Bert Hyman wrote:
In

Billy wrote:

I'm not arguing for local food because it tastes better or because
it's better for you. I'm arguing that we have no choice. In a world
more prone to drought and flood, we need the resilience that comes
with three dozen different crops in one field, not a vast ocean of
corn or soybeans. In a world where warmth spreads pests more
efficiently, we need the resilience of many local varieties and
breeds. And in a world with less oil, we need the kind of small,
mixed farms that can provide their own fertilizer and build their own
soil.

Who's going to be the person to tell 2/3 of the earth's population
that they're going to have to starve?

Will that be when oil becomes so expensive that it cannot be used to make
fertiliser and the broadacre crops' yields drop to pitiful?

You are right (if I understand you correctly) that we don't know how to feed
the world sustainably yet. Altering how we do agriculture is only part of
the solution. Unless we also deal with over-population all other resource
problems will be exacerbated to breaking point.

We will only go back to an agrarian economy if the present system has a
catastrophic collapse, followed by a population collapse, and nobody wants
to see that. The alternative is to work out how to do sustainable
agriculture and reduce our population. We have to make that choice or
nature will make it for us - and then the results won't be pretty.

Whether McKibben has it right and this requires breaking production up into
local units remains to be seen. I suspect that some degree of localisation
will have to be part of the plan in order to reduce transport costs and that
implies eliminating huge monocultures too. There are of course other
reasons for doing that besides the transport difficulty.

We need more people to work on making the conversion to a sustainable way of
life a soft landing instead of a crash. Saying "we will all be ruined" and
using that as an excuse to keep the present system will become
self-fulfilling.

David

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

In

Billy wrote:

I'm not arguing for local food because it tastes better or because
it's better for you. I'm arguing that we have no choice. In a world
more prone to drought and flood, we need the resilience that comes
with three dozen different crops in one field, not a vast ocean of
corn or soybeans. In a world where warmth spreads pests more
efficiently, we need the resilience of many local varieties and
breeds. And in a world with less oil, we need the kind of small,
mixed farms that can provide their own fertilizer and build their
own
soil.

Who's going to be the person to tell 2/3 of the earth's population
that
they're going to have to starve?

That would be the fossil-fuel, industrial, corporate farmers, waving
their price lists about for people to inspect.

If you have followed the thread, Bert, you would have seen numbers
that
indicate that we are getting diminishing returns from industrial
farming, and industrial farming is based on increasingly expensive
fossil fuels (2200 lbs of coal for 5.5 lbs of nitrogen fertilizer?).

Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process‹in fact,

it will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."


-----
He grows an inch of topsoil/year.

I believe in the theory "The world is a zero sum gain". If food and
population grows it is at the expense of nature. Predator vs Prey and so
on.
So Joel Salatin grows thousands of pounds of food and improves his soil.
If this true where does he get thousands of pounds of material to go
back into his soil?
Does the amount of rain that falls on his land have as much substance
that leaves his farm in food production? I bet he also buys "lime" and
other soil improving substances as well. If he does buy lime and other
soil improvements, is he really self sustaining? Or are using the term
self sustaining in terms of economics?

While I am posting this, I will download
"Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet"
A book some one recommend on this thread, looks like a good read.

Enjoy Life... Dan Using an iPad

Dan L wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

In

Billy wrote:

I'm not arguing for local food because it tastes better or because
it's better for you. I'm arguing that we have no choice. In a world
more prone to drought and flood, we need the resilience that comes
with three dozen different crops in one field, not a vast ocean of
corn or soybeans. In a world where warmth spreads pests more
efficiently, we need the resilience of many local varieties and
breeds. And in a world with less oil, we need the kind of small,
mixed farms that can provide their own fertilizer and build their
own
soil.

Who's going to be the person to tell 2/3 of the earth's population
that
they're going to have to starve?

That would be the fossil-fuel, industrial, corporate farmers, waving
their price lists about for people to inspect.

If you have followed the thread, Bert, you would have seen numbers
that
indicate that we are getting diminishing returns from industrial
farming, and industrial farming is based on increasingly expensive
fossil fuels (2200 lbs of coal for 5.5 lbs of nitrogen fertilizer?).

Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process‹in
fact,

it will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."


-----
He grows an inch of topsoil/year.

I believe in the theory "The world is a zero sum gain".

Perhaps you mean "zero sum game". This is where there is only a fixed
amount in the pot, the total gained by the winners must be made up by the
total lost by the losers. I don't think it is true to say that of the world
in general. It is true of fixed resources eg oil but much of the living
world is not a fixed resource like that. For example while it is
technically true that there is only a fixed amount of some plant nutrients
(for example nitrogen) in the earth's biosphere humans only need a tiny
fraction of it and if we recycle it well then it effectively becomes
limitless.


If food and
population grows it is at the expense of nature. Predator vs Prey and
so on.
So Joel Salatin grows thousands of pounds of food and improves his
soil. If this true where does he get thousands of pounds of material
to go back into his soil?

From air and rain. The great bulk of biomass comes from carbon dioxide in
the air, nitrogen in the air and rainwater.

Does the amount of rain that falls on his land have as much substance
that leaves his farm in food production?

Not exactly, see above and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

I bet he also buys "lime"
and other soil improving substances as well. If he does buy lime and
other soil improvements, is he really self sustaining? Or are using
the term self sustaining in terms of economics?


He probably does by some minor inputs such as lime. The aim in sustainable
agriculture at this stage is not to produce a perfect closed system where
nothing is lost so nothing needs to be input except sunlight - although
some people are actually experimenting with that. The aim is to get away
from reliance on fixed resources, especially energy sources like fossil
fuels which are going to run out fairly soon. This is because if we don't
our present system of agriculture will fall in a heap.

In the future we may well have to worry about running out of lime or
phosphate rock but those limits are not urgent now. It is going to be hard
enough dealing with climate change, fossil fuel running out, water being
used inefficiently and over population adding more pressure every day, let's
get those out of the way first.

David

In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

While I am posting this, I will download
"Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet"
A book some one recommend on this thread, looks like a good read.

Enjoy Life... Dan Using an iPad

???????
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

Billy wrote:
....
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?


songbird

In article ,
"songbird" wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?


songbird

Sorry, I'm no a rancher. The above is a quote from

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

p. 126

I see where he goes from pounds of beef to rabbits and turkeys, so he
may be talking weight before slaughter and not weight of meat (maybe).
Then you need to remember that the steers are eating the cellulose in
the grass, and the chickens are eating bugs from the grass and the
bovine poop, so they are each taking a separate slice of the pasture.
For more information go to http://www.polyfacefarms.com/default.aspx

SAVE THE FOREST MULCH
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"songbird" wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?


songbird

Sorry, I'm no a rancher. The above is a quote from

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

p. 126

I see where he goes from pounds of beef to rabbits and turkeys, so he
may be talking weight before slaughter and not weight of meat (maybe).
Then you need to remember that the steers are eating the cellulose in
the grass, and the chickens are eating bugs from the grass and the
bovine poop, so they are each taking a separate slice of the pasture.
For more information go to http://www.polyfacefarms.com/default.aspx

SAVE THE FOREST MULCH

If you got to http://www.polyfacefarms.com/default.aspx and click on
"Principles" there are 3 videos to watch. In the first video "Mimic
Nature", Daniel Salatin mentions that the turkeys get 20% of their feed
from the pasture, so it isn't a closed system.

Today on "Democracy Now" http://www.democracynow.org/ there are 2
reports on food production. One is on egg production and the other is on
meat production. They both fit nicely into the discussion that we we
having on the quality of food. They don't talk about increasing supply,
but rather about maintaining quality.

Since the food supply has become so integrated, just on supplier can
screw up the system for many others. It's like the dog food scandal,
where one supplier provided the cheapest source of protein powder, which
turned out to be adulterated with melamine and cyanuric acid to give the
appearance of higher levels of protein.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

"David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Dan L wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:

In

Billy wrote:

I'm not arguing for local food because it tastes better or because
it's better for you. I'm arguing that we have no choice. In a
world
more prone to drought and flood, we need the resilience that comes
with three dozen different crops in one field, not a vast ocean of
corn or soybeans. In a world where warmth spreads pests more
efficiently, we need the resilience of many local varieties and
breeds. And in a world with less oil, we need the kind of small,
mixed farms that can provide their own fertilizer and build their
own
soil.

Who's going to be the person to tell 2/3 of the earth's population
that
they're going to have to starve?

That would be the fossil-fuel, industrial, corporate farmers, waving
their price lists about for people to inspect.

If you have followed the thread, Bert, you would have seen numbers
that
indicate that we are getting diminishing returns from industrial
farming, and industrial farming is based on increasingly expensive
fossil fuels (2200 lbs of coal for 5.5 lbs of nitrogen fertilizer?).

Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia,
yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds
of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000
dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a
hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process‹in
fact,

it will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."


-----
He grows an inch of topsoil/year.

I believe in the theory "The world is a zero sum gain".

Perhaps you mean "zero sum game". This is where there is only a fixed
amount in the pot, the total gained by the winners must be made up by
the total lost by the losers. I don't think it is true to say that of
the world in general. It is true of fixed resources eg oil but much
of the living world is not a fixed resource like that. For example
while it is technically true that there is only a fixed amount of some
plant nutrients (for example nitrogen) in the earth's biosphere humans
only need a tiny fraction of it and if we recycle it well then it
effectively becomes limitless.


If food and
population grows it is at the expense of nature. Predator vs Prey and
so on.
So Joel Salatin grows thousands of pounds of food and improves his
soil. If this true where does he get thousands of pounds of material
to go back into his soil?

From air and rain. The great bulk of biomass comes from carbon
dioxide in the air, nitrogen in the air and rainwater.

Does the amount of rain that falls on his land have as much substance
that leaves his farm in food production?

Not exactly, see above and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

I bet he also buys "lime"
and other soil improving substances as well. If he does buy lime and
other soil improvements, is he really self sustaining? Or are using
the term self sustaining in terms of economics?


He probably does by some minor inputs such as lime. The aim in
sustainable agriculture at this stage is not to produce a perfect
closed system where nothing is lost so nothing needs to be input
except sunlight - although some people are actually experimenting
with that. The aim is to get away from reliance on fixed resources,
especially energy sources like fossil fuels which are going to run out
fairly soon. This is because if we don't our present system of
agriculture will fall in a heap.

In the future we may well have to worry about running out of lime or
phosphate rock but those limits are not urgent now. It is going to be
hard enough dealing with climate change, fossil fuel running out,
water being used inefficiently and over population adding more
pressure every day, let's get those out of the way first.

David

Thanks for the clarification, The term "closed system" is the key word
that I was associating with "sustainable".

--
Enjoy Life... Dan L

Billy wrote:
In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

While I am posting this, I will download
"Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet"
A book some one recommend on this thread, looks like a good read.

Enjoy Life... Dan Using an iPad

???????
I purchased a new toy called an iPad from apple computer. I put the
phrase "Using an iPad" for my self to know which machine I was posting
from. I forgot that my main computer setup puts a flower pot in the
upper corner. I will remove the added catch phase because I doubt I will
use the main computer for Internet use much longer in favor of the the
new iPad, which is also a book reader also.

--
Enjoy Life... Dan L

In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

While I am posting this, I will download
"Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet"
A book some one recommend on this thread, looks like a good read.

Enjoy Life... Dan Using an iPad

???????
I purchased a new toy called an iPad from apple computer. I put the
phrase "Using an iPad" for my self to know which machine I was posting
from. I forgot that my main computer setup puts a flower pot in the
upper corner. I will remove the added catch phase because I doubt I will
use the main computer for Internet use much longer in favor of the the
new iPad, which is also a book reader also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3uuJxZX7s4

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
globalvoicesonline.org
http://www.davidmccandless.com/

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?


songbird

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

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia,
yearly transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000
pounds of pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and
35,000 dozen eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw
from a hundred acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more
astonishing is the fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?

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.

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. )


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.

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

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Joel Salatin on his farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, yearly
transforms his pastures into "40,000 pounds of beef, 30,000 pounds of
pork, 10,000 broilers, 1,200 turkeys, 1,000 rabbits, and 35,000 dozen
eggs. This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred
acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the
fact
that this pasture will be in no way diminished by the process it
will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier
underfoot (this thanks to the increased earthworm traffic)."

these numbers do not look right. i don't think there's that
many calories available on 100 acres of pasture for that
many animals (figure the herd must be around 100 animals
for cows alone).

does the basic math add up right here Billy?


songbird

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
David, I'm surprised you didn't respond to

"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
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ability/dp/160
4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281718588&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
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

Bill who putters wrote:
In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article
-se
ptember.org,
Dan L wrote:

While I am posting this, I will download
"Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet"
A book some one recommend on this thread, looks like a good read.

Enjoy Life... Dan Using an iPad

???????
I purchased a new toy called an iPad from apple computer. I put the
phrase "Using an iPad" for my self to know which machine I was
posting
from. I forgot that my main computer setup puts a flower pot in the
upper corner. I will remove the added catch phase because I doubt I
will
use the main computer for Internet use much longer in favor of the
the
new iPad, which is also a book reader also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3uuJxZX7s4

Cool, I saw Frank Zappa in concert three times. The last concert he
replayed the older songs from Mother of Inventions. "Don't eat that
yellow snow".
It also tells you how old I am

--
Enjoy Life... Dan L

David, I'm surprised you didn't respond to


I didn't see it.

"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:


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.

**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
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ability/dp/160
4860804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281718588&sr=1-1

p. 250



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?


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.

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