{"items": [{"author": "Brad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/116032343632043704302", "anchor": "gp-1385816408560", "service": "gp", "text": "You wrote \"While the butterflies make a huge annual migration, no individual butterfly makes it the whole way. Each butterfly lives only a few months as a flying adult, which means each one makes only about 1/4th of the migration.\"\n
\n
\nThat's not quite correct. It's correct for the journey north in spring, but the fourth generation of adult monarchs does actually fly all the way to Mexico to overwinter; these individuals live longer than the earlier generations. See\u00a0\nhttp://www.monarch-butterfly.com/index.html#Life-Cycle\n for example.\n
\n
\nThere are several reasons for the decline in monarchs; the milkweed connection isn't the only one; other factors include habitat destruction and climate change in the overwintering region.\n
\n
\nOne solution may be to optimize farmlands for multiple uses, which has in fact been a standard practice among many farmers in the past (e.g., planting \"living hedges\" that separate fields while providing food and shelter for wildlife). See\u00a0\nhttp://grist.org/food/of-monarchs-and-milkweeds-how-one-species-pest-is-anothers-repast/\n for a few thoughts on this in relation to monarchs.\n
\n
\nThe challenge is in providing an incentive to farmers to protect milkweed (or to provide an incentive to private landowners to plant it). In the monarchs' overwintering grounds, tourism provides an incentive for villagers to support reforestation efforts (see\u00a0\nhttp://www.monarchbutterflyfund.org/conservation-strategy\n). But it's harder to monetize monarchs and milkweed for farmers in North America. One approach might be a tax on soybeans that is used to fund milkweed plantation projects.", "timestamp": 1385816408}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1385843740059", "service": "gp", "text": "Brad, it seems like you've jumped into potential solutions without addressing Jeff's core question about tradeoffs.\n
\n
\nAnd to Jeff-- whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs, it's worth noting that the costs and benefits are experienced by different parties. There could be any number of reasons that doesn't matter (maybe the costs are tiny compared to the benefits, maybe you're happy trading off some good to some for more good to others, etc.) -- but also it could matter, depending on your sense of fairness, your sense of what the costs/benefits really are, etc.", "timestamp": 1385843740}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1385847926825", "service": "gp", "text": "@Brad\n\u00a0\"other factors include habitat destruction and climate change in the overwintering region\"\n
\n
\nThis paper argues that decreasing milkweed is the main cause:\u00a0\nhttp://www.amigaproject.eu/web/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Monarch-and-HT-crops-20122.pdf", "timestamp": 1385847926}, {"author": "Kevin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639418792492", "anchor": "fb-639418792492", "service": "fb", "text": "This post touches on some extremely complex issues, but I'll keep it really short and address two critical misconceptions.
First, industrial farming monopolizes enormous amounts of land; amounts so large that they are best described in terms of \"percentage of total land\" rather than in acres or square miles. Milkweed was not there BECAUSE OF the grace of \"inefficient\" farming practices; rather, milkweed was there DESPITE the massive-scale appropriation of the land for human use. For this reason, the \"geese and corn\" analogy is non-analogous, since milkweed is not (as implied) simply a byproduct of agricultural production. By contrast, corn is (ironically) totally incapable of feral reproduction, and cannot exist EXCEPT as a product of human agriculture.
Second, \"efficiency\" is a term that is used in this post in a reductionistic way that makes me uneasy. Calling a system inefficient when one single variable (whether it's money or commoditized human time) is not maximized for, is a gross oversimplification. As a contrast, industrial monoculture is the single least efficient agricultural system ever conceived of, ever, EVER in terms of food per acre. It is also inefficient in terms of product loss, pollution generated, fossil fuels consumed, micronutrient density of product (this can obviously be measured many different ways), and erosion generated. There are also quantifiable differences in the effects on human psychology of different kinds of work, and therefore the difference between sitting on a tractor with earplugs and working with a group in a field shouldn't be arbitrarily discounted, as it tends to be when measuring \"efficiency.\" Summarily, by most measurements, modern agriculture is embarassingly inefficient.
I'm not going to touch the ecosystemic threat posed by genetic engineering, the legal issues around roundup-ready crops and seed saving, the threats to consumer health, the political monopoly of agribusiness, or any other of the major problems around conventional agriculture or GE crops because I don't think they relate to the point of this post.", "timestamp": "1385849396"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639429286462", "anchor": "fb-639429286462", "service": "fb", "text": "@Kevin: \"industrial farming monopolizes enormous amounts of land; amounts so large that they are best described in terms of \"percentage of total land\" rather than in acres or square miles.\"
Agreed. The fraction of the midwest that's growing crops is very high.
\"milkweed was there DESPITE the massive-scale appropriation of the land for human use.\"
Let's say we looked into the historical composition of midwest fields and discovered that while current levels are lower than in the recent past they're actually much higher than historical levels. Maybe modern fields and roadways are better for them than whatever was there before humans. Would that affect how you thought of this?
(I don't know about historical levels, but I'm curious whether you see them as relevant.)
\"Calling a system inefficient when one single variable ... is not maximized for, is a gross oversimplification\"
While I might do that in other contexts, milkweed in fields is inefficient from the perspective of farming however you look at it. Whether you're weeding by hand, plowing weeds under, or spraying chemicals, weeds that don't contribute to growing food crowd out the plants you're trying to grow.
\"industrial monoculture is the single least efficient agricultural system ever conceived of, ever, EVER in terms of food per acre.\"
This seems really unlikely. Modern corn production is around 150 bushels per acre per year, and a bushel of corn is about 90k calories. Making the very rough assumption that people only need calories, that's 20 people fed per acre with corn. Estimates for traditional agriculture seem to be between 2 and 5 people per acre.
\"the difference between sitting on a tractor with earplugs and working with a group in a field shouldn't be arbitrarily discounted\"
On the other hand, modern agriculture has allowed us to move from a society where almost everyone works in agriculture to one where only a few percent of us need to do that. Freeing up people for other work has had tremendous positive effects, from medicine, to entertainment, to leisure time.", "timestamp": "1385854619"}, {"author": "Kevin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639431087852", "anchor": "fb-639431087852", "service": "fb", "text": "-I see historical milkweed populations as POTENTIALLY relevant. It's a complex natural system, though, so more relevant are historical monarch butterfly populations, since populations are affected by many, many factors other than food supply. My understanding is that monarch populations are down from historical levels, and that decreasing milkweed supply is suppressing their population further.
-\"Just a few of us need to do that\" is sentiment loaded with judgement. It is my view that we are not, as a whole, better off as a result of this and related shifts associated with our view of \"progress.\" I don't know of a way to support this view in a few paragraphs on facebook.
I'm going to have to leave for now, and come back later to research and discuss the idea that 2-5 people per acre is a historical level of food production.", "timestamp": "1385855503"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639431586852", "anchor": "fb-639431586852", "service": "fb", "text": "@Kevin: \"discuss the idea that 2-5 people per acre is a historical level of food production\"
I'd be really interested in what you can find about this. None of the sources I found were very good, though they were pretty consistent. Mayan production might be the most interesting comparison, as I think their population was basically limited by land available to grow corn.", "timestamp": "1385855860"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639457749422", "anchor": "fb-639457749422", "service": "fb", "text": "Sweet Tea Dorminy probably has useful data relevant to this discussion as a farmboy, historian, and latter of the former.", "timestamp": "1385869613"}, {"author": "Kevin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/639315145202?comment_id=639473877102", "anchor": "fb-639473877102", "service": "fb", "text": "I have to retract my statement that industrial monoculture is uncompetitive in terms of calories per acre. Apparently dumping all that fertilizer on it really does bring its numbers up to par.
It remains highly inefficient in all the other ways I mentioned, plus one I didn't mention, which is real dollar yield per cost including externalities. It is also a very fragile, unresilient system, susceptible to disturbance by all sorts of pests and natural calamities.
Irrelevant to this discussion but far more importantly, it remains unsustainable in the literal sense of being unable to be sustained. Attempts to sustain it will result in the obliteration of arable land through erosion and soil degradation and will ultimately lead to a decrease in food supply.", "timestamp": "1385874001"}]}