Prayuth says NCPO will not continue rice-pledging scheme

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted content had been altered with font changes has been removed as well as the replies. Other off topic posts and replies have been removed as well.

[shadmo63]

Agreed. I didn't mean you lied, I just meant you presented the data without telling the whole story, which is a common criticism when presenting statistics. Your comparing of 7.5 years of data v 6.5 months of data as if they are equal - is my point. Jayjayjayjay would have posted about 135 posts ON AVERAGE over a 6.5 month period, v TVGerrys 1258. That's 830% more. Now let me ask you, who is the most prolific? (Sorry, I'm an engineer and studying to be a maths teacher)

[northernjohn]

I would hope not! The whole scam was a money pit by the Shins and their cronies. You can help the farmers but not like this.

And you are the expert on Agricultural subsidies. Since your such a prolific poster on TV, I would hope you have a significant contribution as to how they can help farmers other that the rather pathetic comment above. Maybe 6 months ago it would have been a fair comment to point out such a point. Given the passing of events, I really think your posts are just vendictive rant and hold zero contribution to a real discusion.

So you figure two wrongs will make a right?

Then proceed to add nothing to the conversation.

[northernjohn]

Plant Durian trees., -Years ago I could get the same quantity for 30 baht---now in a carton 200 baht. but minimum wage has gone up. or a Lime orchard ??

last year I paid 70 baht for a small lime tree and already was in fruit. now my trees are in fruit again and the 8 trees have 10 limes on each. so this year that's 800 baht.

The leaves make really good anti mozzie protection, and also flavouring for fish dishes. they need little care except small pruning here and there.

I believe (means i don't know) that durian trees need about 25 years before they really produce a lot of fruit.With 220 rai there would be a massive theft problem with durian or limes. 3 years ago we were offered 27 million Baht for 100 rai which is our biggest field in one unit. A Chinese/Thai industrialist from Bangkok offered this only if several neighbouring fields could be bought as well.Not only did my wife refuse to sell but all the other farmers refused as well,they are all biting themselves in the butt today. Nobody see's a future in farming anymore,the farmers children with the ability to study are,like my step daughter,going to university and are turning their backs on farming,even the less well endowed are going to work in factories in Rayong etc they won't be back, the problem of rice prices and subsidies may well solve themselves with the demise of the farming communities. Hardly matters,we can buy our rice from Cambodia or Vietnam,India whatever.

Getting off topic and almost worth a thread.

I have noticed in my own area that hardly anyone under age 45 is involved in farming. A whole generation has been lost from the land and the effects will be need to be dealt with over the next 10 years and onwards.

Most of the rice farmers locally seem to have their own network and never got involved in the pledging scheme.

This farming thing is not what it looks like.

Majority of farmers (not large rice farm paddies) go to their small land areas mainly in off the beaten tack down a dirt road to their land. Usually the have a chicken or two and a dog there to guard the small farm hut.

He will plant his (Sticky rice) for his own consumption and family, using it up as needed from the small rice house, any surplus he can sell for extra.

This is typical of the small farmer.

All this other scheme business is mainly in the interest of the minority of larger farms/millers/store.

Normally if the scheme is halted it will hardly affect the mini man. He will always provide for his family, and near be self sufficient as poss.

What you say may have been true in the past.

How ever with the rise in cost for fertilizer and what not can he still do it?

[thaimat]

The best way to cut costs and increase production is to get the farmers off of petrochemicals. Teach them about growing organically, which is sustainable, economically sensible, and would get them off their very expensive addiction to petrochemicals. A small side benefit would be cleaner lands, water, and foods not loaded with toxins, which reduce health costs. Sustainable farming techniques are the only logical way to grow, anything else is fiscally insane, medically homicidal, and only serves to support chemical companies and their distributors, and the the pharmaceutical/health industries.

[thaimat]

very informative posts. The biggest problem for the rural farmer is that petrochemical farming is not sustainable. That means every year he must buy more and more petrochemicals to have any decent yields/profits. So he cannot compete with the big agricompanies, who can live off of a few baht/rai profit. Natural, sustainable methods, on the other hand, allow the farmer not to spend his hard earned baht on petrochemicals, instead allow him to invest in the healthy future of his land, which makes for ever increasing yields, faster yield times, and clean healthy foods. Sustainable farming is simply sensible economics.

[Daniel Boon]

The best way to cut costs and increase production is to get the farmers off of petrochemicals. Teach them about growing organically, which is sustainable, economically sensible, and would get them off their very expensive addiction to petrochemicals. A small side benefit would be cleaner lands, water, and foods not loaded with toxins, which reduce health costs. Sustainable farming techniques are the only logical way to grow, anything else is fiscally insane, medically homicidal, and only serves to support chemical companies and their distributors, and the the pharmaceutical/health industries.

A tick next to your post would be a disservice ... hopefully more (who may be able to do something about it) will read it again ...

Research will show a systematic approach by petro-chemical companies.

[ the USA leads the world in various such practices, such as 'offering guidance' to improve crop production (failure the world over; particularly the Philippines), GM foods (even the Chinese and starving Africans are rejecting) and the making of holding seed stock unlawful in occupied Iraq ...]

Just prior to the collapse of the USSR, farmers in Cuba were the highest users of chemical pesticides and fertilizers; now, organic farming is the norm.

Thailand is a great country, with great people and 'going back to the future' will help them economically (less spent on chemicals and fertilizers) and improve health and increase overseas demand for their more nutritious, healthy rice as well as other crops ...

[tim armstrong]

and tour business acumen lies where?

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

"Whether another corrupt political party will offer it as a hugely expensive vote-buying scheme is beyond my control."

Why is it beyond his control? He claims that he will reform/transform Thailand before there are any elections, and that Thai's do not yet have the "discipline" to participate in a Democracy. When his job is done everything will be perfect, just like the last ~ 12 times.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

[billd766]

The Kubota 2 wheel tractor complete with trailer and accessories does indeed come in around 80,000 baht depending on engine size and hp. It is a very versatile machine and can be seen in many places unattended just pumping water while the farmer is elsewhere doing other things.

The average medium tractor, usually once again Kubota or Yanmar is around 350 to 400,000 baht and is as versatile as the Kubota tok tok but in different ways. It is easier to plough with and normally has a dozer blade at the front but is not as useful for pumping paddy water though a small tok tok engine on a frame can be used but as a stand alone that is 30 to 40,000 baht. A smaller gasoline engine can be used but needs refuelling every couple of hours.

A good condition Ford 6610 used heavy tractor used to be 5 to 600,000 baht but there are a lot for sale and not so many buyers nowadays. Virtually bomb proof and last almost forever with plenty of spares available and plenty of Somchais who can fix them but not a "sexy" as the Kubota/Yanmar models.

Back in the old days of buffalos farmers used to get natural fertiliser for free but buffalos are rarely used anymore and are also expensive.

Edited June 15, 2014 by billd766

[Fat Haggis]

The best way to cut costs and increase production is to get the farmers off of petrochemicals. Teach them about growing organically, which is sustainable, economically sensible, and would get them off their very expensive addiction to petrochemicals. A small side benefit would be cleaner lands, water, and foods not loaded with toxins, which reduce health costs. Sustainable farming techniques are the only logical way to grow, anything else is fiscally insane, medically homicidal, and only serves to support chemical companies and their distributors, and the the pharmaceutical/health industries.

Educating their mindset is also paramount, as right now, the use of these petrochemicals is to produce more, in a shorter space of time, therefore making him more money. The Rice farmers who mass produce for export need to understand they're going to take some big financial hits in the coming years between no big money subsidies from the Government, and the simple economics of suppy and demand.

The Junta/Interim Government also need to shift the current stockpile after they've completed their corruption and graft investigations, it's going to be a tough coupl of years for these farmers that's for sure.

[ginjag]

This farming thing is not what it looks like.

Majority of farmers (not large rice farm paddies) go to their small land areas mainly in off the beaten tack down a dirt road to their land. Usually the have a chicken or two and a dog there to guard the small farm hut.

He will plant his (Sticky rice) for his own consumption and family, using it up as needed from the small rice house, any surplus he can sell for extra.

This is typical of the small farmer.

All this other scheme business is mainly in the interest of the minority of larger farms/millers/store.

Normally if the scheme is halted it will hardly affect the mini man. He will always provide for his family, and near be self sufficient as poss.

What you say may have been true in the past.

How ever with the rise in cost for fertilizer and what not can he still do it?

Family members that sleep pm, could plant and grow their own veg and fruit, have chickens fenced in -collect eggs- keep ducks- maintain their properties better instead of waiting it to rot. buy some paint.

So many Thais could do these things but I am afraid they are not taught by elder persons how to do--and laziness is another cause.

Even in the UK my family had nothing 8 of us, 6 kids council house with a bit of land we all gardened fed chickens, painted, decorated, sew and darned.

we were not lazy, we had hand me down clothes.

Much more could be done in rural life than just saying we work hard in the fields.

[thaimat]

and tour business acumen lies where?

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

Edited June 15, 2014 by thaimat

[Fat Haggis]

This farming thing is not what it looks like.

Majority of farmers (not large rice farm paddies) go to their small land areas mainly in off the beaten tack down a dirt road to their land. Usually the have a chicken or two and a dog there to guard the small farm hut.

He will plant his (Sticky rice) for his own consumption and family, using it up as needed from the small rice house, any surplus he can sell for extra.

This is typical of the small farmer.

All this other scheme business is mainly in the interest of the minority of larger farms/millers/store.

Normally if the scheme is halted it will hardly affect the mini man. He will always provide for his family, and near be self sufficient as poss.

What you say may have been true in the past.

How ever with the rise in cost for fertilizer and what not can he still do it?

Family members that sleep pm, could plant and grow their own veg and fruit, have chickens fenced in -collect eggs- keep ducks- maintain their properties better instead of waiting it to rot. buy some paint.

So many Thais could do these things but I am afraid they are not taught by elder persons how to do--and laziness is another cause.

Even in the UK my family had nothing 8 of us, 6 kids council house with a bit of land we all gardened fed chickens, painted, decorated, sew and darned.

we were not lazy, we had hand me down clothes.

Much more could be done in rural life than just saying we work hard in the fields.

Great post that differentiates between the "Can Do's and Won't Do's"

[shadmo63]

and tour business acumen lies where?

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

You guys make it all sound so simplistic and easy. "Thailand could quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly." People have been studying how to increase yields forever, even the King in Chitralada Palace has a garden where he has done his own studies. These things are improved incrementally over long periods of time, like 1.5% per annum, unless there is a scientific breakthrough - eg. a new high yield strain is developed. Thai farmers especially older ones, which are the majority now, are set in their ways and slow to take up new methods, or even try new crops. There is no simple fix. Now with the massive increase in rice exports from India especially the market is saturated and prices have fallen. Thailand with its stockpiles of old and rotting rice has done itself no favours in the export market place.

The failed western model - where? Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land. Food production on the planet is at an all time high. To the point that western countries throw away a third of all the food they purchase. Most of it just going out of date or bad before being eaten. We rarely hear of famines these days except in North Korea and occasionally in the odd African country.

Growing rice is also quite a bit different to growing grain crops your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help.

Is Thailands rice/farmer problem due to poor farming methods and unsustainable practices?

Or is it just a massive political cockup by the Shins and bad market forces?

Whatever, it's certainly going to help speed up the rural to urban migration off the land.

I have been reading a bit about growing rice. A couple of interesting facts. 1. Rice plants feed the roots with air/oxygen hence being able to grow in flooded environments, and 2. Rice plants are also Nitrogen fixers, like legumes, hence less need for quality soils and fallow periods.

[thaimat]

You guys make it all sound so simplistic and easy. "Thailand could quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly." People have been studying how to increase yields forever, even the King in Chitralada Palace has a garden where he has done his own studies. These things are improved incrementally over long periods of time, like 1.5% per annum, unless there is a scientific breakthrough - eg. a new high yield strain is developed. Thai farmers especially older ones, which are the majority now, are set in their ways and slow to take up new methods, or even try new crops. There is no simple fix. Now with the massive increase in rice exports from India especially the market is saturated and prices have fallen. Thailand with its stockpiles of old and rotting rice has done itself no favours in the export market place.

The failed western model - where? Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land. Food production on the planet is at an all time high. To the point that western countries throw away a third of all the food they purchase. Most of it just going out of date or bad before being eaten. We rarely hear of famines these days except in North Korea and occasionally in the odd African country.

Growing rice is also quite a bit different to growing grain crops your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help.

Is Thailands rice/farmer problem due to poor farming methods and unsustainable practices?

Or is it just a massive political cockup by the Shins and bad market forces?

Whatever, it's certainly going to help speed up the rural to urban migration off the land.

I have been reading a bit about growing rice. A couple of interesting facts. 1. Rice plants feed the roots with air/oxygen hence being able to grow in flooded environments, and 2. Rice plants are also Nitrogen fixers, like legumes, hence less need for quality soils and fallow periods.

For someone with (obviously), no knowledge of the latest sustainable agriculture methods, for you to say that "your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help" is the height of hubris. To defend the western practices of growing food loaded with toxins, and it's subsequent poisoning of the environment, and the addictions of the farms there to petrochemicals by saying "Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land" are points made without any facts or merit.

Clearly, there is no understanding shown of what the term "sustainable" means, and it's long term benefits.

[shadmo63]

You guys make it all sound so simplistic and easy. "Thailand could quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly." People have been studying how to increase yields forever, even the King in Chitralada Palace has a garden where he has done his own studies. These things are improved incrementally over long periods of time, like 1.5% per annum, unless there is a scientific breakthrough - eg. a new high yield strain is developed. Thai farmers especially older ones, which are the majority now, are set in their ways and slow to take up new methods, or even try new crops. There is no simple fix. Now with the massive increase in rice exports from India especially the market is saturated and prices have fallen. Thailand with its stockpiles of old and rotting rice has done itself no favours in the export market place.

The failed western model - where? Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land. Food production on the planet is at an all time high. To the point that western countries throw away a third of all the food they purchase. Most of it just going out of date or bad before being eaten. We rarely hear of famines these days except in North Korea and occasionally in the odd African country.

Growing rice is also quite a bit different to growing grain crops your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help.

Is Thailands rice/farmer problem due to poor farming methods and unsustainable practices?

Or is it just a massive political cockup by the Shins and bad market forces?

Whatever, it's certainly going to help speed up the rural to urban migration off the land.

I have been reading a bit about growing rice. A couple of interesting facts. 1. Rice plants feed the roots with air/oxygen hence being able to grow in flooded environments, and 2. Rice plants are also Nitrogen fixers, like legumes, hence less need for quality soils and fallow periods.

For someone with (obviously), no knowledge of the latest sustainable agriculture methods, for you to say that "your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help" is the height of hubris. To defend the western practices of growing food loaded with toxins, and it's subsequent poisoning of the environment, and the addictions of the farms there to petrochemicals by saying "Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land" are points made without any facts or merit.

Clearly, there is no understanding shown of what the term "sustainable" means, and it's long term benefits.

I wait with baited breath for Thailand to quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. And I look forward to seeing your methods, which I'd like you to elaborate on thaimat, being put into practice in the very near future. Thailand needs you now.

Food loaded with toxins; poisoning of the environment; addictions to petrochemicals - just emotion laden cliches spat out by city bound greenies. Or are they issues at the forefront of every struggling farmers mind?

What farmer anywhere in the world doesn't understand what sustainable means, and it's long term benefits?

What a shallow and simplistic view of complex matters. The height of hubris?

[thaimat]

You guys make it all sound so simplistic and easy. "Thailand could quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly." People have been studying how to increase yields forever, even the King in Chitralada Palace has a garden where he has done his own studies. These things are improved incrementally over long periods of time, like 1.5% per annum, unless there is a scientific breakthrough - eg. a new high yield strain is developed. Thai farmers especially older ones, which are the majority now, are set in their ways and slow to take up new methods, or even try new crops. There is no simple fix. Now with the massive increase in rice exports from India especially the market is saturated and prices have fallen. Thailand with its stockpiles of old and rotting rice has done itself no favours in the export market place.

The failed western model - where? Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land. Food production on the planet is at an all time high. To the point that western countries throw away a third of all the food they purchase. Most of it just going out of date or bad before being eaten. We rarely hear of famines these days except in North Korea and occasionally in the odd African country.

Growing rice is also quite a bit different to growing grain crops your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help.

Is Thailands rice/farmer problem due to poor farming methods and unsustainable practices?

Or is it just a massive political cockup by the Shins and bad market forces?

Whatever, it's certainly going to help speed up the rural to urban migration off the land.

I have been reading a bit about growing rice. A couple of interesting facts. 1. Rice plants feed the roots with air/oxygen hence being able to grow in flooded environments, and 2. Rice plants are also Nitrogen fixers, like legumes, hence less need for quality soils and fallow periods.

For someone with (obviously), no knowledge of the latest sustainable agriculture methods, for you to say that "your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help" is the height of hubris. To defend the western practices of growing food loaded with toxins, and it's subsequent poisoning of the environment, and the addictions of the farms there to petrochemicals by saying "Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land" are points made without any facts or merit.

Clearly, there is no understanding shown of what the term "sustainable" means, and it's long term benefits.

I wait with baited breath for Thailand to quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. And I look forward to seeing your methods, which I'd like you to elaborate on thaimat, being put into practice in the very near future. Thailand needs you now.

Food loaded with toxins; poisoning of the environment; addictions to petrochemicals - just emotion laden cliches spat out by city bound greenies. Or are they issues at the forefront of every struggling farmers mind?

What farmer anywhere in the world doesn't understand what sustainable means, and it's long term benefits?

What a shallow and simplistic view of complex matters. The height of hubris?

Since I have an aquaponics operation in place, ( to the best of my knowledge, the only one of it's kind in Thailand), as well as vermiculture and 100% organic operations, I practice what I preach. I have met many farmers, ag experts here over the years, and a tiny percentage seemed to grasp the concept of sustainable. Farming is hardly a complex matter, to anyone even slightly intelligent. It is simply a matter of proper, healthy growing media, proper nutrition, proper watering, and proper pest control. Anyone that says otherwise has an agenda, usually one that includes the sales of petrochemicals.

You think that "Food loaded with toxins; poisoning of the environment; addictions to petrochemicals" are only "emotion laden cliches"? They are absolute facts, they are the sad norm of farming here, (as well as most parts of the world.)

"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery". ~Harold Wilson

[shadmo63]

Good for you, good luck with your enterprise. Unfortunately for the average Thai farmer day to day survival interferes with his wishes (if he has any) for a cleaner and greener world. They do not have the luxury to experiment or fail; a (an environmental) conscience is for those who can afford it. Personally I have nothing against your ideas as long term goals. I just don't see them in any way solving the problem for Thai rice farmers in the short or medium term. What's more important to the Thai farmer is how to survive the fallout of this mess over the next few years. Thailand's previously efficient export system, reputation and market share has been ruined and there's a glut of rice in the market since India lifted its export embargo in 2011. The pain will continue for some time to come.

[jayjayjayjay]

and tour business acumen lies where?

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

I love fluffy sweet powder coated posts like this. Where in the world do you come from saying that western farming systems are non-sustainable! Proof please. "when you must have petrochemicals" errrr, where do superphosphate come from, they are from islands of bird shit, not petrochemicals, unless are you are referring to tractors needing it to plough and harvest. So does that mean the millions of tones yearly of rice, wheat, barley and corn that feed 6 billion people already is a failed system... sorry I see a lot of BS here!

And you want to give more and more money to the Kings Projects. They function perfectly fine as they are. Throwing more money at them is not necessary and I have visited over 30 of them country wide. Sustainable farming is not rocket science, but if 2 people taking care of 5 rai for the purpose of feeding 2 adults plus 3 children is sustainable. they sorry, 5 of the 6 billion people will go hungry very quickly. I have harvested 1000's of tons of wheat, barley and beans in my life, enough for me, but I have feed 1000's of others. So explain to me sustainability in your fairy world of perfection. And don't start on aquaponics,,, lovely idea, but get your head out of the clouds. You have already used the word sustainable farming. Aquaponics requires far more input per output. I suggest you learn a little about such systems before waving a flag to high.

[jayjayjayjay]

You guys make it all sound so simplistic and easy. "Thailand could quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly." People have been studying how to increase yields forever, even the King in Chitralada Palace has a garden where he has done his own studies. These things are improved incrementally over long periods of time, like 1.5% per annum, unless there is a scientific breakthrough - eg. a new high yield strain is developed. Thai farmers especially older ones, which are the majority now, are set in their ways and slow to take up new methods, or even try new crops. There is no simple fix. Now with the massive increase in rice exports from India especially the market is saturated and prices have fallen. Thailand with its stockpiles of old and rotting rice has done itself no favours in the export market place.

The failed western model - where? Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land. Food production on the planet is at an all time high. To the point that western countries throw away a third of all the food they purchase. Most of it just going out of date or bad before being eaten. We rarely hear of famines these days except in North Korea and occasionally in the odd African country.

Growing rice is also quite a bit different to growing grain crops your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help.

Is Thailands rice/farmer problem due to poor farming methods and unsustainable practices?

Or is it just a massive political cockup by the Shins and bad market forces?

Whatever, it's certainly going to help speed up the rural to urban migration off the land.

I have been reading a bit about growing rice. A couple of interesting facts. 1. Rice plants feed the roots with air/oxygen hence being able to grow in flooded environments, and 2. Rice plants are also Nitrogen fixers, like legumes, hence less need for quality soils and fallow periods.

For someone with (obviously), no knowledge of the latest sustainable agriculture methods, for you to say that "your ideas on the science of sustainable farming methods don't necessarily help" is the height of hubris. To defend the western practices of growing food loaded with toxins, and it's subsequent poisoning of the environment, and the addictions of the farms there to petrochemicals by saying "Modern western farmers take excellent care of their land" are points made without any facts or merit.

Clearly, there is no understanding shown of what the term "sustainable" means, and it's long term benefits.

I wait with baited breath for Thailand to quickly turn around its unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. And I look forward to seeing your methods, which I'd like you to elaborate on thaimat, being put into practice in the very near future. Thailand needs you now.

Food loaded with toxins; poisoning of the environment; addictions to petrochemicals - just emotion laden cliches spat out by city bound greenies. Or are they issues at the forefront of every struggling farmers mind?

What farmer anywhere in the world doesn't understand what sustainable means, and it's long term benefits?

What a shallow and simplistic view of complex matters. The height of hubris?

Since I have an aquaponics operation in place, ( to the best of my knowledge, the only one of it's kind in Thailand), as well as vermiculture and 100% organic operations, I practice what I preach. I have met many farmers, ag experts here over the years, and a tiny percentage seemed to grasp the concept of sustainable. Farming is hardly a complex matter, to anyone even slightly intelligent. It is simply a matter of proper, healthy growing media, proper nutrition, proper watering, and proper pest control. Anyone that says otherwise has an agenda, usually one that includes the sales of petrochemicals.

You think that "Food loaded with toxins; poisoning of the environment; addictions to petrochemicals" are only "emotion laden cliches"? They are absolute facts, they are the sad norm of farming here, (as well as most parts of the world.)

"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery". ~Harold Wilson

I am not the least interested in your aquaponics system. I ask only one question. How many people do you provide a full daily complete meal for and at what price? Tell me your total overheads per output volume?

[thaimat]

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

I love fluffy sweet powder coated posts like this. Where in the world do you come from saying that western farming systems are non-sustainable! Proof please. "when you must have petrochemicals" errrr, where do superphosphate come from, they are from islands of bird shit, not petrochemicals, unless are you are referring to tractors needing it to plough and harvest. So does that mean the millions of tones yearly of rice, wheat, barley and corn that feed 6 billion people already is a failed system... sorry I see a lot of BS here!

And you want to give more and more money to the Kings Projects. They function perfectly fine as they are. Throwing more money at them is not necessary and I have visited over 30 of them country wide. Sustainable farming is not rocket science, but if 2 people taking care of 5 rai for the purpose of feeding 2 adults plus 3 children is sustainable. they sorry, 5 of the 6 billion people will go hungry very quickly. I have harvested 1000's of tons of wheat, barley and beans in my life, enough for me, but I have feed 1000's of others. So explain to me sustainability in your fairy world of perfection. And don't start on aquaponics,,, lovely idea, but get your head out of the clouds. You have already used the word sustainable farming. Aquaponics requires far more input per output. I suggest you learn a little about such systems before waving a flag to high.

There are intelligent discussions, where information is gladly traded between people interested in learning, then there are vitriol spewing trollers, self proclaimed experts on everything and anything, with closed minds, bad tempers, and no real interest in either freely exchanging information, nor learning about anything that goes against what they are so sure is "gospel"!

[tim armstrong]

Farming is not all science, in Thailand or anywhere else. It might be a highly efficient large business, that uses every new technology to get a better yield and more profits, but it might also be the old boy who farms in a certain way, because his father did it like that, and 'everyone will always need rice won't they'. I think changing the mindset is just as important as improving production methods, and making farming more sustainable. Probably 90% of farmers here don't know where their rice goes, and have never investigated changing demands, or the growing competition from other countries. Yes there will always be a demand for rice, but China, Vietnam, and India may not export more, but they produce way more than Thailand.

[shadmo63]

Farming is not all science, in Thailand or anywhere else. It might be a highly efficient large business, that uses every new technology to get a better yield and more profits, but it might also be the old boy who farms in a certain way, because his father did it like that, and 'everyone will always need rice won't they'. I think changing the mindset is just as important as improving production methods, and making farming more sustainable. Probably 90% of farmers here don't know where their rice goes, and have never investigated changing demands, or the growing competition from other countries. Yes there will always be a demand for rice, but China, Vietnam, and India may not export more, but they produce way more than Thailand.

Thailand has recently dropped from first to third behind India and Vietnam, after holding top spot for thirty odd years, with a 35% drop in export volume from 2010. The reason is simple.......the rice pledging scheme.

China is currently a net rice importer.

[jayjayjayjay]

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

I love fluffy sweet powder coated posts like this. Where in the world do you come from saying that western farming systems are non-sustainable! Proof please. "when you must have petrochemicals" errrr, where do superphosphate come from, they are from islands of bird shit, not petrochemicals, unless are you are referring to tractors needing it to plough and harvest. So does that mean the millions of tones yearly of rice, wheat, barley and corn that feed 6 billion people already is a failed system... sorry I see a lot of BS here!

And you want to give more and more money to the Kings Projects. They function perfectly fine as they are. Throwing more money at them is not necessary and I have visited over 30 of them country wide. Sustainable farming is not rocket science, but if 2 people taking care of 5 rai for the purpose of feeding 2 adults plus 3 children is sustainable. they sorry, 5 of the 6 billion people will go hungry very quickly. I have harvested 1000's of tons of wheat, barley and beans in my life, enough for me, but I have feed 1000's of others. So explain to me sustainability in your fairy world of perfection. And don't start on aquaponics,,, lovely idea, but get your head out of the clouds. You have already used the word sustainable farming. Aquaponics requires far more input per output. I suggest you learn a little about such systems before waving a flag to high.

There are intelligent discussions, where information is gladly traded between people interested in learning, then there are vitriol spewing trollers, self proclaimed experts on everything and anything, with closed minds, bad tempers, and no real interest in either freely exchanging information, nor learning about anything that goes against what they are so sure is "gospel"!

There are also those that make broad statements as fact which are driven by personal desire to sell ones invested passion. Those global views are not supported by fact or science. Unfortunately you belong to that group thinking your the worlds only saviour. Well, good luck in your mission.

[thaimat]

You are not going to lower production costs overnight without a total re-haul of the entire rice farming 'business'.

And producing more of something, at a loss, is not any way to run a business.

In the short-term I might argue that it would be better to produce less, and offer incentives to growers to either not grow rice, for a season or two. Longer term, increased productivity will lead to fewer jobs, so you're going to need to create some sort of social safety net for those displaced.

now they need to start smart thinking

So Thai farmers need to start thinking smart? This is an incredibly simplistic view, perhaps even more simplistic than herr General might spout off.

Most of the costs (seed, fertilizer, water, harvest, milling, storage, transport) are fixed per rai, there aren't a lot of variables save labor.

Its not simplistic at all, and no the costs are not fixed. The variety of rice, how much fertiliser, water, and herbicides are all variables. The regional differences also contribute as some varieties grow better than others in some provinces. It makes sense for those who can to grow more jasmine rice, as its not grown at a loss. But for me the big change has to be in marketing. The system has way too many middlemen, which eventually filters back to the production costs.

Its also about attitude. Many farmers still have the same size of paddy they had 10 years ago. But then they used a small long nose tractor to do the work. Not sure but maybe they cost 80-100,000. But now there is a Kubota infestation sweeping the land. So when Lek sees his neighbour with a brand new orange machine, he has to have one too, because it will make him more efficient. But, the Kubota costs many times more than his old tractor, and doesn't really increase the yield, just makes life easier. So together with 'must have' better fertiliser, the costs have spiralled, but he can still only get two or maybe 3 crops per year. As myself and others have said before on this forum, farmers in Thailand are not that different from farmers elsewhere. They know a lot about production, but not so much about economics and marketing.

When you have a problem, the best solution is always to identify the problem, and fix if permanently. Thailand has the same problem found the world over-a non-sustainable farming scheme. When you must have petrochemicals in order to grow, yet not only does the continued purchase of said chemicals eat way into your profit, the price of these chemicals continues to rise, regardless of the selling price of your crops, and the chemicals themselves degrade your soil, meaning you will need to buy an ever increasing amount just to get the same yields. The idea of yearly throwing more money at your farming problems, but not solving them, is absurd. Especially since there is a sane, financially sound, permanently sustainable alternative.

Which offers a healthier, environmentally safe future for Thailand-cars, or rice, as it's leading export? So why not take a fraction of the monies wasted on the scams/schemes from the past, (rice-pledging, 1 tablet, et al), and give it to the Department of Agriculture, and The King's Project, to be spent on devising and implementing only 100% sustainable farming methods? Sustainable farming isn't rocket science, and given the improvements made in the last generation, to methods used successfully for thousands of years, plus our better understanding of crop nutritional needs, Thailand could quickly turn around it's unprofitable farming techniques, very quickly. Hell, the worlds foremost authority on aquaponics, a PHDer in aquaculture lives right here in Thailand!

Following the failed western model, where you pollute your water table, continually destroy your environment, only to lose money anyway, makes little sense.

I love fluffy sweet powder coated posts like this. Where in the world do you come from saying that western farming systems are non-sustainable! Proof please. "when you must have petrochemicals" errrr, where do superphosphate come from, they are from islands of bird shit, not petrochemicals, unless are you are referring to tractors needing it to plough and harvest. So does that mean the millions of tones yearly of rice, wheat, barley and corn that feed 6 billion people already is a failed system... sorry I see a lot of BS here!

And you want to give more and more money to the Kings Projects. They function perfectly fine as they are. Throwing more money at them is not necessary and I have visited over 30 of them country wide. Sustainable farming is not rocket science, but if 2 people taking care of 5 rai for the purpose of feeding 2 adults plus 3 children is sustainable. they sorry, 5 of the 6 billion people will go hungry very quickly. I have harvested 1000's of tons of wheat, barley and beans in my life, enough for me, but I have feed 1000's of others. So explain to me sustainability in your fairy world of perfection. And don't start on aquaponics,,, lovely idea, but get your head out of the clouds. You have already used the word sustainable farming. Aquaponics requires far more input per output. I suggest you learn a little about such systems before waving a flag to high.

There are intelligent discussions, where information is gladly traded between people interested in learning, then there are vitriol spewing trollers, self proclaimed experts on everything and anything, with closed minds, bad tempers, and no real interest in either freely exchanging information, nor learning about anything that goes against what they are so sure is "gospel"!

There are also those that make broad statements as fact which are driven by personal desire to sell ones invested passion. Those global views are not supported by fact or science. Unfortunately you belong to that group thinking your the worlds only saviour. Well, good luck in your mission.

And then there are those who, without any knowledge of a science, show their ignorance by making claims unsupported by any facts or personal experience whatsoever, to try to refute that science, for no other reason than to be the contrary grumpy old trolls that they repeatedly and publicly prove themselves to be. Since I have done volunteer work, (which means I do not get paid, and sell nothing), in other countries setting up sustainable farming and aquaponics systems, where output both exceeds input, and yields are superior and mature quicker than unsustainable, petrochemical farming schemes, your statement shows you completely off the mark, once again.

[jayjayjayjay]

~SNIP~

There are intelligent discussions, where information is gladly traded between people interested in learning, then there are vitriol spewing trollers, self proclaimed experts on everything and anything, with closed minds, bad tempers, and no real interest in either freely exchanging information, nor learning about anything that goes against what they are so sure is "gospel"!

There are also those that make broad statements as fact which are driven by personal desire to sell ones invested passion. Those global views are not supported by fact or science. Unfortunately you belong to that group thinking your the worlds only saviour. Well, good luck in your mission.

And then there are those who, without any knowledge of a science, show their ignorance by making claims unsupported by any facts or personal experience whatsoever, to try to refute that science, for no other reason than to be the contrary grumpy old trolls that they repeatedly and publicly prove themselves to be. Since I have done volunteer work, (which means I do not get paid, and sell nothing), in other countries setting up sustainable farming and aquaponics systems, where output both exceeds input, and yields are superior and mature quicker than unsustainable, petrochemical farming schemes, your statement shows you completely off the mark, once again.

You are yet to answer a single question on input verses output. Do you think you can produce basic protein and carbohydrate botanicals cheaper my Australian farm? Sorry but I am not interested in your volunteer work. Been there, done that.. I have contributed to society but do not find the need to wave a flag as you do. Answer questions on input verses output!

[lapd]

One has to wonder if Thailand would be better off if they abandoned the whole Democracy experiment. Maybe do something like the Chinese. Democracy sounds good on paper but it just doesn't seem to work well for 3rd world countries. Thailand is sort of in the grey area where they are becoming a richer nation but still not quite ready for a Democracy that is relatively immune to widespread corruption.

Edited June 22, 2014 by lapd

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One has to wonder if Thailand would be better off if they abandoned the whole Democracy experiment. Maybe do something like the Chinese. Democracy sounds good on paper but it just doesn't seem to work well for 3rd world countries. Thailand is sort of in the grey area where they are becoming a richer nation but still not quite ready for a Democracy that is relatively immune to widespread corruption.

Therefore a good reason for a 'sweep the decks' and reforms before the next election.

[thaimat]

And then there are those who, without any knowledge of a science, show their ignorance by making claims unsupported by any facts or personal experience whatsoever, to try to refute that science, for no other reason than to be the contrary grumpy old trolls that they repeatedly and publicly prove themselves to be. Since I have done volunteer work, (which means I do not get paid, and sell nothing), in other countries setting up sustainable farming and aquaponics systems, where output both exceeds input, and yields are superior and mature quicker than unsustainable, petrochemical farming schemes, your statement shows you completely off the mark, once again.

You are yet to answer a single question on input verses output. Do you think you can produce basic protein and carbohydrate botanicals cheaper my Australian farm? Sorry but I am not interested in your volunteer work. Been there, done that.. I have contributed to society but do not find the need to wave a flag as you do. Answer questions on input verses output!

Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something.

Plato

[jayjayjayjay]

And then there are those who, without any knowledge of a science, show their ignorance by making claims unsupported by any facts or personal experience whatsoever, to try to refute that science, for no other reason than to be the contrary grumpy old trolls that they repeatedly and publicly prove themselves to be. Since I have done volunteer work, (which means I do not get paid, and sell nothing), in other countries setting up sustainable farming and aquaponics systems, where output both exceeds input, and yields are superior and mature quicker than unsustainable, petrochemical farming schemes, your statement shows you completely off the mark, once again.

You are yet to answer a single question on input verses output. Do you think you can produce basic protein and carbohydrate botanicals cheaper my Australian farm? Sorry but I am not interested in your volunteer work. Been there, done that.. I have contributed to society but do not find the need to wave a flag as you do. Answer questions on input verses output!

Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something.

Plato

Well good to see you crawled back into your modern day nonsense and proved nothing. I encourage you to continue developing aquaponics, I love all things agriculture. But, wise men do have something to say.. and for your benefit, here are some pictures of my farm(s)! I think I have earn't the right to ask at a minimum to justify your claims. And these are all my personal pictures, not shit of the internet. And that's me sitting on the yellow New Holland.

Edited June 23, 2014 by jayjayjayjay