kyser_soze said:And I want to see 100 different apple varieties growing again.
For sure. I think the US is the repository of the widest variety of apples these days. England makes the finest apple juice I have ever had.
kyser_soze said:And I want to see 100 different apple varieties growing again.
kyser_soze said:Maybe we can't feed ourselves anymore with the land available, but FFS something has to be done to safeguard independent production of some foodstuffs.
ZWord said:I think we should build ecovillages, and equip them with useful things, and equip them with useful things like solar panels and wind turbines and space to grow organic vegetables, and give people who want to opt out of the rat race, and live on benefits the option of moving out of the cities to build the ecovillages, and live there.
Roadkill said:At some point I'll read the thread properly and make a serious contribution...![]()
He's got some rather interesting idea about how to tackle the implied problems too. For example, he suggests that we stop building on land that can be used for food or biodiversity, because once lost to concrete, it can take lifetimes to regenerate it, if you ever can at all. So for example, build on hillsides to leave fertile valleys, where they still exist, for agriculture. Or regenerate land already ruined, rather than building on land that hasn't been.If the population distribution is weighted too far towards small villages, then civilisation will never emerge. If the population distribution is weighted too far towards big cities, then the earth will go to ruin because the population isn't where it needs to be to take care of it
Bernie Gunther said:There's a bit near the beginning of architect Christopher Alexander's great book "A Pattern Language"...... If we want to picture a sustainable future, then it probably looks something like that. Gradually introducing patterns of life that minimise dependencies on harmful and unsustainable patterns like capitalism and industrial agriculture.
Alexander has been a big influence on me for some years. Very sharp and far-sighted guy.Trufflepig said:<snip> It can seem at times to me that rural land use in south Wales is in a battle between the architypal farmers and the so called alternative. The farmers - financially motivated (read straight-jacketed) into pesticide heavy farming and the "Alternative" crowd with their myths, superstitions and greenwash.
You can still get it free - if you click on 'Don't join' you simply get a guilt-inducing message pleading for cash. I assume that's because it's not out of copyright yet. You get sent an e-mail to start a download of a personalised PDF for "research purposes only".Bernie Gunther said:edited to add: bugger, he's changed the copyright system and you need to order the one I mentioned. Still plenty of good public domain stuff though.
I've wondered the same. I've got a sodding huge queue of stuff to be read nowkyser_soze said:Bernie, do you do anythign other than read stuff? Even by Urban standards you've read ludicously wide and deep...

Idaho said:We can feed ourselves many times over with the land available. The problem is that prices are so depressed that it simply isn't worth producing food unless you have large scale production and attract subsidies.
OK - 3 laws to change the country:
- I think we should introduce a 40 mile rule. Certain designated crops can't be transported commercially more than 40 miles - carrots, potatoes, cabbages, etc.
- There should also be a law that no food retailer can have more than 20 outlets and that loss-leading is illegal.
- All towns and cities must make prime central space available for daily fresh food markets run by independent traders.
one reason (possibly): there's an increasing demand for land. as prescott says we need houses, some of those are being built on agricultural land. while most agricultural land won't currently get planning permission, increasing amounts of it will open up to that possibility as settlement boundaries expand and local development frameworks incorporate the 500,000+ new houses planned over the next x number of years.davgraham said:There is something wrong with the overall picture being painted here - something we are all missing [me included]. If agriculutral income is depressed [which I accept it is] and is likely to stay being depressed unless some profitable use for agricultural land is found and other than for small niche markets, there isn't any, and EU subsidies are to be reduced [when and over what time scale?] - how come the price of agricultural land is not falling?
just wondering like
gra
totaladdict said:Total number of farms: (1995) 996 (2003) 1435
it's not that detailed: http://www.comdata.co.uk/idagr.htmlcitydreams said:How accurate are these figures? My family gave up egg farming because it had become uneconomic (and troublesome) for them. With EU funding they've converted to a chilli farm. Do they still count? And how many new farms are nothing more than a small field growing rocket?
EAFL is creating direct links between farmers and consumers. It is assisting farmers to change to more sustainable production & marketing systems, consumers to shop more locally and co-operatively for good food and retailers to buy local and organic direct from the producer.
chilango said:I´d like the gradual return of wild forests and large predators (wolves, wildcats and bears).
Brief thought: then there seems no way round that except a reduction in population, which can only be a very-long-term objective (and of course has implications for reproductive rights, immigration etc.).Bernie Gunther said:The tricky bit here is resources. A reasonable estimate for sustainability is 3ha of land per capita, at least 1/6 of it pretty good land.
That breaks down as 0.5 ha for food (this is the bit that needs to be good land), 1 ha for pasture, biodiversity and so on and about 1.5 ha for energy systems, which might well include a fair proportion of managed woodlands.
That would allow us to continue with approximately our present per capita energy use, food consumption and so on, but do so sustainably.
The UK has about 25m ha total, of which say 6.4m ha is classified as arable.
It has 60m people right now, with large inequalities in resource distribution.
Unsustainable energy use is what permits this situation to exist.
Pimentel. "Food, Energy & Society". You can also find the base figures here but without the full justification. I know one can get better numbers given different assumptions. Pimentel's assumptions are sort of "business as usual only sustainable"parallelepipete said:Brief thought: then there seems no way round that except a reduction in population, which can only be a very-long-term objective (and of course has implications for reproductive rights, immigration etc.).
BTW, where do the figures for productivity/ha come from?
Thanks for the link Bernie. Re. population, I realise the drawbacks. I was just pondering on the fact that post-green revolution, there's not much scope for increasing sustainable food energy production/ha unless the UK goes almost completely vegetarian, which seems similarly problematic (though ethically less troubling).Bernie Gunther said:Pimentel. "Food, Energy & Society". You can also find the base figures here but without the full justification. I know one can get better numbers given different assumptions. Pimentel's assumptions are sort of "business as usual only sustainable"
I'm very dubious about focussing on population though.