In article , ask@itshall
says...
"Billy" wrote in message

Thicker grass to prevent damage to the pasture by the steers, perennial
crops, like nuts, replacing grains, increasing production by reducing
size and increasing diversity, working smart instead of working hard,

Sounds like Permaculture.

It is permaculture.

Most of our associates here are trending to permaculture as are we.
Wherever and whenever I can, I promote the idea.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

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,
http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-...1C2E0QK/ref=sr
_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283966354&sr=1-1
is another real "page turner".

.................................................. .
This URL deals with weight loss and increasing POP'S stored in fat
entering the blood stream.

Sort of reminds me of dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0JfdP36kI

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

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,
http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-...1C2E0QK/ref=sr
_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283966354&sr=1-1
is another real "page turner".

..................................................
This URL deals with weight loss and increasing POP'S stored in fat
entering the blood stream.

Sort of reminds me of dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/con...utage.geq035.a
bstract

Low-dose persistent organic pollutants increased telomere length in
peripheral leukocytes of healthy Koreans
--
- 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:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
FarmI wrote:
Billy wrote:

Well, in this case, it would be prairie grass (reflecting
Salatin's pasture),

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.

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.


Tropical rainforest is often on leached soil where most of the
nutrients are actually in the trees.

right, why is that though? you'd
figure that if it was truely good for
the ecosystem to have deep soil
that it would have figured that out
by now (millions of years of selective
pressure).


Different ecosystems work in different ways. In the case of tropical
forests the very high rainfall leaches the soil and the biota has adapted to
that reality.

sure, but i'm thinking that what
has happened is something else
(more on this below)...


....
You are right that it is not a panacea but wrong in saying we cannot
build soil or sequester carbon by altering land use.

yeah, i mispoke somewhat there, but what i meant
was that the need for carbon storage is now more than
what is going to be achieved using either of those two
methods. building soil would help out all around, i won't
argue against that.

my wondering about topsoil is that if it is so good
for overall life then you'd think that by this time (after
millions of years) it would be selected for and there
would be much more of it than there is instead of
what we do find. so my curiousity is engaged on
the topic of the disappearing topsoil.


Two reasons. One: that there are environments where building and
maintaining topsoil is too hard (eg tropical rainforest) so the adaptive
pathway has gone in other directions. Two: humans have been making topsoil
disappear since we started agriculture. We now live in an age where so much
is transmitted culturally instead of genetically you could call it the
post-Darwinian era. This is gross simplification of course because natural
selection still takes place as it always has but now many factors interfere
with it.

i disagree to the first one, we have the example
already of topsoil retention in some areas that
have had something done to them already (terra
preta), so in effect it is possible to have soils
that hold up against tropical rainforest conditions.
the deeper question is why hasn't nature in
thousands-to-millions of years figured that out
for itself? that is the thing i was digging at
earlier with my previous question.

the second part i do agree with.

returning to the first part though is where it
makes the most sense to look into further. i.e.
the fact that given sufficient moisture any area
goes "up" towards the source of energy instead of
investing in the dirt.

that is one thing i think that humans have come
about to deal with, the fact that plants/animals/
other life forms cannot get any further towards
the source of energy as things currently stand.
the other problem of having all of the life-eggs
in one basket (this planet/this solar system) is
a proven strategy for failure longer term and i
think we're "here" and have come about to deal
with that too. we are the great innoculators.
watch out universe. here we come! soon i sure
hope.


ascends soapbox
Typically our cultures cannot deal with issues like topsoil because they
take generations to see change. When motivation is dominated by the desire
to eat today, to make a profit next month and to be elected again in 3 years
time how can you spare any thought for problems that have taken thousands of
years to develop and will take hundreds to fix?

there are some people with longer range vision who
can do micro-pocket type stuff. having a game-preserve
and having natural areas at least gives a chance that
all will not be lost. the fear of the results of
poaching and other degradation due to mass starvation
would always be there as i'm quite sure when push
does come to shove that the wild areas will start to
be sacrificed. the only salvation really is that
much of life is pretty tenacious and likely to survive
here or there in small pockets and there will always
be conservationists who will do their part to keep
some diversity going. the great extinction now
underway is unlikely to reverse any time soon. it
will be a wave we have to ride and the other side is
far away and likely hundreds of years in the future.


The way things are heading nothing will be done on a large scale until over
population, over consumption, resource limits and climate change form the
perfect storm. People will then cry out to leaders saying "why didn't you
do anything about it?" The majority of leaders will say "elect me again and
I will fix it next year", the few honest ones will say "because you didn't
want me to" and they will be the first trampled by the hungry mob.
descends soapbox

heh, yeah, the visionaries find that public policy
and the elected life are too eroding to their own
values to maintain integrity for long.

in any mass elected government you don't get the
best governors, you get the best mass media manipulators.

my own answer to this is to randomly select all
gov't workers (and then after they are in office
and serving they can be re-elected as a vote of
confidence every four years). this would save a
lot of empty campaign rhetoric and eliminate the
corporate and lobbyists buying influence. sure,
we'd end up with bad representatives but they can
be voted out and the random selection process
would pick the next person.

if i didn't have to run for office and raise
money to get elected and do all the wasted BS
it takes to get elected i think it would be fun
to actually be in office and try to deal with
problems.

if only i were king,


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

what does your brain consume? last i
knew it needed carbohydrates to function...

Traditionally, it runs on ketones, but it can run on glucose. Inuits ate
only meat. We are omnivores within limits.
--
- 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

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

... If you want to poison yourself
with carbohydrates, that's your business.

It is an exageration that diabetes is caused directly by sugar and
other high carb foods. It is not an exageration that when a tribe that
traditionally ate a low carb or slow carb diet is put on the high carb
or fast carb western diet more than 80% develop diabetes. The causation
is slow, somewhat indirect, and has a genetic component in societies
that have had a lot of generations to filter out that tendency to
diabetes. In other words my version is - High carb foods are only
poison if you or anyone in your family has ever been fat or diabetic.

what does your brain consume? last i
knew it needed carbohydrates to function...

It is widely stated that the brian needs glucose and thus dietary
carbs to function. Widely stated does not equal true.

Consider that even on an extended fast the blood sugar level does not
fall towards zero. It remains stable for any non-diabetic. Fat and/or
protein are burned and glucose is created in the process even with no
diet of any sort. Add protein and fat as the diet, Inuit style complete
with considering raw seal eyes a delicacy, and the blood glucose level
remains stable.

That's in addition to the fact that the brain runs just fine on ketones
from burning fat.

I conclude that gardeners should go veggies and fruits not grains.
Leave the grains to the ranchers and large scale farmers. Come to think
of it I never have grown my own barley. ;^)

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

... If you want to poison yourself
with carbohydrates, that's your business.

It is an exageration that diabetes is caused directly by sugar and
other high carb foods. It is not an exageration that when a tribe that
traditionally ate a low carb or slow carb diet is put on the high carb
or fast carb western diet more than 80% develop diabetes. The causation
is slow, somewhat indirect, and has a genetic component in societies
that have had a lot of generations to filter out that tendency to
diabetes. In other words my version is - High carb foods are only
poison if you or anyone in your family has ever been fat or diabetic.

what does your brain consume? last i
knew it needed carbohydrates to function...

It is widely stated that the brian needs glucose and thus dietary
carbs to function. Widely stated does not equal true.

Consider that even on an extended fast the blood sugar level does not
fall towards zero. It remains stable for any non-diabetic. Fat and/or
protein are burned and glucose is created in the process even with no
diet of any sort. Add protein and fat as the diet, Inuit style complete
with considering raw seal eyes a delicacy, and the blood glucose level
remains stable.

That's in addition to the fact that the brain runs just fine on ketones
from burning fat.

I conclude that gardeners should go veggies and fruits not grains.
Leave the grains to the ranchers and large scale farmers. Come to think
of it I never have grown my own barley. ;^)

Thank you, Doug.
--
- 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 ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

... If you want to poison yourself
with carbohydrates, that's your business.

It is an exageration that diabetes is caused directly by sugar and
other high carb foods.

No, it is the insulin peaks in the blood caused by the historically
large amounts of carbohydrates that we presently consume, especially
highly refined carbs (white flour, white rice, sucrose). The insulin
controls metabolization of sugar, and fat storage, which in turn may
lead to obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and insulin
resistant type 2 diabetes. "May lead" because if you do a lot of
physical work, you will probably be protected from the worst effects of
insulin.

It is not an exageration that when a tribe that
traditionally ate a low carb or slow carb diet is put on the high carb
or fast carb western diet more than 80% develop diabetes. The causation
is slow, somewhat indirect, and has a genetic component in societies
that have had a lot of generations to filter out that tendency to
diabetes. In other words my version is - High carb foods are only
poison if you or anyone in your family has ever been fat or diabetic.

what does your brain consume? last i
knew it needed carbohydrates to function...

It is widely stated that the brian needs glucose and thus dietary
carbs to function. Widely stated does not equal true.

Consider that even on an extended fast the blood sugar level does not
fall towards zero. It remains stable for any non-diabetic. Fat and/or
protein are burned and glucose is created in the process even with no
diet of any sort. Add protein and fat as the diet, Inuit style complete
with considering raw seal eyes a delicacy, and the blood glucose level
remains stable.

That's in addition to the fact that the brain runs just fine on ketones
from burning fat.

I conclude that gardeners should go veggies and fruits not grains.
Leave the grains to the ranchers and large scale farmers. Come to think
of it I never have grown my own barley. ;^)
--
- 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 ,
songbird wrote:

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

summarise please. i don't youtube...


songbird

I'll follow up with # 05 when I have time.

#3
harvesting winter grass for cattle is the largest expenditure of fossil
fuel on this farm.
WInter grazing at a neighboring farm is possible because of the mix of
grasses, which make the grasses strong enough not to get dug up by cow
hooves.
Grasses don't require fossil fuel.
Grasses inspired by woodland grass that grew naturally, without
encouragement.
Woodland grass grew on soil with biological diversity.
Plowing killed soil organisms.
Fossil fuel allows more plowing, and provides chemferts.
Fossil fuel is used to grow crops in soil that is essentially dead.
When fossil fuel runs out, we will need living soil.
Cattle require a lot of land, and for Britain to become self sufficient,
people will need to eat less meat, and farmers will need to raise other
crops as well.
Introduction of permaculture and permaculture expert Patrick Whitefield.
Three ways of farming, drugery, fossil fuel, and design.

#4
Woodland are the most efficient growing system for the British climate.
Farming based on natural ecology. "What we got to do is take the
principals of this (the forest), and think how far we can bend them
towards something more edible."
- Patrick Whitefield
The demonstration farm is a collection of small clearings in a massive
woodland.
Chris & Lynn DIxon produce all the fruit, vegetables, meat, and the fuel
they need to cook them, in return for a few days work per week. When
they started, 20 years before, the farm was degraded, marginal, pasture
land. The first thing that they did was let the land return to its
natural state, a chaotic woodland, but in its present state, the chaos
is very highly structured.
The gorse fixes nitrogen, the bracken collecting pot ash, and by
encouraging the birds, they are encouraging the phosphate cycle through
the system. Thus no need for sacks of fossil fuel fertilizers, it's all
provided by nature. Carkey Campbell (sp?)ducks provide insect
protection.
All the plants provides some service.
Willow Leyland Ash (tree) branches are fed to horses, cattle, and sheep.
Using the full height of trees and hedges, you can squeeze higher yields
out of the same piece of land. The leaf liter supplies nitrogen to other
plants.


http://www.shade-growing.com/permacu...uture-transcri
pt

http://transitionculture.org/2009/02...ure-essential-
viewing/
--
- 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

A Farm for a Future

#3
harvesting winter grass for cattle is the largest expenditure of fossil
fuel on this farm.
Winter grazing at a neighboring farm is possible because of the mix of
grasses, which make the grasses strong enough not to get dug up by cow
hooves.
Grasses don't require fossil fuel.
Grasses inspired by woodland grass that grew naturally, without
encouragement.
Woodland grass grew on soil with biological diversity.
Plowing killed soil organisms.
Fossil fuel allows more plowing, and provides chemferts.
Fossil fuel is used to grow crops in soil that is essentially dead.
When fossil fuel runs out, we will need living soil.
Cattle require a lot of land, and for Britain to become self sufficient,
people will need to eat less meat, and farmers will need to raise other
crops as well.
Introduction of permaculture and permaculture expert Patrick Whitefield.
Three ways of farming, drugery, fossil fuel, and design.

#4
Woodland are the most efficient growing system for the British climate.
Farming based on natural ecology. "What we got to do is take the
principals of this (the forest), and think how far we can bend them
towards something more edible."
- Patrick Whitefield

The demonstration farm is a collection of small clearings in a massive
woodland. Chris & Lynn Dixon produce all the fruit, vegetables, meat,
and the fuel they need to cook them, in return for a few days work per
week. When they started, 20 years before, the farm was degraded,
marginal, pasture land. The first thing that they did was let the land
return to its natural state, a chaotic woodland, but in its present
state, the chaos is very highly structured.

The gorse fixes nitrogen, the bracken collecting pot ash, and by
encouraging the birds, they are encouraging the phosphate cycle through
the system. Thus no need for sacks of fossil fuel fertilizers, it's all
provided by nature. Carkey(sp?) Campbell ducks provide insect protection.

All the plants provides some service. Willow Leyland Ash (tree) branches
are fed to horses, cattle, and sheep. Using the full height of trees and
hedges, you can squeeze higher yields out of the same piece of land.
Plants not producing crops are recycling nutrient. Cannon(?) Alder
supplies nitrogen through its leaf litter ;O), and root system,

#5
and beneficial fungi link up everything under the ground, and move
nutrients around from areas of high concentration to areas of low
concentration. All the plants are there for a reason, or multiple
reasons. Plants that attract beneficial insects do away with the need
for pesticides. The garden requires, over the year, a day a week of
work, but a lot of that is harvesting. Maintenance is 10 days/year.
Yields from a forest garden (a low energy, low maintenance system)
should be able to feed 10 people/acre, which is double the amount of
people that contemporary farming can feed. What you can't grow is
cereal crops, which can be replaced by nut crops, which are more
sustainable. Orchards require less energy than a field of wheat.
Nutrient composition of chestnuts is similar to that of rice.

Gardening with hand tools is more productive and energy efficient than
farming. It's the attention to detail that an experienced gardener can
give to a small plot that makes it so productive. They can provide up to
5 times more food per sq. meter, than a large farm.

Modern farming and distribution methods are unlikely to survive the
increasing costs of petroleum. The modern demographic change of the 21st
Century will be re-ruralization. Proportion of people involved in food
production will increase.
-----
The above remarks come from Martin Crawford, Patrick Whitefield, and
Chris Dixon. See site below.


http://transitionculture.org/2009/02...ure-essential-
viewing/

http://www.shade-growing.com/permacu...uture-transcri
pt

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5241

Songbird, drop me a line at
--
- 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