This Nearly Lost Ancient Grain Tradition Could Be the Future of Farming
A past global staple you've never heard of, maslins are poised for a comeback.
www.atlasobscura.com
The One-Straw Revolution is a great book that a Japanese farmer wrought about this very topic. I read it years ago. If memory serves correct, the flooding of rice paddies for example are used to remove pests and is not necessary using his approach (derived through years of experience) that increases bio-diversity and increases yields without pesticides.Mono culture crops only exist because of the profit motive. In the states, the practice is well over 100 years old. One of the biggest issues is pests. When you have a mono culture, only the bugs that like that food will multiply, oh and they will multiply. Then they pour gobs of insecticide on our food. Yum! It also depletes the soil of nutrients since that crop uses it all. Then Monsanto comes along trying to engineer the crop to be pest resistant. That's how we got GMOs.
It has been shown that poly culture crops are much more resistant to pests.
Polyculture Farming: methods, advantages, and disadvantages
Polyculture in agriculture is best defined as the practice of planting several kinds of crop species on the same piece of land and at the same time. Choosing togeopard.tech
Not just profit. Easier to plant and harvest. Easier to produce large quantities and feed lots of people, whatever the downsides.Mono culture crops only exist because of the profit motive.
It's why we have grain goods year-round. Proffit is the biproduct of a growing population. It's a convenient and historical fact!Not just profit. Easier to plant and harvest. Easier to produce large quantities and feed lots of people, whatever the downsides.
Crop rotation is the default of large scale farming here in Iowa. Most farmers around here have never done complete monoculture farming and many have quit because it is just too hard on the soil and too expensive in terms of herbicides and pesticides. --- Which by the way are becoming less and less effective.this is more rotation of crops then companion planting. But the same pre commercial farming idea.
Same here in Colorado. Polyculture tends to work best for a small town were every household get a share of the harvest. It's either feast or famine for everyone.Crop rotation is the default of large scale farming here in Iowa. Most farmers around here have never done complete monoculture farming and many have quit because it is just too hard on the soil and too expensive in terms of herbicides and pesticides. --- Which by the way are becoming less and less effective.
On the production side this example of traditional* grain planting will work for subsistence farming or in a situation where a huge mark up for "organically" grown products can be achieved. But at this time there I know of no examples where a family can make a 1st world income following that model with prices which allow the majority of the world to be fed.
*I'm not sure I buy this argument. I believe that archelogy would lean toward planting whatever grain works best in your situation about as soon as the idea of saving seeds and planting becomes wide spread. Growing different grains together sounds more like what you do when gathering than farming.
Absolutely.Crop rotation is the default of large scale farming here in Iowa. Most farmers around here have never done complete monoculture farming and many have quit because it is just too hard on the soil and too expensive in terms of herbicides and pesticides. --- Which by the way are becoming less and less effective.
On the production side this example of traditional* grain planting will work for subsistence farming or in a situation where a huge mark up for "organically" grown products can be achieved. But at this time I know of no examples where a family can make a 1st world income following that model with prices which allow the majority of the world to be fed.
*I'm not sure I buy this argument. I believe that archelogy would lean toward planting whatever grain works best in your situation about as soon as the idea of saving seeds and planting becomes wide spread. Growing different grains together sounds more like what you do when gathering than farming.
In Central and South America, there were large urban populations (eg, Aztecs I think) which were fed by exactly this method. Granted the "cities" were more spread-out than a modern industrial settlement. There is ample evidence for thisOne problem is that if you have a significant urban population, industrialised society, most of the population in non-agricultural occupations etc, then that society cannot be easily maintained purely by small-scale farming and locally-produced seasonal products. It is an unfortunate reality of the way that most of us live.
Wasn't a chunk of it growing types of maize that could be stored for long periods, having well built store houses and a good distribution system? I seem to remember something about their empire expanded on the back of their cropping and storage system - a lot of their neighbours when offered the carrot and stick option - be conquered or join us voluntarily hey look at our wonderful food system went for the latter. Their expansion was halted when they reached an area that was doing just fine for food thank you very much. Memories from a documentary.In Central and South America, there were large urban populations (eg, Aztecs I think) which were fed by exactly this method. Granted the "cities" were more spread-out than a modern industrial settlement. There is ample evidence for this
The key question is: How much land was needed to produce food for one person. I have no figures for that in that day and age. But I do know that in the early 1900's a farmer was said to produce food enough for 25 ish? people (and the crops they raised were very much like today's) in 1970 that figure was 73, and today it's 155.In Central and South America, there were large urban populations (eg, Aztecs I think) which were fed by exactly this method. Granted the "cities" were more spread-out than a modern industrial settlement. There is ample evidence for this
One problem is that if you have a significant urban population, industrialised society, most of the population in non-agricultural occupations etc, then that society cannot be easily maintained purely by small-scale farming and locally-produced seasonal products. It is an unfortunate reality of the way that most of us live.
I am not sure that the sort of farming you are thinking of can sustain megacities of 20 million people, or an overall population which is highly urbanised.Why did we shift into "small scale" farming? Am I getting that you don't believe it is possible to do poly culture farming on a large scale?
I am not a farmer. From the article: Crop rotation is only one possibility.
I should put it this way - What are the challenges facing poly culture farming on a large scale?
But that requires a lot of people who aren't farmers to be involved in the production of fertilisers, fuel/power, machinery, transport, global economy, blah blah, etc etc.The key question is: How much land was needed to produce food for one person. I have no figures for that in that day and age. But I do know that in the early 1900's a farmer was said to produce food enough for 25 ish? people (and the crops they raised were very much like today's) in 1970 that figure was 73, and today it's 155.
how many people does the average farmer feed - Google Search