Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Feed Africa?
gbrumfiel writes "Africa has some of the poorest soil of anywhere on the earth, and over farming is only making matters worse. As the population grows, governments and NGOs must decide whether to subsidize chemical fertilizers like those used in the west or promote more sustainable agricultural practices. In Malawi, the government has decided to subsidize fertilizers, with impressive results. Corn yields have tripled since the subsidies were introduced. More sustainable practices, such as fertilizer trees can't deliver those kind of results in just a few years. The question is simple: does Africa follow the same, unsustainable road as the rest of the world? Or do they become a testing ground for potentially game-changing new techniques? OR is there a third path? Discuss."
They were the breadbasket of Africa in the 70s, until the blacks took over and chased all the white farmers out.
This is a stupid question. Why can't they do all 3? Did Africa recently shrink to the point where they can only try 1 type of farming? This is like asking what type of electrical generation the US should switch to!
"Move to where the food is."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Rainforests don't make food farmland long term by virtue of them being RAIN forrests, the amount of rain they get in a year quickly washes away the fertile topsoil once it's not being constantly being replenished by new leaf litter. as for the grasslands, they are grasses that are only there for the rainy season, I'd doubt that said land could maintain such a nutrient inefficient crop like corn long term.
Glaciers made the north fertile which the south largely lacked. They ground up mountains then dropped the minerals in the flatlands when the glaciers melted. Rock dust is an established way to make ground fertile but they don't line the pockets of oil companies so they are largely ignored. A combination of things like rock dust and kelp would make the ground fertile yet oddly aren't even discussed. The other factor is water which all the oil based fertilizers in the world won't change. One of the benefits to rock dust over oil based fertilizers is it actually restores lost minerals. In our society if it doesn't line the pockets of the rich we loose interest fast. Africa has large amounts of volcanic as well as other forms of rock that can be turned into fertilizer. It also has a massive amount of coastline that could be used to harvest kelp and other ocean based forms of fertilizer. There are a lot of fishermen yet why aren't they encouraged to use bi-catch, worthless fish, as fertilizer? Anything not sold is discarded when it could be fertilizing poor soil. All that is lacking is the will to use things that don't make the rich richer.
Here are a few articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockdust
http://www.rock-dust.co.za/
Interestingly, (and I know this is somewhat tangential to the point you were making), and surprisingly, rainforests often have quite poor soil.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I agree. I grew up in Africa. The problem is the governments, or rather dictators. For example, Zimbabwe (cough), COULD feed the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. It has superbly rich soil, enough water, good rainfall. Yet the silly West have to prop it up as its 10 million inmates are starving. "aid" money hardly ever reaches its intended audience - 99.99% gets gobbled up by government officials, bribes, etc. It is simple the way of Africa. They think differently, no matter how much BS the Greens and Liberals tell you - people in the 3rd world do NOT think or act like YOU.
Subsidising such activities is difficult, as it's hard to prevent the money to end up in the wrong hands (i.e. those with a lot of money already, and only eager to get more).
That's why talking about food is useless. It isn't about insufficient food, but poor distribution of food.
Learn to love Alaska