Crops can blight, animals can get diseases. I don’t know much about hydroponics but I know that bacteria are a concern. What food source is the most reliable, the least likely to produce less food than expected?

  • CreateProblems@corndog.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    This reads like a Rimworld post.

    I don’t think there’s a Rimworld community on Lemmy and I’m not going on Reddit anymore so I’ll just throw this comment into the void and hope some fans are out there. 👋

    Also in Rimworld terms the answer is corn (if monoculture) and send everyone to harvest at the first sign of blight.

    But in both Rimworld and real life, a monoculture strategy isn’t sustainable. Diversifying via multiple food sources reduces your risk of disaster leading to starvation.

    • TotallyHuman@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rimworld is awesome. But I guess I was thinking in terms of “all crops” being one type of food source. In Rimworld, you can’t get multi-year droughts that make growing anything almost impossible. In real life, you can.

    • Fizz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was going to say hydroponic rice. It grows so quick and if anything happens it’s back up in 7 days.

      The problem with corn is that it takes so long to grow that you get a wealth spike when harvesting it and if anything happens to the harvest you can be at risk of starvation.

      • aard@kyu.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The trick is to always keep roughly a year worth of corn stored, and only sell off the excess.

        After the initial ‘getting the base running’ I usually pay merchants that accept it in corn, up to the amount where they end up giving me all their silver on top of what I wanted to buy.

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      and send everyone to harvest at the first sign of blight

      That sounds like a good strategy until blight happens in the middle of a massive invasion.

      I still do mostly corn, but with smaller fields with gaps in between. Makes it easier to take fields out of use if I don’t need them and they’d just be wasting work time, and I can ignore blight without losing too much if something else is going on.

  • Hangglide@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Diversity is the most stable plan. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Get food from multiple sources.

  • xeddyx@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Aeroponics, under a controlled greenhouse environment, is technically the most stable food production method, assuming you have the ability to maintain the systems supporting it, and of course a good knowledge of a particular plant’s requirements and growth habits.

    Pros:

    1. Water Efficiency: Uses up to 98% less water compared to traditional farming.
    2. Space Efficiency: Can be used in vertical farming setups, making it ideal for urban areas.
    3. Growth Speed: Crops can grow faster due to higher oxygen levels and nutrient delivery.
    4. Reduced Pesticide Need: Since plants aren’t grown in soil, there’s a lower risk of soil-borne diseases.

    Aeroponics, when done correctly, can yield impressive results in terms of growth speed and resource efficiency compared to traditional farming.

    • swunchy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can vouch. I don’t have an aeroponic setup, but I do have a hydroponic setup. Lots of reading has led me to aeroponics, especially high pressure aeroponics (HPA), although I don’t have the means to set this up myself at the moment. Reduced water and land use plus higher yield and if you grow indoors or in a greenhouse you get less pests. Seems like the best possible option for growing food sustainably

  • Izzy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the answer is potatoes. Other root vegetables might be equally reliable.

    • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      the answer is potatoes

      Aha! Poland will survive in the post-apocalyptic world.

      • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kinda hard to have a stable food system when an imperial power is stealing most of your food in a rather genocidal fashion!

      • Alexander The 1st@mstdn.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @ColeSloth @IzzyData As I recall, the issue with the potato famine was more that, if you’re *only* growing potatoes, while they grow just about anywhere, they’ll also get diseases really easily.

        Which is why on the Lemmy instance linked to, people mentioned a variety of crops is the trick.

        So, potatoes, but *also* onions, and *also* wheat, and *also* corn is the true answer, as I understand.

    • morhp@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In spring, I put a few sprouting potatoes in the compost, waited a few month and since July or so I have a huge bucket of homegrown potatoes that I have problems to use up. So very easy food source. Can recommend. There were a few pill bugs/ potato bugs who love the taste of the plants, but their damage had not much effect on the harvest in the end.

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with the potatoes in Ireland at the time is that they were basically a monoculture and all had the same susceptibility to the same diseases.

        If you grow them as they’re traditionally grown in Central and South America, you have hundreds (or thousands!) of varieties of potatoes planted in different climate zones by utilizing mountains. You have basically no risk of a total crop failure as long as it rains or you can irrigate them.

  • Elise@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably not the answer you’re looking for: Afaik if you store grain properly it can last over 30 years. So as long as you’re growing too much to keep your silos full and save, and you store enough, it should be incredibly reliable.

  • Yer Ma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Intercropping, preservation of biodiversity, rotation of crops… There is no magic bean, but in the long run basic conservation combined with advancement of plant genetics is the only realistic path forward, in my professional opinion

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Crops, but not unbelievably large monocrop farms. Diverse, rotated soil in reasonably sized fields, widely distributed. A variety of different crops mitigates blights, and they’re the most efficient food source, in terms for how much food produced based on the inputs (amount of land, water, energy, etc.) and other considerations (land used, greenhouse gas emissions!

  • Jerkules_Jerkules@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    One possibility is breadfruit. We, realistically, can’t depend on one though. Even the most robust staple food will still have some sort of vulnerability so it will always be of benefits to have several.

  • artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seize people’s grass lawns and tear out 2/3 of roadways and convert the land into community gardens and ponds, grow food where the people are. Probably some form of population control.

    Pie in the sky though. We’ll probably just start eating bugs by the container ship load and then go extinct instead

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not going to be as much land as you think it is, relative to the food needs of the maybe billion people living in lawn-growing places.

      • artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No you’re right, but it would be one of the more difficult things to convince people to do, so in this pie in the sky scenario where people actually give a crap about anything they’d also be doing a lot of other stuff that together would make a larger whole.

          • artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nah def not. Imo, from the evidence I’ve gathered so far about how the universe works, silver bullets don’t exist. Every solution has warts somewhere. Things we call “good” tend to require good old fashioned struggle and discomfort, so people need to stop pleasure seeking and chasing imaginary silver bullets. But they probably won’t, bc they’re conditioned to pleasure seek by capitalism and advertising and pop culture. Blah blah negative blah blah /rant

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    To answer your question. When Agriculture was first “discovered” by humans ~20,000 years ago, the most stable production method was diversification. You should have a variety of crops with overlapping growing seasons and overlapping macro nutrients. For even more security, introduce animal husbandry that can graze on your fallow land and if you have enough land make sure to have multiple distinct herds that never interact with each other except for breeding every few years.

    Additionally ensure your food production isn’t dependent on a single harvest season, nor a single climate. Have fruits/legumes/etc other lower yield crops that can be substituted in case your primary grains are hit with blight, or some other environmental factor.

    Now let’s introduce some technology. Create several fast growing monocultures that allows you to get multiple harvests in a season that can be used for animal feed, storage and supplementing any deficiencies in the primary human food supply.

    tl;dr. Make sure you have multiple methods of food production that are all viable at different times of the year. Ensure that the failure of any one or two of them isn’t a problem for overall yearly production, and ensure that they are independent on each other.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Anything living can get diseases. I’d still go for crops grown in a controlled, indoor environment.

    There’s a way to grow bacteria on natural gas if you don’t have grow lights, and they used it to make fish feed for at least a while, as well as some lab work on electricity-eating bacteria. If you don’t care about your liver I guess this drink is also technically a source of calories with no biological production needed.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aeroponics is really vulnerable to power outages and disease is still a concern, it’s a lot more expensive and vulnerable to supply chain disruption too, and consumes power power than just growing stuff in a polytunnel

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s just clearly worse than growing vegetables in a field, really

          supply chain isn’t really an issue once you’ve got your setup going

          Til you run out of phosphorus, or potassium, or whatever.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Obviously it’s not just one field that you use again and again. All you need to do to replenish the nutrients in the field is to just let it hang out and don’t do anything with it for a while, and use some other areas in the meantime.

              Much, much more stable, renewable and reliable than aeroponics. It’s a cool concept but it’s just nowhere near at the level of competing with good ol fashioned dirt yet!

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Absolute nonsense, sorry. Horizontal farming is more than capable of feeding everyone on earth today, and could sustain a population even ten times what we currently have - we’d need to give up meat, of course - which we should be doing anyways.

                  Simply leaving a field alone will not replenish it with all the nutrients a crop needs.

                  I mean, it will eventually - it might take a while, sure, but there’s so much land, and with sustainable farming practices (good crop rotation, organic farming, etc.) then soil erosion and nutrient depletion are significantly reduced anyways. It’s definitely much, much easier and significantly less reliant on synthetic nutrients than hydroponics or aeroponics. A lot less work, too!

    • Fizz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t really generate much calories with aeroponics. I thought they could only grow saladlike foods.

  • ithas@artemis.camp
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would sort of expect it to be the stuff we struggle to get rid of, like fungi and weeds. So maybe mushrooms and dandelions? This is just a wild guess, and obviously you couldn’t live off them forever.