Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's not Just Joel Salatin anymore
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: 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. 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. 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 -- - 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 |
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 |