Norman Bourlag on food crisis

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

Polycon

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Norman Bourlag on food crisis
annef Moderator	posted 06-06-2008 07:04 PM I so admire this man who's probably single handedly done more to save mankind than any other. Nice in WSJ IP: Logged
entropy Member	posted 06-06-2008 08:28 PM Brief reference to fertilizer but not much mention of energy. NB has been briefly discussed on debunkers in the past. This old article is from Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm " "His opponents may not know it, but Borlaug has long warned of the dangers of population growth. "In my Nobel lecture," Borlaug says, "I suggested we had until the year 2000 to tame the population monster, and then food shortages would take us under. Now I believe we have a little longer." [This message has been edited by entropy (edited 06-06-2008).] IP: Logged
LaneH Member	posted 06-06-2008 09:42 PM I think I approve of USAID. I have some friends who work for that organization. I am touch and go on 'aid' to other countries for a variety of reasons. Borlaug's efforts have been spectacular. Genetic modification, through whatever mechanism, mutation, breeding and flat out gene manipulation are the future for high yield crops. There are, IMHO, a number of non-good changes that the major agri-businesses are doing to plant stock. Mono-culture is bad. Creating a non-renewable mono-culture except through the big agros is very bad. The enviro-groups are as much to blame for that leap towards stoopid as the big agros are. When that mono crashes, it'll be huge - and it will crash. Hard. Fuels costs are not helping. Garden good /Fitz ------------------ lane h. can be reached at laneman@erols.com "Never let your mind remain so open that your brain falls out." IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 06-09-2008 10:02 AM I attended a talk by a couple of humanitarian missionaries that just returned from Cambodia. One of the programs they were working was simple improvements to rice culture. I was struck by how simple these are: No fancy fertilizers (locals can't afford), no fancy pesticides (locals can't afford), no labor intensive (too many locals farming already.) The essence seemed to be to plant rows of robust seedlings in a very lightly flooded paddy rather than the traditional rice farming approach of packing tiny cuttings into a deeply flooded patty. Requires far less labor and increases yields per acre by a factor of five. Other activities by these missionaries included teaching neonatal resuscitation techniques to midwives, building new wells, teaching basic hygiene to kids, providing dental services, and providing wheelchairs. Lots of mines still planted around Cambodia. In response to a question, the missionaries mentioned that their NGO's rice program is going to be shut down. The local government has decided it works so well that the government should be in charge, not NGOs. IP: Logged
Jeff Norman Moderator	posted 06-09-2008 10:21 AM Well, you know how it goes, an agricultural revolution spurs an industrial revolution which spurs a political revolution. We wouldn't want any of that now would we.[/sarcasm] IP: Logged
Casper Member	posted 06-09-2008 03:14 PM No mention of CO2 fertilization effect and the doomsday scenarios involved with taxing bonfires and holding one's breath to gain carbon credits? IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 06-17-2008 01:56 PM Here's a Link to an article on the new method of rice culture I mentioned. Apparently it's controversial. Perhaps I should look more closely at why the NGO is shutting down its participation -- maybe because it doesn't work as advertized? IP: Logged
WattKid Member	posted 06-17-2008 08:21 PM quote: Originally posted by KGB: Here's a Link to an article on the new method of rice culture I mentioned. Apparently it's controversial. Perhaps I should look more closely at why the NGO is shutting down its participation -- maybe because it doesn't work as advertized? Or perhaps, because it does, and it would put the NGO out of business. IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.