Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >I need facts on that. Food stability and security is greater when the  
> >source is spread more broadly. Think garden failure. Think the great  
> >potato failure in Europe. If we choose to rail at globalism we might  
> >start with out recent ancestors who left their caves and huts and  
> >crossed an ocean.
> 

Gene, all that global food is being moved about with oil.  In fact almost all 
of it is being grown with oil (and natural gas).  Already I'm monitoring the 
stories of food panic in remote places of the world (Nepal, Pakistan, 
Zimbabwe) openly blamed on the price of fuel.  On the same trip to get the 
oranges, I 
noticed that the produce stand had thier 50lb sacks of seed potatoes in stock 
and so I inquired the price, glad to hear that they are about the same price 
as last year.  But the proprietor's face darkened and he said, "Yes, but the 
fertilizer for them has gone from $3.25 a fifty-weight last year to $7.75 
this 
year!"  More than double.  I don't use it, of course, being content with a 
modest yield of potatoes using only compost and manure.  But the implication 
is 
tremendous.

Someone I know who owns a riding stable opined that even if the weather this 
year is perfect (far from likely, more's the pity), hay will still be scarce 
and expensive.  Her reasoning is that the lush yields of hay from three 
cuttings around here comes from generous application of nitrogen fertilizer 
and with 
said fertilizer so expensive, less will be bought and used, and what is used 
will produce expensive hay.

It's true that you can grow hay and pasture here just with the animal manure 
generated (which is what we do), but the yield is modest.  It is not worth it 
to bale the hay for sale from such a field.  To do that one must apply 
chemical nitrogen fertilizer (and lime and phosphorus) which will triple and 
quadruple the yield.

I mention these things to illustrate that the whole idea of spreading food 
production around the world is directly depending on cheap oil and natural 
gas, 
which, it seems, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

> >Homesteading barely  
> >works for a very small number. It is impossible on a national scale.  

It works for us small in number because of our very modest lifestyles.  It 
would make a very good discussion on this list to examine the notion that it 
is 
impossible on a national scale.  But agribusiness as we know it will come to 
an end with the end of cheap fossil fuel.  If indeed homesteading, or 
something 
very like it, is impossible, then that is the same thing as saying that 
living will be impossible as well.

>  
> >Take a deep breath and inspect your computer for country of manufacture.

That's an often used red herring.  That is, if we were all localists or 
regionalists, where would we get computers from?  Well, the computer on which 
I am 
typing right now is six or seven years old and shows no signs right now of 
abating.   I notice that the whole outfit in the Mart now of days, flat 
monitor, 
printer, everything, is less than $300.  And, if need be I could do without 
it 
altogether or go to the library and use the computer.

But the glass of milk  I had this morning was only a few hours old.  Likewise 
the eggs.  I'll need more of them tomorrow and I can't do without them (or 
their equivalent).  

That is, I don't mind that computers depend on world commerce and oil.  It's 
a good use for them just like it's a good use of them to bring tea and 
oranges 
within my reach.  I enjoy them but do not depend on them.  

Computers and oranges vs. milk and eggs are two different worlds.   </HTML>