It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore

Page 3 of 6  


Soft cheeses are low cost and can be made in short time, from what i read. Hard cheeses are not, price a cheese press? Might modify a fridge for storage.

--
Enjoy Life... Dan L

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan L wrote:

yeah! and whole milk yogurt from raw milk is wonderful too. i can imagine what a good raw cream cheese, brie, camembert, etc. would be like.

how large a press are you talking here?
gravity, water in buckets and the right surfaces, forms and inserts are not that tough to figure out nor horribly expensive, what am i missing here?
sure, if you go all stainless steel with a hydraulic press and all sorts of gizmos you'll be out some major bucks, but improvise with some woodworking skills and i think you can get by for much less.

that derivative use of a sliderule wasn't covered!
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fascinating stuff Billy - lots of clips on You-tube where they explain how they do it. The one of killing and processing the chooks was particulalry interesting and impressive. They killed, dressed and prepared 417 birds in two hours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
songbird wrote:

The quote is accurate. It is misleading though as Pollan points out later (p222) Salatin does not claim this level of productivity because there is 450ac of woods as well as the 100ac of pasture. The woods make a sizeable contribution to the farm, it produces much pig feed and biomass that is used for a variety of purposes and assists in other ways. So to be more accurate the above production is from 550ac.
I would be interested to know what can be done by conventional means. The comparison would be very difficult to make fair I think because the conventional system uses many external inputs and would have trouble matching that diversity of outputs. I suspect that just measured in calories per acre the intensive monoculture might win. The whole point of this is that you can only do that for a limited amount of time with many inputs and many unwanted side effects. Not to mention that man does not live by bread (or high fructose corn syrup) alone.
David
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hare-Scott wrote:

ah, ok, thanks, that makes a lot more sense.
(it just so happens that i requested that book from the library interloan today when i was there so i'll read it all soon. :) )

lately i've been doing a close job of living by tomato alone. we surely didn't need two cherry tomato plants and 16 regular size...
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Bane did some calculations. He estimates that there are a hundred million agricultural acres in the US similar enough to the Salatins' to count: "about 2/3 of the area east of the Dakotas, roughly from Omaha andTopeka east to the Atlantic and south to the Gulf of Mexico."5 Right now, that land is mostly planted to corn and soy. But returned to permanent cover, **it would sequester 2.2 billion tons of carbon every year**. Bane writes:
**That's equal to present gross US atmospheric releases**, not counting the net reduction from the carbon sinks of existing forests and soils ... Without expanding farm acreage or remov- ing any existing forests, and even before undertaking changes in consumer lifestyle, reduction in traffic, and increases in industrial and transport fuel efficiencies, which arc absolutely imperative, the US could become a net carbon sink by chang- ing cultivating practices and marketing on a million farms. In fact, we could create 5 million new jobs in farming if the land were used as efficiently as the Salatins use theirs.4
The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid81718588&sr=1-1>
p. 250
With the Salatin paradigm, the US could sequester its CO2 emissions, grow healthy meat on permanent pasture, and create 5 million new jobs. It's good not just for your inner environment but your outter environment as well.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't see it.

This statement bothers me because it allows one to think that the quoted rate of sequestration can go on indefinitely.. Every land use will reach a different equilibrium in the amount of carbon that it can store. Forest stores more per acre than pasture which stores more than row crops according to my local agronomist. So it makes sense to say X amount is sequestered per year at a point in time while the biomass is growing. So if you convert an acre of row crop to forest it sequesters a given amount per year which slows to zero as it reaches its maximum storage when the forest matures. After that there is no net sequestration.
I would need to know just what this bloke is talking about before commenting further.

I cannot read this site, I get a whole lot of blank rectangles, garbled text and IE complaining a script is taking too many resources.
So who is Peter Bane? What are his qualifications? Where can we see his calculations and more importantly his assumptions?

This may or may not be so. The whole issue of carbon sequestration has been greatly politicised and scrambled. I need to see all the details to have a view of whether this is reasonable. Of course carbon sequestration is but one aspect of any proposed change to land use and agricultural methods.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, in this case, it would be prairie grass (reflecting Salatin's pasture), creating, hypothetically, one inch of topsoil per year. That's the goal. The tree maxi-es out. The grass maxi-es out, BUT the topsoil keeps on growing (sequestration), one inch per year.
If the guy is full of pucky, I'm listening, but it makes sense. The only question is where to put the decimal.

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What sort of species are you talking about when you say 'prairie grass'? The reason why I ask is that the You-tube clips of Salatin's place doesn't look like anything I'd call a 'prairie'. He looks like he's got a farm on quite rich land in a well protected area. 'Prairies' to me suggest very open and exposed locations and the grasses there would, TMWOT, be much tougher and less nutritious than in good pasture land. I might be talking through my hat 'cos I haven't got a clue about US farms, but that's what I'd expect here in Oz if we were looking at farms of differing capacities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, you got me walkin' on thin ice here. Having escaped the housing tracts of southern California, I'm long on book learnin' and short on experience, BUT the proposition was to create a carbon sink. Quoting from "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre Keith <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid81718588&sr=1-1>
"Salatin's rotating mixture of animals on pasture is building one inch of'soil annually.4
Peter Bane did some calculations. He estimates that there are a hundred million agricultural acres in the US similar enough to the Salatins' to count: "about 2/3 of the area east of the Dakotas, roughly from Omaha and Topeka east to the Atlantic and south to the Gulf of Mexico."5 Right now, that land is mostly planted to corn and soy. But returned to permanent cover, it would sequester 2.2 billion tons of carbon every year. Bane writes:
That's equal to present gross US atmospheric releases, not counting the net reduction from the carbon sinks of existing forests and soils ... Without expanding farm acreage or remov- ing any existing forests, and even before undertaking changes in consumer lifestyle, reduction in traffic, and increases in industrial and transport fuel efficiencies, which arc absolutely imperative, the US could become a net carbon sink by chang- ing cultivating practices and marketing on a million farms. In fact, we could create 5 million new jobs in farming if the land were used as efficiently as the Salatins use theirs."6
So were not talking about using the same pasturage (grasses), but using the same practices, i.e. chooks following steers into the pastures.
Prairie grasses (grasses that supported the buffalo in the American midwest) created rich topsoil that was exploited (and consumed) by Europeans with ploughs.
See <http://ed.fnal.gov/entry_exhibits/grass/grass_title.html for a quick overview of prairies, and <http://www.stockseed.com/prairiegrasses_default.asp for grasses.
Switching from the idyllic setting of Salatin's farm to American "factory farming", we find that feed is a huge issue.
DAVID KIRBY: We worry about what we eat, but we also need to worry about what we eat eats. And the quality of feed can be highly compromised in these factories, where the drive to lower costs and prices is so great, and the temptation to cut corners is there, and this is the result. And we have to remember that factory farming has produced not only salmonella, but also E. coli, also mad cow disease, also swine flu, I believe, and MRSA, the drug-resistant staph infection that now kills more Americans than AIDS.
AMY GOODMAN: You say, "Swine flu. Bird flu. Unusual concentrations of cancer and other diseases. Massive fish kills from flesh-eating parasites. Recalls of meats, vegetables, and fruits because of deadly E-coli bacterial contamination." All as a result of animal factories, as you put them.
DAVID KIRBY: Correct. Now, those diseases could conceivably emerge in any farm, even the smallest, most sustainable farm, but theyre far more likely to emerge in these large industrial factories. And again, the scale is so much larger that when you have an outbreak, you have this massive problem thats going to cost millions and millions of dollars, just in terms of the lost eggs and productivity.
And just to mention the workshops that you were mentioning earlier with the federal government, the Obama administration has vowed to try to even the playing field a little bit more, so that we have greater access to smaller, independently raised farms. And one way, I think, to do that is to address the subsidy issue. This farm got very cheap grain from a farmer who got millions, perhaps, of dollars in our money to lower the price of that feed. If DeCoster (one of the 2 egg companies involved in the present egg recall) didnt have access to that cheap feed, he wouldnt be able to operate in this way, and that would provide greater access to the market for smaller producers.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain the significance of feed and whats in it.
DAVID KIRBY: Well, feed is a huge issue. And for example, with the chickens that we eat, so-called broiler chickens, they often add arsenic into that feed to make the birds grow faster and to prevent intestinal diseases. Another thing we do in this country
AMY GOODMAN: Arsenic?
DAVID KIRBY: Arsenic, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Isnt that poison?
DAVID KIRBY: It is poison. Yes, it is poison.
AMY GOODMAN: And how does it affect humans? I mean, the chickens eat the arsenic. Why do they grow faster?
DAVID KIRBY: They dont know. No one knows. The theory is that when you poison a chicken, it gets sick, so it eats and drinks more, consumes more, to try to get the poison out of its body. That makes a chicken grow faster, and it prevents intestinal parasites. The risk to humans, there have been studies done, and they have found residue of arsenic in some chickens. The real threat is in the litter that comes out the other end of the chicken. When that gets spread on farmland, people breathe in that arsenic dust. And theres a town in Arkansas where cancer rates are just through the roof. Theres been over twenty pediatric cases in this tiny town of Prairie Grove with just a couple of thousand people.
AMY GOODMAN: Lets go to Arkansas. Dontlets not shortcut this, because you have a very interesting book, where you look at families in several different communities. Arkansasdescribe what are the animal factories that are there and what happens to the people in the community.
DAVID KIRBY: Most of them are so-called broiler operations. Tyson chicken is from Arkansas. The big operators, theyre in northwestern Arkansas. Its justits chicken country. And with consolidation, youve had the rise of these very large factory farms. And again, up until recently, Tyson was using this arsenic product in its feed, and the other companies were, as well. And around this little town of Prairie Grove, as an example, this stuff is dry spreadthe litter is dry spread on the cropland. And where the school was
AMY GOODMAN: You mean the chicken manure.
DAVID KIRBY: The chicken manure. And the dust has been found in the air filters of homes and schools in this town, and its been found with arsenic that has been traced back to the feed in the chicken. Something else we feed chickens that people dont realize is beef products. And when those chickens eat that beef product, some of it falls into their litter. Well, we produce so much chicken litter in this country, because of these factory farms, and it is so rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, its land application uses are limited. So you have surplus chicken litter and nothing to do with it. What do they do with it? They feed it to cattle. So we feed beef cows chicken crap. That chicken litter often contains bits and byproducts of cattle. So we are actually feeding cattle to cattle, which is a risk factor for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, better known as mad cow disease. We actually feed cattle products to cattle in three different ways: chicken litter, restaurant scraps, and blood products on dairy farms. And all the mad cow cases in this country came from mega-dairies where, when that calf is born, they remove it from its mother immediately, because that mothers milk is a commodity, its worth money, so instead they feed that calf a formula that includes bovine blood products, and again increasing the risk of mad cow disease. "
The conversation winds on through beef, and pork production, to contamination of wild fish. <http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/24/david_kirby_on_the_looming_threat
A quick aside to David, when you consider inputs to monocultures you have to figure in the expense of the fossil fuels (exploration, production, delivery, pollution), and the greater reliance on pesticides that comes from growing the same crop, in the same place, year after year. There is a reason why gardeners are supposed to rotate crops. "IF" monocultures are more productive in terms of calories, you still need to subtract the calories lost in marine life due to the "dead zones" at the mouths of the big rivers, such as the Mississippi, where the dead zone is the size of the state of New Jersey.
--
p. 125

"It is a twisted irony that the oil pumped from the bottom of the gulf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmmm. I havent' a clue about the territory you're talking about however, a one size fits all approach often doesn't work in different areas. Often the same approach wont' work withing just a few kms. I think I'll have to get the book and read it.

Eeeeeew! I feel sick!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FarmI wrote:

right, anyone talking about grassland production in the eastern seaboard of the USA being equivalent to what happens on the prairies is full of it. the time scale difference isn't minor and probably heavily depends upon the average annual rainfall.
the soil of the prairies was probably produced over the period of time after the last ice-age. it isn't that thick. if it could accumulate at a rate of an inch a year it would be much deeper...
ok, so let's return to the eastern seaboard and wonder why the topsoil in unmolested places isn't deeper? if it can be so productive why isn't it? because it is woodland and not grassland and unmanaged woodlands cycle carbon but do not sequester once it's reached maturity. very little is sequestered and that would be because of fires that char and thus turn the carbon into a form not easily consumed...
if trees and forests were so good for carbon gathering and keeping the soils of the Amazon would be deep and fertile, but they are not unless you find the places that were altered by the natives in prehistorical times.
so this says that reforestation is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to CO2 sequestration and rebuilding topsoil. (but i won't argue that it's bad for species preservation and diversity because that's needed too in many places -- so there has to be the tradeoff there).
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"similar enough". That takes us from "equals" to "approximates" which, a sane person would agree, don't mean the same thing.

approximately 10" thick when Europeans showed up..

topsoil.
decomposing organics out of the laterite soils, unless you find the places that were altered by the indigenous prior to 1492.

Ah . . . hmmmm? Who said anything about reforestation? Not that it's a bad idea, and we do need to stop cutting them down. You silly goose, the proposition was returning the farm soil to permanent ground cover, like you might use to graze cattle on, and then run out some hypothetical mobile chicken coops (hypothetical chickens included) to do clean up duty on the cow flops from the hypothetical cattle.
So we got our farmers switching from grain crops to meat production. This in turn leads to: 1) cessation of the use of chemical fertilizers, which encourage some bacteria to devour the organic material in the soil (topsoil) 2) stops the release of NO2 from the fertilizer, which is a greenhouse gas. 3) stops the pollution of ground and run off water, thus improving the quality of drinking water, and cutting off the cause of ocean dead zones. 4) At the very least, what remaining topsoil would be protected by the permanent ground cover, and the is the expectation that we may add to it. 5) Additional topsoil (because there is more of it, and it is made from organic material) would effectively sequester CO2 to some extent. Again the question is where to put the decimal point, not "if one is needed". Peter Bane (google the name) puts the sequestration potential at being equivalent to the US production of CO2. 6) Increased topsoil leads to increased absorption of rain fall, recharging aquifers, and reducing chances of flooding. 7) Increased meat production on grassland instead of in CAFOs, means that 70% of antibiotics in this country won't go into meat animals, thereby creating antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. 8) Less grain will be needed to divert into CAFOs 9) Fewer CAFOs means fewer stinking lagoons of animal excrement, that won't be dumped into public water ways, or find its way into ground water. 10) Gives us a good source of complete proteins (beef and chickens), for healthy, growing kids.
So to summarize; permanent ground cover on existing farms, which is used to raise beef, more or less along the lines of Joel Salatin's paradigm, results in clean food, clean air, clean water, and just might save the world.
Other than the above points, I think you made a very cogent response, where you had your facts straight ;O)

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

There are two separate time spans here. One is the 13,000 years of prarie since the last ice age. One is 5000 years to build 10 inches of top soil.
Either the process eventually maxed out at 10 inches of top soil or something very dramatic happened 5000 years ago to scour the top soil to very thin. Let's check back in meteorology - Nope, nothing that impressive that long ago. Conclusion, once the top soil reached 10 inches it maxed out and no longer grew.
So the article is about a guy who can grow an inch a year. Excellent. Let's see how deep it is when it maxes out. Even better let's purchase the stuff by the truckload and move it elsewhere so it never does max out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rate of growth. My reading of the situation is that it maxed out at an inch every 500 years, but started at a much slower pace.

You want topsoil? Say no more.
Topsoil depth varies from place to place. In the Nile River valley, built by eons of flooding and deposits of sediment, it is tens of feet thick. <http://www.kerrcenter.com/HTML/green_excerpt1.html
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

i don't think the timescale of the glaciers melting (who knows how long that took?) vs. what is there now and how the growth took place is really critical in determining the longer range productivity of the area.
if it was a straight slope, an elliptic one or one interrupted (seesaw) it really wouldn't matter as it would only be a slight ragged left edge when compared to the broader time line (essentially flat).

how is it faring under the onslaught of the dammed river (not being allowed to flood any longer) and industrial scale agriculture (and modern fertilizers)?
probably not well either...
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

that wasn't me (FarmI is quote level >>> not me, i am quote level >> )

yea, but i'm pretty sure the difference between growth on the prairie vs. eastern grassland is closer to an order of magnitude which to me is a significant difference not so easily ignored.

for building topsoil. one inch a year on the eastern grassland (reasonably heavily managed otherwise it converts to woodland) as compared to how much per year on the prairie.

wow, that's 5x worse than what i thought it was. but i'd not looked into that specific detail yet. i'm just noodling about numbers and wondering why some things don't seem to add up right about certain claims.

i wonder if anyone has broken down how much of that is char.

if we're talking carbon effectively removed from the atmosphere and not easily returned via rot then yes. didn't you say something like 55,000 years? that's sequestered. :)
a forest at maturity is not sequestering much in the way of carbon, it's cycling it (i.e. i agree with DHS).

not forgotten, it just seems that if the forests were so good at sequestering carbon in the soil (that is what we were talking about was soil building) then the Amazon would be much different than it is and the eastern USoA would have much thicker soils too than it has.

reforestation is what happens to eastern land when left alone. so to keep it from turning to forest means some kind of management (which means energy expenditure of some type to keep it clear of trees be that via grazing or mechanical means the effort is the same no matter what). grazing unfortunately does not keep land clear.

i'd say that the stats say we don't need more meat, we need more exercise and more fruits and veggies.

yes, this is good to do, 100% with ya on this one.

in addition to the energy taken to produce the fertilizer to begin with.

i think those are not eliminated with our current river management, wastewater and drainage systems. reduced would be nice though -- i agree as it would return large areas of the Gulf to productive use.

this is good and i'm all for it, but i don't see how you get from point A to B without a massive labor shift. not many of the kids today have any plans of working on the farm at minimum wage with no benefits. only some small percent of the people have the dedication this type of change takes.
even for me to go all organic would be tough here, but i'm doing better each year. that's all i can do and try to get people around me to see easy things they can do to improve.

this is only partially true. large sections of agricultural land is ditched, drained, drain tubed and trenched. to restore it to the previous state would involve a lot more than letting it go back to green and then putting livestock on it to keep it short and having chickens pick their piles apart. for mosquito control too. you're not going to get people back to where they'll want more mosquitoes (even if i think the current spraying program is poisonous, dangerous and wasteful -- i'm not going to get many others around here to agree with me as it is very flat and swampy with a lot of mosquitoes if left alone).
add to that the runoff troubles from streets, parking lots, storm sewers, rooftops, and then add the waste from treatment plants and then make it even worse by draining all the lowlands and farming them, building levees so the rivers cannot flood, etc. well, we're nowhere near getting a handle on groundwater restoration.
getting the farmers to stop dumping nitrogen is only a small part of the problem. getting people to stop burning ditches would do a lot too (stopping erosion), getting people to stop using pesticides would accomplish a lot more for the long term health, nitrogen is quite simple a poison in comparison to the others. we've got timebombs ticking on a long slow fuse. at least we are looking now, but so many years from now it will take to fix and trillions of dollars. instead we will spend them on wars in far off places to support criminally insane or corrupt gov'ts, etc.

i know, once i heard about that use of antibiotics i got sick to my stomach. f'n idiots. it should be banned outright immediately (along with feeding chickens arsenic, feeding cattle bubble gum or any other animal byproducts, etc.).
but i disagree about meat production needing to be increased.

fine by me.

yea, we had someone doing a feedlot down the road a ways. luckily we are miles away and not downwind. but i felt sorry for any neighbors. a dairy farm smells good when run correctly. a CAFO smells nasty.
there is a bison farmer on the opposite corner and the CAFO is now returned to corn and soybeans so i'm thinking the corn and soybeans are a better tradeoff.

too much protein already for most people. the kids (who don't usually eat it anyways) they like hotdogs, macaroni and cheese and ice-cream -- nothing green please.

won't work for many crops, they don't do well with any competition -- variety in diet being important and i like some of those grains. if they can eventually come up with perennial versions that would be great. i know that is being worked on. that would go a long ways towards stablising the soils and improving the soil community/structure and it would also reduce weed troubles if you could get a field going full of mixed grains and legumes which could fruit at different times and thus be harvested at different times using different means. we're only starting on this sort of figuring.
so while i agree that bare soil can be troublesome, it can be worked around in some ways and at other times it's necessary (to switch crops or to deal with certain types of weeds -- beans and sow thistle being specific examples) and then there are certain perennials and annuals that only get going in disturbed soils. do you suddenly want to remove that type of plant from the diversity of life?

no, probably won't. it would help some things for sure, but it is only scratching the surface.

:)
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too much lack of content to deal with tonight, back at you in the AM.
Save the Forest Litter.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Missouri to the East Coast, and a line down the western borders of Missouri and Arkansas to the Gulf, it would describe an area that now is mostly planted in soy and corn. Corn seems to be a great sponge for chemical fertilizers. In any event, the speculation was that if this area was returned to permanent ground cover, using the techniques of Joel Salatin, i.e. to successively rotate beef and chickens on the same pasturage, (not left wild), we could sequester the annual out put of American produced CO2.
Another, less elegant but needed none the less, technique, would be to would be to manure from barns or corrals to polycrop truck gardens operated by the farmer (CSA). The goal would be the same as any gardener; rotate crops, don't till, grow topsoil. You would get the fresh fruits and vegetables that you say you want. The farmer would cut out the middle man and make money. Yes, by and large, food would go back to being seasonal, but what you had would be fresh.
There still would be monocultures for the demands of baking but these could be rested, and rotated to avoid the pests associated with monocultures.
The above, with more reliance on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), would reduce our nation's need for petroleum for fertilizers, pesticides, and shipping.

Native Americans used fire for many reasons, among them to improve buffalo habitat. The First Forest Managers <http://www.foresthistory.org/Education/curriculum/Activity/activ1/essay . htm> The point here is that the land was used, and still the topsoil grew, as did the population.

flip a switch and get 1" of topsoil/year right away.

What does that have to do with anything?

Funny, I thought we were talking about sequestering CO2 in topsoil, as was speculated about by Peter Bane (see above).

accrued into the soil as humus, i.e. topsoil, where earthworms could be found. At some point, the products of organic decomposition "out", would equal organic products "in", and there would be a dynamic equilibrium of organic material in the soil. Point being, there would be sequestered CO2.

Totally forgotten, in the tropics vegetation rots quickly, that's why we use refrigeration on our produce. Heavy rains wash away organic materials and leave laterite soil types, rich in iron and aluminium, and porous. Except for the Amazon rain forests, which were managed with charcoal, all other tropical soils (laterites) are ephemerally useful for agriculture.
It would be interesting to know if "terra preta" soils have increased in topsoil (been able to incorporate more organic material into themselves).

Are we still talking about sequestering CO2 in top soil la Salatin?

for at least 2,000,000 years, or grains, which civilized humanity has eaten in quantity for the last 10,000 years to great enjury to our health. The best indicator of cardiovascular disease is high triglycerides (and their carrier; Very Low Density Lipids[VLDL]) and low HDL. Saturated fat lowers triglycerides and raises HDL. Carbohydrates raise triglycerides, and lower HDL. (Yes, there is a bit more to it, but this is the nut of the problem.) Fruit, veggies, meat, and a greatly reduced intake of grains and processed carbohydrates, is what we should be looking at for health.

Agriculture (CSA) the farmer doesn't get 4 for the corn in a 14 oz box of corn flakes, they get 50-$1/ear of corn. The middle men are gone, except perhaps those that you rent your space from at a farmers market. Peter Bane opined that using the Salatine model, 5,000,000 jobs could be created. Know anyone out of work?

land that has been ditched, drained, drain tubed and trenched, or paved over, is exactly why we have floods. We give the water no place to go, so it breaks out.

Food manufacturers already know how to get you to eat the greatest amount of salt, soy oil, and high fructose corn syrup now. It is a very bad combination for your health. Fructose doesn't satisfy your hunger. If you eat glucose, you will arrive at a point and say, "that's enough". Won't happen with fructose, and you'll just keep shoveling the food into your mouth. Carbs elicit an insulin response. Insuline is responsible for fat storage and metabolism (type2 diabetes, triglycerides, and stimulating cancers).

right now. Many in this group do it. Even grains are being grown no-till but they use a hellacious amount of herbicides.

Another strawman, my garden beds are disturbed to the extent that I spread my amendments on them, cover them with mulch, and push a dibble into them for planting. No rototiller here. Most of the land is untouched, except for where I plant the damn potatoes.

If we don't try, we'll never know.

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

once, and now it is the fastest growing sector of agriculture.

just referring to the CO2 out put from the US. But I doubt that China, or India has a death wish, and that they will adopt the generally recognized "best system".

customer come to your backdoor, than to have to deliver to his backdoor. In France they still have the bread, produce, and dairy trucks that ply their way from rural home to rural home. "Faire la course" means to arrange your shopping, so that you only have to do the minimum traveling (walking or driving), to minimize the cost in time or gas.

with much of the annuals dedicated to carbohydrate production, and the forest farms aren't just sustainable but permaculture.

about $12 - $13 each. I'd pay more for pastured.
"To grow the plants and animals that made up my meal, no pesti- cides found their way into any farmworker's bloodstream, no nitrogen runoff or growth hormones seeped into the watershed, no soils were poisoned, no antibiotics were squandered, no subsidy checks were written. If the high price of my all-organic meal is weighed against the comparatively low price it exacted from the larger world, as it should be, it begins to look, at least in karmic terms, like a real bargain." Omnivore's Dilemma, p. 180
Even at this level Pollan isn't happy with the petroleum footprint that is left behind.

sector in agriculture is organic. That is where small farmers need to be.

No population growth is a good thing, and their agricultural practices didn't create 0157:H7 E. coli, or superbugs those bacteria that have developed immunity to a wide number of antibioticsthe methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), or cause half a billion eggs to be recalled. As far as us living longer, much of that has to do with medical intervention, not intrinsic healthiness.

Different time, but native Americans just set fires to sculpt the land, and promote hunting and gathering. Early Europeans said that American forests looked like parks. You'd probably enjoy "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus - Paperback (Oct. 10, 2006) by Charles C. Mann <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 32059/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid83964242&sr=1-1-fkmr0>

And we are LOSING topsoil ---> not making any.

Britain, and the U.S.

No need to restrict ourselves to Salatin. See "A Farm for the Future" 3, 4, 5. <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQhRIKo5rA&feature=related


"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" (Vintage) by Gary Taubes <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid83965156&sr=1-1>

you're not hungry anymore, and you keep on eating. The real problem is elevated blood sugar which elicits insulin which controls its consumption and storage. Too much insulin for too long leads to insulin resistance ---> type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. <http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared _diamond.pdf>

This presumes that agricultural workers of the future will live as they have in the past.

Also known as "Persistent Organic Pollutants" (POP). Much of this (PCB, DDT, Dioxin) is in the oceans and is being concentrated by the plastic waste that has found its way there over the last 50 years. As the plastic breaks into smaller pieces, it is swallowed by small organisms, and sent straight up the food chain to the top predator, us. Not trying to overwhelm you but, "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman, <(Amazon.com product link shortened) _1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid83966354&sr=1-1> is another real "page turner".

Increased meat production on grassland instead of in CAFOs, means that 70% of antibiotics in this country won't go into meat animals, thereby creating antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

so don't tell me that it doesn't work. If you want to poison yourself with carbohydrates, that's your business.

nuts, which have similar composition and yields.

Don't put all your eggs into one basket. Start with "A Farm for the Future" 03.

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.