Yabby,

Just a small point. Since in agriculture the trace elements are not actually 'lost', but rearranged in combination with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (largely available from the atmosphere) during plant development - in its energy compounds of cellulose, sugars and starches - these trace elements, the Ca, Mo, K, Cu, Zn etc (even P), will remain in the trash and excreta produced. So it should be possible to 'recycle' these elements from produce used/consumed on a localised basis. The big problems start when we 'export' that produce, thereby limiting the scope for recycling.

Sure, the above is simplistic, but by full recycling of trash, refuse and excrement (and with use of legumes, nitrogen fixers) it should be possible to minimise the need to use Superphosphate and Potash? The aim being to restore 'balance' in the soil habitat and ecology, through application of selective minimal inputs.

Full recycling would of course necessitate diverting treated sewage from the cities to agricultural application. Not so easy to do, but may be possible - and at some point may become essential.

Maybe 'balanced' trade will one day have to take account of relative trace element balance - for as you indicate, agriculture is both an art and a science. Unless the oceans can be 'managed' so as to recycle our waste to produce fish as fertiliser for our soils, we will have to do a lot more terrestrial recycling.

In essence, mass export of agricultural produce could ultimately lock Africa into a vortex of ever-diminshing returns, and ever increasing dependance on synthesized fertilisers. Maybe one day the world will have to move to an extensively holistic permaculture model - when backs are really up against the wall.

Yabby,

You're the type of intelligent bloke with a good knowledge of biology and biodiversity who could lead the way on the question of unsustainable farming practice.

As to "advisers" - they're the ones who toodle along from the World Bank, WTO and IMF - they're the ones who are interested in pushing agribusiness on huge scales that shut out the peasants and herd them towards the cities...

Here are a few articles on the land grabs and dams that have altered the ground rules for peasants and subsistence farmers in Africa and India.
This is quite a long article (but worth reading) by Arandhati Roy on India's experience - 3,300 big dams built since independence.
http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html

Kenya and Ethiopia:
http://slowfood.com/international/food-for-thought/focus/140374/blind-development=7BSFA9?-session=query_session:3AA7E2B91412401646KLEBF58FDS

*As to "advisers" - they're the ones who toodle along from the World Bank, WTO and IMF*

Well no Poirot. I am talking about people trained in agronomy and
animal husbandry. It was good science which let farmers in a place
like Western Australia, develop the industry here. It was the
interaction between farmers and scientists, which slowly developed
the answers. Many of the answers were not black and white and took
time to develop, as agriculture is more complex than many people
acknowledge. Change one variable and that can affect many things
along the chain. etc. The problem is a human one. People focus on
one issue and are convinced that they are correct, as they only see it from that perspective. They ignore other unintended consequences,
which they have often overlooked. Farmers, scientists and
other Govt officials, suffer from the affliction.

I read your articles on dams and once again to me, this is really
associated with the ever growing problem of too many people. The
question of dams being good or bad is hardly black and white.

Without dams, there would be few cities, much of the world would starve etc. Yes, they affect many people when they are built.

If you destroyed say the Hoover dam in America, what do you think
would happen?

Yabby,

You oversimplify, as usual. It's the sheer scale of damming in the developing world that removes peasant's autonomy and their ability to feed themselves. Comparing WA and the Hoover Dam to the problems exacerbated by 'development" in India is disingenuous. Your constant refrain of "too many people" is not without merit, however, stripping peasants of their livelihoods and their ability to feed themselves is the issue.

The Mekong River is a case in point:

"Around 60 million people depend on the Mekong River for fish, irrigation, transportation and water. Known regionally as the "Mother of Waters", the Mekong supports one o the world's most diverse fisheries, second only to the Amazon. Those fisheries are a major source of protein for people living in the Mekong basin....If built, [proposed by the governments of Laos, Thailand and Cambodia to cascade 11 dams on the river's mainstream] the dams would severely damage the river's ecology and block major fish migration that ensures regional food supply to millions of people."

This is in addition to the Nam Theum 2 in Laos which has already displaced thousands, and was built primarily to supply ninety percent of the power generated to Thailand and Cambodia.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6344

*You oversimplify, as usual*

Well yes, Poirot. In 350 words, I cannot write an epistle, I can
simply highlight some main points about the big picture.

Of course dams will affect some people. But you cannot keep cramming
millions more people into third world countries, them wanting
electricty, water for irrigation, water for their cities etc and
not expect that. So I guess countries make decisions based on the
greater good, ie how many million people benefit, to the detriment
of how many thousands.

This is not as the Ethopians did, ie kick the peasants off their
land, in order to sell it to Saudi Arabia.

No doubt those affected will be upset, as it will mean a change in
lifestyle and methods and we all hate uncertainty. But you can actually grow fish and crustaceans in dams. You can grow great crops with irrigation. You can have tourism on the lakes etc. Its not all
bad news, its just about change and compensation.

None of these things would be an issue, if there were less people,
as then there would be plenty of land in relation to population.
What usually happens sadly, is that more forest and wildlife are
sacrificed, to make way for more people. So other species and biodiversity are the biggest losers.

Would you rather that they built coal fired power stations?

Conflict of interest about land use will keep growing, whilst we
keep breeding like rabbits.That is the reality

You're right, Yabby, that its complicated.

But those people on the Mekong didn't actually need electricity, albeit that they're enjoying their new houses and their electricity, but what's the point of doing that if they can no longer feed themselves - if they are left without livelihoods?

Many of those dams in India have merely served corporate monoculture - planting thirsty crops like cotton and sugar cane. Even golf courses have been built while the peasants have been deprived of water and driven off the land.

There's nothing wrong with people subsistence farming, leading healthy productive lives. There is something wrong with shanty towns springing up at the edges of cities, full of poverty-stricken itinerant farmers and their families...that's what's happening in India and will happen in Africa if it follows the same lead.