Thursday, January 25, 2007

How Much Did the Green Revolution Matter? or Can We Feed the World Without Industrial Agriculture?

"It is well that thou givest bread to the hungry, better were it that none hungered and that thou haddest none to give." - St. Augustine

There are many questions that have come up for me in writing a book about food, energy and climate, but the one that I find most engaging is the question of exactly what was gained and lost in the transition to industrial agriculture and the green revolution. While there have long been critiques of the Green Revolution, many, many people assume that without the work of Norman Borlaug and the other scientists who brought us new hybrids and who convinced much of the world to convert to nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides based on fossil fuels, we cannot feed the world. I am suspicious of this claim, and have been musing on it for some time. It is certainly true that grain yields rose dramatically during the Green Revolution, but how much does and did that actually matter?


Now some of this, all of us interested in the subject already know. We all know that the introduction of massive quantities of fertilizer, the replacement of traditional staple crops with hybrids and the rest of the Green Revolution meant total grain yield increase of 250% over 35 years, with an increase in fossil energy inputs of 50% over traditional agriculture. It would seem that that rate of return was quite gratifying - put in some energy and get five times the total food. That was, however, a short term success, one that couldn't be sustained. The quantity of fossil fuel inputs required to maintain these increased yields and keep up with population growth have grown steadily, and as Dale Allen Pfeiffer observes in _Eating Fossil Fuels_ "Yet, due to soil degradation, the increased demands of pest management, and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt." (Pfeiffer, 9) For those who don't think much about agriculture, the last bit of information should disturb you. The world's population is set to grow for some time (by close to 1/3 before it levels off and begins declining towards the middle of the century, all factors being equal), and we are only just holding steady (actually, there's been a bit of a decline lately) in the amount of food we're able to grow, despite our best efforts. This matters - right now we still produce more than we need. But population is growing steadily, and the climate is changing steadily, and the day is not so far away when our total food yields may not feed the world. And if oil and natural gas peak soon, as seems not unlikely, yields will decline still further. That's a scary prospect.

But there's more to say about those Green Revolution numbers, because they leave out something very important - how much food was actually lost due to the green revolution. Look at the above numbers, the 2.5 fold increase in grain yields, and the situation will look hopeless. But that's not quite the end of the story. Because the Green Revolution actually cost us something too - and not just the costs that all environmentalists are familiar with in fertility, soil erosion, aquifer depletion, etc... but a whole realm of food that we once used to grow and eat that we didn't anymore after the Green Revolution. While the Green Revolution increased grain yields, it also cut back on other food sources. For example, among rice eating people, the pesticides required for the cultivation of the miracle rices produced in the 1960s killed fish and frogs that provided much of the protein in the diets of rice eating people, resulting in, as Margaret Visser points out in _Much Depends on Dinner_, "...the sadly ironic result that 'more rice' could mean 'worse nutrition.' The same can be said of the loss of vegetables often grown in and at the edges of rice paddies. The famous "golden rice" that was supposed to alleviate blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency, a common problem among poor people who have little but rice to eat, ignored the fact that one of the reasons for the decline in Vitamin A consumption was that nutritious vegetables and weeds traditionally grown or harvested with rice were no longer available

The same is true of food grown in the US, in our very own breadbasket. As our corn and wheat and soybeans were produced by larger and larger farms, with more and more industrial equipment, we began to stop producing other, smaller crops that were less amenable to industrialization, but that made up a significant portion of people's diets. For example, virtually every farm family in the US had a garden in the first half of the 20th century, and most of those gardens produced most or all of the family's vegetables. Since we're talking about a time when 1/3-1/5 of the US population lived on farms, that is an enormous quantity of produce. The significance of gardens is easy to underestimate, but it would be an error to do so. During World War II, 40% of the nation's produce was grown in house gardens. The figures were higher in Britain during the same period. In the late 1990s, a study done by the Louisiana Extension service suggested that the average house vegetable garden produced $350 worth of produce. Food produced in gardens was a significant part of our dietary picture not so very long ago, and much of it was lost to industrial agriculture, either directly, in the consolidation of family farms, or indirectly, through agricultural subsidies that made purchased food often nearly as cheap as growing your own, and even social policies that encouraged suburbs to become places of lawns, not vegetable gardens.

House gardens in rural areas, urban centers, and suburbs are another casualty of the Green Revolution - the artificial cheapness of food, created by industrial, subsidized agriculture
in the second half of the 20th century drove the house garden out of existence. We went from producing 40% of our produce to less than 3% in home garden over four decades. And it would be a mistake to see "produce" as watery vegetables like lettuce, and thus believe that few of our calories came from our gardens - among the vegetables lost were dense calorie crops like potatoes and sweet potatoes, which can substitute for grains in the diet.

Going back to what the Green Revolution, and its ugly step-child globalization did to the American farm family - the exhortation by Earl Butz to "get big or get out" in the 1970s, and the systematic farm policies that favored large commodity growers and regional specialization cut back enormously on the quantity of food we produced. Small farmers in the 1940s might have raised corn or wheat as their central crop, but they also grew gardens, had an orchard, raised some pigs for sale and milked a house cow. The loss of all that food value, spread over millions of farm families, was a significant one. A farmer might have tapped his sugar maple trees and sold the syrup, and would probably have sold some eggs. He might also have sold a pig to a neighbor or had a calf butchered and shared the meat. The industrial commodity farmer rarely does these things, and in many cases, the area that permitted them - the woodlot, the barn, the chicken coop have been removed to allow unhindered access to more acres. In a bad crop year, a farmer might have planted a late crop of sunflowers for oil seed, lettuce or something else, which is also not calculated into our total consumption. In many cases a family member might also operate a small truck garden and sell produce locally - even children did this routinely.
All these are foods that were removed from the food stream, and this systematic deprivation over millions of households reprents an enormous loss of total calories produced.

The economic pressure of farms to specialize also took its toll. Joan Dye Gussow, in _This Organic Life_ (Gussow, 141) documents that in the 1920s, Montana was self-sufficient for 75% of its produce, including fruit. Now Montana is one of the harshest climates in the US and has very little water, comparatively speaking, and yet this was possible in part because the economic pressure of big business had not yet persuaded small farmers that they couldn't grow fruit effectively in Montana, but should leave it to Washington and Florida. None of us know how many calories were lost this way, but it is almost certainly an enormous quantity. And this systematic removal in the name of efficiency and specialization happened all over the world to one degree or another.

All this is particularly important because of the urgent distinction between yield and output. Peter Rosset has documented that industrial agriculture is, in fact, more efficient in terms of yield. That is, when five acres of soybeans and five thousand acres of soybeans are compared, you get more soybeans per acre by growing 5000 acres. But when you compare output - that is the total amount of food, fertility and fiber you get from small scale polyculture farms (that just means farms where you grow a bunch of different things, not a single commodity), the five acre farm comes out not just ahead, but vastly ahead in per acre output. It isn't just that five acres are more productive in terms of total output, they are often hundreds of times more productive (Rosset, http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Small-Farm-Benefits-Rosset.htm). Rosset's figures are not in dispute, as Rosset points out here:

"Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This is now widely recognised by agricultural economists across the political spectrum, as the "inverse relationship between farm size and output". [5] Even leading development economists at the World Bank have come around to this view, to the point that they now accept that redistribution of land to small farmers would lead to greater overall productivity. [6]"

And the difference in total output rise further when you talk about garden models. A half acre garden is often tens or hundreds of times more productive than the same acreage in industrial agriculture. The displacement of house and farm gardens by industrial agriculture represents a dramatic loss in important food crops due to the Green Revolution. On a given acre of land, the Green Revolution might have increased rice or wheat yields by several times, but since the garden, henhouse and berry bushes that could have been on that acre would have been many times *more productive in total* than what was granted to us by fertilizers and hybridization, what we are experiencing is a net total loss, not a gain in many cases.

This is also important because most of us eat a fairly varied diet. Grain crops are important, but so is the enormous diversity of food in our diets. And many of the vegetable crops that have been lost were significant sources of food, or oil, or flavoring (now displaced by corn syrup and soybean oil). We cannot assess the global food supply correctly by focusing only on grains, or by failing to recognize how much of the calories produced in grain were once produced, often more nutriously, by vegetable and fruit crops. As Hope Shand notes,

"There is no doubt about the global economic importance of these major crops {rice, maize, wheat and soybean}, but the tendency to focus on a small number of species masks the importance of plant species diversity to the world food supply. A very different picture would emerge if we were to look into women's cooking pots and if we could survey local markets and give attention to household use of non-domesticated species" (Hope Shand "Human Nature: Agricultural Biodiversity and Farm-Based Food Security")

In the US, during most the last 50 years, we have had enormous grain surpluses, mostly of corn, and as Michael Pollan documents in _The Omnivore's Dilemma_, industrial food production has been challenged to keep finding new ways to use our spare corn up. Processed foods are all sweetened with our extra corn, made of processed corn, or of meat from corn fed to livestock. And we have seen a rise in obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease - all associated with high meat, low vegetables, processed food diets. We kept raising our yields, at the cost of our outputs, and our diets came to reflect that - we ate fewer kinds of vegetables and fruits, and fewer of them. To a large degree, what happened was that we gave up foods that we did need to be healthy and have good, varied, tasty diets, and replaced them with a couple of grain crops that we did not particularly need more of, and we harmed ourselves doing so.

I cannot find a single reliable number about how much food was lost to us, worldwide by the Green Revolution. It may never be possible for us to find out what we lost to industrial agriculture, and I will make no claims that I know precisely. If someone can locate such a number, I'd be fascinated. But there is no question that it was enough food to feed millions, maybe even billions of people. And we must, in our analysis of what the Green Revolution cost us, also recognize that we lost an uncertain, but enormous quantity of future food, mortgaging the future to overfeed the present.

As Dale Pfeiffer documents, we have reached the point where the damage caused by the Green Revolution and Globalization mean that we can no longer raise our food yields by technological methods. We are constantly hearing about the latest genetically modified solution, and besides the dangers of GM food, so far none have produced as advertised. The price of industrial agriculture is uncalculated quantities of food that future generations will not have to eat. As the ability of soils to hold water decrease due to erosion and climate change, arable land becomes desert. As soils are depleted of nutrients and the price of natural-gas based nitrogen fertilizers rise, untold people will find the cost of growing their own food in their depleted environment prohibitive.

That said, however, we should not underestimate the resiliance and power of local, indigenous, sustainable agriculture. For example, in _Bringing the Food Economy Home_ Helena Norberg-Hodge, Todd Merrifield and Steven Gorelick cite several World Bank and FAO papers that indicate that as recently as the mid-1990s, *2 billion* people, 35% of the world's population were being fed by traditional agriculture with minimal or no fossil fuel inputs (Norberg- Hodge, Merrifield, Garelick, 4) . This often occurs on marginal land, because the best agricultural land in the South has been turned to non-food, or luxury food items. Shrimp farms displace rice farms in coastal India, Coffee displaces small polyculture farms or food providing forests in Latin America and Africa, flowers displace food in much of Latin America and Asia, cotton, to feed our endless appetite for cheap clothing displaces food in many nations. It will be a non-trivial problem to return this land to sustainable food production, but it is possible. These statistics, along with the others here should at least raise some significant questions in those who believe we know what the earth's proper carrying capacity is. That does not make the issue of population irrelevant, but it does mean we may have time and choices that we did not know we had.

Vandana Shiva describes (and I will quote this at some length, because I think it is very important) what the Green Revolution has done in the third world, but it is important to remember that the loss of calories that occurred there also happened to us - for us, the cost came in the form of our loss of health and nutrition. For the poor of the world, it came as a significant loss of food and nutrition.

"Industrial agriculture has not produced more food. It has destroyed diverse sources of food, and it has stolen food from other species to bring larger quantities of specific commodities to the market, using huge quantities of fossil fuels and water and toxic chemicals in the process.
It is often said that the so-called miracle varieties of the Green Revolution in modern industrial agriculture prevented famine because they had higher yields. However, these higher yields disappear in the context of total yields of crops on farms.

Green Revolution varieties produced more grain by diverting production away from straw. This "partitioning" was achieved through dwarfing the plants, which also enabled them to withstand high doses of chemical fertilizer. However, less straw means less fodder for cattle and less organic matter for the soil to feed the millions of soil organisms that make and rejuvenate soil.

The higher yields of wheat or maize were thus achieved by stealing food from farm animals and soil organisms. Since cattle and earthworms are our partners in food production, stealing food from them makes it impossible to maintain food production over time, and means that the partial yield increases were not sustainable. The increase of yields in wheat and maize under industrial agriculture were also achieved at the cost of yields of other foods a small farm provides. Beans, legumes, fruits and vegetables all disappeared both from farms and from the calculus of yields. More grain from two or three commodities arrived on national and international markets, but less food was eaten by farm families in the Third World.

The gain in "yields" of industrially produced crops is thus based on a theft of food from other species and the rural poor in the Third World. That is why, as more grain is produced and traded globally, more people go hungry in the Third World. Global Markets record more commodities for trading because food has been stolen from nature and the poor." (Vandana Shiva _Stolen Harvest_ 12-13)

As I said, I don't know whether in the net the Green Revolution gave us more food or not. But it is absolutely clear that it did not give us the enormous increases in food that were claimed for it. And it may well be that all of us experienced a loss of nutritious food, or food value. It is manifestly the case that not only may we not need industrial agriculture to feed us, we may well be better off without it.

Sharon

28 comments:

Ulu said...

Sharon,

Well done once again, nice deep digging, and a message of hope for all those who feel there's no way we will be able to feed ourselves without chemicals. Our output used to be much better, and might be again. Well, pollution and extreme weather permitting.

We should not forget, though, the correlation between the Green Revolution and population growth. That link can't be denied. And seems to contradict the yield vs output argument, in a way that I can't oversee either.

A subject you do not touch upon here, but which is essential to the Green Revolution, is that cheap transport has had a pivotal role in the centralization of our food production, and of course all the negative effects that came with it.

The strongest of all may be that no-one owns their own food anymore, that everything has to be bought, and comes from far away. That is the biggest threat to anyone's independence that has ever existed, and few people seem to understand or pay attention.

Suffice it to say that without transport, there wouldn't have been any Green Revolution. It all boils down to oil, for the gas and the chemicals, in a perfect diabolical pas-de-deux.

Our grip on our food production was stolen long before GMO reared its ugly head. GMO is just the finishing touch, the final blow.

PS a 250% increase is NOT the same as a '250 fold' or '250 times' increase. It's 100 times, or 10.000%, less.

jewishfarmer said...

Hi Ulu - you are right, of course, about all the above, espcecially my numerical typo. That I shall correct, and thank you for the comments and critique.

I personally don't agree that the population issue does *contradict* the yield vs. output issue - I think it is an important factor, and one that the book will say more about (I don't like to write anything longer than 5 pages on the blog - too tough on the eyes).

The population issue is also complicated, however, by the persistence of nitrogen in the human body - that is, of course, one of the most compelling issues of how integral fossil fuels are to us - how much do we need nitrogen fertilizers. The answer is one I am still analyzing, but may well be "not as much as we think." But the difficulty of coming up with precise numbers is a serious issue for us.

But concentrating on grain yields *does* accomodate the population factor - the rise was not per person, but in toto - that is, the Green Revolution increase in yields is enough to feed everyone the planet right now (quite comfortably if we ate less meat and didn't burn food in cars), and the total food output before the Green Revolution may actually have been enough to feed everyone on the planet - or it may not have been, but it isn't clear that it couldn't be, even given careful and sustainable practice.

There is no doubt that climate change, soil erosion and pollution will also be factors there, and I don't think anyone knows precisely how much. But I think the basic point, that we can do better than we think we can, may yet hold. I hope so.

Sharon

Do I think that we should be attempting to expand food yields forever - hell no. But I consider it good and useful news to know that we might well be able to feed the coming population, at least for a while, without necessarily borrowing from the future. Or that we could come closer than many pessimists believe.

Sharon

Mauricio Babilonia said...

In an interview with Julian Darley over on Global Public Media, Helena Norberg-Hodge makes a comment about the loss you're talking about and the true motives behind the green revolution:

"JULIAN: Do you think that one of the reasons why this [the industrialization of agriculture] is happening – and there are lots of ways one can approach this question – but, there has grown, and possibly there has been fostered, a demand for vast quantities of cheap flesh, particularly cheap meat, but also of cheap fish. And so, isn’t that one of the reasons that drives this building of huge factory farms, apart from the fact that there is an ever-growing number of people on this planet?

HELENA: No. I would say that that is a common myth that’s presented to the public. And I think often the public, as well as the businesses that promote that thinking, believe it, but if you actually analyze why and how this has happened, it has very little to do with consumer demand. Because in actual fact, what is happening is that the whole system, and the whole mode of production, at a global level, is destroying millions of viable food producers who were producing food in a much more sustainable way.

The myth is that this is necessary to provide cheap food for this very large global population. In actual fact, if you look at what goes behind it, you will see that large chemical and pharmaceutical corporations got involved – particularly in a major way after the Second World War – in food production, turning the same chemicals that we use for bombs, to the land. And that the system did become dominated by the need for profits for corporations, not the need to feed the global population. And that, whether you go back to the earlier days of the Green Revolution and look at how many farmers were destroyed because Green Revolution technologies demanded ever more expensive inputs: large scale technology, lots of petroleum, lots of toxic chemicals, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones.

All of this destroyed the farmer’s ability to produce, generation after generation, without spending any money, without being beholden to either banks or large corporations. The net result was whole parts of the world suffering from famines. Sometimes a generation earlier, sometimes many generations earlier, those same parts of the world had been flourishing agricultural areas as well as with a lot of wilderness. And of course, the population at that time in many places was lower, but the main reason for the change was not some kind of sudden explosion in the population. The main reason was the concentration of food production in the hands of for-profit corporations."

brett said...

wow, you beat Michael Pollan to the punch by 3 days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

Anonymous said...

Wow.

Maybe you all need to learn how to do math.

A 250 percent increase is exactly the same as an increase by a factor of 3.5.

Say your initial level is 100, and your new level is 350 (3.5 times the intitial level.

The way to calculate a percentage increase is to divide the absolute change [350 - 100] by 100, and then multiply by 100 to convert the decimal into a percent.

([350 - 100]/100)*100 = 250%

You won't gain much credibility if you can't perform simple maths such as this. Scientists don't look charitably upon being off by orders of magnitude.

Anonymous said...

酒店打工

酒店經紀

酒店上班

酒店兼差

禮服店

酒店小姐

酒店兼職

假日打工

台北酒店經紀

童裝批發

童裝批發

童裝

童裝

酒店喝酒

暑假打工

寒假打工

酒店

酒店經紀人

酒店現領

products said...

China Wholesale has been described as the world’s factory. This phenomenom is typified by the rise ofbuy products wholesalebusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesalers “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that wholesale from china from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

yi said...

Hello, everybody. I am a new hand to be here. So nice to meet you all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

zhoujing0701 said...

christian louboutin
boots
high heels
womens boots
heels
women's shoes
knee boots
women's boots
black shoes
boots shoes
new shoes
high boots
black boots
manolo
Chloe
christian
----------------------------------------------
christian shoes
manolo blahnik
giuseppe zanotti
miu miu
christian louboutin pumps
christian shoes spring 2010
salvatore ferragamo
jimmy choo
choo shoes
christian louboutin shoes
christian louboutin pumps
manolo sale
blanhnik shoes
miu miu shoes
knee high boots
thigh high boots
knee high
pumps shoes
red shoes
brown shoes
leather shoes
louboutin size shoes
black leather shoes
leather shoes boots
designer shoes
women's sandals

LAN said...

puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes

hyshen said...

After read your blog, I think you are a wonderful person, for your blog is the best one I have ever seen. If you do not mind, I would like to know do you like fashion? Have you ever heard of polo shirts, which are very chic, especially the polo t shirts, I love them very much. I also like playing tennis rackets, it can keep healthy, what do you like to do? I consider it as my great pleasure to introduce myself as the outlet of polo t shirts women
polo t shirts on sale
and the warmly welcomed
polo t shirts for women
Now. I'd like to introduce our masterpieces, such as
polo shirts on sale
polo shirts men
men's polo shirt
men polo shirt
mens polo shirts
mens polo shirt
besides we also sell
cheap polo shirts
discount polo shirts
men's polo shirts
women's polo shirts
Which are popular with fashinable people. We are also the outlet of
cheap tennis racket
discount tennis racket
in this sporty season, we recommend
prince tennis racquet
head tennis rackets
wilson tennis racket
babolat tennis racquet
There more new products in our store online, we are expecting you to come. We can say that you must find your satisfied things in our store.

Anonymous said...

Do you want to get the most popular sports accessories? Please click our website, we offer many kinds of fashionable Air Jordan Shoes, NFL Jerseys, MBT Shoes, Nike TN and Puma Shoes Men , especially in NFL Jerseys, you will find more than thousand kinds of jerseys in our store. We guarantee the best quality and the best service for every consumer. If you are interest in, please feel free to contact us, we will reply you as soon as possible.

Michael J said...

I love your blog very much,and i also want to introduce my products to all of you,them are nice and very fashion,if you like them,please contact us on our website or eamil us,thks very much for your attention.And this is my products below:
authentic gucci bags, gucci boots outlet
cheap gucci shoes, discount Gucci bags
newest gucci handbags, gucci handbags 2010
Juicy couture, authentic Juicy bags
Juicy handbags outlet, tiffany 2010
Tiffany, tiffany outlet
discount tiffany charms, cheap tiffany Bangles
Armani watches outlet, watch wholesale
discount DG watches, cheap Chanel watches
newest GUCCI watches, wholesale edhardy t shirt
Moncler, Mtb shoes
Moncler jackets, cheap Moncler coats
Moncler Vest, Moncler outlet
moncler polo t shirt, MBT boots
MBT shoes in fashion, cheap mbt shoes sale
discount mbt outlet 2010, MBT Walking Shoes

Michael J said...

I love your blog very much,and i also want to introduce my products to all of you,them are nice and very fashion,if you like them,please contact us on our website or eamil us,thks very much for your attention.And this is my products below:
BABYLISS
Benefit GHD
GHD IV Salon Styler
GHD MINI STYLER
GHD Precious Gift Set
Gold GHD
Kiss GHD
Pink GHD
Pure Black GHD
Pure White GHD
Purple GHD
Rare GHD
cheap ugg boots
discount ugg boots
ugg boots
classic ugg boots
ugg classic tall boots

2012天氣晴朗 said...

牙醫,植牙,矯正,矯正牙齒,皮膚科,痘痘,中醫,飛梭雷射,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,痘痘,seo,關鍵字行銷,自然排序,網路行銷,自然排序,關鍵字行銷seo,部落格行銷,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,牛舌餅婚紗台中婚紗,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,街舞,小產,雞精,性感,辣妹,雷射溶脂,雙下巴,抽脂,瘦小腹,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,淨膚雷射,清潔公司,居家清潔,牙周病,牙齒矯正,植牙,牙周病,矯正,植牙

kekekelo said...

Thanks for sharing your great post,wish you have a nice day,happy every day!Replica OMEGA Watches James Bond replica Watch
In the James Bond books by Ian Fleming, Bond wore a replica Rolex but for the past few movies, Bond's been an constellation omega man. Pierce Brosnan wore an Omega Seamaster Professional Diver in his James Bond movies (Brosnan was also an omega oil spokesperson).This is a golf watch? You are looking at the new jewelry version of the Double Eagle Co-Axial Chronograph from Omega. fish oil omega has released two James Bond watches before and the one shown above, the new omega seamaster watch James Bond Limited Edition is one of the first James Bond omega seamaster watches to be equipped with the co-axial escapement. The 41mm stainless steel watch uses the automatic omega de ville caliber 2500. The dial features the James Bond logo and the second hand has the 007 gun logo on one side. The watch is a "limited edition" of 10,007 pieces. I wonder if this means that Daniel Craig will be sporting an replica Omegain the new James Bond movie.
We can sell in single or Large quantities of high quality replica watch, both jewelry and wrist watches, in various kinds and types to different people of age and gender. We sell brands of watches such as replica Rolex, replica BREITLING,replica TAG HEUER, replica CARTIER,replica IWC, replica PATEK PHILIPPE,replica FERRARI,replica LONGINES,replica U_BOAT, replica HERMES
,replica gucci,and many more. Famous watches with reasonable price will apparently catch your eyes. Look for the new 2009 Omega Constellation models soon. You can even buy high qualified OMEGA CONSTELLATION COLLECTION watches with the wholesale price here.

Anonymous said...

酒店打工 酒店兼職
台北酒店 打工兼差 酒店工作 禮服酒店
酒店兼差 酒店上班 酒店應徵 酒店 酒店經紀

Eric said...

I usually wear cotton tory burch flats sale velour pants on an over tory burch shoes discount night trip since they are so tory burch reva sale comfy, and flats are a must with any cover tory burch sandals sale up for warmth for sleeping. The tory burch sale blankets are too large, if they are tory burch flip flops sale still given to passengers. I also tory burch reva flats check all luggage except for a hand tory burch white flats bag I can use as a pillow tory burch shoes along with the one given. That way I tory burch ballet shoes can exit without the struggle to tory burch reva ballet retrieve over head luggage. Yes, I keep a clock on the tory burch ballerina time of where I'm going and the previous night go flats tory burch shoes to bed by that time, wake, eat and discount tory burch flats am ready for the air tory burch reva ballerina flat port terminal tory burch flats suede and the lengthy wait tory burch leather flats before boarding. All hints are appreciated.

Anonymous said...

小米blog 醫療百寶箱 好食報馬仔 環遊世界365天 時尚精神 教育學習大不同 與您分享Google大小事
*BeaUtY & VogUE情報站* 出國通~阿頓blog

馬儒敗's Bookmarks 安安分享少女穿搭術s
美容保養 lesley分享天地
☆房地產資訊佈告欄☆ 小米姐姐 趨勢產業經濟佈告欄 i樂活 論壇 i漂亮 討論區

咪摩兔 said...

酒店經紀
票貼
借錢
二胎
酒店

Your Escort Agency said...

Your Escort Agency offers exclusive and most beautiful London escort girls of various nationalities.

Bot and me said...

Thanks for the post. It was very interesting and meaningful.
Money Talks| Super Bowl Commercials 2012|

London escorts said...

Bestescort4U more then ten years providing best London escorts companionship in the UK.

Escorts London said...

Hot - Collection is a honest and confidential London escort agency which provides genuine London escorts girls for gentlemen of taste.

fix credit said...

Interesting post, agriculture can still advance remarkable with better techniques including reusing water and fertilizer and other methods.

Anonymous said...

A person essentially help to make significantly articles
I would state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and up to now?
I amazed with the research you made to make
this particular publish amazing. Fantastic task!

Here is my website クロエ バッグ

Anonymous said...

The following seems almost just like the battle behind
the ages. You can mainly have the stereotypical template designed game
shoe i.e. Most of the approach has built mixed response from the users.

Its insular nature guards us in public with a bunch of our favorite mp3s!
http://www.asroel.myflexiland.com/gallery/?
level=picture&id=499