>>The neolithic stone age agriculture I think is free or nearly free from
the
>problems you see. I haven't read this book yet, but it shurely was close to
>the wasanobu agriculture you praise.

As long the plow was not invented  and bio diversity respected ,i am sure
but as soon humans interfered with the soil ecology and started to favorise
a narrow range of plants, the downfall of fertilty started the neolithic
revolution created deserts ( around the mediterranean, in India ) YOu can
track and  follow the raises and falls of  the different antique
civilisations around the mediterranean Basin with the  Robbing and using up
of fertility of the land .Older is the civilisation more devastated and
desertified is the land .
The effect have not been so apparent in temperate climates ( but is very
obvious when one can compare with a  still wild temperate forest like the
remnants left in British colombia)
I have seen in India the devastation of the  land that was 40 years ago
still only inhabited by  tribes of HUnter -gatherers - primitive
agriculturists and now under the action of the plow and the saw by indian
colonialists from the plains.
In 40 years they transformed the place from a thick jungle supporting
elephants, tribal peoples  and tigers to an eroded drying out mountain.
The story have been repeted over and over again  all along history
everywhere.

Chemical agriculture is just the consequence of the abuse of the land that
happened during the last thousands of years. It just brought back a seeming
productivity that  had declined slowly over time . ( as Masanobu
demonstrated Nature yields are as high than the most productive yield of
chemical agriculture)
It is not going to last long because now even with chemicals it just don't
work anymore and surprisingly the peoples at the top of agronomy researches
look into the NO-till method . This movement is growing big time in NOrth
america

>No fertilizers, no waste.
>And still this way of life brought the biggest reduction of land space need
>(1000-1200 fold).
>Do we really need the last 4-folding from chemical agriculture?

Like i said chemical agriculture didn't and can't do better than Nature
yield.
The fertilisers and chemicals might not be the big problem TIlling is and by
compromising the soil ecology makes those chemicals more damaging than if
the soil web of life was fully active .

>I don't know which schools of organic production you know of.
>The farmer I got my numbers from is "naturland", one of the 4 leading in
>south germany. He's working without animals, the only fertilizer is his own
>compost and intermediate legumes.

Here they call it vegan agriculture excluding the use of manure   I  have
heard i think of all the schools.

>The only thing from outside is the diesel for the tractor.
>And it works for some 20 years unchanged now.

I am sure lot of fuel wasted for no gain.


>I've computed that the remaining agricultural soil is still about double as
>what would be needed to sustain it's population in 100% organic manner
(with
>the original yealds numbers from my farmer

with his way of farming Masanobu say one quarter of an acre is enough per
japanese familly on a TRaditional japanese diet.

). With grains.
>But not if 50% of the grains are fed to cattle in a house (90%waste).


Talking to a paleo crowd ,   i think not that many peoples on that list want
to feed grains to cattle or humans . And if some do i am with you to point
out the abheration. I personally prefer for many reasons  the diversity of
plants and animals in a grass field to the loneliness of one species of
grain either to feed humans and animals . The fertility of the land can be
more easely maintained when not tilled , diversifed and not overgrazed.
jean-claude