Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
H2O, it's not just for cleaning sidewalks anymore | Edible Gardening | |||
Bunnies Not So Cute Anymore | Gardening | |||
Boston Ivy - not thriving anymore | United Kingdom | |||
Tomato plants not flowering anymore | North Carolina |