25,343,888,556 + Mouths to feed everyday. How can farmers do it without chemicals? Any ideas?

reply to post by Misterlondon

I didnt realize my mistake there on the people. I thought I included 7 Billion. Sorry. However my point of this post is that food has to be grow for all of these animals that we raise for food. So while we are eating crops ourselves we also have to feed the animals we eat or use with the crops that we grow. That is a lot of food. It is my personal belief that if the food could be grown without chemicals it would be better for all of us so I thought I would ask for insight into this.

I am not certain exactly how much land space is required to feed each mouth, but have heard of couples fulfilling all their needs with half an acre. Sunlight, water, soil conditions and plant varieties all make a difference. Permaculture, composting, organic farming and industrial production are all looking for answers and trying new things.

The farming struggle with pesticides and herbicides has been a long one. The largest increases in yields has been with machinery which allows 1 farmer to do the work that would have taken 1000's. With advances in nanotechnology and robotics continuing I can see small metal armies tending to the crops, doing the weeding and removing any detrimental pests from the ecosystem.

reply to post by kwakakev




We can do this today, easily.

We just have to remove the corporate interest from our diet.

Vertical Farming could be an option. I personally like that its environmentally friendly, we won't have to cut down precious forest and we wont be spreading pesticides into waterways or causing erosion etc. It also allows us to increase food production and protects our crops from weather, we can do it all organically using sunlight. It is also a more efficient use of water which will become more scarce in the near future. And you could grow crops in the city so no need for transportation if fossil fuels ran out.

Originally posted by godWhisperer
i know this likely won't be a popular position here on ats but check out this link to see how producing meat is an unbelievable waste of water and other resources.

I understand what you are saying, but there is going to be lots of water and other resources used no matter what.

Even if the whole world switched to a vegetarian diet. You need water for the crops, oil and gas to harvest the crops. Oil and gas to transport them across the world etc....

reply to post by kwakakev

Indeed. Many, if not most items in the supermarket cost 10 joules of petrochemical energy (fertiliser, transport, storage, etc) for every joule of food energy they contain. Not exactly a self-sustaining practice.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
I'm sorry but hose calculations are complete nonsense, for many reasons..

The simple fact is the amount of food that is wasted daily is phenomenal. There is more than enough food to go around, if it was managed correctly.. But money and greed stand in the way.

I agree completely. We also need to take into account all the food that is eaten for pleasure, rather than to provide the body what it needs. We would be much healthier if we only ate what we needed also.

“humans live on one quarter of what they eat; on the other three quarters lives their doctor.” - inscription found on an Egyptian pyramid.

reply to post by candcantiques


Food wastage in the USA alone is actually quite staggering not to mention the Americans are in fact the most overweight population gorging themselves to oblivian. Canada, UK and Australia are right behind, also gorging themselves like pigs. It's not just the fat, sugar and sodium but also the amount of food they consume.

I'm sure the amount of food waste in the USA alone for a whole year would feed all of Africa for 5 years.

So it's not really the amount of mouths to feed, it's the fact that what the average American consumes in one day can feed 3 Africans (in some cases more).

25.3 billion? What calculator are you using?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


thank you for checking out my link! that information is available at many other sites, too.

candcantiques, i am not trying to derail or "censor" your thread. if you check that link i posted earlier you will see that it pertains precisely to your OP.

here's an example:

Pounds of corn and soy required to produce just one pound of pork: nearly 7

reply to post by tkwasny

Good that you mentioned Diatomaceous Earth.
Used flea killer in pets usually along with (minus the crystalline silicate type for use in pools...), can cut up the shell layer of a flea as well. Though, I suggest use around the home-bed mattress(in the case of bedbug prevention), pet beds, furniture, baseboards, carpet, as opposed to actually putting it on your pets... or even yourself because it can be irritating to the skin and lungs especially-wear a mask when applying and of course wash hands/change clothing after use. Also, I don't suggest it as use for a wormer, there's many safer alternatives such as Pyrantel Pamoate, and some claimed natural remedies(that paralyze the parasites as opposed to shredding them to even affecting the intestinal tract).


I looked to the past myself, originally when thinking of "what would farmers do without chemicals?"...Diatomaceous Earth came to mind.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by godWhisperer
i know this likely won't be a popular position here on ats but check out this link to see how producing meat is an unbelievable waste of water and other resources.

I understand what you are saying, but there is going to be lots of water and other resources used no matter what.

Even if the whole world switched to a vegetarian diet. You need water for the crops, oil and gas to harvest the crops. Oil and gas to transport them across the world etc....

certainly you are correct that lots of water and resources are used to produce food, however what i am saying is that it is extremely wasteful to produce meat.
if the whole world went to a vegetarian diet then we'd have seven times more corn and soy, per the example i gave in my last post. it also requires more water, space, et al, to make meat.
and i don't mean to push any agenda, i welcome the discussion here. i'm just saying this seems to make sense to me. the link i posted cites credible references, inlcuding time magazine.
thanks, guys. best to you.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Beat me to it. Thank you.

Another way. The future is sustainable.

Get rid of crap like Wall Street and the fed reserve to start. Put the bankers to work farming. Give all the government owned land back to the citizens of the country. It's not about it being possible. That's easy. It's about convenience. People with power don't want to be bothered with providing for their own at their own labors.

reply to post by staple


Yeah, high intensity LED grows are becoming the way of the future.

Using the Omega Garden I linked on the previous page and high intensity ( orange & reds) you can produce 25 pounds of food per machine, per growing cycle. And you can cut that growing cycle by 3/4's if you use 4 hour lighting cycles instead of 12's or 8's.

Very cool stuff.

~Keeper