Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Ryan Albinger" <ryalbinger@earthlink.net>]

Just stating the facts that things are based on.  Sorry if I offended
anyone's view of the world through brown colored glasses.  I didn't
mis-state fact.  I re-read my message, I stated why things are done in
light of the given circumstances to correct a statement that was made.  
Pick my message apart- I would love to see where I may correct my
statements I personally believe and know to be true.  I'm not set in my
ways and I welcome people to show me any mistakes.  I'm open to new ideas
and willing to test them to see that they are true, given there is value to
be obtained.  Kinda like I view new soil management tools.
Ryan


> [Original Message]
> From: TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net>
> To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: 6/16/2006 10:40:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] the myth of America feeding
theworld/wasCompost tea and bugs in a jug
>
>
> Believe what you like, I think that's a terribly misinformed defense of
> commercial feedlots and unsustainable big agribusiness. It's a defense of
> all that's wrong with our agriculture today. What's next, Ryan, toxic
> sludge is good for you, because it's profitable?
>
> You need to get with the program, what our list is intended for:
>
> "Intensive, organic soil building is basic to growing much more in less
> space with better nutrition, more profitable growing through less bought
> inputs, less need for water, fewer losses from pests and disease, and less
> vulnerability to fossil fuel problems now or in the future. What ways this
> can best be pursued in different soils and climates leaves a lot of room
> for discussion. We deal with the widespread problems of loss of soil
> minerals, humus, nutritional content of produce, and loss of topsoil
> itself, as well as the cost-price squeeze faced by real organic growers,
> the shrinking supply of affordable land for growing and irrigation water,
> and the need to increase the supply of nutritious food while making
healthy
> food more affordable in general. Our generation cannot continue to plunder
> the soil capital of future generations.
>
> "We include sustainable food growing from home garden to market garden,
> fruits, nuts, berries, fungi, and vegetables, in addition to food animals.
>
> "Living On The Land is not a commercial forum for profit promotions, nor a
> chat forum, and is sensibly moderated to ensure discussions are related to
> the topic. "
>
> paul, tradingpost@riseup.net
> ---------------
> The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worthy, and after all
> our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to
> foster its renewal is our only hope.
>    - Wendell Berry 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
> On 6/16/2006 at 7:44 AM Ryan Albinger wrote:
>
> >I have some cattle experience- only been responsible for raising a couple
> >thousand head of youngstock.  General figures: 100-300 pounds will
consume
> >3-5 gallons of water a day and produce 1.5-2.5 pounds of meat through the
> >following growth curve; 300-1000 will consume 5-10 gallons; and 1000-1500
> >non-lactating will consume 10-15 gallons; lacating dairy cows about 20-30
> >gallons of water and producing 9-12 gallons of milk (in weather below
> about
> >70 degrees).  Most milking systems and washing will consume under 1/2
> >gallon water per gallon of milk produced.  Considering these figures per
> >unit produced, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the average toilet
> >consuming something like 20 or 30 gallons of potable water per flush.
> >Feeding byproducts to cattle and meat quality.  Putting a balanced ration
> >into a confinement animal doesn't appear to make the difference of
> quality-
> >green grass pasture seems to be the big difference.  The utilization of
> >byproduct/coproduct feeds for livestock allows fullest utilization of raw
> >product.  The US is actually exporting distillers grains from ethanol
> >plants globally- a 24-27% protein feedstuff.  Many of the byproducts are
> >used on animal operations within reasonable distance from point of
> >manufacture.  I know of farms, not saying it is right, that the majority
> of
> >their feeds is a byproduct of industry supplemented by some homegrown
> >feedstuffs and they have some of the highest producing, healthiest
cattle.
>
> >It's all about saving underutilized resources.  Is is also about
> >profitability, but the mass market doesn't pay any different on how it is
> >produced.  And yes, I was serious saying much of this stuff was going to
> >landfills- follows the old university paradigm of haul the manure in the
> >woods because buying commercial fertilizer is cheaper.
> >What about composting these by-products?  Are you willing to pay $40-400
a
> >ton for compost inputs?  Feeding it through a cow is far more effcient in
> >food production than through compost.  A 1/4 pound of beef and 3 pounds
of
> >milk can be produced from 1 pound of many of these byproducts in as
little
> >as a day.  1 pound of these byproducts composted makes 1/3 to 1/2 pound
of
> >compost which applied to land could be attributed to making 1/10 a pound
> of
> >fresh produce in what 6-12 months at the fastest?  And put through the
> cow,
> >you get manure to use on crops or compost to boot.
> >The best ground is needed for fresh produce.  Case in point, why does the
> >Imperial valley of California have more produce production than the
> >Midwest.  Because it has better climate, a better soil, better location. 
> >Yes, you can grow strawberries in the Midwest.  But for almost the same
> >work, the crop in the Imperial valley would make a higher yield year in
> and
> >year out.  Thus it is more practical to grow on the best land.  Not
saying
> >you can't make land better, but you can't change it's climate or
location.
>
> >On high input/high value crops, it's about maximizing production per unit
> >of input moreso than less intensive production systems.  In the upper
> >midwest, when I see big fields of corn replaced by vast fields of
> >strawberries or melons or fresh salad greens, I'll take back my
position. 
> >It can be done, but lacks the value.
> >Midwest feedlots and crop production for cattle.  As I mentioned before,
> >talk to these feedlots.  Their rations are loaded with distiller's
grains,
> >cottonseed, wheat midds, soy hulls, corn gluten feed or meal, and/or
other
> >byproducts.  Many of these outfits will base around these feeds as they
> are
> >low cost sources of nutrition.  In many cases, it would be cheaper for a
> >feedlot producing it's own corn to drive right past the farm's grain
mill,
> >take the grain to the elevator, and come back with a load of
distiller's. 
> >Their are a lot of acreage of grains produced to feed
> livestock-indirectly.
> >The production of ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, flour, grits, and
> >other human uses takes first seat in crop use, then the cattle clean up. 
> >There are farms that feed what they grow, but the utilzation and demand
of
> >many crops make the secondary byproduct use for cattle the better
> financial
> >choice and many byproduct allow you to "build the ideal kernal of corn"
> >(put together the ratios needed of starch, fiber, protein, and oil
> content)
> >Forage production of perenial forages is also the best utilization of a
> lot
> >of marginal crop ground.
> >Ryan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland