PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

gardening
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Preparations
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lurkalot



Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Using my comprhensive school maths which may be simplistic and nieve I see it such. Modern agriculture has something like 5+ predominately oil based calories in for one food calorie out and I think I've seen figures upto 15 to 1 . Presumably farming is nearer 1:1 and presumably slightly less than one in one out to allow for non productive babies and the like and it seems "relatively" easy to increase yields to produce a surplus as has been done over much of our history .
However , em linked to a BBC report in another thread that showed soft fruit producers struggling to get enough pickers so how we would get enough people to switch jobs to work in food production in the rain and cold rather than sitting in a warm dry office for probably more money would seem to me a bigger question as to whether small scale intensive gardening is more or less productive than large scale intensive farming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6735
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lurkalot wrote:
Using my comprhensive school maths which may be simplistic and nieve I see it such. Modern agriculture has something like 5+ predominately oil based calories in for one food calorie out and I think I've seen figures upto 15 to 1 . Presumably farming is nearer 1:1 and presumably slightly less than one in one out to allow for non productive babies and the like and it seems "relatively" easy to increase yields to produce a surplus as has been done over much of our history .
However , em linked to a BBC report in another thread that showed soft fruit producers struggling to get enough pickers so how we would get enough people to switch jobs to work in food production in the rain and cold rather than sitting in a warm dry office for probably more money would seem to me a bigger question as to whether small scale intensive gardening is more or less productive than large scale intensive farming.
Again, the use of language gives away your bias. A lack of British workers in uk fields is not due to a reluctance to having to work in the "rain and cold". It is due to such jobs being short term, with all of the problems with social security benefits that implies, and not paying enough to cover bills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Lurkalot



Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 231

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't trying to imply a bias as such and do agree with your assessment but money aside I also feel that from experience many people feel that this sort of work is beneath them. I personally make a decent enough living tending gardens for people who frankly can't be bothered with the manual labour side of it , some won't even do something as simple as deadheading a rose let alone hoeing a field of cabbages.
But that aside it would take someone smarter than I to figure out how to get farm workers paid higher wages to give them financial security while at the same time still allowing their produce to be competitive . Low wages in all jobs tend to focus people's attention towards getting the best value for their money that they can and if that means they buy the cheapest food they can then that is fully understandable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11046
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of it comes down to the ludicrous nature of Globalisation. Globalisation means the globalisation of wages, i.e. the lowering of wages of the workers to the lowest level in the world while executive salaries all chase the highest income level.

This is completely unsustainable as the rising executive salaries mean that the workers can no longer afford to live in a house as they have all been bought up by executives looking for an investment for all their spare money. This leads to rising housing costs, both to purchase and rent. (Ring any bells?) Food costs also rise as the costs of property in which to manufacture and sell that produce rise. The cost of farm land also rises as excess executive salaries find that as a home for investment income and increase the base cost of food production.

Eventually the base of any economy, the people who actually spend most of their money to live, find they cannot afford to live comfortably in the "rich" nations of the world and then comes revolution. Come the inevitable revolution all changes of course.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14525
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said everyone. We really should pay more for the food that's grown/harvested by others - most people have been conned into thinking food should be 'cheap'. It's brainwashing at its most effective. Why people who grow/harvest food should not be paid a living wage makes no sense whatsoever.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14525
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
I don't know how one would measure the "subsidy" of climate change which is derived from automobile use and I expect it is a tax on the farmers not a subsidy.


??
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5203
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
I don't know how one would measure the "subsidy" of climate change which is derived from automobile use and I expect it is a tax on the farmers not a subsidy.


??

Climate change is usually depicted as reducing farm yields either through drought of crop damaging storms so if you accept that view it is reducing the profitability of farming so it is taxing them not subsidizing them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6735
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No it's not. It is simply the cost of industrial farming no longer being subsidized anymore by those costs being off shored. The costs are now having to be be paid like overdue payments on an overdraft.

Despite hydrocarbon fueled, industrial-scale farming having (temporarily) indicated otherwise, there aint no such thing as a free lunch. Literally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14525
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
I don't know how one would measure the "subsidy" of climate change which is derived from automobile use and I expect it is a tax on the farmers not a subsidy.


??

Climate change is usually depicted as reducing farm yields either through drought of crop damaging storms so if you accept that view it is reducing the profitability of farming so it is taxing them not subsidizing them.


Now that really is stretching the spin to breaking point, vt. A highly American POV, well done.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5203
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
I don't know how one would measure the "subsidy" of climate change which is derived from automobile use and I expect it is a tax on the farmers not a subsidy.


??

Climate change is usually depicted as reducing farm yields either through drought of crop damaging storms so if you accept that view it is reducing the profitability of farming so it is taxing them not subsidizing them.


Now that really is stretching the spin to breaking point, vt. A highly American POV, well done.

Rather simple actually. Money in = subsidy , money out = a tax.
How do you spin climate change into being a subsidy??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Preparations All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group