Meatless future: “We can choose between spinach and kale”

Massey University ecologist Dr Mike Joy (who says he should be called Dr Doom):

“It’s not a choice. We don’t have a choice. We can choose between spinach and kale, but not animals because we will all starve”

The Future of Food Symposium was recently held at the University of Auckland – Newsroom: A future where food is off the menu

The Future of Food Symposium held at the University of Auckland discussed the issues facing future food supply such as a declining amount of fossil fuels and ways we can ensure we can sustainably feed the world’s growing population.

An odd statement, we don’t generally eat fossil fuels.

Joy said New Zealand and the world are in dire straits. He believes the decline of fossil-fuel to make nitrogen fertiliser and population rise are on a collision course.

By the time Earth’s population reaches nine billion in 2050 we will be unable to feed ourselves.

Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser has increased agricultural productivity dramatically. Joy said the world has been on an “amazing binge of fossil fuels for a couple of hundred years”.

“Six billion people are fed through artificial nitrogen, you take that fossil fuel part of it away then you can only support two or three percent of the population using the food system we have at the moment.”

 

 

That’s an extreme drop in food production. I find it a bit hard to believe it would change that drastically.

He said the only way to change a future without enough food for all is to remove animals from our diets.

“Good land should be put into food for humans, rather than food for animals.”

To produce one gram of protein from beef, one square metre of land is required. To get one gram of protein from rice requires just .02 of a square metre of land.

But you get quite different nutrition from beef and rice. Why not cater for both?

Joy believes the era where people have a choice between being a vegetarian or an omnivore is ending.

“It’s not a choice. We don’t have a choice. We can choose between spinach and kale, but not animals because we will all starve,” said Joy.

Other solutions to avoid starvation included growing your own food or accessing community gardens, but these came with their own set of problems.

Does that include growing your own meat? Not in Dr Joy’s future.

However, legislatively ensuring a right to food is one approach to ensure people without a backyard won’t go hungry.

New Zealand is party to various international treaties which include a right to food but does not have domestic legislation explicitly including it.

I applaud Joy’s passion and positing for change, but academics who propose legislation to control what people eat are likely to meet with some resistance.

If the human population keeps increasing the world will struggle to cope with food supply, but only being able to sustain 2-3% of the current population – that’s a drop from 6 bilion to 1-200 million – will be a hard policy to sell.

Leave a comment

91 Comments

  1. Grimm

     /  April 21, 2018

    We don’t really have a problem here because of an abundance of natural gas to make fertilizer. More than enough for us and to profitably export quite a lot for decades.

    …oh wait.

    Reply
  2. There’s nothing in animal products that we need that we can’t get from plants.
    Why create an unnecessary victim?

    Reply
    • David

       /  April 21, 2018

      “Why create an unnecessary victim?”

      An unnecessary victim is unnecessary. The mass eradication of animals would be part of this policy.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  April 21, 2018

        Like the 44,000 cattle that are presently being culled to stem the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak in New Zealand, David? Are you up in arms about that?
        If livestock was phased out of New Zealand, natural mattrition and present practices would reduce their numbers quickly. Your “mass eradication” bellowing is pure, unadulterated scaremongering and clap-trap.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 21, 2018

          attrition

          Reply
        • David

           /  April 21, 2018

          ” Are you up in arms about that?”

          No mate, I’m not. It’s a simple fact of agriculture.

          “If livestock was phased out of New Zealand, natural mattrition and present practices would reduce their numbers quickly. Your “mass eradication” bellowing is pure, unadulterated scaremongering and clap-trap.”

          It’s a simple fact. A world without meat is a world that does not require any livestock. The moment they are no longer useful, they will be gone. Mass eradication is the only solution if you are going to convert all farmland to kale. Do you think there will be some kind of retirement home for 4-5 billion animals.

          Also, delightful irony in saying this is ‘pure….scaremongering and clap-trap’ given it’s the simple outcome of Dr Doom’s, ahem, scaremongering and clap-trap.

          Fun fact, Dr Doom’s mate is Mr Death. They could start a band….

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  April 21, 2018

            Nonsense, David – you know tens of thousands of cattle are “retired” every year in NZ – how do you justify that?

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 21, 2018

              “Nonsense, David – you know tens of thousands of cattle are “retired” every year in NZ – how do you justify that?”

              It causes me no concerns at all.

          • robertguyton

             /  April 21, 2018

            “A world without meat is a world that does not require any livestock.”
            A world without livestock can still provide meat to…hunters. Your thinking is…blunt, David. Open your mind.

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 21, 2018

              “A world without livestock can still provide meat to…hunters. Your thinking is…blunt, David. Open your mind.”

              You are the one without an open mind. What do you think happens to the price of this hunted meat when it;s the only source of meat? All that wildlife will be hunted out in about 10 seconds.

              Even the most basic high school economics would have given you some clue as to that outcome.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              Ten seconds to rid New Zealand of feral deer, possums, rabbits etc. David?
              You need to talk to DoC – your plan is BRILLIANT!!
              Get real, buddy.

            • David

               /  April 22, 2018

              “You need to talk to DoC – your plan is BRILLIANT!!
              Get real, buddy.”

              It’s simple, put a huge price on the meat and they will be gone. The economics are very simple.

              Of course, the incentive is then to start farming them, but that does just point out how silly Mr Joy’s idea really is.

          • robertguyton

             /  April 21, 2018

            David: you said: “Mass eradication is the only solution if you are going to convert all farmland to kale.”
            Bullsh*t x 100.
            Can you justify your claim? I say a staged programme of reduction, such as already happens, without the replenishment, would be possible; “Mass eradication” is clap-trap. Be honest.

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 21, 2018

              Robert, that is still mass eradication. Where there are now billions of animals, there will be none. That is what that plan is proposing.

              There might be a few cows left in zoo’s, but that’s it.

              Of course, that isn’t going to happen, there would be far too many people who would keep breading and producing, the profits would be too attractive.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              Sorry, David, I got bored by you illogical crap and am going to bed.

            • David

               /  April 22, 2018

              Robert, that really made chuckle. You are complaining about my illogical crap in a topic that believes that removing animals from the food chain is going to somehow work and that ‘

              “However, legislatively ensuring a right to food is one approach to ensure people without a backyard won’t go hungry.”

              A right to food is going to stop people starving? Very nutritious this right must be!

      • Actually vegans advocate for all animal agriculture to end and for all breeding to stop, with all current animals who were bred into the industry living out the rest of their lives in sanctuaries until they die out.

        Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  April 21, 2018

    Let them eat cake?
    I’ve seen 2 or 3 items on telly in the past few years on researchers making progress in their efforts to produce lab-grown meat. This could well become part of the solution. Meat’s still far & away the best & most easily-absorbed source of haem-iron, as I understand it.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  April 21, 2018

      Yes, but once one stops eating animal corpses the idea becomes nauseating. I always hated handling meat, and now can’t imagine wanting to cook a dead animal and eat it, as I can’t not think of it as that.

      There are so many things that can be made from vegetables that one doesn’t miss meat at all.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 21, 2018

        I see your anti-fan’s visiting. 🙄

        The only that comes near substituting for meat for me is mushrooms or fish. When I go without meat I miss the taste & texture, & I tend to still be hungry if I eat only fruit & vegetables.

        Do you eat fish, and eggs, Kitty?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  April 21, 2018

          Eggs, not fish (I really loathe the look of raw eggs and could live without them)

          I never intended to be a vegetarian, it just happened. My old man was Eastern Orthodox and they are meat-free at some times. I found how many yummy things can be made with veg; Alison Holst’s book is great and doesn’t assume that everyone has a kitchen stocked like a restaurant one or that they want to spend hours making a meal.

          I worked out for myself that pasta sauce is as good on lentils or red beans as on mince and butter chicken can be made with chickpeas (or other beans, but I buy chickpeas, red beans and 4 bean mix in bulk from The Warehouse) The sauce tastes the same.

          Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  April 21, 2018

    Mike Joy is a lunatic.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 21, 2018

      Idiotic comment.
      “Joy said New Zealand and the world are in dire straits. He believes the decline of fossil-fuel to make nitrogen fertiliser and population rise are on a collision course.”
      Makes complete sense.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  April 21, 2018

        What decline of fossil fuel? We’ve got hundreds of years of coal let alone methane hydrates.

        The guy is a raving lunatic, not a scientist.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 21, 2018

          EROI. Your slagging-off of Mike Joy is idiotic.
          “Mike Joy is a New Zealand freshwater ecologist and science communicator. He is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Science in Massey University’s Ecology Group, at the Palmerston North campus.

          Reply
          • Grimm

             /  April 21, 2018

            He’s a well known green political operative. Good for him. But let’s not pretend otherwise.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              “Universities New Zealand has presented Massey University academic Dr Mike Joy the inaugural Critic and Conscience of Society Award for drawing attention to water quality in our rivers, lakes and drinking water – and the impact of intensive agriculture.”

            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              Alan – I wouldn’t call anyone a lunatic – that’s your thing.
              No scientists should have to be subject to your kind of invective.
              You should be ashamed.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 21, 2018

            He’s a well-known lunatic.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              “Universities of New Zealand” didn’t think so.
              “Mike Joy (BSc, MSc 1st class hons, PhD in Ecology) is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Science at the Ecology group. He researches and teaches freshwater ecology, especially freshwater fish ecology and distribution, ecological modelling bioassessment and environmental science. He has and continues to supervise many Masters and PhD students doing research into freshwater ecology, with topics from native fish ecology to farmers’ attitudes to sustainability.”
              Chuck ya details up, Alan and we’ll see how qualified you are to call a professional like Mike Joy “a lunatic”.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              Sure, as soon as you explain how we are running out of fossil fuels.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              Oh, and he previously claimed NZ rivers had never been so polluted. Deluded idiot never saw what they were like when I was a kid and my father was monitoring pollution caused by untreated sewage, raw offal from freezing works and efluent from pulp and paper mills. But of course ignorance never stopped him opening his mouth.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              How are we “running out of fossil fuels”, Alan?
              If we can’t afford to extract them (EROI) we’ll “run out” alright.
              If we are prevented from extracting (and burning) them, because they are causing unacceptable harm to us all through their effect on the climate, we’ll “run out” of them, Alan.
              As to any further views that you might express about Mike Joy, I couldn’t care less, now, realising as I do, that you’ve nothing meaningful to say regarding Dr. Joy.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              You struggle to say anything meaningful about anything, Robert. So you agree we won’t run out of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future and Joy is talking crap as usual.

            • Griff

               /  April 21, 2018

              Yess Alan.
              The earth is making fossil fuels at a faster rate than we burn them.
              On planet nutcase .
              Back here in the real world it is called a finite resource.
              When we burn fossil fuel it is gone for ever.
              That means we will run out some day .

            • Dr Joy…”never saw what they were like when I was a kid and my father was monitoring pollution caused by untreated sewage, raw offal from freezing works and efluent from pulp and paper mills.”
              You and your dad know more about water degradation than Dr. Joy (BSc, MSc 1st class hons, PhD in Ecology) ?
              Really?
              You seem to believe that Dr. Joy is somehow unaware of point-source discharges such as you and your dad witnessed long ago, and unaware also of the non-point dischgarges that has become the new, more serious, less visible threat to water quality in New Zealand. Your boundless confidence in your own expertise leaves me…underwhelmed, Alan, as do your very poor manners.

            • David

               /  April 21, 2018

              “Mike Joy (BSc, MSc 1st class hons, PhD in Ecology”

              Where are his qualifications in farming technology? He is making predictions about the future of farming after all, and has no qualifications in that at all.

              I currently have 12 environmental scientist in my company, most with PhD’s. Given that trumps Mr Joy’s one PhD, doesn’t that mean we can win this call to authority hands down?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              What you don’t know would full many books, Robert. My father was the Government Analyst in Christchurch who did the first air and water pollution studies there. Responsible along with an engineer for the implementation of the first tertiary treatment plant for Chch to clean up the polluted estuary. Also the clean air acts to tackle the Chch smog problem. Served on the national air and water pollution council and helped clean up freezing works amd pulp mill discharges. Yes, he was a practical professional chemist who worked with engineers to find solutions. Not a bull-shitting self-promoting environmentalist.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              @Griff, we may or may not run out some day but at current rates it will not be in the foreseeable future. So best not b.s. about it.

            • Your father, Alan?
              How would you feel if someone called him a lunatic?
              Dr. Joy’s children could advise you on this).

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              I would laugh, Robert. Especially if it was you. I recall a defence lawyer telling me they hated cross-examining Dad when he was appearing to give forensic evidence for the prosecution because he was always meticulously prepared and cautious not to claim more than the evidence showed. He didn’t particularly trust the police either.

  5. robertguyton

     /  April 21, 2018

    “I applaud Joy’s passion and positing for change”, says Pete.
    Alan says, “this guy is a raving lunatic”.

    Reply
  6. JAB

     /  April 21, 2018

    He is making no sense. In NZ we can easily grow meat using no artificial nitrogen. In our temperate climate clover will fix nitrogen out of the air and supply the pasture.

    Growing vegetables however is completely nitrogen dependent – market gardening has the highest applications of nitrogen of any land use. Even organic vegetables still need nitrogen, which is supplied through animal manures.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 21, 2018

      JAB – we grow vegetables without the use of urea or any other synthetic nitrogen. Just as clover can fix nitrogen in pastures, so a range of leguminous annual and perennial vines, herbs, shrubs and trees can do the same for vegetables interplanted amongst the likes of lupin, vetch, and so on. Animal manures are not required, aside from that which arrives from the sky (guano).

      Reply
      • JAB

         /  April 21, 2018

        It might be possible to grow some vegetables like that, but it gives nothing like the quantities and yields of commercial market gardeners, and certainly not enough to supply vegetables to the teeming hordes of humans on the planet.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 21, 2018

          JAB – the whole “commercial market garden” system is unsuitable for the future and other approaches have to be taken. Same with agriculture; “Best Practice” is not good enough; those systems are not fit for purpose now, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said.

          Reply
          • David

             /  April 21, 2018

            Robert, what are these ‘other approaches’ exactly?

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 21, 2018

              That’s the very good question, David. This is, and I’m sure you’ll agree, not the forum to put those forward (Alan et al – rabid, hide-bound, deaf etc.) I have, though, great ideas 🙂

  7. robertguyton

     /  April 21, 2018

    The Future of Food Symposium held at the University of Auckland discussed the issues facing future food supply such as a declining amount of fossil fuels and ways we can ensure we can sustainably feed the world’s growing population.

    An odd statement, we don’t generally eat fossil fuels.

    Pete, “a declining amount of fossil fuels” is one of the issues we face with regard future food supply. The statement’s not at all odd.

    Reply
  8. David

     /  April 21, 2018

    “If the human population keeps increasing the world will struggle to cope with food supply, but only being able to sustain 2-3% of the current population – that’s a drop from 6 bilion to 1-200 million – will be a hard policy to sell.”

    Of course it’s a hard sell, that’s why they simply lie about it.

    Reply
  9. David

     /  April 21, 2018

    “By the time Earth’s population reaches nine billion in 2050 we will be unable to feed ourselves.”
    Just to add; Mr Joy is just the latest in carrying on in a honored tradition of being profoundly wrong that has been proven to be wrong for 220 years now and counting. Malthusian theory is one of the most consistently wrong ideas the world has ever seen, yet seems to attract new followers in numbers regardless of it’s foolishness.

    Reply
  10. Norman Grey

     /  April 21, 2018

    We Homo Sapiens are OMNIVORES and so there is no escaping from our “hunter, gatherer” origins. All of the ignorant pretentious commenters whose vegan/vegetarian diets etc and attempts to defy logic and history do not “have a leg to stand on!”
    That includes you, you idiot Robert Guyton!
    Not only that, my DNA – [and yours too will] shows a Neanderthal descendancy – mine 2.7.
    For hundreds of thousands of years our predecessors ate meat!
    So all of you sane and sensible people who wish to continue doing so, you are following the normal human requirement for sustenance and following the pattern of our ancestors.
    namron

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  April 21, 2018

      the world could be better off without so many….meatheads.

      Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 21, 2018

      Norman – have I, ever, proposed n exclusively vegetarian/vegan diet?
      If you can’t find evidence to support your over-heated claim, an apology would be appropriate.

      Reply
  11. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  April 21, 2018

    I have quite a bit of time for Dr Mike Joy… He is a good communicator of freshwater ecology to all age groups. He is not an ivory-tower scientist.
    However,as often happens with Scientists who venture out of their research field and become advocates for some cause, he seems to be overlooking a few variables.
    1. At present the World wastes between a third and half of its food production.
    (Better storage, food distribution, and less wastage of undesirable bits – means we could easily feed our current population)
    2. Inefficient use and distribution of water in arid countries has led to inefficient crop production
    Open irrigation systems (canals, channels etc) leads to massive evaporative losses.
    3. Some parts of the World are too cold for year-round outdoor crop production… animals are a reliable food source.

    (My qualifications: BSc, BSc hons (1st Class); Ph.D Plant Ecology)

    Reply
    • David

       /  April 21, 2018

      “However,as often happens with Scientists who venture out of their research field and become advocates for some cause,”

      Exactly. I’m told his waterway work is very good. That does not carry over to his predictions of the end of global livestock farming. It does make for some good PR for him though, perhaps he has a book coming out….

      “3. Some parts of the World are too cold for year-round outdoor crop production… animals are a reliable food source.”

      Yes, this is where the whole idea falls over. Very large areas that are used for grazing are simply never going to be suitable for crops. High country is an example as well. It does not take a great deal of knowledge on farming to know this.

      On food wastage, that is telling us that food is cheap. The more expensive food is, the lower the wastage will be. The wastage is a sign of the profound success of food production in the world.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  April 21, 2018

        @David – “The wastage is a sign of the profound success of food production in the world.”

        Gosh, David, that’s an enlightened idea …

        Does it translate to other ‘economic sectors’ and ‘industries’?

        The death and destruction of war is a sign of the profound success of weapons production in the world?

        The starvation in the Third World is a sign of the profound success of food production in the First World … and the profound failure of its distribution … ?

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 21, 2018

          “The starvation in the Third World is a sign of the profound success of food production in the First World”

          There is less starvation in the third world than at any other time in human history.

          “the profound failure of its distribution ”

          The most successful ways of distribution are not palatable to many third world governments. Venezuela being a recent example of this.

          Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  April 21, 2018

        “Some parts of the World are too cold for year-round outdoor crop production… animals are a reliable food source.”
        Where, David… where?

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 21, 2018

          “Where, David… where?”

          I did not make that statement, but you really don’t need to struggle too much to work out some locations.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 22, 2018

          I would have thought you lived close enough to the south island high country to have a clue about the answer, Robert, but evidently not.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  April 22, 2018

            Why, Alan, in God’s name should the South Island high country be considered suitable for producing food for humans? Is there nowhere farmers won’t leave be???

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 23, 2018

              Fortunately humans are more adaptable than you are, Robert. Otherwise you would not be here.

      • robertguyton

         /  April 21, 2018

        “Exactly. I’m told his waterway work is very good”
        Have
        you
        read
        his
        work?
        No??
        Why are you commenting then?????

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 21, 2018

          “Why are you commenting then??”

          Is it a requirement to have read his paper’s before commenting, despite his work having very little to do with the topic. It’s a big leap from eater way ecology to sustainability of the global farming industry in 2050.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 22, 2018

          He makes stupidly rash, unscientific and baseless claims to the media. I don’t have to read his work to know and criticise that.

          Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  April 21, 2018

      Also, as I understand it, Neanderthal-Humans (or Lobster-Neanderthal-Humans) living in advanced Western economies consume about twice as much food as they need for their sustenance …

      Combine that with us Nephropidae-Homo-Sapiens wasting a third to a half of our food production and we should collectively be okay for a while eh?

      Provided we ‘advanced’ Westerners are prepared to share our over-abundant food …

      Oh well … There goes that theory …

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 21, 2018

        Well, we do give several $million in aid to various international organisations & $6 million to the World Food Programme specifically. While sharing our overabundant food sounds very pious the logistics involved in getting any theoretical useable excess like restaurant leftovers to where they might be needed are too complex.

        Often the problem is not that food is not available where there are famines or starving poor. There is food, for those who can pay for it, & enough money to buy in more if the ruling & middle classes would spend it.

        The other problem is getting it through without it getting pilfered, seized, & sold by the various corrupt officials & warring bands in many of those countries in desperate need of food because of war, famine, overpopulation in desert areas.

        So – I’m interested, PZ, in exactly how you propose we “advanced Westerners” share our over-abundant food – with whom, & what food, & how does it get to where it’s needed in your vision?

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  April 21, 2018

          I dunno … I haven’t thought about that … Firstly, I suppose, requires a global mindset – which we seem to have very willingly developed regarding exploiting each other in capitalist ‘enterprises’ – recognizing that food wastage in the midst of starvation is a profound failure of humans to act ethically … to follow the categorical imperative of self-preservation … to “do unto others” …

          I’m not necessarily the details person … though I do have some ideas too lengthy to explain here …

          To improve our economic situation, our “balance of payments” or whatever you call it, why don’t we all try to import less … and export the same or more … ?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 21, 2018

            Ok. Work that through. Export more of what to who, & where? Who’s going to pay for it? Transport & production. It costs to produce & to transport. These questions need to be answered or nothing can happen but vague & pious gum-bashing.

            Import less? Of what? And who has to give up or cut back on what they currently want & buy? And how do you decide & persuade or ‘enforce’ the right ‘mindset’, and how long does it take – & this sounds like austerity politics & how popular are those these days?

            The reason the food surplus going to where it would be most needed that you propose doesn’t happen is that although nearly EVERYONE would like it to – there’s no shortage of people with a vision of how wonderful it would be who aren’t details persons – details persons realise it can’t actually work & they can’t figure out how to make it, given the issues I raised earlier.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 21, 2018

              There’s no shortage of people trying to get it there but many more in the target countries keen to prevent or intercept it. Most hunger is the result of stuffed up war and politics.

    • robertguyton

       /  April 21, 2018

      [Deleted]

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  April 22, 2018

        How do you know what Alan thinks?
        I’m sure he is capable of calling me a lunatic if he so wishes; there is no need for you to resort to such nastiness against me here.

        Places where Year-round outdoor crop cultivation is impossible, difficult, or too expensive include:
        Northern Canada, Alaska, Much of the Tibetan Plateau, Greenland, Siberia, Antarctica, High Mountain lands of Temperate countries.
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GB002108?scrollTo=references

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  April 22, 2018

          [Deleted, I’m not going to keep warning about attacks on other commenters.]

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 22, 2018

          I don’t recall Maggie making the kind of ridiculous claims that Joy habitually does. You can study ecology without being a lunatic. A scientist should always be careful and sceptical, not to claim more than the evidence shows.

          Reply
        • JAB

           /  April 22, 2018

          Absolutely correct Maggy. Also, there are many places where crop cultivation is impossible any time because of contour and soil type including 94.5% of NZ’s land area.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  April 22, 2018

            94.5%…yeah right!Produce your ..evidence.

            Reply
            • JAB

               /  April 23, 2018

              5.5% of NZ land mass is arable quality land. That’s why there is so much concern at the moment about it being paved over for urban sprawl.

            • Blazer

               /  April 23, 2018

              I said ..produce your ..evidence,not your opinion or best..guess.

          • robertguyton

             /  April 22, 2018

            ” there are many places where crop cultivation is impossible any time because of contour and soil type ”
            Then
            why
            try?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 22, 2018

              ??? Neither our high country farmers nor Scottish highlanders do. They use animals to access the vegetation that survives there. Do you not understand that yet?

        • robertguyton

           /  April 22, 2018

          “How do you know what Alan thinks?”
          How does Alan know what Mike Joy thinks?
          “I don’t have to read his work to know and criticise that.”

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s