Changing our global approach to farming is the key to survival

Well that's the point. With climate changes especially rainfall pattern changes, exceptional droughts, topsoil erosion increasing due to stronger storms and sea level rise,, water scarcity, etc. we will have to rethink the entire global way we grow food and where we grow some foods. Water intensive crops in areas that are now hit with droughts will have to be retooled. Areas with more rain as well. This is something we should have planned for along with planning for migration of people out of areas that become uninhabitable. We have been spoiled to think we can have what we want whenever we want it. So this is not just about a global change in agriculture, but a change within ourselves. Can we change as we have to now? Can we kick our consumptive ways and would we to preserve this planet for the future?

"food security is laughable"

Well without it, you die.

.
i said it before
i'll say it again and again
population v. food production is at capacity right NOW, today

just how are you going to create stores of grain when you cannot produce enough in the first place?

china's drought on their wheat production had them buy off the international market for the first time
it drove up the price of wheat causing poor nations the bigger problem of feeding themselves

climate change is beginning to push the problem exponentially
population IS the subject

food security?

* you can have a look at creepy tomorrow by scientists extracting protein from human waste today
* GMO's have traction with population / production
* china's wealthy are leaving china so they can have more kids

what are YOU doing and have done about the REAL problem:
the number of peoples on earth

so
you can see where i find the notion of food security laughable

* i am from the counter-culture 60's
i did not reproduce
all the partners i have had have not had kids
i have been AWARE of the problem
and
i have engaged in the REAL problem solving : no kids

get it?

* if you don't get it
you sure as hell will real soon
and that "soon" is waaay too late
so
i laugh instead of cry
it's more fun...

%^%$#$ them all.

"Dr Herren blamed the lack of wider support for this model of food security partly on what he claimed was a misconception of what it represented.

“We need to dispel this idea that agroecology is a back-breaking, low-yielding process and that we want to go back to grandfather’s agriculture. Actually, agroecology has a lot of science in it and a lot of knowledge,” he said.

Dr Herren was dismissive of the concept of ‘sustainable intensification’, the alternative view of food security with food production at its heart, championed by the UK Government-commissioned Foresight report. He described it as ‘an excuse to sneak in GMOs and to continue with business as usual’.

“People think food security is only about producing more food, but we need to make sure we can nourish the world in the long-term and not for companies to profit in the short-term,” he said.

“We have shown if we start to invest in green agriculture - agroecology - we can produce better food, use less land, use less water, employ more people and have less deforestation. I think we are making some headway. It is very slow, but I won’t give up that easily. We are going somewhere.”"
____

Employing sustainable methods like agroecology where you can use less land and water with greater yield over the longterm while enriching the soil cuts down on the labor required and imputs used. Is it a perfect system? Nothing is perfect, but I also don't think it is ridiculous to talk of changing the world for the better. If people themselves would cut down on their consumption in supporting this corporate machine and their corn subsidies that do nothing but push biodiversity to the backburner crowding out the small scale farmers just to put high fructose corn syrup in all of our food, we could support more farmers who have otherwise had to go out of business as well as the biodiversity that keeps agriculture strong. And again, this isn't about oxen and plows, although I don't see anything wrong with them. But there are innovations in agriculture as well that never see the light of day again, because the fossil fuel industry owns it. I think we live in a time when our minds need to expand beyond business as usual in seeking to find a way to fuse the past with the future to get the best of both worlds.

I'm not saying that striving for a better agricultural system is wrong. I'm just saying that both you and Dr. Herren seem to be saying that agricultural is so easy, everyone should be doing it. The reality is, agricultural is hard, often frustrating, and not for everyone. People have been leaving the farm for as long as there have been other options. You aren't going to change that with some fancy talk.

"fancy talk?"

Agroecology is not fancy talk. It may actually wind up being what saves our soil (what we have left of it) in the end. Maybe we should just let it all go to hell and then see what people say when monoculture takes it over instead of trying to do something to save it. And again you are misreading this. No one said it was easy, but to overplay it isn't accurate either. I mean in this country it seems pulling one tiny weed out makes most people whine. When you look around the world however, that isn't the case.

Coming up with new names for farming, rather than finding ways to get farmers to buy into changing practices is fancy talk. Farming is about economics, it's about how farmers feed their families. Show how a new farming practice will improve the bottom line, and you're a lot further down the path of saving the planet than coming up with the term "agroecology" ever got you.

Further, the if you have a problem with fossil fuel derived fertilizers, the solution could also be to change the source of hydrogen. The ammonia production process used to be driven by hydrogen from electrolysis, and could be again if current breakthroughs in electrolysis catalysts are scaled up to production levels.

I agree. We can't heal ourselves unless we heal the Earth.

I think it's a mutual relationship.

It certainly is important . Thank you.

Yes, global warming is already affecting agriculture greatly and this industrial system that touts itself as our savior is failing us. I think many underestimate the power and ability of agroecology on a mass scale especially regarding yield and the effects giving food production back to farmers especially in developing countries can accomplish. And with the billions of people in this country alone who are in need of a job, agriculture is actually one job that could truly change the world. No one said it would be easy to accomplish, especially with the corporate chokehold on our seeds, but we as a species now have a choice to make. Either we start becoming part of the solution, stop our whining about not being able to do this or that and work to do it, or the lifestyles we lead and the way we lead them will be our end.

It will become a necessity to get off of this fossil fuel fertilizer monoculture merry-go-round as we continue to toxify this planet risking worldwide famine regardless of whether we grow our food horizontally or vertically. And actually, Manhattan is now one of the top cities for rooftop gardens. But as this article references we are talking about a paradigm global shift in our farming system as a whole. And while I understand that due to population, pollution and our propensity for being wasteful and apathetic about the consequences because we are humans, the day may come when we cannot grow our natural seeds in healthy soil with the real sun and rain falling down on them. I will consider that we truly have failed as a species if that day should ever come.

“We need to dispel this idea that agroecology is a back-breaking, low-yielding process and that we want to go back to grandfather’s agriculture. Actually, agroecology has a lot of science in it and a lot of knowledge,”

And like the deniers who still plant seeds of doubt about the reality of biodistress whose misinformation we must address, so too do we have to do so in dispelling the myths regarding yield and the ways of farming that fed this world for thousands of years before the birth of Monsanto. Nature can be very giving when you give back to her.

Thanks for your comment.

There are many ways it could happen vertical farming , algae farms , hydroponic farms , fish /hydroponic farms . People need jobs anyway . Those jobs are not coming back , besides , even check out stands are getting automated . There will be less jobs , no matter how you crack it . The horizon is much broader than commonly believed .

I would argue it's all good! I love your idea, it's brilliant and one way of the future for sure, my only critique is the time it would take to get it built, the crazy red tape of gov't, and the resistance at this point to build anything at all, etc. But I'm for it!

In the short term, outside of urban areas - when I see all the care that goes into growing a LAWN, I wonder - WTF? Couldn't a small part of this space put food on the table?

In upstate NY we lost some corn, but there's plenty still at every small farm around here as well as everything else - no huge losses. Until we go into an Ice Age or turn into a desert I wouldn't hesitate to grow veggies. But I wouldn't put a plot next to a creek...

It's too early to know what the landscape will look like if and when this weather pattern shows a pattern for the long term future. In the meantime thinking outside the box agri-business has put us all in is a great idea.

Native American farming is worth checking out - it uses really small plots, is easy to manage, uses the plants to support and nurture each other as well as the soil and is great for temperate climates.

there was a great idea I saw at the Buckminster fuller site, in detroit there is a project to grow food in tower like structures in old industrial and manufacturing buildings. i looked for it, but can't find it right now. But consider this, new york is fed now, where do you think from? Upstate, and new england, the mid west and the south, as are all the cities in the country. sustainable isn't the huge shift that hydrocarbon agribusiness would make you think and many in corporate farming are looking at some of the changes due to keeping costs down. the point is, we need to change our thinking and actions, that is the point of the story I think, not swallowing every idea hook line and sinker. This year I had trouble with green beans and cukes, tomatoe came on slow, so have all the fruit in the area. but we have it, lots of it, I grow enough tomatoes and butternut to eat it once a week, I grew eggplant realy good this year, so I have 15 jars of that. peppers not so good but our region is over run with the things. there is food out there, and food can be grown in a yard not 15' by 25'. I couldn't live off it alone, but with all my neighbors doing organic? I gave basil away, lettuce, carrots and beets, parsnips are great this year. I grew fingerlings, for 99 cents and water. those run 5 bucks a 8 oz package. I grew around 20 pounds and have a second crop. It wasn't hard at all. We are not kept from growing on our plots of land like in some countries. Even when one region is harmed there are other regions. we need more farmers, everyone should become a farmer in their small way.

My mom used to do it too. Big beautiful tasty tomatoes out of a window box. What a miracle. ;-). This like every other battle we see comes down to us against corporate domination of our food system. So you are correct. We have to say no to supporting a system that is depleting our soil, toxifyting and wasting our water and perpetuating the very poverty that keeps the developing world dependent on GM corn feed in sacks instead of them having food sovereignty. And thanks. I might make another appearance soon.;-)

Good rant. We've still got a beautiful global garden to tend, we better start tending it.

Thank you for this informative lecture .

You're welcome.