I would be interested in your comments on one particular issue. It is pretty hard to determine which of the effects leading to large scale farms in the US and EU are die to market forces per se, and which are due to the system of subsidies.
My own guess would be that although the subsidy structure has contributed, it is not decisive, and most of the forces leading to larger sizes would have continued and prevailed, especially for things like grain production, but a less intuitive and more data-driven assessment would be valuable.
The position is different for the area of market vegetables, which is already to some extent catered for by smaller local farms, nearer the urban centres for their more bulky produce.
Presumably higher fuel bills would intensify the pressure to reduce transport costs, pulling production even closer to the cities.
In that context it is worth noting that although much highly productive farmland has been taken up by urbanisation, there is nothing inevitable about this, and the 'asphalt jungle' is largely the product of cheap fuel costs.
In Germany cut and cover methods mean that many urban roads take up no surface area, whilst green roof technology both means that fuel costs for heating are reduced together with urban heat island effects and that area is available is it is so chosen for allotment- type gardening.
In the third world a substantial amount of agricultural produce is within city boundaries, as indeed happened in areas such as London as recently as the early nineteenth century, or indeed the 1940's in an emergency situation.
So to sum up, my very un-rigorous guess for the future of high energy cost farming would involve high-tech large farms producing the majority of grains and so on, and also operating in areas where factors such as water depletion means that a much more rigorous control of inputs is needed at high capital cost, and a patchwork of many producers in closer proximity to cities for market gardening and so on, including allotments.
I agree, just about anything can happen in the future. There are no guarantees that a smallholding, ie lifeboat, will be viable.
But for a lot of us, our current occupations are a guaranteed dead end. I am an engineer making consumer electronics. I'm quite sure if I continue along this career path I'll be in big trouble (and my family as well).
During the Great Depression in the US, the people who made it through relatively unscathed were small scale farmers that owned their land outright and produced their own food. That seems to me, while not guaranteed, a pretty sound strategy for the upcoming economic upheaval.
As an individual, how else can you prepare?
"We" are not "solving" anything here. We are spectators. That's all.
I've given up all hope for the former. I pray the latter isn't true.
Rethin said:
'I've given up all hope for the former. I pray the latter isn't true.'
What on earth for?
Henry Ford said:
'There are those who say you can't, and there are those who say you can, and they are usually both right'
To be more specific, whilst some raise safety objections and so on, you could certainly run an advanced technological civilisation using nuclear power, given re-processing and some modest technical improvements, with no radical breakthroughs at all.
Even supposing the worst nightmares of the anti-nuclear folk were correct, that would certainly be preferable to a regression to a low-tech, hungry society.
In fact of course nuclear fears are grossly exaggerated, and stand up to no close scrutiny at all.
That is not to say that other alternatives may not come to the fore, for instance it is difficult to imagine that solar power will not be economic given 50 years progress, although it may be premature to rely on it too much at present, but nuclear does give a worst-case fall back.
Given electric power, then running an electric car is far preferable to not having a car at all, even if they fall short of petrol-driven motors - ie, we can continue to be mobile with no improvements to current battery technology at all, not that that is at all likely.
Sure there are problems, there always have been and always will be, but if you want to despair you should have lived in the 14th century, then you would have had real cause to panic!
I do not know if we will overcome our difficulties, but I think we would have to do some pretty stupid things to totally screw up.
The most stupid thing of all would be to be overwhelmed by the difficulties and give up
Alas, I see that no-one took up that challenge, and so the processes by which the relocalization is supposed to come about must remain very ill-defined. I would just ask the people who are advocating this on what basis they are confident it is a useful course of action if they cannot articulate the likely time frame and mechanism by which it is to come about?
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Good piece of analysis, Stuart! Kudos! A couple of thoughts came to mind yesterday, of course the one that has been discussed endlessly (our depleted topsoil, unsustainable methods etc. etc.)
But another factor which may affect how this plays out: the "soveriegn wealth funds", that is money which has been sent abroad and for which the holders may seek something of value. My glimpse into the murky crystal ball:
Foreign investors buying up the megafarms to feed foreign populations. US ag markets may be impoverished but there are places with lots of money but lacking abundant farmland. Both market and ownership could move overseas.
Of course, this also sows the seeds of discontent and may go on to inspire a political push for land reform. As you said, a byword for disaster, but I can still picture it happening.
I'm not sure where it could go from there. International "security" to protect the megafarms? Chaos and famine? No doubt there will be an effort on the part of centralized authorities to "maintain the status quo".
[edit 9:17ET]
Note that the Irish did something like this 150 years ago (raising crops for foreign landholders) and depending on who you ask, the resulting disaster still hasn't been sorted out. I believe there were revolutions in France and Russia with messy results ... come to think of it, the list would be like a book of world history.
While I would by no means consider myself a "reversalist" (probably not too many energy modeling software engineer reversalists), I believe that a agricultural transition is already underway in the context of our "free-market"/subsidized system. My older brother is an organic farmer in Maine. In his 30+ years of farming, he has moved from no-profit hobby to substantial income, partly by developing farmer's market and restaurant sales channels, but also by increasing his acreage and focusing on high-profit crops and meats.
While he would never try to compete with mechanized 1000 acre wheat farms in Texas, he can already compete against California agri-business on the price/quality of his veggies, pigs, chickens, lambs. Increasing oil price only makes my brother and other NE small farmers more competitive with industrial ag, even though he has plenty of fossil fuel inputs too. I am agnostic on whether increasing oil prices will shift the size of farms, but increasing cost of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides shifts the cost/benefit towards the leguminous cover crops, multi-culture, and manure organic farmers use. Clearly some companies are prospering with an industrial-scale organic model already so reduced FF inputs does not require a return to the family farm. However, moving away from mono-culture (which is only possible with massive FF inputs) does reduce some of the economy of scale that agribusiness benefits from.
So even without the Mad Max discontinuties, simple cost/benefit of reduced transportation costs and reduced fossil fuel inputs will shift nature of agriculture. This is not "reversalist" because modern organic farmers benefit tremendously from agricultural science, via soil testing, extension services, etc., and from technology of all kinds, from electric fences to computer communications.
One other point is that farmers are optimally located to benefit from renewable energy. Here in Colorado, wind turbines in ranchlands and croplands are becoming a common sight. Farmers can use this locally produced energy without incurring the transmission/distribution costs that everyone else does. So my vision of the "anti-reversalist" future includes PVs and wind powering center-pivot irrigation, tractors, refrigeration. The California PUC is already subsidizing agricultural use of renewable energy, because it reduces grid load, often at times of peak demand.
Excellent post! I would also mention that if you are using agrichar the pyrolysis of waste can lead to biofuel production, both to power the farm itself and perhaps to provide a surplus for 'export'.
On a personal note I would like to say that I personally hope so - as I walk along the banks of the river Avon here in Somerset the difference between an organic meadow there with it's many flowers and diverse colours and the monoculture of the rest of the countryside is startling.
Firm figures and sound reasoning to back up my predelictions are welcome though - a lot of the 'fluffy logic' here drives me nuts.
A fully transparent system should make clear the false economies of some of the more brutal factory farming systems - for instance, if you put a true value on decreasing the efficacy of antibiotics, then you can't just cram in animals and stuff them with them.
The food tastes better too.
I don't think any lack of a likely path makes it any more likely that industrial agriculture can somehow become sustainable and operable in a society that, itself, is unsustainable.
I also don't think that presenting an idea that industrial agriculture will continue to be profitable, and increasingly so, helps people come to grips with the unsustainability of our society. I feel sure that such an idea will grab those who cling to some hope that business can go on much as normal, at least with regard to food supplies, so any thought directed at how we reasonably move from here to there is lessened.
Stuart: I would answer with a question:
Consider the household that has simplified and downsized their lifestyle. They live in a smallish energy-efficient house in a small town. They have a wood stove, maybe a solar water heater system, maybe even a couple of PV panels on the roof. Their yard has been converted entirely over to vegie and fruit production, plus they raise a few chickens and rabbits and maybe even a dairy goat. They also work a plot at the local community garden. What they can't grow themselves they buy mostly locally. They cook all their meals at home from scratch using whole foods. Living in a small town, they are able to walk or ride a bike for many of their trips. Maybe they have one very small, fuel efficient car which they use very sparingly, often sharing rides with neighbors; they have long-term plans to maybe replace this with a PHEV. They compost all of their organic wastes and recycle their recycleables. They patronize their local public library rather than buy books, and they are actively involved in a variety of neighborhood and community organizations and activities. In short, they live the type of frugal, communitarian, low-footprint lifestyle that the relocalization movement envisions.
Now my question is this: Are these people going to be a harmful or helpful force towards the preservation of the social order? Or to put it another way: Which will be more likely to minimize their stress and demands on the existing socioeconomic system, and thus least threaten its continuation: The people in my example above, or the typical high-consumption, big footprint suburban household?
If I may assume that you would agree with me that the frugal household is at least doing less harm, then it would seem to me that even if we cannot manage to move ALL of society along the relocalization pathway, it would nevertheless be very beneficial and desirable to try and move as many people as far along and as fast along it as we can. To the extent that we can make more people part of the solution rather than remaining part of the problem (or even just make them less a part of the problem), to that extent the problem remaining becomes that much less, and that much more solvable.
"Alas, I see that no-one took up that challenge,"
I did, but my crappy dial-up connection ate the post.
Essentially I said that there were a few things you'd not considered. These are the pace of oil price change, fossil fuel availability, food transport and storage and the economy in general.
The oil price rise may not be steady, slow and gentle; we can adjust to almost anything if it changes slowly, but if the change is sudden we're in trouble. Considering the oil price rises of the 1970s and the recession they helped cause compared to the much greater price rises we've seen over the last five years which haven't caused recessions.
It's not clear that future price rises will always be slow, steady and gentle.
Secondly, there's price and then there's availability. The collapse of the Eastern bloc economies after 1991 shows what happens when fuel is not available at any price; Hungarians were eating Kazah wheat in 1989, but not 1992. Their food production became more localised and less dependent on fossil fuels.
Thirdly, you've mentioned fossil fuel inputs on the farm, but not in transport and storage of food. What makes industrialised farms profitable is not just cheap fossil fuel inputs at the farm, but in transport. Iowa corn or Chilean cherries going to feed New Yorkers in winter is one thing with oil $100/bbl, but would be another thing with oil at $250/bbl. It takes a lot of fossil fuels to transport these foods, and a lot to store them. Apples for example are commonly stored in refrigerated warehouses for up to 18 months. As the food transport and storage costs rise, the cost of the food itself will rise.
Already market garden farms just outside cities supply about half many countries' fruit and vegetables. Already there's a growing tendency for these farmers to cut out the supermarket middleman and sell directly to the consumer. Farmers may get $1/kg for (example) nuts which the supermarket sells for $10/kg; they can then sell directly to consumers for $3/kg for a larger profit. If their farm is 200km from the city, they can't cut out the middleman, if it's 20km they can. Already this is a rising trend. With food transport and storage costs rising, it's reasonable to suppose that trend will continue and become more important.
Lastly, there's the general economy. If West currently running on 50Mbpd finds itself in (say) 2020 with (say) only 25Mbpd to use, we can expect a general decline of the economy. This ties in with the first point above, if the decline in fuel availability is slow enough we can adjust to it, if it's relatively sudden we're in trouble. In the case of a general recession, industrialised agriculture will be in further trouble, as people will be simply unable to pay the prices they need to pay for all the fossil fuel inputs.
If I earn $500 a week and spend $200 on rent, $50 on utilities and $50 on food, I can handle food rising to $100 or even $250. But if I only earn $250 or earn $500 but with a debt of $150, then I can't wear those food price rises. What happens when a business has a price which it has to have to remain profitable, but nobody can afford? Well, it goes bust.
I'd also note that single problems, whether economic, social, climate or whatever, these rarely cause real and lasting damage to countries. But two or more problems in combination are a real kick in the guts for them. For example, in the US in the 1930s the Depression alone was not enough to drive the farmers off the land, but when it was combined with the Dustbowl, that did it.
Does it seem possible that in the future we could see economic declines combined with climate troubles in the West? Well, yes, it does.
No definite and precise predictions are possible. If you consider just one small aspect of the issue and present a false dichotomy as Staniford has done here, then sure you can come up with some fine and precise numbers for things. But when you consider the several issues likely to be important over the next decades, the picture becomes murkier.
Still, it can be said that
- people need to eat,
- fossil fuels will decline and become more expensive
- thus industrial farming's food will become more expensive
- climate change may hit large areas of farming hard
- there may be economic decline and people have less money to spend
- so less food is available from industrial farming, and it's very expensive
- people still need to eat
- therefore, what will people do to eat?
It seems reasonable to suppose that as in the former Eastern bloc, people will turn to smaller, less fossil-fuel-intensive, and more localised food production. And when we remove the skewed focus on grains as the sole food source, we realise that a good part of our food production is already smallscale, localised, and not very fossil-fuel-intensive, so it doesn't seem that big a change. Still substantial, but not revolutionary.
[duplicate deleted]
A very interesting and thoughtful bit of analysis, Stuart; the sort of thing that helps the localizers to focus. Although I'm very late to this thread, I will take up your challenge, since I didn't find too many comments along the lines of my thinking.
This sort of sounds like the argument that a Hubbert denier might have made circa 1969, when the US was pumping more oil than ever. Is it not in the nature of bubbles and their collapses that they continue to grow, until they don't? This analysis is good, but probably premature. If we run it 20 years after peak oil, it might look very different, might it not? I don't know of anybody who predicted that scenario occuring before (or just barely after) the peak, so isn't this a strawman?
Speaking as a "reversalist," I do expect that 20 years after the peak we will see industrial agriculture coming undone, and a wave of "neo-peasant reversalists" (although that's a bit perjorative a term, how about "localvores"?). Land prices are a different question I think. Good farmland should appreciate, while paved over suburban wasteland should depreciate.
I assume that's because there has been enough excess wealth (thanks to cheap fossil fuels) to accommodate food prices that rise along with energy costs, without causing demand destruction, so the profit margin remains intact.
Because we haven't reached that point yet. Oil is still far too cheap compared to labor (and by "labor" shouldn't we really be looking at draft animal labor at least as much as human labor?). But surely you don't think that will remain the case forever?
As you stated up front, your argument centers on the profitability of industrial agriculture. What about other factors, such as the mere availability of sufficient inputs of fuel and machinery, regardless of cost?
If industrial agriculture succeeds because of economies of scale, might we not also infer that it gradually compresses profit margins, until they're razor thin, forcing small farmers with higher cost structures out of business? I think that's what you argued. Doesn't this place industrial farmers in a precarious position, where any impact on their margin de minimus threatens their survival? Do we not reach a point where industrialized food production faces demand destruction when prices get high enough? (I'm excepting cereals here, since they are clearly a large-scale crop, and not something that can be easily relocalized. Even on the subsistence farm where my father grew up, they bought flour...although I'm told it was more because my grandmother preferred the finer grind.)
For example: I anticipate that some time after the peak, fuel inputs (and competition with biofuels for arable land) will drive costs of foods high enough that it will encourage regular folks to try to grow their own as much as possible, that is, a demand destruction for industrialized food. This should gradually lead to a reversalist transformation of the supermarket, where packaged foods like Hot Pockets (shudder) are replaced once again by bulk foods to be cooked at home, simply because it's much cheaper. With all those "neo-peasants" spending a lot more time at home, they should be able to put a dollar's worth of beans on the boil in the morning, and feed a family on it in the afternoon, instead of buying each one of them a one-dollar Hot Pocket (shudder).
Finally, there is the claim that "Food production takes up only 2% of oil usage," and this gets to the social discontinuity issue. As others have noted upthread, that's a very narrowly defined metric, and doesn't include lots of other aspects of food production that require energy inputs, from making big steel machines and tires, to replacement parts, to refrigerating and shipping food, and all the machines and parts thereof. In order to be credible, you really must weigh localized food production against industrial ag with all inputs considered.
Perhaps in a perfectly ordered system, oil would be allocated in priority to maintain these systems, but that's not the world we have. What we have is a vast collection of independent businesses that have to live or die on their own within the capitalist framework. Will Congress ensure that every last company involved in the production and maintenance of farm machinery and fuel, every last shipping company, and every last company that makes truck or train or refrigerator parts, survives under some grand plan to rationally allocate scarce fuel supplies? Given today's example of Congress, I wouldn't bet on it.
So to answer your question about the likely time frame and mechanism of relocalization: The time frame is "however long it takes after the peak for things to stop working." We can all guess at that but I can't even imagine a model that would predict it. The mechanism is easier to imagine: Whenever that time comes to pass, it will become impossible to keep all those machines, from field to grocer's shelf, running. One needs to look no further than agriculture in the Ukraine after the collapse of the FSU to see an example of what that looks like. After that--I don't know, call me crazy, but it just stands to reason--people will do whatever they can to grow some food, wherever and however they can grow it. Those with the lowest costs will survive...I presume, those who are the most self-sufficient.
All true; but that's not a proof that industrial agriculture will continue. In fact it's a bit of a hyberbolic case. If that were the reality, what would Big Ag be? Nothing like today's Big Ag, I would wager. More like a police state, which in time would probably collapse as well. See Ukraine's example, once again.
The reversalist vision helps simply on the strength of the fact that what worked for millenia can work again. If anything, it is Big Ag that is an as-yet-unproven experiment! But I don't think too many of us reversalists would guarantee a "remotely smooth path." Knowing the destination is quite different than finding the path to it.
I hope you're still monitoring this thread and will reply.
Here's my attempt at taking up Stuart's challenge. There's a simple and fairly mild political scenario for a "discontinuity." And it doesn't even require peak oil! Sorry, I don't have the detailed data and graphs to support this, it's just a theory.
All this discontinuity would require would be a political act, the abandonment of the current scheme of U. S. agricultural subsidies. In that case, the data that Stuart is producing could reverse, and we would see a mild tendency towards more labor- intensive agricultural plots being more profitable. If we then experienced peak oil, as oil prices increased, this tendency would be reinforced -- perhaps not as quickly as we'd like, but you'd see it. In short, I think that the evidence that Stuart is producing may be an artifact of agricultural subsidies.
We could imagine a situation in which peak oil would drive people to use SUVs more. Suppose that we imagine a very stupid response to the current rise in oil prices. In response to complaints about rising gas prices, Congress decides to subsidize car owners with direct cash payments. In fact Congress does something even more stupid, they decide to subsidize SUV owners, and in direct proportion to the amount they drive, and let compact owners fend for themselves. In that case, as oil prices rise, people might buy SUVs and we would experience a rise in people driving SUVs while people ditch their compacts. Stuart would produce a graph showing oil prices rising while SUV ownership is also rising. Conclusion: peak oil will help SUV ownership.
It is my understanding is that something like this is happening with agricultural subsidies. The biggest farms get the biggest subsidies. As oil prices rise, and biofuels pre-empts agricultural land, food prices rise in tandem, and since people will always need food, they cut back on other items and continue paying rising prices for food. This increases profits all around, but the big farms benefit more than the small ones. The big farms can buy out the small farmers and get even bigger. As the smaller less mechanized farms are bought out, we see a rise in mechanization and the conclusion is: peak oil helps mechanization of agriculture.
It may be a very long time before farm energy efficiency is addressed. In the late Roman Empire much the same thing happened. Taxes were raised to address the Roman financial crisis generated from the need to support the huge Roman army. Taxes fell disprortionately on the small landowners, the small landowners abandoned their plots and became tenants for large landowners, so it didn't generate any extra revenue and the Roman fiscal crisis continued. Eventually the western empire fell, not because of direct military defeat but because the army couldn't be paid. This was to the general relief of the peasants, for whom the empire was a tremendous burden. The Byzantine empire adopted a different more decentralized system of farmer soldiers, soldiers were paid with land, and as a consequence the Byzantine system lasted about a 1000 years longer. Without Justinian's adventurism and the sack of Constantinople in the fourth Crusade, we could conceivably still have a Byzantine empire.
So if we want to support our inefficient agricultural system with subsidies, we can certainly do so, and the system will continue to produce the data that Stuart is relying on. If the American empire decides to subsidize agriculture, but suddenly adopt super-efficient measures everywhere else, the day of reckoning could be postponed for a very long time indeed. We could imagine a crash program of PHEV cars, solar panels, wind power everywhere, superinsulated homes, and all the rest, but leave agriculture a dinosaur.
It gets better than this: many of the inefficiencies in the food system have nothing to do with what happens on the farm. We could become vegetarians. We could abandon processed and canned foods, abandon packaged foods and Twinkies. All the while, we could continue large-scale mechanized farms. This doesn't mean it would be the best system, just that how long you can prop up agricultural subsidies depends on how long the rest of the economic system stays intact to sustain those subsidies. An intelligent political response (our "discontinuity"), though, could save us quite a bit.
So if you really want to continue large-scale mechanize agriculture, you might be able to for quite a while. In the case of the western Roman empire, their backward agriculture taxation system never collapsed until the empire itself collapsed. I'd say we should go for something more like the approach suggested by the Byzantine empire.
-- Keith Akers
O. K., let me try this again. Stuart asked a question, actually three questions, and I gave my responses. I will now try to rephrase, in a different way, what I said above.
Here is what Stuart asked:
"I have one question though that would help me respond to those who argue that the main error in thinking is ignoring societal discontinuities, and that once discontinuities are taken into account it becomes clear that the relocalization vision is the right one. Could you lay out the scenario of a) how much the available oil supply falls in percentage terms, and how fast, b) what aspects of societal infrastructure fail roughly when as a consequence of that, and c) why a small relocalized farm close to markets (ie cities) will be better placed to survive these infrastructure failures than a large industrial one far from cities."
To the first question, how much the available oil supply falls in percentage terms, I say -- it doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, assume Yergin is right and there's no peak at all, just the proverbial undulating plateau. The reason is that what is driving the data that he describes (higher oil prices = greater mechanization of agriculture) has nothing to do with oil. It is a political artifact of subsidies.
To the question of what societal aspects of infrastructure will fail when, my answer is a political decision to end the current agricultural subsidies is the only aspect that has to "fail." My thought is that it will fail sometime in the next 12 years due to political reasons unrelated to either peak oil or economics. I think there will be a big mood for reform; you can feel it already in 2008; by 2020 it will be irresistable if it's not already come and gone.
The third question is why a relocalized farm would do better, that is that in the absence of subsidies, smaller farms are more efficient economically. The margin of efficiency will increase as energy prices rise. (O. K., this statement needs research and supporting data, and if I thought anyone was listening, I might pursue this further.)
These answers are a roundabout way of saying that Stuart has asked the wrong questions. The question he should be asking is, "O. K., given that a rise in oil prices promotes large mechanized farms, what is giving these big farms this advantage?" If he had asked this question, he could have also headed off a lot of the disbelief that accompanied his post. This disbelief is based on the perception that Stuart is taking away with one hand what he is giving with the other. Our perception is: Stuart is telling us that biofuels are stupid and peak oil is nigh on the one hand, but then he is saying that nothing has to change on the other -- than in fact farms will become less energy-efficient as the crisis deepens.
He needs to answer this question to make his point not just overwhelming, "I've got more facts than you do," but convincing, "here is the process that is driving this." He could have said, for example, that even though relocalization is more energy-efficient, that the energy in farm use is quite small compared to our total energy budget and that any wrenching adjustments to our economy and social system will come elsewhere first. I offer my explanation, that the process is being driven by agricultural subsidies, as another possibility.
If we want to subsidize inefficiencies badly enough, and cannibalize other parts of our social system to pay for it, we can keep our agricultural subsidies in place until the society as a whole collapses. This is certainly possible, but there are other "discontinuities" -- such as the very simple one of discontinuing our system of subsidies -- which will probably intervene politically first.
Keith
This reminds me of how a friend of mine and I start peak oil conversations these days. When talking about the future we first stop and say, "OK what exactly has collapsed and how far exactly have we fallen?" It's a prerequisite for our discussions about future mitigation efforts. It's necessary because without a crystal ball it is impossible to know what will happen. There are myriad possibilities.
Let me give a scenario.
Oil spikes @ $350/barrel in 2011 (MI/Colin Campbell), GDP -5%. This is just backdrop.
Nitrogen fertilizer increases in price (inflation adjusted) eight fold as Trinidad misjudges NG resources and LNG prices skyrocket.
EVERYONE knows someone with obesity related diabetes and the lack of healthcare for most of them frightens people (media plays it up big time > Corn Sweetener & Meat, especially corn feed beef & pork, K I L L S !!). Reaction against hyper-processed food & soft drinks. V-8 sales increase, Pepsi & Coke decline. Raw vegetable and fruit demand increases (all to the delight of public health workers).
Ethanol subsidies are revoked.
Brazil expands their share of soybean export market from today's 60% to 80%. American industrial ag cannot compete with Brazilian industrial ag, which exports their ag tech to Africa. Read link below. And the US share drops to 6%. They also take over most cotton exports and some corn.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/news/international/brazil_soy.fortune/in...
California diverts water from agriculture to people, severely reducing the supply of fresh veggies and fruit just as demand soars.
Those recently unemployed Americans with resources (a small %, some with parents money) are eager bidders for subdivided industrial corn farms near major cities (driven by severe recession & post-Peak Oil fear). Medium scale vegetable and fruit farms & orchards, many with crops that ripen over an extended period (picked with on farm labor), and supplemented by pickers that come through with the seasons. Some is shipped to nearby cities, some to local cannery or food freezer.
Some pre-WW II farmland that has been put into forests is brought back with specialized small scale ag. And an entirely new ag crop comes back with the American Chestnut in the 2020s.
USA industrial ag gets squeezed by better Brazilian (and African) industrial ag on one end, a shift in markets (corn demand plummets) and climate changes (modest) and land demand for small farms on the other end.
And small scale ag has MANY more votes, so support shifts away from industrial ag.
Best Hopes for Sustainable Agriculture,
Alan
And an entirely new ag crop comes back with the American Chestnut in the 2020s.
Hazelnut bushes instead.
In my view, positing a price spike alone doesn't give a very useful scenario. What we need is a plausible level of oil production with the reasoning behind it.
Then we look at the economics of agriculture in that scenario.
How is demand for fresh fruit and vegetables soaring when GDP is contracting so sharply? Demand for these is far from inelastic. Truth be told, except in small quantities, they aren't necessities at all. Just ask any Scotsman over a certain age.
Truth is, in hard economic times, demand for fresh fruits and vegetables falls. Always.
This is a bit of a hodge podge.
So, US factory farms close down because industrial ag elsewhere proves superior? That means this scenario foresees massive downward pressure on global ag prices. Foreign food flooding into America to swamp US farmers and submerge the subsidy system. How is that consistent with greatly increased demand for smaller holdings? Is this even an argument against the viability of industrial ag?
In hard times, with the ravages of diabetes all around (it is a certainty, that absent a change in diet or exercise or a magic new drug, diabetes rates will more than double, many at younger ages), demand for hyper-processed food, soft drink and meat may well fall, rather than fruits & vegetables. as in the past.
The supermarket of today looks NOTHING like the corner grocery store of yesterday (or Zara's that I shop at). It is full of hyper-processed food and has a minimal selection of staples and basic foodstuffs.
Will Hot Pockets, Twinkies, PopTarts, chips, frozen pizza and soft drinks be cut back, or will green beans, apricots, apples, carrots, spinach and sweet corn (fresh, dried, frozen or canned) be economized out of the diet in hard times ? In dollar cost, the hyper-processed foods cost more. In health costs the delta is even larger.
I do not know. But if we revert back to red beans and rice (a Monday tradition in New Orleans and a truly cheap food), the acreage of red beans needs to increase dramatically. And $100 can feed a family for a month on red beans & rice plus some greens.
Best Hopes for a Better Diet,
Alan
Don't forget, Alan, that the core of the human diet for thousands of years has been grain and very grain-like foods like potatoes. This isn't really about hyper-processed foods, as if without Frito-Lay etc grain use would plummet. No, ultimately we have to ask the Aztecs about corn consumption.
The human diet for millenia is all about grain (and beans) with meat and fresh stuff on the side.
Before junk-food a lot of corn was consumed by humans in the US and, of course, if we go back further, entire civilizations were built on it.
Corporations influence how our corn is consumed but they are not the masterminds behind the fact that we choose to grow large quantities of it. If the Mayans or Aztecs were to see our corn fields, they would fall to their knees in awe and worship.
they would fall to their knees in awe and worship.
Until they tasted #2 dent corn.
The acreage to supply the US population with 40% of their calories from corn is much smaller than what is planted today in corn. We do *NOT* grow corn for human consumption, but for ethanol and animal feed and export (also most of the exported corn is for animal feed as well).
So your argument that we are growing corn because humans eat lots of grain is false.
The modern obesity epidemic has two root causes IMHO, changes in diet towards hyper-processed food and less walking/more driving-less exercise in general.
When I first walked through a Phoenix supermarket, I was astonished at how much space hyper-processed foods took. Almost half an aisle for a wide variety of frozen pizzas and less space for ALL frozen vegetables than just for frozen pizzas. "Baked goods" (pastries, cakes, twinkies, etc.) took almost as much room as bread and surely had more calories (sugar & fat).
The US diet is NOT going from a human diet for millenia is all about grain (and beans) with meat and fresh stuff on the side to less meat and fresh stuff and more grains & beans as food budgets tighten.
A staple food is one where at least a third of calories come from. My SWAG is that the ONLY staple food in the average American diet is hyper-processed foods (including non-diet soft drinks). None of the traditional staples (wheat, corn, rice, potatoes (basic prepared)) supply a third of our national calories today without more processing than simply baking, steaming, cooking.
Best Hopes for a Better Diet,
Alan
That's not my argument. We grow it because it is a highly convenient, storeable, digestible, concentrated form of energy. And that's why the Aztecs grew it. It's a plant with power. It packs a real punch energy-wise whether consumed by man or beast or man via beast. And it is definitely a key component to junk food for that reason. (high fructose corn syrup for instance)
The lower income Americans (as always) are getting most of their calories from grains or grain-produced fat. It will ever be such. Agreed nowadays the food is much more processed, but the underlying source is basically grain or grain-like foods. On a calorie basis, they are and ever will be cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables.
I'm not advocating corn and I'm not disputing that the diet has it's downsides. My point is analytical. I'm pointing out what seems rather obvious to me: grains will continue to be the main source of human food calories post peak (whether via animal flesh or not). The core of the food supply was and ever will be grains.
And, unfortunately for relocalizers, for thousands of years grains have been hauled thousands of miles.
grains will continue to be the main source of human food calories post peak (whether via animal flesh or not). On a calorie basis, they are and ever will be cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables.
Hot Pockets vs. carrots, my gut tells me carrots are a cheaper source of calories (sorry to not do the on-line research, time limited ATM)
Grain feed beef vs. bananas, again my gut says bananas.
Frozen pizza vs. avocados, perhaps a tie or slight edge to avocado (in season).
Twinkies vs. beans (any of various), beans are cheaper despite the sugar and fat content of Twinkies.
The costs of marketing and processing Hot Pockets, frozen pizza and Twinkies make them more expensive than veggies and fruit. The feed conversion ratio and additional costs of handling & slaughtering livestock raise the cost of beef vs veggies & fruit.
A step below a heavily veggie & fruit with basic grains diet in cost is a mainly basic grain/potato based diet with some cheap edible oil (see biodiesel feedstock) added. But Americans are VERY far from eating that low on the dietary ladder.
A much healthier diet can cost less, not more, than the diet that is causing an obesity pandemic and coming diabetes epidemic (i.e a hyper-processed + grain feed beef diet, not an 1800s Scottish diet). A rational choice by consumers would be to switch to a healthier and cheaper diet. The motivation for such a change may lie in a combination of personal exposure to people with obesity related diabetes plus mass media.
I am unsure if they will, but the possibility that many would (enough to upset current demand patterns) is certainly possible. Rational mass behavior may be unlikely, but it is certainly not impossible ! :-)
Please note that people that do switch will eat longer, since they will live longer. This will also impact agricultural demand. As the tobacco industry has found out, killing off your customers is bad for business long term.
Best Hopes for Better Diets,
Alan
Oh, don't we love to cherry pick!!
Hey, how about a loaf of wonder bread vs. cherries in Feb in Maine?
We must compare grains products vs fruit and veggies in general, of course. And don't forget most grain products come already prepped.
So make sure you pay yourself minimum wage as you chop and cook your carrots. Or at least compare with grain products that take roughly the same amount of prep. Say oatmeal.
Somehow or other, your argument for peak-oil-induced relocalization seems to hinge on a parallel nutrition revolution. All I can say about that is.... best hopes.
Actually I take a whole raw carrot from the bag, hand rinse it to get off any residual dirt and eat all but a tiny bit at the top. My typical mid-morning snack (sometimes midafternoon or late night s well). Perhaps 1 quart of cold water for the rinse.
Versus the work and energy in preparing a Hot Pocket (tm) :-)
We must compare grains products vs fruit and veggies in general, of course.
*NOT* "of course" ! That is my point.
Basic cereals are not what is causing our alarming increases in obesity, and basic cereal preparation (bread, oatmeal, cooked rice) is (my perception) a fading part of the American diet, replaced by the aptly named junk food.
Oatmeal is simply not linked to obesity; Hot Pockets, frozen pizza, Twinkies and grain feed beef are. And junk food is expensive per calorie, more expensive than the basic fruits and veggies.
When the poor eat fruit, it is typically an apple, orange or banana, not an artichoke, asparagus or February strawberries. When the poor eat junk food, it is usually McDonalds, Hot Pockets, Pop Tarts, frozen pizza, potato chips or Twinkies. So I was trying to compare like to like.
IMHO, the poor would save money with a "5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables", skim milk (if not allergic), basic cereals/potato, vegetable oils like olive oil, and a very small amount of lean grass fed meat/fish versus a typical American diet heavy with hyper-processed food and grain feed meat.
There is no doubt that change would also be healthier as well.
Returning to my basic point, Stuart assumes that ag demand patterns will remain stable. Since a diet related decline in USA life expectancy is currently pre-ordained, there is a distinct possibility that demand will shift from processed corn (processed by ADM or at a feedlot) to fruits and vegetables. Fruits & Veggies are, in fact, cheaper than processed corn (> junk food or corn feed beef) and much better for you.
There is no economic imperative (even if one lives on food stamps) to eat badly.
Best Hopes for a Better Diet,
Alan
Alan, you are, by all accounts, a nice guy. But sometimes you are full of shit! :-)
Bullshit!!!!
I just went to my local supermarket and did the following research.
a) Only regular priced merchandise is used.
b) I sought out the cheapest in each category.
almost local apples
5 lbs for $3.99
236 calories per lb
5 * 236
------- = 296 calories per dollar
3.99
carrots
3 lbs for 1.49
186 calories per pound
3 * 186
------- = 374 calories per dollar
1.49
oranges
didn't bother because they are clearly more expensive
generic brand donuts
1 1/4 lbs for $2.59
40 little donuts at 55 cals per donut
40 x 55
------- = 850 calories per dollar
2.59
generic brand chocolate chip cookies
package of 30 for $2.99
1 cookies = 75 cals
30 * 75
------- = 753 calories per dollar.
2.99
Now for the kicker!generic brand cheese flavored nacho corn tortilla chips
2 lbs for $2.99 containg 4320 calories
4320
---- = 1445 calories per dollar
2.99
Junk food completely kicks ass compared to fresh fruits and vegetables.
Best hopes for a little actual research.
[Do you dare me to compare generic brand soft drinks with fruit juices??]
[BTW the 2lbs of tortilla chips were actually on special for 2.50]
Try living on a diet of nacho chips, choc chip cookies, and donuts, and then compare your health a year from now with the guy on carrots, apples and oranges. :)
"Nutrition" is more than just calories. Only in the prosperous West is it possible to be both overweight and malnourished.
The poor do not eat junk food because they can't afford healthy food, they eat junk food because they're poor and miserable and need some cheering up. Orwell tells of coal miners who could afford decent food but ate lard on bread and the like.
The best thing for the poor -- balancing nutrition and cost -- would be to convert to a diet based on whole grains and dried beans.
But there is nothing local about that diet. As mentioned above, for thousands of years they have been shipped for thousands of miles.
If anything, pessimistic peak oil scenarios would probably lead to an intensification of dependence on grain for all the reasons that made them dominant for millenia.
Grains have historically not been shipped thousands of miles except in the modern era, only hundreds of miles. Egypt to Rome, for example, was about as far as it ever got, and that only because sea travel was cheaper and quicker than overland; Rome did not import grain from the Ukraine.
"If anything, pessimistic peak oil scenarios would probably lead to an intensification of dependence on grain for all the reasons that made them dominant for millenia."
Who said I was I pessimistic? :)
I certainly think grain will continue to supply around half people's calories and protein. But that other half is still very important... and is increasingly localised and fossil fuel free in any case.
I will back down on "thousands". I should have simply said thousand plus miles. (Egypt to Rome)
But your quotation above is false.
Before the industrial revolution grain was shipped thousands (with an 's') of miles from new world to old. This happened before fossil fuels.
Grain was one of the cargoes barged down the Mississippi River from, say Louisville or Cincinnati, to New Orleans, the barges disassembled and sold for lumber and the crew walked back home. River distance well over 1,000 miles.
Alan
If one does not pay for marketing (note Hot Pockets (tm)), I concede that generic junk food can be cheaper than fruits and veggies. However, with marketing the equation is less clear.
And since the minimum food budget is determined by food stamps ($162 for one, $298 for two, etc.)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm
or roughly $5 per day per person. The recommended 9 servings of fruit and vegetables (up from 5 BTW),
from the Center for Disease Control (hint hint)
http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/
To quote the site In addition to fruits and vegetables, a healthful diet also includes whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, lean meats, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs and nuts, and is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt, and added sugars.
They suggest 2 cups of fruits & 3 cups of veggies for me (9 servings of at least 5 different types). A "cup" (or two servings) is defined as
http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/what/examples.html#1cup
Frozen broccoli $.99 to $1.50/lb, generic canned Green/English peas, tomatoes, Green Beans, Black Eye/Fields Peas 45 to 55 cents/12 oz can, orange juice $4.25/gallon (sale $2.99) (16 cups/gallon). Bananas 52 cents/lb#. Carrots and apples from your post. In each case, a "cup" represents 20 cents to 50 cents. So about $2/day should cover the recommended 5 servings if generic, leaving $3 for whole grain food, beans, skim milk ($3.69/gallon), eggs (varies with size, large $1.12/dozen), fish (canned tuna, sardines, crawfish (cooked as low as $1.29 to as high as $4/lb in season) and chicken (processed corn, but 3 to 1 conversion ratio).
On a food stamp budget, it is entirely possible to eat a corn free (other than sweet corn) and very healthy diet.
On a personal note, I got 3 months of food stamps after Katrina ($152 x 3 from memory). I bought $110 worth of dry and canned foods on my last day of eligibility. Quite a stack !
# 75 grams of peeled banana have 70 calories. Assuming that a pound of Bananas (unpeeled) have 350 grams peeled (reasonable, I just weighted a banana before & after peeling & before eating), that implies 628 calories per $. Competitive with junk food.
On a larger note, I believe that there will be reaction to the disease and death around us that will result from current levels of obesity (and lack of exercise) in a decade or two. This reaction will significantly reduce the demand for corn, since corn is at the center of most junk food & corn feed beef (as we both agree).
Add a stop to ethanol subsidies and reduced exports (competition from Brazil & Africa) and corn acres could shrink dramatically, and with this shift, so might industrial ag. (Although industrial ag may adapt well to growing green beans and beat out smaller farmers. The dynamic is different though).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Stuart's argument: Modern ag will continue because it's profitable.
Uh, what happens when we run out? Modern ag doesn't run on dollars; it runs on fossil fuels. Regardless of whether we revert to the farming methods of the past, ff depletion guarantees that we won't continue as we are.
The 'reversalist's' utopia will likely not transpire because we'd have to severly curtail our numbers without blowing ourselves up (the Hanson hypothesis).
I sometimes think big brains like Stuart miss the forest for the trees with all the detailed analysis. I mean, shit, 10 years past PO, you're probably ~50% back down the curve. Whose gonna 'profit' then?
The reason that industrial agriculture is not reversible is because population size is not regarded as reversible. IOW, agriculture could be reversed, if there were less people to feed.
This in fact is the very crux of "The Collapse of Complex Societies", Joseph Tainter. While complexity increases, it supports a growing population. In turn, a growing population supports increased complexity. (The assumption is that the benefit of complexity is increased efficiency, e.g higher food production).
Tainter asked the exact same question - why don't complex societies smoothly downsize when under stress, but instead tend to collapse? Collapse is defined as suffer an uncontrolled loss of both population and complexity to a point where the complexity/population size are in sync. Tainter identifies that the reason is that complexity tends not to be reversible.
At some point (due to several reasons such as population exceeding carrying capacity, or more likely carrying capacity being reduced by climate change, loss of resources due to invasion) population needs to reduce or complexity must increase. Societies that fail to do either action, collapse.
The message of Tainter is clear, there are 3 courses. Either we voluntarily reduce population size and become a simpler society (very unpopular), become even more efficient (and probably more complex), or collapse.
This is a good general response to Stuart's question regarding why relocalize? If I could add anything it would be that most who advocate for "a simpler way" believe that the second choice you cite "become even more efficient (and probably more complex)" runs its course and leads to collapse anyway, especially when efficiencies are used to increase total environmental load via growth. The World3 scenarios go through this over and over again.
I hesitate to respond specifically to Stuart's questions because complex systems under stress usually collapse from unforeseen specific events (e.g., "above ground factors" on top of geology). We can point to trends suggesting diminishing returns on complexity and identify stress points, but saying what will happen when is impossible.
In biological systems there's the concept of the key stone species, which means a species that has a disproportionate influence on ecosystem structure and function. Community ecologists studying food web dynamics often have a difficult time knowing what a key stone species is until it is gone. A sudden loss of a key stone species has a rapidly cascading effect in which the ecosystem becomes totally altered, such as a forest turning into a grassland, or a kelp forest becoming a pelagic shallow sea with a bed of deep-water corals. I feel that the same concept can apply to factors of production in an economy. Take away oil, a stable climate, world peace, etc. and what happens? I am not sure, but any of these could be construed as potential key stones.
Collapse or simplification seem the only long-term option, though short-term the system will strive to persist and for a while it may continue to "succeed," possibly taking much of life on Earth with it in the end.
I admit to being rather fond of living beings, having described many species of trees (and had a couple named after me). So I guess I am biased by having witnessed the near total destruction of some of the most incredibly beautiful and wondrous places....bizarre forests in Madagascar with funny looking lizards and primates (gone for local rice cultivation), majestic lowland forests of Borneo with giant dipterocarp trees and splendid orangutans (gone for palm oil and tropical hardwoods), mountains in the clouds on South Pacific islands each with unique life forms all doomed by rising temperatures (gone for more cars). And while we humans are doing all this to our only home, it isn't even making us happier! The whole situation puts me into a persistent state of grief that I don't think I will ever be done with. I guess I am willing to try something completely different.
I think Jason hits the nail on the head here - the place, probably to look for answer (and there will probably never be a precise, perfect one, if only because your argument narrows the scope of concerns, while Heinberg, JHK at all are attempting to look at the whole system - such large conceptualizations will always look "fuzzy" next to very narrow scope, very precise analyses of a couple of factors - but that doesn't inherently mean that the conclusions of those who attempt the larger, necessarily more imprecise project are invalid) would be in the World3 Scenarios of The Limits to Growth 30 Year Update.
Particularly, I think this passage is on point:
"A second lesson is that the more successfully society puts off its limits through economic and technical adaptations, the more likely it is to run into several of them at the same time. In most World3 runs, including many we have not shown here, the world system does not totally run out of land or food or resources or pollution absorption capability. What it runs out of is the ability to cope." (TLG30, 223)
Sharon
I wonder if the LTG folk have got around to acknowledging that their original thesis was completely wrong?
And that if it's provisions had been carried out it would have led to great suffering?
Some of us at the time found the computer models on which it was based preposterous, but they weren't having any, insisting that they were authoritative and also backed by so called common sense.
We narrowly avoided a bigger human disaster than was caused by the banning of DDT in the third world after the panic over 'Silent Spring', which has probably caused some 4 million deaths from malaria.
That does not make me some sort of 'spray and be damned' advocate, just someone who thinks that actions should be thought through and need close reasoning and consequential logic, rather than being based on some form of 'fuzzy logic'.
the more extreme advocates, although I should emphasise not all, proponents on 'steady state' economics and population verge on the homicidal, with repeated calls for the refusal of aid to the poorest countries and so on, in the light of their declaration of 'inevitable' limits - about which they have been wrong time after time.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
My suspicion is that you have never actually read any of the books because though the rumor on the street is that they got it all wrong quite the opposite appears true. Their worst case "scenarios" (never called predictions) seem to be playing out right on "schedule" (though they never spoke the time frame very specifically).
Actually, I read LTG, although admittedly many years ago when it came out.
As for the distinction between prediction and scenario, sure there were weasel words there, inserted in my view with the same intention as Nostradamos, ie. to make it hard to falsify what they were saying, and to avoid the application of any rigour at all to their methodologies, but that never slowed down most of those who supported the thesis from making recommendations just as though they were predictions, not scenarios.
The clear implication at the time was that we were all going to hell in a handcart within a very few years, and this was all given a scientific gloss by the use of incredibly simplistic computer models.
That is without going into the predictions or scenarios, call them what you will, of people like Lester Brown, who at the time advocated policies which would have severely impacted the world's poor, and continues to do so to this day, in spite of all his previous 'scenarios' having proved themselves complete bunkum.
I think this is a completely unfair description. The LTG folks were very clear that specific quantitative prediction was impossible on the timeframes they were considering, and that they were trying to explore the dynamics of the system, not make detailed predictions. Furthermore, their default scenario showed the crunch coming in the early-mid 21st century (this in 1973). So "within a very few years" is quite inaccurate. Many would say that the crisis showing up just about on the schedule of their default scenario. They also were very clear that they viewed the situation as salvageable with the right actions (though obviously they got more pessimistic with each passing book since society was not taking most of the actions they recommended).
Personally, I was very taken with LTG when I first read it, but after rereading the books several more times with a far greater knowledge-base, I've come to the view that there are serious defects in the model which imply that the system does not have to behave in the way they describe (roughly that I think the Keynesian model of capital formation they have is not a good description of the constraints on economic growth and if they were to take a more accurate approach, the answer might come out quite differently). I hope to write about it at much greater length some Monday.
Limits to Growth ignored (or didn't account for) net energy. So their tail is too optimistic, ceteris paribus.
I'll have to re-read LTG, if I can find a copy, to rebut, or change my mind if I find that I have been inaccurate - I do that, unlike some!
It is possible that I am confounding LTG with some of it's interpreters, who took the ball and ran, in my view to the detriment of sensible policy recommendations.
If we are told that we are going to run out, I like to be told of what, and if there are any substitutes, and so on, rather than succumb to a generalised panic - the Millenialists do that so much better than the Environmentalists, if I were that way inclined.
Recently I was persuaded of the case for peak oil, but I am fairly hard-headed and the case has to be made to me resource by resource.
Fish stocks are obviously overtaxed, and there are genuine grounds for concern regarding helium and phosphorus, but a lot of the concerns raised are overhyped or unsubstantiated.
A typical subject for this is desertification, where it is asserted by some that 'overpopulation' results in chopping down trees and the encroachment of deserts - I oversimplify, but that is the general drift.
A number of things are unclear about this thesis.
It is not completely clear that tropical forest is in fact decreasing, and if it is by how much.
It is also unclear what the relationship is between this and population - some areas with dense populations have fairly dense forest cover, some do not, and likewise for low populations.
It appears that ownership is important - if lands are held in common, there is little incentive to keep the trees and shrubs intact, and soil erosion is given free reign.
Where people can benefit due to ownership of the land, they are perfectly capable of maintaining the trees and so on.
So IOW what I am suspicious of is misdiagnosis, resulting in the application of the wrong 'remedy' - I am old enough to remember the morally righteous attempting to bully others into contributing to 'Third World Poverty Relief', much of which ended up as weapons for dictators to shoot their populace, or as dams to generate electricity for the elite whilst displacing and impoverishing the peasantry.
Thanks for the World3 quote SDOTF.
What it runs out of is the ability to cope
I think that we might get a good number of people freeze in the headlights. I don't know if our US population will do very well in the early stages of coping.
john
Stuart while I admire your work, You have got this really wrong.
Why...
Large scale agribusinesses are floated on the stock market and also in most cases in debt up to there eye balls any large crash and they will be out of business...
Large farmers who bought out the other farms are also in debt up to there eye balls... If we get deflation they will be gone..
From your post I can tell you have never worked in the Agribusiness... They ain't efficient. The large corporates will not be able to change fast enough when the investers money drys up. They run fine while the game remains the same..
Ethanol is a bad joke you CANNOT close the farm gate and have it produce its own energy and food... I know from studies done by Roseworthy Agricultural College. With carefull crop rotations and minimum input they could produce 10% more energy than they used.... Ethanol is currently not being produced using carefull crop rotations and minimum inputs.... Horses only use 1/3rd of what they produce..... We cannot go back to horses. There is no way we can go to ethanol...
At current prices for wheat, beans and corn all farms are viable including small ones....
I am a farmer I own a farm that is large enough to be viable even at the poor prices that where payed a couple of years ago..
Not owning a productive plot of land means you will probably stave...
My Grandpa went thru the great depression on a small family farm he was warm and will fed he hardly noticed it.
My Grandma went thru the great depression in the city she can remember going hungry and being cold..
So should you sell an over priced flat in the city and buy a few hundred acres in the country where you can be warm and well feed or go hungry in your cold flat...
With out fossil fuels we have to go back to 1 billion.. go figure.
OilTrader,
You are absolutely correct on the big farmers reliance on the commodities market and the big grainery corps., sometimes one and the same.
There is simply no where near enough farmer owned bins to store a harvest. The barges absolutely MUST run. The trains absolutely MUST run. The Grainery Corps(ADM,CG&B,Bunge and others) absolutley MUST run.
Now I will add that this year we stored 30,000 bu of corn on a ground based silo. Just one section of galvanized siding 4 feet high, a covering tarp and one big ass bin blower. It worked but its not like a real silo bin where you can stir the grain and auger it out easily.ITs going to be a bitch to get his grain up and loaded.
All the infrastructure , and its huge, that the farmers rely on is absolutely a very much integral part of big ag farming and I don't mean corporate farming operations. I mean the real mainstay of this country.
For want of a bolt the tractor is down, for want of the tractor the planter is idle, for want of the planting the farmer goes broke in one year. Add the complexities of GPS precision ag and it makes the mind boggle at the possibilities for failure.
Even so much as the unavailability of large rig trailer tires can kill getting the harvest to market. That can depend on many other levels of logistics. I am sure the point is rather obvious.
Its not just 'farmers' by themselves. Its all the enormous rest of what it required to be there and ready. A lack of two field hands can make a huge dent in activity. My friendly farmer has a work force of 12. They have zero medical insurance. Make the absolute lowest of wages. Drive junker automobiles and pickkups. Live a very lean lifestyle. One ill trained or inexperienced field hand can render a 30,000 dollar tractor totally useless. Or a combine. Or a grain buggy. Or a 18 wheeler grain rig. The local community supports these farmers in many many hidden ways.
One wonders why they do it then. One wonders why they wear shitty dirty wornout clothes and eat trash for food. Get up at dawn and go to bed sometimes at midnight , coughing their lungs out from grain dust and barely able to feed their children.
Maybe its different elsewhere. Thats how I see it here. Truth is a lot smoke and are killing themselves slowly but its just a part of what gets them thru the day when work starts in earnest.
airdale-a slice of reality here. Yet some laugh and joke around. But heir women sometimes cry a lot. The children ..well who knows what happens to them. Big ag is far far worse on families and communities IMO that 'small' ag ever was, back in the past. As far as the big operators/farmers? The banks turly own their very souls. Sometimes they hang by a thread. Sometimes they do well but my friend farms over 3,000 acres and its slowly killing him. He is in his forties.
I didn't grow up farming (a suburban middle class kid from white collar parents) but imagine that small ag with family farms meant you had neighbors you could walk to, and towns that had a social life, and schools with sports teams, etc. Much of that seems to be lost with the bigger farms. Population density so low it is lonely and perhaps depressing.
And the work and landscapes monotonous. I have read about Iowa decades ago, when farms were diversified. It must have been beautiful, and maybe now it still is, but in a stark sort of way with good light?
Hi Jason,
Someone to teach you and something to learn. (Not to over-romanticize).
I don't know how Stuart finds the time to do all these analyses and also earn a living. Maybe he doesn't need to... maybe he's really just a front for a think-tank at the Bland Corporation.. ;-)
Seriously, I don't know if anybody else senses this, but I seem to detect a mischaracterization of what Stuart's "reversalists" are actually saying. I confess to not having read any of Heinberg's books, but I have seen him in several films and have also listened to a number of extensive interviews with him that have been available online over the last couple of years, in which he has been questioned quite closely about his views. So I feel justified in expressing an opinion about his viewpoint. I HAVE read JHK, and at least for these two authors, I don't perceive them to be saying that we need to try and put history into reverse (Jim & Richard, feel free to get in my face if I've got you wrong here...) and get back to a sustainable, or less unsustainable, way of life. As though we could elect to climb back up the curves on Stuart's charts voluntarily. I understand them to be saying that we're about to be set back quite involuntarily, not that we ought to go back of our own accord. Maybe not much of a difference to some eyes, but I think a significant one with respect to how and how quickly humanity will respond.
Can't say I didn't have the same suspicion, although I'm sure it is unfounded. Will be interesting to see if Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, or some other representative of Industrial Agriculture decides to kick in some money for the next ASPO blowout and requests Stuart as a speaker.
(Although to be fair to Stuart, the fact that article might be seen as favorable to the Industrial Ag Lobby doesn't mean the article is wrong per-se.)
Yep, even the term itself is somewhat perjarotive (sp?) and a bit demeaning although it's in an academic sense so the intent to malign is cloaked behind a guise of reasonableness and deniability. "Reversalists" brings to mind "backwardness" which to most of us in Western culture is considered negative and to be avoided at all costs.
What popped into my reading Stuart's mischaracterization of what he terms "reversalists" was Stuart jumping up and down and saying "Hey, hey BIG AG and other corporate sponsors look here I'm not like THOSE guys!!! I'm safe!!!"
Again, doesn't mean the thrust of the article is wrong per-se or out-of-hand. Personally I do think BIG AG (and BIG everything else to boot) will do its darndest to consolidate everything as we head off the cliff. There's already lots of evidence for this in other industries as well. Think of the Tower of Babel economy, as an example from mythology or history. In the days before the sucker collapsed, Ibet whoever was in charge of the Big Tower managed to steal (consolidate) the resources from the smaller towers in the adjoining areas.
FWIW, my income in the last few years has come 99% from software companies, and 1% from financial houses/investors wanting to hear my opinion on energy issues. I have no financial relationships with either energy companies or agricultural companies, so on energy/resource issues I get to call it like I see it without worrying what anyone else will think - I do it in hopes of being of service to the world at a critical juncture. At the moment, I have a full time position as chief scientist with a computer security startup, so my Monday post is done late at night and on Saturdays.
Stuart,
I did not, and do not, honestly suspect any of your CURRENT income or social network is derived or plugged into large corporate interests.
I think your main concern is you REALLY want to distinguish yourself from the "scary" people (the relocalizers), at least scary from the perspective of the large corporations who right now still have the lion's share of this society's capital, both financial and social. So you misrepresent and malign the relocalizers as "reversalits" who would have us forcibly marched back to work farms ala Chairman Mao.
Note that I refuse to use your term "reversalists" when referencing the Richard Heinberg, James Kunstlers and Julian Darleys of the world as I'm not getting caught in your not-so-subtle trap of rebranding the relocalizers as a bunch of communist sympathizing backwards-thinking types.
I can't way for your next article which I suspect will be "Why $20 gallon gas will be good for far flung suburban sunbelt property values." Although I suspect you're savvy enough not to go quite that far.
Gosh, people can be nasty.
Why can't Stuart be someone who is exploring a thesis, and doing the best job he can do corralling the data, drawing distinctions so that the muddle that is information can be organized to be easier to think through? And during that process he demonstrates some interesting insights along the way? And perhaps he offers it here in the spirit of peer review so that the thinking can be refined, debated and, if need be, even jettisoned?
This lack of generosity toward our fellow man is going to be what ultimately does us in, I fear. It seems to me there is still some possibility for at least mitigating the upcoming misery if we come together as a community.
Thank you for your work, Stuart. Keep risking not getting agreement from the crowd. It is how progress is made.
-Andre'
------------------------------------
Best Of The Oil Drum Index
http://www.inspiringgreenleadership.com/blog/aangel/oil-drum-best-index
Stuart's article can be summed up as:
#1. Big Ag will continue on its merry way because its profitable
#2. Relocalizers are a bunch of backwards-thinking commie sympathizers, or pretty darn close to it.
He's got a bunch of graphs and academic-sounding prose to scare people away from calling him on what he is really saying. A poster at CFN summed up the problems with the thrust of his article pretty well:
Gee... I was just tryin' to have some fun. Then this image came to mind of Dr. Strangelove in the War Room with his slide rule talking about Bland Corporation studies projecting how high government officials could survive Peak Oil...er, nuclear war in underground bunkers, and then that Chimp got in here and made it even better... Oh well. everybody knows Stuart - all by his little lonesome - is reason enough to keep hittin' TOD.
What I suspect will happen is that Big Business and Big Government will try to carry on as usual, using the same flawed assumptions as always. The last thing to expect is a rational, wholistic approach by Big Government. What we're going to get is governments following all the wrong policies, because they "used to work". Factor in the escalating fuck-up caused by bad decisions following bad decisions, and the future isn't so bright.
This is a great article and raises a number of interesting points.
First off, I would like to briefly explore an important point you raised. Clearly some agricultural land is more fertile and productive than elsewhere and I'm sure most would agree the vast majority of the best land would lie in broad river valleys and plains -the very place where most big cities grew from. For example if we take London, it is situated along the Thames valley and before London existed, this whole area I would guess was one of the more fertile areas of the UK. The same is true for Paris which sits on the Seine, same for the Rhine-Ruhr conurbation, Amsterdam and many cities in Netherlands. Indeed much of that country really is the delta (or ex delta) of the Rhine. In the case of Ireland, the massive low density sprawl of Dublin now covers probably the formerly best soils. And so I'm sure it's the case everywhere else.
Thus we have a situation where we have destoryed probably a fair amount of the best land and since that time, industrial agriculture probably made up for the slack by using machinery and fertilisers to farm lands that in past times were not used much and not as productive.
This would imply as oil prices and fertiliser prices go up, it is the marginal semi fertile lands that will be least profitable and will be abandoned. Actually according to Jared Diamond's book Collapse, this is what happens when civilisation fails, the marginal areas go first, because they are and always will be more fragile to any shock to the system. It is probably reasonable to assume there is a lot more semi marginal agricultural land than prime land.
And now enter exhbit B. While most know about Cuba, few know that North Korean also suffered an oil shock in the form of an oil embargo (by the US) and suffered famine because shortages of fuel for machinery and fertilisers caused dramatic reductions in output. This is well documented here:
Causes and Lessons of the "North Korean Food Crisis" by Tony Boys. Now one can argue about the political response. But what is interesting is that it was a top down economy with commands from above, whilst even though Cuba was referred to as a dicatorship, it still had a bottom up response or at least allowed one. However in the US at least, a little more than the EU, society (or is it now just an economy) is dominated by corporations since they call all the shots and they are top down entities -more like North Korea than Cuba.
And this brings us to the next point. It is quite clear the response will be influenced largely by politics (as was the case for Cuba and N. Korea). In the US at least, the system will give priority to the needs of the corporation and the wealthy who will wish to continue to drive. That means in the food vs fuel market, the allocated land (i.e fuel) will go to the highest bidder. We know this is the case because this has already happened in Mexico and caused riots. Things will probably be slighly better in Europe but in much of the developed world which is heavily dominated by financial imperialism -e.g via massive debts, and the threat of coups and bombings if they don't follow IMF/World Bank advice, then under the existing and continuing corrupt govts. and regime, they will continue to serve the needs of big capital as they do now -i.e. give away their resource at rock bottom prices, slash public and social spending drive millions into shanty towns. (See Planet of Slums by Mike Davis for an overview of this process).
See also Podcast: Interview of Mike Davis about Planet of Slums
Meanwhile back in the cities, the poor in apartment tower blocks will have nowhere to grow food but as you move out from the cities, (depending on how bad things are), where people live in houses with increasingly larger gardens, such in the more upmarket suburbs, some of these people surely have almost enough land to grow their own food if they made a go at it, we will see yet again, how the wealthy are well placed again to suffer a lot less pain and hardship than the very poor.
The argument is often made that when people go hungry, they will riot and demand the govt provide etc etc. It really expresses a hope that somehow we are different and we won't take any crap and will chuck out of govt those responsible and put in a sensible new bunch that would make things work a lot smoother. What people forget is that in much of the developed world, it is estimated more than 1 billion people live in shanty towns -i.e. in miserable grinding poverty where being hungry is the norm. And how does the govt keep it that way? Why with an effective and brutal police and military force. Well if anyone here has been at a protest in the US lately, they will immediately realize that with all the pepper sprays, tasers, batons, weapons and surveillance system, there ain't going to be any mass rising anytime soon to rollback the North Korean like dominance of large corporations on society and so it should be clear what the priorities will be going for from here.
Now returning to the reversalists and others in the perma-culture and sustainable groups, they of course instinctively have picked the right course we should take, because their scenarios are the most sensible, sustainable and equitable. It is like they would rather not think of the alternative.
Lastly, I think there is one other consideration which has not really been raised in any discussion and that what will be the long term effects of all the toxic dumps and contaminated industrial sites all over the world, but concentrated in the developed countries. Surely the aquifiers are still at risk and the ability to purify and pump clean water can only get less. This factor has not been quantifed as far as I am aware, but I certain it is a big factor even if we don't recognise it.
-Terence
We are concerned about energy-irresponsible new construction. Both residential and commercial.
So we're taking an activist stance in New Mexico.
cheers
That is just too frightening.
Stuart you want to take up farming mate! You will find that nothing much happens on a modern farm without fuel!!
You know all about the Land Export Model and 8% decline rates for declining fields and you don't think about ABSOLUTE SHORTAGES!!
We in the west are only wealthy because we burn fuel - go find the wealthy country that doesn't burn a lot of fuel per head!!!
We are going to get poorer because we won't have the fuel and we will find our economy is not designed for poverty.
We will not be able to reverse and get back to the same place because we have a total lack of skills in sustainable lifestyles.
When we pick ourselves up after the crash we will hopefully use our knowledge of sustainable farming systems, and agriculture will mop up many of the unemployed auto workers, cell phone salesmen and more!!!
Stuart, Consider going back a different way.
Right now, Wintertime(N.H.), we are GOING BACK to springtime. We will experience things that were true last spring. Warmer weather day by day, Life unfolding, etc
Springtime will be repeated. But it wasn't Going from Spring,fall,winter ... Winter,fall, Spring. Not Going BACK as in reversal and regression.
Going back to, in the season's respect is a circle, not a hubbert graph(up/down) as in a normal chemical reversal process.
So we may GO BACK to local ag, and the number of people involved per populus. But it will be "Going Back" in the season's example.
Similar statistics, feel, but different. I won't lose knowing about Fungus/Bacteria/Nemitodes and how soil works by raising my own food.
We will carry with us Technology(for as long as we can repair/replace it) and Knowledge from the last 100 years.
Going Back, Yes,
Reversibility, No
Stuart:
You are right, of course, that large-scale farming is not just going to go away, nor is all the knowledge and technology accumulated over the past couple of centuries. I expect that there will be large scale grain farms in operation for a long time to come.
On the other hand, your claim that things in agriculture are irreversible rests on somewhat unfirm ground. I would refer you in particular to Cities and the Wealth of Nations by Jane Jacobs. One of the things she speaks of are populations that previously had reached a certain level of technological development, but then became isolated (by geography or time) from their "mother culture" and did indeed regress. She sites examples of primative populations living on islands that are only accessible by boat, yet without any knowledge or skill in the art of boat building. She sites examples of populations in remote backwoods locations not all that far from where I live. People who used to know how to weave cloth on a loom, but eventually gave it up and now don't know how to weave. People who used to know how to build with stone and now don't know how to. And so on.
Her thesis is that populations under severe stress, and having to focus just on the most urgent things necessary for survival, don't have the time or energy to devote to doing things that might be done in a less stressed society. With time, the things that have been set aside fail to get transmitted to subsequent generations, and thus forgotten. It is a progressive abandonment, as one thing after another falls by the wayside.
WRT large-scale agriculture, you are right that it isn't all just going to go away. On the other hand, as we experience the various stresses that we know are coming our way as peak oil plays out, it may well be that certain things that once were profitable and thus worth doing and thus were commonly done will become unprofitable, and thus dropped, and thus soon forgotten. Then something else will go, then something else. It is not that the knowledge will cease to exist - it will still be there, recorded in books. But in all likelihood it will be ignored, because it is no longer anything worth doing.
To give just one example: We are seeing large volumes of specialty fruits and vegetables flown from regions where they are in season to areas where they are out of season. I give you the table grapes from Chile in your grocery store right now as "exhibit A". We know that air transport is energy intensive transport. As the price of oil moves inexorably higher, air transport is going to become increasingly expensive transport. We can reasonably expect that the time will come when the cost of transporting out-of-season produce by air will become prohibitive. Consumers might we willing to pay $3 or $4 per pound for grapes in winter, but $30 or $40 per pound? Probably not. Thus, we can reasonably predict that there will come a time when something that big ag is presently doing (and doing well) on a large scale is going to have to go by the wayside. Within a few years after that, out-of-season produce in grocery stores will become a fond memory. A couple of generations later the grandchildren will be unaware that people EVER had fresh table grapes to eat in the middle of the winter, unless grandpa is around to tell the outlandish-sounding tale. Meanwhile, what happens to all of that technical know how that has been accumulated on how to raise produce and ship it long distances to places where it is out of season? It might be in the books, but for all practical purposes it will have been forgotten. The grape growers in Chile will have moved on to producing just for the wine makers instead. The grandchildren of the Chilean farmers might be just as ignorant of the fact that fresh grapes were able shipped from there to the grocery stores of North America each year.
What I have just described is indeed a tale of reversibility. It used to be that one simply could not get out-of-season produce; there was no means of getting it to the consumer, so it didn't even occur to consumers to expect it. Producers didn't grow produce for off-season distant markets, they grew it for nearby seasonal markets, and/or preserved it by canning, drying, fermentation, etc. for long-term storage or overseas transport on a slow boat. In this case, the way it used to be will indeed become the way it will be again.
This in no way means that EVERYTHING is going to go back to the way it used to be. Your points against this happening are well taken. But there may be far more extensive reversibility in the long-run than you have been prepared to acknowledge.
Wealthy Americans have actually been using wood-heated greenhouses to produce out-of-season fruit in the US since the early 1800s. Even with expensive transport, the notion of eating out-of-season fruits and vegetables won't vanish entirely -- it will just be limited to the extremely wealthy.
OK. From what I can tell from your argument, it appears you are saying as oil prices go up, Big Ag will:
outbid others for their energy needs so will experience no shortage
ethanol becomes more profitable and can be sold to the highest bidder wherever in the world that bidder might be
Which leads to:
If urbanites can't outbid for energy, they get little or none
If they can't afford food prices that can compete with the profitability of ethanol, they get little or none
Am I correct that this is what you are saying?
Yes, I know you are only arguing the statistics, not their ethical implications, but what are these urbanites going to do when there is no electricity, no fuel, no heat, no jobs and no food, because they have been outbid by foreigners with more money. I assure you they will not just lay down and die, and this is not represented in the statistics.
I do agree we will not return to 19th century agriculture. It will be more like the Irish potatoe famine where British merchants, that controlled Ireland's food supply, shipped food out of Ireland to more profitable markets while the people in Ireland starved.
I'd agree with Stuart on the economic motivation of the big ag farms.
But I also agree that localized permaculture is the more equitable solution.
I'd add that a)never-the-less the long distance food distribution system will break down and b) some locales will experience widespread starvation c) big ag monocropping will have to stop and d) those who cannot pay high food prices will be coerced to provide their slave labor to the big ag farms. But those farms will have to diversify crops to meet a more localized market.
Maybe I'm just missing it, but peak oil doesn't mean no oil. And peak natural gas is projected (even by those most pessimistic folks) as being at least a decade past peak oil.
It would seem to me that if we actually start to see a food shortage due to the inability to get fuel to run farm equipment, we would see government intervention to guarantee fuel supply.
Certainly cattle could return (at least in some sense) to grazing, rather than corn feeding. Wheat would have to be grown.
And while I'm sure the result of going from lots of fertilizer and pesticides to none would be devastating, would going from lots to "some" be as devastating? Perhaps some reduction in yields.
My point is that Americans will eat less (god knows they need it), and they will pay more.
But I fail to see a mass migration to the 1800's anytime soon.
In terms of scale of change I suspect poor nations are likely to see a significantly greater impact on their lives due to peak oil than those countries endowed with more farm land then they know what to do with. Explain to me how a country like indonesia or India is going to feed itself without modern yields?
Mike
I've been reading this site (TOD) for over a year, and I've got to say this article takes the cake for me.
If there is a summary to Peak Oil, it's that economics does not understand geology.
I have to admit I do not have time to read all of Mr. Staniford's article, nor even a good portion of the comments, so I regret any redundancy -
Mr Staniford mentions the possibility oil reaching $200/barrel. What about $400, $800, or $1600? Will industrial agricultural still be the most economical way to produce food? I find that absurd. Who can afford $25 or $50 for a loaf of bread? Only the rich.
As for 'Big industrial agriculture' having a better survival rate than small farms (in comments), that logic is also faulty. Remember Darwin's theory - it's the numerous, small adaptations that allow some species to always survive. If there were only one species, this would be a dead planet.
I'm really shocked to see this kind of economic propaganda on this site.
.
Who can afford $25 or $50 for a loaf of bread? Only the rich.
No. Whomever is alive.
One pays the money for the food (if that is all the food there is) or one dies.
What scares the hell outta me is the force I think is going to be applied to obtain the $50, or just the bread. A damn bloodbath.
Don't know about you, but I won't be paying $50 for a loaf of bread. I'll either be growing my own wheat (yes, I do know what to do with whole grains, thank you), or I'll grow something else to eat. Wheat is over-rated anyway.
If you have no way to grow food, then yes, you'll need to come up with the money or a way to barter for food.
And no, I'm not into total self-sustainability -- not possible by oneself. But I am into getting to know the people in my community and what their skill sets and resources are. It's already proven to be useful now, nevermind 10 or 20 years from now. And of course, I have my own skill sets and resources, so I have tradable assets (and a good thing too, since that means we can save money for the things that really require money, like land).
Stuart Staniford, one more in a long line of exceptional articles, exceptional analysis, and fascinating reading.
What your post says may seem like it would be accepted common sense, but like some of your other posts which have done such a great job of proving what for most folks would be accepted as obvious. Your post last year demonstraing that increasing fuel economy of automobiles would actually be the most likely way to reduce fuel consumption in transportation...I mean, you think that anybody would understand the obviousness of that, but here you were having to prove it!
Your Agricultural post above handled another issue with great sensitivity, a bit of a "minefield" in the PO community in your description of the difference between "The first wave" of Peak OIl thinkers, and the "the second wave". To quote your post in describing "the second wave" writers:
"At the same time, these writers bought to the table an agenda about society in general, and agriculture in particular, that I believe lacks an empirical foundation."
"The reversalists are expressing wishful thinking and nostalgia for the past, not a reasoned analysis of how the future is likely to play out."
I don't think anyone has put it better regarding the cutting edge of the intellectual "bi-partisan" debate in the Peak Oil community.
In the earliest days of peak oil writing and thinking (your defined "first wave") the movement was very scientific, interested in the geology, interested in attempting to time the production decline. To them, "peak oil" if it were to occur in the near future was regarded as a bad thing, and our modern culture was regarded as essentially a good thing.
With the second wave (Kunstler, Hienberg, etc) we see a very distinct intellectual movement toward peak oil as essentially a good thing, something that will destroy a horrific culture (ours) and replace it with....? That's where the desire for the back to the utopian/agrarian past comes in. As you said, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT empirecally supported by any evidence. It is a purely AESTHETIC desire, but it cannot come to pass unless it can be demostrated (or at least postulated) that every modern technical system will, no MUST collapse, and soon.
It must be admitted that the supporters of the anti-modernism wing of the Peak Oil movement are not afraid to turn the rhetorical heat on high. Take for example Cherenkov's words in ragard to your post:
"The fact is, you have no idea. You are, at best, a babe in the woods. At worst, you are a clueless technophile who is hanging onto the techno-paradigm for all it's worth. Which, my friend, is not a hell of a lot."
To those who are waiting for the return of the back to nature, back to the argarian past world, there is no dirtier thing to be called than a "technophile". It is a horrendous sin against all they stand for and believe in. For technology, they say, is not sustainable, it will not work. And if it does work, it is only denying them of what they see as the aesthetically and philosophically correct way of living in the world, making it worse than a false idol, but a sin to deny the world the future that is correct.
Of course, those not aware of the various strands of thought in the Peak Oil community are deeply confused. Are they out to destroy the world I know and live in? Why do they hate this age? How far back are they wanting to go? (this is a big question by the way, there are those who only in the last few weeks here on TOD who have discussed "agriculture as the biggest mistake humans have ever made", "the end of the age of mining metals", and the return to "hunter gatherer" societies.
These could easily be dismissed as just theoretical discussions among one strand of PO thinkers, but as you mention, with the advent of the "second wave" writers, they are now becoming the known spokespersons for the PO cause.
Just the other day, I saw an article in the MSM referring to Richard Hienberg as an expert on "world oil reserves". (!!!!)
Kunstler is trotted out now as a "peak oil" spokesperson, even though his rants against any and everything even remotely regarded as American culture began well before "Peak Oil" was a cause of his. Peak oil for Kunstler is just the needed to tool to lead to a desired outcome.
Of much greater disappoint to me is Community Solution. They have moved further and further into a position of catastrophist thinking that they essentially seem to be giving up all hope. This is very, very sad, because the organization has a long and respected pedigree that far predates the Peak Oil issue:
http://www.communitysolution.org/about.html
Community Solutions fixation on Cuba is extremely discomforting and even embarrasing.
I have now began to watch with great interest for people who (a) accept that peak oil is real and probably going to occur before 2020-30, but still believe that modern Western style techncical society can survive. The number of those people seems to have declined greatly since I first came to TOD.
Now, anyone who accepts the above two possibilities is considered a "technofile" and a "denialist".
We have come a long way baby.
RC
I doubt that the "modern Western style technical society" can survive AS IS. However, I also doubt that we'll just abandon and forget it all, reverting to an early way of existence. Rather, we'll change and evolve.
Technologies that are very much worth having we'll try hard to hang on to. On the other hand, technologies that contribute little or nothing of value to human or societal survival are prime candidates to be discarded and forgotten. Along the way, we'll adapt, and maybe even invent some new ways of doing things that are important to us.
Technologies do require resources to acquire, use and maintain. In a sustainable, zero-growth, resource constrained economy, there is no room for waste. Technologies will only be retained and maintained if they truly are a good use for the necessary resources. We have lots of things -- including most of the technologies that go into producing most of the junk that ends up on the shelves of Sprawl-Mart -- that we will do without, because we CAN do without them. Technologies that allow us to efficiently grow foodstuffs will not be among those.
I have read your comment over and over and can not find anything to disagree with.
I especially find your definition of technophile to be accurate in the context it is used here at TOD.
The thing I most appreciate, more than all of Stuart's efforts, is his willingness to share those efforts.
Speaking of Industrial Agriculture,
A friend informed me of there new 2008 fuel contracts, he was very unhappy.
40% jump in price, YEKS! I figured they pissed off the supplier or it's to makeup for 2007 suppliers losses, he did abuse is contract when fuel prices were way above is contract price.
But so far I did see Air Canada price for fuel is jumping.
Air Canada
Did anyone else here or post of other companies with jumping in fuel cost like that too.
Cheers
Jon
I think that the future will be a mixture.
Unstated assumptions are that agricultural demand will remain constant (other than increasing with population) and no new competition will arise. And climate will not change significantly (shifting what crops can grow where).
I do not think that will be true.
Brazil is taking over the world soybean export markets, from land that could not grow soybeans two decades ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/news/international/brazil_soy.fortune/in...
For the vast plains of South Dakota, etc. I think wheat will be raised as before, but will corn demand stay at current levels ?
In a static world, Stuart's analysis has some merit. But can industrial agriculture adapt as well to a changing world ? Less water for irrigation in California will impact the central valley. The after-effects of the current obesity epidemic will affect public choices at some point (less hyper-processed food that fill Suburban grocery stores today, more fruit & veggies ?)
Large swathes of farmland were converted to forests after WW II, might these convert to nut & fruit orchards to meet changing demands (and reduced CA production) ? And is industrial ag the most competitive means to do so ?
The return of the American Chestnut will also have an impact (a mature chestnut forest can rival a 1920s wheatfield in production). Appalachian mountain tops were their stronghold (a natural monoculture in the 1910s) and land of minimal economic value today. Collecting and shelling chestnuts from mountaintops do not lend themselves to industrial scale ag.
Industrial ag is also a poor choice for difficult, if fertile land IMHO.
Fuel is not the biggest post-Peak worry for industrial ag, fertilizer (especially nitrogen) is.
Reduced demand for corn feed meat (obesity reaction), corn ethanol and rising costs of fertilizer (~40% from Trinidad now I remember) may see corn acreage shrink by half or more. Brazil is taking away the soybean option.
Converting Nebraska away from corn to ?? (grazing ?) is an obvious first step, but what of the other former corn acres ? Mixed vegetables are a likely choice (to replace lost CA acreage and meat substitute).
Industrial ag is so highly specialized, and designed for low labor, that I see them as unlikely to adapt quickly to changes. Bankruptcy and breakup seem likely for many Illinois corn fields. And smaller scale "family farms" seem likely to fill many niches as the world changes.
Best Hopes for Sustainable Farming,
Alan
I'm inclined to think that as fossil fuels deplete, we'll certainly give farming the priority for them. However, industrial agriculture will still be left with a couple of problems.
The first is that the decline in fossil fuel supply may not be smooth and gentle and predictable. Almost any change can be adapted to if the change is smooth and gentle and predictable; but if it's rough, sudden and unexpected or unplanned for, then there's trouble.
It's not yet clear whether fossil fuel declines will be smooth, gentle and predictable, or rough, sudden and surprising.
Sudden changes can and do drive farmers from the land. It takes a lot - see for example the Great Depression, which alone wasn't enough, it had to be combined with the Dustbowl effects. This came down in a matter of a few years, and had significant effects. Could we see an economic collapse combined with environmental problems in the bread basket regions of the West in the next decades? Certainly.
Thus, it may not be a case of high fuel prices, but that fuel is not available at any price. What we see in former Soviet countries when fuel was not available is that people did indeed go back to smallscale and localised food production. Hungarians were not eating Kazakh wheat in 1992.
The second point is that the fossil fuels used on the farm are only part of why large farms can turn a profit. The other part is cheap fuel allowing for cheap transport of those goods. You cannot have 10,000 acre farms on Manhattan Island, after all; the farms have to be at some distance from cities, so the goods must be transported. Some of the goods transported must be refrigerated or frozen, which also takes significant energy - the mileage on a refrigerated truck is pretty crappy. The customer has to pay for all that.
Thirdly, with very high fuel prices, we can expect a significant recession in the West, so that the average wage drops. Where will the extra money come from? If I today spend $50 on food, $200 on rent, $100 on transport and utilities, then my $500 a week wage gives me some slack when food goes to $100 or even $150. But if my wages are only $350, or if I've $150 a week going to pay off some huge debt then I'm in trouble.
Given those last two considerations, at some point the price of food from large industrialised farms will be such that localised production will be significantly cheaper. That point's going to be at a much higher food price than you might imagine. That people pay $10 for a single meal of McDs, or $60 for a restaurant meal, when $60 could easily feed them a diverse and enjoyable diet for a week, show that people will pay quite a bit for food. But still, a point will come where fuel greatly exceeds the cost of labour, so that smallscale local farms become economically viable.
i had the idea of growing certified toxic sludge grown produce in the inner city, lots of open land here. biosolids is what the water district calles the sanitary sludge. Seems like a bad idea but it could have a market. I don't think this would employ many people. I don't think it is a good idea for the city to ban keeping chickens I feel it is nessicary to try the find a way to live.
:) :) :)
Reverend Doctor Staniford, you've outdone yourself! What a sermon!
Constructively provocative, and on a topic we need to tap into in a big way at TOD.
Creative disequilibrium is the way to the future.
Having said that, I feel --others have chimed in on this also -- that I am not a "Reversalist Futurist" but rather a "Radically Differentist Futurist."
Not back to the future in a linear way, but around to the future in a strange spiral with plenty of tangential fuzzy zigs and zags within the process, so to speak.
I see Peak Oil and Global Warming, and Global Habitat Destruction all together creating a chaotic storm of secondary and tertiary effects that are truly ungovernable.
Bioregions will not stay what they are. Putting all of one's eggs into a relocalization sort of basket must result in loss of all one's eggs for some in many locals, but will also turn out well for some.
Who can say which bioregions will fare the best or worst? Who knows how chaotic climate and energy supplies will become, and when, and where, and for how long? Chaos is funny that way.
Complex systems which weave together -- bioregions, nations, Continents, and this increasingly violent and habitat-wrecking hodge-podge we might call our won Global Dystopia -- these systems will most certainly collapse as well.
One cannot predict when or how, but this will happen due to butterfly wing flaps here and the spin of a roulette wheel there. Maybe the butterfly wing will flap in Vegas and the roulette wheel will spin on Wall Street -- who can say?
We have reached a point of no return. I cannot crawl back into the womb to be reborn. Our "civilization" will not do so either. But we will fall to the ground like a seed, and die. Something will happen next. Who can say what? Something might grow. Maybe not.
But our Global system will collapse and we will be unable to feed most people, we will be unable to provide water or shelter or medical care for most people.
We will not cope with the chaos. Too many basic needs -- energy, food, shelter, nurture of children, -- are already sacrificed on the alter of war now.
We have waited too long to find a peaceful way into the future.
As the chaos grow in natural, social, and political systems, some people will try to ride our current civilization -- or parts of it -- like people riding a vehicle careening out of control. The vehicle will not last, but it is only natural to try to position oneself within it for maximum chance of survival and in one piece.
Modern agribusiness is one of the systems that will fail. Sure, those invested in it will make it last as long as possible. They (we?) will identify it as essential to the very survival of our species. It is not essential. And it will fail.
"And so it goes."
I get a kick out of the food called Quorn, which is fungus (derived from stuff that rots corn???) and is cultivated in vats and made to look, feel, smell and taste sort of chickenish. The company calls their products "Chik'n!"
Chick'n Nuggets, Chik'n Wings, and "Naked Chik'n Cutlets." I kid not.
This is the future of agribusiness.
Farming as we know it is obsolete.
I'm just waiting for "Quorn on the Cob!" and "Chik'n on a Stik!"
I am optimistic about the future, by the way. This in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. I'm not saying that you may find some people advocating this but I think it is a minority view, even among those you label "reversalists". At least it's not the argument as I see it. Moving to a largely agrarian lifestyle doesn't imply exactly the agrarian lifestyle we might have had before industrialisation. There are many horticultural techniques that are being worked on that don't resemble the ways of the past, and few, I think, would advocate the abandonment of all we've achieved; indeed the maintenance of the Internet is seen as an important aim. I'm actually quite surprised that you've taken this line and, indeed parodied the view of many people.
Again, wow! I wouldn't have agreed with most of these, pre-peak apart from, perhaps, the second point, though there is nothing specific to measure in that prediction. Until the actual supply of oil starts to decline, none of these predictions seem reasonable. Profitability need not suffer, if higher prices are passed on. If higher prices are passed on, there is no need to use more labour, unless it is profitable to do so. Farms need not get smaller if supplies can still be obtained. As for the last point, there are other factors that could negate such a view, even with higher oil prices.
Your graphs of farmer costs and income are exactly as we would expect in an era of increasing cheap energy use. Most of the graphs are irrelevant in an era where energy becoems scarcer and much more expensive (which might happen as fossil fuels decline).
Your excluding land costs in the profitability graph seems arbitrary to me. If it is a real cost, then it should be included. You have excluded it based only on your opinion that land is only worth as much as the profitability of the enterprise. Even if that were true, it would still be a cost and so come off the revenue. But you've already shown that fuel costs are a small element in the costs of farmers, so I wouldn't necessarily expect the profit graph to show much, anyway. However, the move to biofuels is also pushing up profitability. We'd need a few more years of high prices and declining availability to draw any conclusions on that score.
Your graphs of labour costs seem to be similar to the ones for profitability (and the fit may be closer if land costs were included), but you say nothing about this, with no attempt to reduce noise. It almost seems that there is a, possibly unconscious attempt to tip the argument. With the corn labour costs, where is the research into what effect the shift to biofuels might have on this? There are few data points in the high oil costs (since oil prices have been high for a relatively short time), so I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from these data.
Lastly, you've said nothing about the off-farm costs of processing and delivering food or how that might change the equation in future. Indeed, we know very little about the future since all of your data are about how farms have done in the past, in an era of, largely, low cost high availability energy and better cropping technology (including seeds).
You have not addressed the arguments of those you call reversalists, because consideration of how farm profitability has changed over the years is not an important factor when you try to look into what might be a sustainable future (unsustainable futures are not to be considered, since they are unsustainable). With air freight becoming a thing of the past and other long distance freight becoming too expensive or simply not available, with growing economies becoming a thing of the past, your analysis becomes only a small part of how to view the future of our societies. We are not talking a few years post peak, and maybe not a few decades - it all depends on how long society tries to hold on to the current paradigm, regardless of cost (in all sorts of ways) - but these huge industrialised farms seem unlikely to continue for generations after peak, especially if gas and coal peaks follow in quick succession.
Perhaps I could ask how you see food being produced for the world in 100 years, in 50 years, in 25 years?
Jason Bradford made many other good points in one of his posts.
Another poster mentioned that he thought this was one of your weaker posts. I would tend to agree, if only because it appeared to be an attempt to justify an opinion rather than an objective examination of the data. How can an examination of a past world, in which cheap abundant energy was the norm, relate to an unknown future where energy will become both less available and more expensive? And where were the explorations of other explanations for what you thought you saw in the data? I'm surprised because it doesn't seem like Stuart Staniford's work at all.
Reversability is a strawman. It implies an orderly rolling back. We are looking at a discontinuity with much turmoil and a resettling at a different stable locus. The point about localizing is that it (perhaps) prepares those that do it with something to fall back on as the chips come tumbling back down. Without it, you have nothing and that's no good. Good luck to everyone.
Is the non-profitability of small farms not a tax issue, especially as most smallholders have another stream of income. Profit means taxes. Better to keep the farm at a level where you show up a accounting loss, but a positive cash flow.
At least here in Sweden you can deduct the first five years losses vs your normal income, essentialy getting a 58% tax break on any accounting losses, in case you have "high" income (approx 4000 USD/month or so) and pay 58% on the margin above approx 4000 USD..
And if you're self employed in a non-farm business, it becomes even more profitable to show an accounting loss in the farm, as you for 130 SEK earned might pay 58 SEK tax, plus 30 SEK social insurance taxes, ie 88 out of 130.
And as long as you show a high enough revenue (30 000 SEK +) on the farm, the Swedish IRS will let you continue the business with a loss indefinetly. For tax reasons the farm can pay itself solely as owned capital if you're self-employed in another business over say 20 years, by letting you defer income to capital income, paying 42 out of 130 instead of 88 out of 130, as long as the IRS consideres you're farm a business (ie revenue, but accounting loss).
I have no clue how the US tax system works, but I guess that at least some smallholders really are truckers or something needing a lot of parking space,and run the farm with a loss for tax reasons.
We live on a small farm in western Massachusetts, my in-laws' farm. Still use tractors and other heavy equipment, although not as large as in the Midwest (wouldn't fit anyway). We also do some things by hand, handle most of our own repairs and maintenance, etc. Last fall my husband ended up using a scythe around the edge of the field because the power trimmer wasn't working right and he needed to get it done that day -- was just as fast and about the same amount of personal energy used either way.
We occasionally use chem fertilizers (although that may change) as well as natural (we have cows), but never use pesticides. Our crops are hay, chicken eggs, maple syrup, young stock, and some lumber and firewood. My father-in-law does a bit of handyman work but primarily works the farm. My mother-in-law works part-time doing bookkeeping. A couple of other relatives put in some part-time paid work at the farm, but not regular weekly hours right now, aside from my husband, who helps feed the cows, assists with repairs, etc. He doesn't get paid for everything of course, because we do some of the work as partial payment for rent for the 2nd floor apartment.
What little income comes from off the farm is only supplemental in nature, and also we have a truck garden so we can have local veggies and save some $$ on groceries (mulched garden - no till, no pesticides, no fertilizer). And yet, the farm does make a profit. Not a huge one, but it does make a profit.
So I'm a little puzzled by the report of small farms not doing well -- is there any reason given? Perhaps they aren't be creative enough in the type of crops they grow? Or are they making the mistake of trying to compete directly with the large farms? Around here, if a farm stops work it's usually because the next generation isn't interested in continuing in the family business (which can be true in any line of business, not just farming). I know this article wasn't specifically about this, but I think it's important to understand why small farms fail or succeed.
We'll be expanding the truck garden this year, so we can provide more of our own food. It's a bit more work because of having to preserve some for the winter/spring/early summer, but it isn't that big a deal. I plan on having some friends over to help with the canning, so we'll all have some jam for the winter (infinitely tastier than most commercial stuff). Also planning on trying out some forest gardening since we have a hillside covered with trees. Diversity will be good for it, and I'd be thrilled to have some new plants I don't have to tend to much more than I tend to the veggie/fruit garden.
I have to say I also don't understand why fruit trees are supposed to be work-intensive. Granted I've only had a few of them for the past 6 or so years, but basically we planted them, water once in a while if it hasn't rained in a week, prune a bit each year, and then harvest. Oh, I did have to use bird-netting one year because of the squirrel overpopulation that year, but that's it. No spraying, no fertilizer. Even if you have an orchard, that's still pretty minimal work, with plenty of time to do other things.
Most of our orchards sell relatively locally already (you probably won't see our apples in California, although annoyingly a lot of asparagus goes to France and a couple of other countries). Our wood products travel further, as does the tobacco (yeah, I know, but that may change in the near future), but more and more food is staying on the East coast.
We will eventually have to switch to other types of power for equipment -- and new equipment too, probably. I'm not nostalgic for the 'old days' -- I'm not old enough for one thing. But I think in the long run, what we'll end up with here is a combination of old and "new" tech/methods (Permaculture for instance isn't a new system, just seems like it to most folks). Anyway, fuel gets expensive enough, we'll consider more human- and animal-powered equipment because the market won't support hay going above a certain price, and likely that's true of other crops as well. We have oxen and draft horses in our area, so even if we choose not to have our own team (likely), we can rent them (shared animals and equipment cuts down on the feed needed).
"So I'm a little puzzled by the report of small farms not doing well"
This goes back to the economics of scale - big farms do well compared to smaller farms because mechanization can scale up so well (but can't scale down).
IMO, I think the best situation is a healthy mix of both - and I don't see why that isn't possible.
While this is an interesting article (stirring up good debate) - I would like to see the issues with large amounts of small farms, with no mechanization. Using only tools and such. If these arguments about disruption are true, then small farmers will have problems as well (although surmountable). You'll need blacksmiths to make/repair tools. You'll need a true "Farmers market" - where farmers swap seeds/ideas/work/etc.
Perhaps these are common sense, can someone point me to more research in this regard?
Also: 10 calories of fossil fuels for each calorie of food. Is that correct? I'm guessing the biggest calorie count is fertilizer - but it's not *all* fossil fuels.
Hi there,
I did find in someone else's response (rchrd) that the USDA figures include small farms that were bought as tax write-offs, so that probably throws the figures off.
Scale may have something to do it, or that larger farms are eligible for more subsidies.
We aren't like the organic farms, but it was interesting to note that some people here assume all cows eat grain, meaning that all cows cost more for the grain feed that has to be shipped in (mentioned in the Amish farmer posts, IIRC). Ours are grass-fed in the summer, and then fed rowan and hay in winter (rowan is the richer cutting of hay, as it has more grass seeds in it). No grain for them. OTOH, we do bring in grain for the chickens, but are thinking about making some of those rolling cages or maybe an enclosure attached to the barn so they can have some grass -- save on grain and lowers the cholesterol in the eggs. Right now they're indoors but uncaged, and we bring in some grass from outside during warmer weather.
By "no mechanization", do you mean no machines that use fossil fuels? Because while I can't imagine it being terribly popular, there were treadmills in the old days that you could hook up to various small machinery to power them -- powered by dogs, goats, or horses, depending on the treadmill. Nice thing about the small treadmills though is that people could power them if they wanted to (saves on having extra critters around). There's still quite a bit of hand-powered equipment left around here too in New England, if you know where to look.
Still, it'd be pretty hard to spread those sorts of tools and equipment around on a large scale (for discussing the concept of lots of small scale farms)... probably a lot easier here than out in the Midwest. Completely different terrain, too. There's a reason the farms around here kept the old stuff -- still usable on occasion. On our farm we haven't had horses for decades, but we still have the old buckboard wagon (disassembled to save space in the barn). And all the old scythes, wagon wheels, grinders, pitchforks, etc. Still use some of it too, and have just about non-stop. Be a bummer to have to go back to the original wood-burning maple syrup evaporator (finally took it out about 10 years ago; we were just using it for storage for stuff for the new evaporator), seeing as the folks just got the new, more efficient one last year. But I believe we still have the bed for that somewhere on the farm.... just in case, you know. Farmers around here are cautious that way.
Sorry, I don't know about that figure of 10 cal of fossil fuels foe each cal of food -- maybe someone else does? We're going more and more toward natural types of fertilizers for the hay these days anyway.
Stuart,
I just read Catton: Overshoot, and there he writes that during the Great Depression, the urbanization-trend in the USA actually reverted with people moving to the countryside to work as farmers (I don't find the page, but I think, he even gave the source). This means, your statement
does not hold. In fact, if this is true, urbanization can be reversable, at least it was during the Great Depression.
I read the history - it was not successful. Even Nazi Germany
had a program and it did not work.
I don't have the source.
just a note, airdale, all best wishes, best and best. Life is worth living to the last drop.
Well stated and argued. I'm not a bit fan of the reversalist ideology. I think it's an attempt to capitalize on a crisis to support a certain political/sociological view. As with any crisis, I think we need to be honest about what solutions will produce the most good for the most people and support them in a democratic fashion (ie argumentation vs dictation). As you pointed out, most times things are forced rather than influenced you end up with disaster.
I am not comfortable with the idea that industrial agriculture can function in a world of severe oil shortage. I suppose this is because my view is that the USA will have only 25% to 40% of the oil we use today in just 15 to 20 years as a result of loss of imports, the continuation of decline in our own domestic production and the continuation of deterioration of EROEI. I don't see how we can do anything but regress to a more primitive way of doing things, and even then, I see so much difficulty in such an attempt at transition.
If there is not enough oil to go around, then the system starts to crumble, and nobody can accurately predict how long it will take before it crashes. It only takes the failure of one significant part of the system to bring it down; many a plane has crashed resulting from a failure of just one subsystem, while the rest of the plane is functioning quite well as it should.
Others have mentioned major problems in modern agriculture like the phosphorus shortage, the depletion of soil, and the dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It is not just subsystems within the current agricultural system that may bring it down, but also there are systems outside of agriculture like the electric system that are vulnerable in a period of inadequate energy to fuel the economy.
And if we cannot keep the present system of agriculture going and must revert to animal and human energy to substitute for mechanical energy, how is this to be accomplished in time. Relocation of people to farming areas requires housing, breakup of existing large farms, and suitable equipment for small scale agriculture. How many can afford to acquire land and make a move now? What about farming know how, even if relocation can take place? Small farmers rely on equipment, even if it is not of the scale of industrial agriculture. Can you imagine trying to break the ground for even a 5 acre plot without the help of a small tractor or tiller? And if animal power is to be used, where will all these animals come from? Who will train them? Who will even know how to use them and keep them in good health? And remember, any transition will require energy to create the tools and equipment appropriate to whatever the new reality is. Where is this energy to come from when there will not be even enough to support todays population, much less create a new infrastructure? And then there is the problem of yield for older methods of agriculture as compared to today's yields. Crops like corn which can be produced at 150 to 200 bushels per acre today might only yield 30 to 50 bushels using methods common 150 years ago; maybe a farmer can make a living because of reduced cost of more primitive methods, but then there is substantially less food to go around as a result.
The consequences of failing to keep the present industrial agriculture system operating are great; in my view, the likely hood of a smooth transition to any alternative is low. Not a good situation, I would say.
Others have mentioned major problems in modern agriculture like the phosphorus shortage, the depletion of soil, and the dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
The Phosphorus shortage is 'long term'. Soil depletion has been going on a long time....but lack of Water should hit before a P shortage. And who's gonna stick around and farm if there is no water?
Can you imagine trying to break the ground for even a 5 acre plot without the help of a small tractor or tiller?
Yes. I can. It sucks.
How it used to be done is you'd "hire out" the 40 mule team sod-busters.
Hence the '40 hp tractor'
Not a good situation, I would say.
Yup. "The poor" and a lack of food will be an issue. I'm guessing the canary in the coal mine will be how the prison population is treated.
Breaking new ground. One word: Pigs.
You just fence the acres and put out enough piglets over the summer, and come autumn you slaughter the piglets who has become pigs, and they have tilled all the acres. One sow can give birth to enough piglets for the job.
Result: Tilled earth and more than enough meat for a year, at almost no human work effort or energy input at all, except water for the piglets to drink.
Yeah, you're better of with an old style breed of pigs than a factory bred high-producer. But pigs multiply quite fast so it wouldn't be a problem to get hold of an old style breed.
A couple of comments... like you I come from the part of science where irreversibility is a central element (dissipative turbulence). I fully agree we aren't ever going to get the 17th Century back. That was a time of low population and (in the emerging industrialised countries) relatively unscathed environment. Both features will be absent in the last half of this Century and the whole of the next.
But the analysis still depends too much on trends. The other theme from physics we shouldn't forget is bifurcation. A system evolves gradually and then there is a big jump into a new state. The trends of larger farm size and such are local evolution (in the physics sense: quasistatic). The point is that a break is expected to occur when the current system becomes untenable at any price. Then large, unpredictable dislocations are to be expected. The dynamical system won't settle until it has shaken out much of the current population. The time scale is 100 years, not 10 years, and the transition is nonlocal. The only relevant model from history is the depopulation and relaxation of large systems at the end of the Roman Empire. But that time scale, in turn, is too slow to provide a close analogy for the next 100 years.
The element missing from the 10-year level analysis is the point at which depletion of the complex described by natural productivity, available energy input, and transport capability, all reckoned on a ** per capita ** basis, hits the level beyond which large-scale industrial concentration is simply no longer possible. Decentralisation will certainly occur, but as you note it won't be back to a 17th Century system of organisation. On the local level there will still be a lot of modern industry and short-scale mobility, just not on the 1000 or 10000 kilometre spatial scale.
The other result is that a large fraction of the population will be shed, most likely by grinding down (as in southern Europe circa 200-600 AD) rather than through a single intergenerational crash period.
The new stable state probably won't be found for several hundred years.
ciao,
Bruce
Your views are similar to mine, but I used a relevant biological analogy.
I would also like to note that while I envision some sort of decentralization that "flattens" the spatial relationship between producers and consumers, and a "reversal" of historic trends regarding ag specialization, I can guess at how mind-bogglingly difficult this will be, and that it will take time.
Here's a quote from a previous article I wrote: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2598
"The shifts in agricultural practices over the past thirty to forty years make it difficult to quickly switch to a less transportation-intensive food system. Many agricultural regions are overly specialized to serve global markets. For example, a place where fifty years ago granaries, dairies, vegetable farms and ranches coexisted is now dominated by premium wine grapes."
The huge shift from local staple foods to exported wines took place in Mendocino County (where I live) between the end of WWII and today. If the system holds together more or less in my region, I would expect the "reversal" of this process to occur over a similar time scale. And I don't see it happening within the context of the current global commodity trade system. I imagine local trade centers will be created that bypass the "big boys." We already see this happening, but it is such a tiny fraction of the pie it looks like the contribution of PV to the electric grid!
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the comments. What I envisage with all the nonlinear physics analogy is indeed something more like an ecosystem. If the large "players" simply cease to be then smaller ones like those you note will step in and become the new thriving paradigm.
John Michael Greer wrote a piece about Succession that went along these lines... when one of the central systems fails there is surely dislocation, but then some other species comes in to benefit. But this one in turn is also not long-lived because in the changed circumstances a few decades hence some new one then enters and thrives. At late times the results are very different but the process goes in waves, not all at once. And of course, totally unpredictable :-)
The best one can do is to create analogies. His was that of the evolution of a forest after a major fire. The difference to that, though, is that petro civilisation is not coming back any more than the 17th Century farmlands. In fact, less so.
ciao,
Bruce
I’m sure most agree that agriculture is unlikely to be reformed by energy shortages for many reasons, such as oil producing countries exchanging oil, petrochemicals, and fertilizers for food. More importantly, large farms and agribusiness will continue to bribe politicians with large donations to political campaigns to keep farm subsidies flowing.
To call people “reversalists” who’d like to change how food is grown, the most ecologically destructive impact humans have on the
planet, is rather derogatory.
If the thousands of groups who reformed the timber production industry had quavered under such a label and succumbed to the timber production industry, our forests, watersheds, fisheries, biodiversity, and forest soils would be quite a bit more damaged or destroyed than they are today. The same could be said of every progressive movement that has sought reforms.
It’s not unrealistic, and definitely can not be characterized as “wishful thinking and nostalgia for the past”, to think that farming can be reformed, despite the paltry improvements in the latest farm bill. It won’t happen smoothly like it could have if we’d started earlier and made agriculture reform a priority.
The battle over the direction of farming in this nation has been raging for over a century, and was won by the side that wanted to industrialize farming despite the effects on ecology and loss of small family farms. Read Hightower’s “Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times” and Walker’s “The Conquest of Bread” for further details in how agricultural institutions in this country evolved.
It is important for people to formulate what the changes should be so that as we’re forced to change how we grow food, due to discontinuities in energy supplies, infrastructure, computer chip manufacture, war, etc., that we are ready to do so. http://www.energyskeptic.com/PeakOil_and_Preservation_of_Knowledge.htm
Discontinuities in global trade will be especially difficult, since starting in June 2004, the United States began importing more in farm products than it sold abroad (Larry Rohter. Dec 12, 2004. South America Seeks to Fill the World's Table. New York Times).
How to localize needs further study, i.e.which options below use the least energy?
1) a large truck picks up local farm produce and delivers it door-to-door
2) hundreds of local farmers drive their food to market and thousands of consumers drive to the market to buy the food
3) Midwestern grain transported by train or ships to coastal areas vs local grain (often on less than optimum soil) delivered by trucks
You maintain that because farmers only use 2.2% of the petroleum I shouldn’t worry? Of the total 10.3 quads of energy used to produce food, 13.5% is used after the farm to transport food.
Some of the 21.4% slice of overall farm energy to actually grow food, is used to irrigate food. California feeds a third of the nation, and depends almost entirely on irrigation to grow food. Heller, M. et al. 2000. Life-Cycle Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System University of Michigan.
Alice Friedemann in Oakland
Stuart,
I have always been impressed by your articles. They usually are in-depth analysis and view a situation from different angles. Your general knowledge and scientific/mathematical vision is impressive and very productive.
Your last post didn’t get my full support though. I have the impression the basis of your reasoning lies on an incomplete analysis. I am personally a part time farmer (my main job is in finance/hedge-fund) and run a 70 acres farm in Geneva as a hobby.
I share the view that grain farming should become (more) financially attractive with the diminishing availability of oil. Energetical needs (ethanol; wood) will compete with food/heating and increase prices. As farmers will be short of diesel/fertilizer/herbicides, their crop productions will decrease in contribute to an acceleration of soft commodity prices. Price of food will continue to rise and people will have to allocate more financial resources to eat. I believe like you that very large farms will do well in the first financial round.
I intuitively disagreed to completely follow you and can finally start to put some words on my feeling: Humans do not share equally the vision of wealth and financial needs. I personally observed in the villages around me that the families that had the best farms did not view them as great assets. They were used to a high level of expenses and were attracted by the city-like lifestyle. Most of them sold their farms. On the other hands, the very small farmers grew up in very difficult financial situations and learnt to value their land. They were forced to become basically autonomous and actually need no money. They even view money as a store of wealth and don’t use it except to buy what they can’t produce themselves (buying more land or second-hand machines). These small guys have been buying land from the big landlords. They are even debt-free today and are less vulnerable to a credit crisis.
When I was a kid, one of my best friends came from a very wealthy family. An important feature of his education relied on the thesis that the first generation creates wealth, the second generation maintains wealth and the third generation eats it up. His family was obsessed to be an exception and never have a “third generation”.
If I add this observation of human behavior to your analysis, I would foresee small farmers in unfavorable positions buy more land and grow. On the other hand, big farmers used to city lifestyle may be more dainty and in the long term at risk of selling their assets. We would see a re-distribution of the land and a thus a decrease of farm size.
Stuart, if you can manage to have a 50,000 acres farm for yourself and run the operations smartly, you will likely end up financially well after peak oil deployed its full effects. But what will your kids do? Will you split the farm among your kids? Will your daughter want to keep their share?
You may want to do it differently with your farm and create a listed company so your kids will have their shares through stocks. But will the management be equal to your expectations? Will they be as efficient as small farmers or will the executives of your company become selfish and fulfill their own needs?
Or maybe you will choose that only one of your sons will inherit your land. Then make sure that he will smart and toughly educated so that he will never be part of the 3rd generation my friend’s family was afraid of. In reality, most people want the best for their kids and inadvertently spoil them, thus miss to raise them to meet the great expectations the parents have on their kids.
On a very different topic, you assume that the repartition of the population will remain as it is today. Will it be possible to sustain the lifestyle of New York like cities after peak oil? Don’t you intuitively think that people will flee the cities to satisfy their basic need of being fed? This would imply smaller-scale cities sparsely spread around the country and the need for crop transportation would decrease. We would spend less energy in transportation. The very large farms and their logistical gains would therefore loose their advantage and would tend to dismantle. This is what was observed in US during the course of the 19th century (there were mega farms run by privately held or listed companies that made bankrupt as they could not manage their farm efficiently. I believe I read this in Scientific American but can’t find the link).
I would like to thank you for your articles in general. They always raise new questions and force me to look beyond what I’ve seen, especially in oil related topics. This is actually a resurgent attitude here at TOD, whether you, Robert Rapier, Heading Out, Nate Hagens, Khebab, Euan, Jerome, Leanan, West Texas or others come with open and constructive thinking. Thank you.
I am a retired farmer and a member of the Mankato (Minnesota) Peak Oil Taskforce. I check TOD nearly every day. I have found it to be the best source for monitoring peak oil issues.
However, as TOD has branched out into related issues, especially agricultural ones, the limits of your writers' and commentaries' expertise is showing. I would recommend bringing on board writers and reviewers with in-depth, hands-on knowledge in botany, agronomy, soil science, and farming.
This posting by Stuart Staniford is excellent, because it sticks to economics, does not attempt to address agronomic issues, and makes no value judgements. It does not attempt to range outside the writer's expertise.
(I followed one of the links referencing an earlier TOD article, and found that posting to be seriously flawed. It was internally coherent and logical, much like Plato's The Meno dialogues, but nonsense when viewed from the outside, because of an apparent lack of the writer's real world experience in botany, soils and farming. Tapping into databases can be treacherous.)
The farming community today is of such a small population, it would be presumptuous to expect most people to understand farming issues in real terms. So as an aid, I would like to set out a few observations to keep in mind:
1. American industrial agriculture is robust, flexible and adaptive, especially since the big mid-1980s shakeout of farmers. Today's farmers are highly educated and networked.
2. Farmers do not control the price of their product. That is done by public trading based on supply and demand. Because of a long-term (several centuries long and world-wide) trend toward commodity price reduction, farmers have had to become extremely efficient in controlling inputs and costs.
3. Farmers do not grow food in order to feed the world. They produce cash crops to provide income to maintain their families. Their crop selection is based on their best estimate of expected return. They are not married to any one crop.
4. Crop selection is the land owner's and operator's choice, alone. It is not determined by government, bankers, agribusiness or any other entity. This is the prerogative provided by our private property laws.
5. Farming is capital intensive, extremely high risk, dangerous and provides low returns. There are very few people who have the desire or ability to undertake such a task.
6. By providing food and fiber at extremely low cost, farmers have subsidized consumers at a far higher rate than consumers have subsidized farmers through government programs. Today's high prices in all farm commodities (not just those affected by corn ethanol) are an indication of how high those subsidies have been.
Agriculture developed as a response to our first population explosion 10,000 years ago. By switching from foraging to agriculture, humans greatly increased the carrying capacity of the land. Agriculture relies primarily on the ability of annual plants to concentrate nutrients in their reproductive bodies or tubers to provide us with human food and animal feed. Our present system of agriculture can sustain 6+ billion people only through mining of the earth's resources. That is well understood. It is time for another paradigm shift, as great as the one we underwent 10,000 years ago.
Ironically, it could be peak oil and the search for viable biofuels that may provide that leap. Many perennials are able to produce high vegetative volumes at very low nutrient and water input levels. However, the nutritive value of that vegetative structure is blocked from access to us because so much of it is lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. Cellulose is a long-chain polymer of glucose molecules. Glucose is our bodies' fuel. Unlock cellulose for biofuel feedstock and you also unlock it as a food source. The same could be done to the proteins in legumes and the oils in algae.
Biofuel research may have its greatest impact not in fuel production but in providing us the tools to transition away from agriculture and toward sustainable permaculture.
Mr. Fred Schumacher, Thank You for your input:
I have little knowledge of today’s farm practices as I left the farm 60 years ago at the age of 17.
This post has been extremely interesting to me. Even though I have been out of the loop for an extended period, the level of farming knowledge of the commentors is exceptionally shallow when compared to their normal areas of expertise.
I lived during the depression and in the dust bowl years, however I never once went to bed on an empty stomach. I also never saw my Mother purchase a loaf of bread, a can of vegetables, or any meat other than an occasional can of salmon.
In those years a farmer’s grocery list included flour, sugar, spices, coffee, canning lid rubbers, and fly paper. By the end of May each year the attic floor was covered with 400 and some empty mason jars waiting to be filled with the summer gardens produce.
A few FACTS about agribusiness
From Agriculture to Agribusiness
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/41518d64-0d39-4ce1-bb9e-1c2...
Massive Soil Erosion
http://www.columban.com/stateofplanet2.htm
Water Management
Desertification
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/41518d64-0d39-4ce1-bb9e-1c2...
Size of Desertification
http://www.public.asu.edu/~majansse/pubs/resilienceupdated.txt
Impact on Humanity
http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/mea/factsheets/fs5.html
[duplicate deleted...my post didn't seem to take the first several times]
ET: I think you were right to say my post a few spaces back sounds like BS. Trying to be brief, I missed vital things out. Only just been able to get back now: Spring's started here (really we just go from Autumn to long, patchily-cold Springs here nowadays, without any real Winter anymore) and I'm busy. For a 'no-work' mini-permafarm, there’s quite a lot to do at certain times of year, especially during start-ups of new bits of the plan.
OK. Here’s a collection of suggestions, brief as I can make them, to answer points raised. The matter of incoming soil-food supplements additional to the nitro-fixing of leguminous cover crops is touched on, which I hope will satisfy your BS meter.
Interestingly, Emilia Hazelip, who died recently after many years as a hands-in-the-dirt expert food-grower initially inspired by Fukuoka, has this comment about where the bulk of soil-feeding, and plant-food comes from:
“A plant gets up to 95% of all the nutrients it needs from the sky (gases and sunlight), NOT the soil. Of the 5% taken from the soil, half of it is the essential nutrient nitrogen, which, if the plant is grown in combination with a legume, can also come from the air.
“ONLY 2 1/2% of the total nutrition of a plant IS COMING EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE SOIL in the form of soluble minerals and trace elements.
"That is the fundamental reality that underlies and supports Fukuoka's principles of No tilling, No fertilizer, No weeding, and No pesticides or herbicides. Natural agriculture refutes and disproves the foundation of current agronomical logic, and because it does it is seen as heresy by most of the agronomic community. Fukuoka proposes, and supports with evidence, the first fundamental agronomic reform since agriculture was invented." -- Emilia Hazelip
Here’s the link to her complete, short statement about "The Fundamental Reality that Underlies Fukuoka's Principles":
http://fukuokafarmingol.info/foverfound.html
The other points from various posters that I want to answer are:
** “I know of several other farms who are in the same category. One is owned by a man from Bangladesh who farms 15 acres planting just two crops of which he saves his own seeds. He sells his produce on the street in Queens. In the winter he farms in Florida and ships his produce to New York. He is definitely not on the USDA radar screen. Another is a couple who grows 3 acres of vegetables and herbs in their backyard and sells via a farm stand by their house and a 25-member CSA -- also "unregistered."
Many of the farms who are traditional "onion" farmers (25% of US onions are grown here in Orange County, NY) are now diversifying into vegetables and selling via Farmer's Markets, farm stands and CSA because they can make more money on fewer acres in a more satisfying way.”
Thanks for these concrete examples, Sandiego. Makes you want to hug yourself in glee!
These are exactly the kind of under-the-radar spontaneous grassroots initiatives which Ran Prieur and Jason Godesky, to name just a couple of examples, have been exploring in their respective discussions of how the post-peak world will -- it seems likely -- peal away unstoppably, Tainter-fashion, from hyper-complex, big industrial systems, in agriculture and everything else.
** “The ones who still subscribe to the old, pour-fossil-fuel-on-the-ground and fire up the sterile sponge method of farming uniformly say that without anhydrous ammonia, diesel, pesticides, and fungicides, their yields will drop by sixty to ninety percent. Many in the short-grass prairie will be unable to farm at all.”
To quote one of Lear’s errant daughters: “Not altogether so….” Cherenkov. Maybe what these unlucky farmers lack is an introduction to the basic ideas, and the practical methods of permaculture, and/or Fukuoka methods. Such knowledge and practice eases that kind of terminal pessimism.
** “It will be a lack of grain feed to the cattle that will prove a problem.”
All-free-range-fed livestock is doing well in many places, and producing superior protein food. None of my small livestock get ANY supplementary feed: ‘Feed yourself the way evolution wired you to do it’, is the working rule.
** “Grain is dry calorie store, soy, even more energy dense. Dried properly and stored properly, it won't spoil, needs no refrigeration has years shelf life.”
Lorenzo, I’m groping my way into grain-growing on a glade-in-the-woodland, untilled, pre-scythed, white-clover-dense, tenth-acre plot this year (if all goes to schedule). Applying Fukuoka methods, though not expecting necessarily to get better-than-industag yields (as he has for years) on this first stumble through. Harvesting, drying, storage, all set up to be done by similarly lotech, ‘do-nothing’ methods. If I get those all right, I expect to be able to store it for well over a year, possibly a lot more. No FF use, of course. Just (human) muscle and hand tools.
** “Oh, P.S. It takes 500 years, on average, to recover one inch of topsoil.”
Well, Cherenkov, that seems to depend on which methods you’re using. Mollison, Fukuoka and friends have an impressive record of real achievements in this field, in desert and desertified lands in various countries, which took very much less time. I’ve just created islands of proto-terra-preta soil (I think) two feet deep on this heavy-clay, industag-battered ground, over a few weeks this winter. Enough to feed all the food plants I plan to grow this year, and to enrich itself as it does so (continuous leguminous ground-cover, plus a constant very light drizzle of mulch materials and raw compostables, too thinly scattered to blank the ground-cover. Those parts of the food plants not actually harvested for food are simply cut and left where they lie, to be part of the mulch-drizzle. ET, that was the extra incoming soil-food that I missed out in the previous description). Also, I expect the islands of raised terra-preta soil to spread at the same time, and link up eventually. Speaking of islands, I loved the way Surtsey appeared above the surface of the Atlantic off the south of Iceland earlier in my life, a thoroughly sterilized volcanic upheaval, and then commenced to acquire life ‘out of the air’: spiders and insects appeared from elsewhere, by air; seeds, birds, and on.
“It is a testament to the persistence of nature that these new lifeforms came to Surtsey and put down their metaphorical roots less than a year after it emerged, while eruptions were still taking place.”
See the rest of this summary at:
http://www.zen24203.zen.co.uk/surtsey/effects3.html
“There are 2 ways to kill weeds.”
Or – you could let them be, the few that can manage to find room to grow in the continuous, regularly-topped-up leguminous ground covers, and that can endure the same scything schedule that the legumes get. Those that can stand this regime are probably due their places in the assembly, as subsoil mineral miners. Just a matter of rethinking that derogatory word ‘weed’ to something like ‘harmless, and probably useful, fellow-traveller’.
“The framing of this debate is misleading. This is not a question of Luddites and reversalists vs. agrobusiness and industry. The real question is what is the best way forward.”
Exactly right, team10tim.
Airdale: We don’t know each other, but please accept my commiserations and REALLY POWERFUL wishes that, whatever comes, it feels in the end to be good. Very best luck! Just do what’s sweetest from here on.
ET: I think you were right to say my post a few spaces back sounds like BS. Trying to be brief, I missed vital things out. Only just been able to get back now: Spring's started here (really we just go from Autumn to long, patchily-cold Springs here nowadays, without any real Winter anymore) and I'm busy. For a 'no-work' mini-permafarm, there’s quite a lot to do at certain times of year, especially during start-ups of new bits of the plan.
OK. Here’s a collection of suggestions, brief as I can make them, to answer points raised. The matter of incoming soil-food supplements additional to the nitro-fixing of leguminous cover crops is touched on, which I hope will satisfy your BS meter.
Interestingly, Emilia Hazelip, who died recently after many years as a hands-in-the-dirt expert food-grower initially inspired by Fukuoka, has this comment about where the bulk of soil-feeding, and plant-food comes from:
“A plant gets up to 95% of all the nutrients it needs from the sky (gases and sunlight), NOT the soil. Of the 5% taken from the soil, half of it is the essential nutrient nitrogen, which, if the plant is grown in combination with a legume, can also come from the air.
“ONLY 2 1/2% of the total nutrition of a plant IS COMING EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE SOIL in the form of soluble minerals and trace elements.
"That is the fundamental reality that underlies and supports Fukuoka's principles of No tilling, No fertilizer, No weeding, and No pesticides or herbicides. Natural agriculture refutes and disproves the foundation of current agronomical logic, and because it does it is seen as heresy by most of the agronomic community. Fukuoka proposes, and supports with evidence, the first fundamental agronomic reform since agriculture was invented." -- Emilia Hazelip
Here’s the link to her complete, short statement about "The Fundamental Reality that Underlies Fukuoka's Principles":
http://fukuokafarmingol.info/foverfound.html
The other points from various posters that I want to answer are:
** “I know of several other farms who are in the same category. One is owned by a man from Bangladesh who farms 15 acres planting just two crops of which he saves his own seeds. He sells his produce on the street in Queens. In the winter he farms in Florida and ships his produce to New York. He is definitely not on the USDA radar screen. Another is a couple who grows 3 acres of vegetables and herbs in their backyard and sells via a farm stand by their house and a 25-member CSA -- also "unregistered."
Many of the farms who are traditional "onion" farmers (25% of US onions are grown here in Orange County, NY) are now diversifying into vegetables and selling via Farmer's Markets, farm stands and CSA because they can make more money on fewer acres in a more satisfying way.”
Thanks for these concrete examples, Sandiego. Makes you want to hug yourself in glee!
These are exactly the kind of under-the-radar spontaneous grassroots initiatives which Ran Prieur and Jason Godesky, to name just a couple of examples, have been exploring in their respective discussions of how the post-peak world will -- it seems likely -- peal away unstoppably, Tainter-fashion, from hyper-complex, big industrial systems, in agriculture and everything else.
** “The ones who still subscribe to the old, pour-fossil-fuel-on-the-ground and fire up the sterile sponge method of farming uniformly say that without anhydrous ammonia, diesel, pesticides, and fungicides, their yields will drop by sixty to ninety percent. Many in the short-grass prairie will be unable to farm at all.”
To quote one of Lear’s errant daughters: “Not altogether so….” Cherenkov. Maybe what these unlucky farmers lack is an introduction to the basic ideas, and the practical methods of permaculture, and/or Fukuoka methods. Such knowledge and practice eases that kind of terminal pessimism.
** “It will be a lack of grain feed to the cattle that will prove a problem.”
All-free-range-fed livestock is doing well in many places, and producing superior protein food. None of my small livestock get ANY supplementary feed: ‘Feed yourself the way evolution wired you to do it’, is the working rule.
** “Grain is dry calorie store, soy, even more energy dense. Dried properly and stored properly, it won't spoil, needs no refrigeration has years shelf life.”
Lorenzo, I’m groping my way into grain-growing on a glade-in-the-woodland, untilled, pre-scythed, white-clover-dense, tenth-acre plot this year (if all goes to schedule). Applying Fukuoka methods, though not expecting necessarily to get better-than-industag yields (as he has for years) on this first stumble through. Harvesting, drying, storage, all set up to be done by similarly lotech, ‘do-nothing’ methods. If I get those all right, I expect to be able to store it for well over a year, possibly a lot more. No FF use, of course. Just (human) muscle and hand tools.
** “Oh, P.S. It takes 500 years, on average, to recover one inch of topsoil.”
Well, Cherenkov, that seems to depend on which methods you’re using. Mollison, Fukuoka and friends have an impressive record of real achievements in this field, in desert and desertified lands in various countries, which took very much less time. I’ve just created islands of proto-terra-preta soil (I think) two feet deep on this heavy-clay, industag-battered ground, over a few weeks this winter. Enough to feed all the food plants I plan to grow this year, and to enrich itself as it does so (continuous leguminous ground-cover, plus a constant very light drizzle of mulch materials and raw compostables, too thinly scattered to blank the ground-cover. All parts of food plants not actually harvested are just cut and left, to be part of the mulch-drizzle. ET, that was the extra incoming soil-food that I missed out in the previous description). Also, I expect the islands of terra-preta soil to spread at the same time, and link up eventually. Speaking of islands, I loved the way Surtsey appeared above the surface of the Atlantic off the south of Iceland earlier in my life, a thoroughly sterilized volcanic upheaval, and then commenced to acquire life ‘out of the air’: spiders and insects appeared from elsewhere, by air; seeds, birds, and on.
“It is a testament to the persistence of nature that these new lifeforms came to Surtsey and put down their metaphorical roots less than a year after it emerged, while eruptions were still taking place.”
See the rest of this summary at:
http://www.zen24203.zen.co.uk/surtsey/effects3.html
“There are 2 ways to kill weeds.”
Or – you could let them be, the few that can manage to find room to grow in the continuous, regularly-topped-up leguminous ground covers, and that can endure the same scything schedule that the legumes get. Those that can stand this regime are probably due their places in the assembly, as subsoil mineral miners. Just a matter of rethinking that derogatory word ‘weed’ to something like ‘harmless, and probably useful, fellow-traveller’.
“The framing of this debate is misleading. This is not a question of Luddites and reversalists vs. agrobusiness and industry. The real question is what is the best way forward.”
Exactly right, team10tim.
Airdale: We don’t know each other, but please accept my commiserations and REALLY POWERFUL wishes that, whatever comes, it feels in the end to be good. Very best luck! Just do what’s sweetest from here on.
I doubt that planting 30,000 corn plants per acre, as is done now on farms of several square miles extent, will be possible if energy gets scarce. I would repeat the claim for the 1.3 million wheat plants per acre on the modern wheat farm. So, profits are not the proper measure of what will happen during peak oil.
One of the reasons, I think, for improved profits at times of high energy is the increased attention to costs. My analysis of farm economics http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3124 shows that at $40/bbl driving, fertilizer and chemical use drop. That attention to costs always helps profitability. Note in that post how profligate driving (fuel use) is below $40/bbl. If farmers paid the same attention to costs during low price times, they would undoubtedly be more profitable.
Farmers don't need scientists, but scientists certainly need farmers. Farming has been sacrificed on the twin altars of growth and profitability. Human knowledge is limited; we can in no way claim complete understanding of nature or the systems that control our climate, yet we persist in sticking our neck out. What irony; Avian flu blamed on wild birds, crop yields attributed to science and technology. Mad cow disease caused by feeding animal remains to cows. Recently cloned meat was sanctioned OK for human consumption. GM crops. The reasons to thank science just go on and on. I dont think Heinberg et al are advocating a return to the past, but they sure as hell aren't suggesting we keep going as we are. Soil is like a bank account; if you don't put back what you take out you are in trouble. Using industrial chemicals is like running that account in overdraft. Peak oil should serve as a hint that we should learn some humility.
I'm compelled to comment, albeit briefly. The agricultural system is an enormously complex system. To simply take a few variables, plot them against each other, and run a regression is, in my opinion, very likely to lead one to erroneous conclusions if you haven't accounted for known confounding factors. I can imagine that weather, technological factors in machinery and seed, all play a large part in the profitability of agriculture. Without looking at these factors, simply plotting oil price by labor cost and profit is grossly insufficient and any 'relationship' must be investigated further to provide validity. It makes be believe the author had a preconceived notion and found some data to show it. As a data analyst in the pharmaceutical industry, I often run across findings in my work that appear meaningful, but I'm lucky enough to have access to the chemist, the formulator, the engineer to discuss the results. Never do I take it at face value.
The analysis is entirely done on past data.
The economies are still resisting to the impact of high oil prices, there is no qualitative change.
A bit of theory among all this data:
Production factor classification: land, labour, capital. If capital become more costly (coerently with peak oil assumption), the relative importance of the other two (*land* and *labour*) will grow. What kind of economy and society you can immagine other then something similar to the past ones?
Finally the issue that has been bothering me.
I love this article and the responses, and I totally agree with it.
Unfortunately I also hate this article and totally disagree with it.
I think everyone agrees that we are yet to reach any kind of “peak”. A statistical peak in oil liquids production may have occurred but like the fabled dinosaur, that information hasn’t reached a brain yet.
By definition everything has been improving for the past 10/50/200 years (lets ignore anything to do with pollution or biodiversity, this is an economic argument!). This analysis tells me that big agriculture has done well in the past, moving forward.
I just can’t see where this has any relevance to the future.
The Stock People take old data and make programs that perfectly model the past (as they should, that’s where their data came from!) but have so far failed to produce an accurate true prediction (unless there has been a leap that is only known to a few people).
Likewise this knowledge is useful only in telling me Big Ag has been doing well. I have this feeling there is a big discontinuity looming.
Prediction is difficult, especially when it concerns the future.
OK - so now can some one - for the short term - tell us what can happens with the food distribution if there are spot shortages with oil/gas.
ET: I think you were right to say my post quite a way back sounds like BS. Trying to be brief, I missed vital things out. Only just been able to get back now: Spring's started here (really we just go from Autumn to long, patchily-cold Springs here nowadays, without any real Winter anymore) and I'm busy. For a 'no-work' mini-permafarm, there’s quite a lot to do at certain times of year, especially during start-ups of new bits of the plan.
OK. Here’s a collection of suggestions, brief as I can make them, to answer points raised. The matter of incoming soil-food supplements additional to the nitro-fixing of leguminous cover crops is touched on, which I hope will satisfy your BS meter.
1) Interestingly, Emilia Hazelip, who died recently after many years as a hands-in-the-dirt expert food-grower initially inspired by Fukuoka, has this comment about where the bulk of soil-feeding, and plant-food comes from:
“A plant gets up to 95% of all the nutrients it needs from the sky (gases and sunlight), NOT the soil. Of the 5% taken from the soil, half of it is the essential nutrient nitrogen, which, if the plant is grown in combination with a legume, can also come from the air.
“ONLY 2 1/2% of the total nutrition of a plant IS COMING EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE SOIL in the form of soluble minerals and trace elements.
"That is the fundamental reality that underlies and supports Fukuoka's principles of No tilling, No fertilizer, No weeding, and No pesticides or herbicides. Natural agriculture refutes and disproves the foundation of current agronomical logic, and because it does it is seen as heresy by most of the agronomic community. Fukuoka proposes, and supports with evidence, the first fundamental agronomic reform since agriculture was invented." -- Emilia Hazelip
Here’s the link to her complete, short statement about "The Fundamental Reality that Underlies Fukuoka's Principles":
http://fukuokafarmingol.info/foverfound.html
The other points from various posters that I want to answer are:
2) “I know of several other farms who are in the same category. One is owned by a man from Bangladesh who farms 15 acres planting just two crops of which he saves his own seeds. He sells his produce on the street in Queens. In the winter he farms in Florida and ships his produce to New York. He is definitely not on the USDA radar screen. Another is a couple who grows 3 acres of vegetables and herbs in their backyard and sells via a farm stand by their house and a 25-member CSA -- also "unregistered."
Many of the farms who are traditional "onion" farmers (25% of US onions are grown here in Orange County, NY) are now diversifying into vegetables and selling via Farmer's Markets, farm stands and CSA because they can make more money on fewer acres in a more satisfying way.”
Thanks for these concrete examples, Sandiego. Makes you want to hug yourself in glee!
These are exactly the kind of under-the-radar spontaneous grassroots initiatives which Ran Prieur and Jason Godesky, to name just a couple of examples, have been exploring in their respective discussions of how the post-peak world will -- it seems likely -- peal away unstoppably, Tainter-fashion, from hyper-complex, big industrial systems, in agriculture and everything else.
3) This is a shocking short item from a recent post on Ran’s site, which has great relevance to Richard Duncan’s assertion about Olduvai, and about Stuart’s conclusions here:
Ran writes: ‘January 22. Last week I got this report from Nick, who works as an engineer at a coal power plant:
“I am seeing first hand an electrical grid that is going to be tattering pretty hard the next few years. I see three big issues coming up fast --“’
For the rest of this sobering report go here (Nick’s piece is the bottom six paragraphs):
http://ranprieur.com/archives/016.html#coalcrash
4) Cherenkov said: “The ones who still subscribe to the old, pour-fossil-fuel-on-the-ground and fire up the sterile sponge method of farming uniformly say that without anhydrous ammonia, diesel, pesticides, and fungicides, their yields will drop by sixty to ninety percent. Many in the short-grass prairie will be unable to farm at all.”
To quote one of Lear’s errant daughters: “Not altogether so….” Maybe what these unlucky farmers lack is an introduction to the basic ideas, and the practical methods of permaculture, and/or Fukuoka natural farming. Such knowledge and practice eases that kind of terminal pessimism.
5) “It will be a lack of grain feed to the cattle that will prove a problem.”
All-free-range-fed livestock is doing well in many places, and producing superior protein food. None of my small livestock get ANY supplementary feed: ‘Feed yourself the way evolution wired you to do it’, is the working rule.
6) “Grain is dry calorie store, soy, even more energy dense. Dried properly and stored properly, it won't spoil, needs no refrigeration has years shelf life.”
Lorenzo, I’m groping my way into grain-growing on a glade-in-the-woodland, untilled, pre-scythed, white-clover-dense, tenth-of-an-acre plot this year (IF all goes to schedule). Applying Fukuoka methods, though not expecting necessarily to get better-than-industag yields (as he has for years) on this first stumble through. Harvesting, drying, storage, all set up to be done by similarly lotech, ‘do-nothing’ methods. If I get those all right, I expect to be able to store it for well over a year, possibly a lot more. No FF use, of course. Just (human) muscle and hand tools.
7) “Oh, P.S. It takes 500 years, on average, to recover one inch of topsoil.”
Well, Cherenkov, that seems to depend on which methods you’re using. Mollison, Fukuoka and friends have an impressive record of real achievements in this field, in desert and desertified lands in various countries, which took very much less time. I’ve just created islands of proto-terra-preta soil (I think) two feet deep on this heavy-clay, industag-battered ground, over a few weeks this winter. Enough to feed all the food plants I plan to grow this year, and to enrich itself as it does so (continuous leguminous ground-cover, plus a constant very light drizzle of mulch materials and raw compostables, too thinly scattered to blank the ground-cover. All parts of grown food plants not actually harvested are just cut and left, to be part of the mulch-drizzle. ET, that was the extra incoming soil-food that I missed out in the previous description). Also, I expect the islands of terra-preta soil to spread at the same time, as I keep mulching continuously following Ruth Stout’s advice, and to link up eventually. Speaking of islands, I loved the way Surtsey appeared above the surface of the Atlantic off the south of Iceland earlier in my life. It started as a thoroughly sterilized volcanic upheaval, and then commenced to acquire life ‘out of the air’: spiders and insects appeared from elsewhere, by air; seeds, birds, and on.
“It is a testament to the persistence of nature that these new lifeforms came to Surtsey and put down their metaphorical roots less than a year after it emerged, while eruptions were still taking place.”
See the rest of this summary at:
http://www.zen24203.zen.co.uk/surtsey/effects3.html
If you’re doing growing in one of the right way, lots of good thing come to you out of the air over time, as Emilia insists.
8) “There are 2 ways to kill weeds.”
Or – you could let them be, the few that can manage to find room to grow in the continuous, regularly-topped-up leguminous ground covers, and that can endure the same scything schedule that the legumes get. Those that can stand this regime are probably due their places in the assembly, as subsoil mineral miners. Just a matter of rethinking that derogatory word ‘weed’ to something like ‘harmless, and probably useful, fellow-traveller’.
9) “The framing of this debate is misleading. This is not a question of Luddites and reversalists vs. agrobusiness and industry. The real question is what is the best way forward.”
Exactly right, team10tim.
Airdale: We don’t know each other, but please accept my commiserations and REALLY POWERFUL wishes that, whatever comes, it feels in the end to be good. Very best luck! Just do what’s sweetest from here on.
i think standiford's basic argument can be made more simply and with less graphics as follows:
he posits, without clearly so stating, that the demand function for food is highly inelastic. therefore, consumers can be expected to demand approximately the same amount of food irrespective of price. accordingly, farmers facing higher costs are able to pass those increased costs on to the consumer on a near 1 to 1 basis.
this is probably correct as far as it goes. studies of food markets consistently concur that demand for food is highly inelastic. it is also true that the proportion of income that developed world consumers pay for food is extraordinarily low by historical standards
however, standiford has focussed exclusively on the demand side of the market. he has neglected to consider the equally important question of how the quantity supplied changes in response to an increase in costs. it is elementary in economics to note that an increase in costs results in a contraction in supply. it is demonstrably true that, when costs rise, farmers respond by cutting the acreage planted.
the reason for this is straightforward. land is not fungible. whether a given acre will be planted depends on the productivity of the land and the cost of cultivation as well as the market price of the output. while it may make economic sense to plant marginal land at a relatively low cost per acre, when costs rise dramatically, it may cease making sense, even if the market price of the output rises commensurately.
imagine a farmer with 100 acres of highly productive land and 100 acres of marginal land. the better land yields 80 bu./acre of wheat for a given set of inputs (cost /acre). the marginal land yields only 40 with identical inputs. consider various combinations of input costs and market prices for wheat. play with the numbers a little and you will quickly discover that, at some overall input cost, planting the marginal land stops making sense despite the increase in the price of wheat. as a result, the acreage planted and the yield both diminish and marginal land lies fallow. less grain is grown, the price rises still higher due to the constriction of supply caused by the retirement of marginal land and our farmer is better off financially even though her yield is less. since a farmer is in business to make a profit, not to feed the hungry multitudes, it is inevitable that the total agricultural yield will be reduced if the costs rise significantly.
what does this mean for standiford's ultimate argument? i submit that the marginal land that is taken out of high tech cultivation when costs rise sharply, will still make sense to cultivate under a lower cost regime--i.e. less fuel and chemicals, more sweat. i can readily imagine a farmer deciding that it makes no sense to farm less productive land at high cost, but it does make sense to rent it to small growers who will work the land with their own labor rather than with machinery and chemicals. the most likely outcome, it seems to me, if the costs of mechanized farming keep rising, is that the traditional farmer will concentrate on working the most fertile land, and the marginal land will be worked by significant numbers of small operators who would rather grow their own than pay the greatly increased price of food or who grow their own in preference to hunger.
That is a more elegant way of restating what I said earlier. That ww II cropland that was turned into forest post-WW II was a likely candidate for small holder farming.
I also think that food demand is elastic in another direction. As the cost in health & life expectancy from (in part) corn based obesity becomes clearer to the population, there may be a reduction in demand for obesity and the foods that create it.
I suggest that Industrial AG is not well suited to change rapidly and efficiently as market demand changes. They have become ultra specialized and may lack the required flexibility.
Best Hopes for a Healthier Diet.
Alan
depends on your definition of wealth, I suppose.
A stack of rapidly inflating fiat paper money?
An investment in a hedge fund that is based on false promises and is devaluating by the day?
Or the capacity to provide for your loved ones no matter what happens on Wall Street?
You are not taking the whole picture into account. We are talking about a period of diminishing returns in every category on the chart.
For example;
Who is providing the seeds? How far away is the grower? Are we assuming that they are unaffected by PO and their costs will be static?
Who is doing the repairs? How far away from the farm are they? Where do they source their parts from?
Who are your laborers? How far do they have to travel to get to and from the farm? Will they accept payment in inflated dollars or will they ask for something more substantial?
Is the interest rate going to stay at a manageable level? Are the banks and credit unions going to be in a position to take risks on loans?
etc.
Hi Mash,
This is an excellent point,
re: "We are talking about a period of diminishing returns in every category on the chart."
And/or, disruptions of various sorts.
This seems to reinforce Airdale's point about all the "actors" that the farmer counts on.
re: "Is the interest rate going to stay at a manageable level? Are the banks and credit unions going to be in a position to take risks on loans?"
i.e., the function of credit and the intersection between the availability of credit and the production of some real product, agricultural product(s) being the topic under discussion.
Hey Stuart,
Enjoy your posts and appreciate your efforts. I am currently reading "Square Foot Gardening" by Mel Bartholomew so I found this post especially interesting. In the present instance though I would wonder whether we may not need to define terms more stringently. What exactly is "industrial agriculture", what is "reversibility". Personally, I don't find the idea of transition to more localized food production necessarily analogous to an exothermic reaction.
What is "industrial" agriculture? It was the industrial age already when Russia and China embarked on centralized planning of agricultural production. In both instances hunger or famine resulted.
I agree that in the current climate, and in one of increasing oil prices, "modern" for lack of a better word agriculture in the US will be much more profitable. However, as was so well pointed out in your post on fermentation of corn, which changed my risk/benefit assessment of biofuels, policy decisions may trump farm food productivity.
I would argue that instead of the notion of "reversibility" (and yes the back-to-nature motif is filled with emotional connotations) one considers the issue of distributed food production.
We are shackled with a consumer driven society dependent, for banks profits, upon debt. The Ford Expeditions and shopping malls ridiculed by Kunstler and others often decrease quality of life and are frequently not innately desired by consumers. However, a stable food supply is central to a stable society. I would argue that advances in, and I won't say technology, (boo!) as this term is also emotionally laden and bothers some people, advances in understanding of nature allow for the individual to, potentially, prosperously and generously provide for themselves.
Solar cells are perhaps, at most, a half years pay. What 18th century individual would not have given up a half years pay for a freezer and light bulbs.
Yes, individual or community farms may be less efficient than large operations, but the gain in resiliency and self-reliance is far more important. If, heaven forbid, food is unavailable, the worth of an inefficient local farm is inestimable. Nor am I certain that small local farming is inherently less efficient. Issues of transport, local knowledge, adaptability etc. On that note I have also come to the conclusion that (aside from some engineers who can't decide on inputs and outputs) EROEI is essentially whatever the poster wishes it to be.
In any event, to look for the silver lining in the current situation. I strongly feel the best we can do going forward is to cultivate more self-sufficient local communities and individuals both in energy and food. If one bases one's wealth from a platform of self-sufficiency, then one is more free and the chocolate or coffee from one's wealth is a luxury. If one has near zero control of their shelter, hearth, water and food supply, and pays monthly tribute for debt or land one is that much closer to a serf. As a disclaimer, I currently produce no food, though I've done a good job with the E & L in WTs ELP.