Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] the myth of America feeding the world/ was Compost tea and bugs in a jug

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril@earthlink.net>
  • To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing" <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] the myth of America feeding the world/ was Compost tea and bugs in a jug
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:56:49 -0600

One thing that I would like to point out, is the breeds of cattle that are used, can make a big difference in what happens to the land.

Most of the cattle now used were originally developed in Europe were water and good grass was plentiful, but, they replaced the Texas Longhorn, that was adapted to poor land, because they had the ability to pack on more weight per animal.

One book that I found interesting, is Micro Livestock. In it, they mention that smaller breeds, can generally make better use of poorer land, in part because they need less food to sustain life than the larger breeds, and anything above the basic level needed to sustain life, let's them put on weight. This allows the smaller breeds to put on weight where a larger breed might actually loose weight.

The flip side of this, means that they have a lower slaughter weight per animal ( but they also have a tendency for a higher percentage of carcass usage ), but that slaughter weight is reached sooner than a full size animal, at about 10 months as apposed to 14 - 18 months.

A family of 4 that slaughters a Black Angus, will probably be eating from it for 2 years, while a family that slaughters a Irish Dexter, will probably have freezer space for another one in a year. Let's not forget that the entire time that meat in is the freezer, the animal is still consuming more resources, in the form of electricity, to keep the meet frozen. I bought into a 1/4 of an Angus a few years ago, and it lasted my family for close to a year, and I gave away some of the meat, I hate to think of how long a whole angus would have lasted.

Greg H.


----- Original Message ----- From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 22:57
Subject: [Livingontheland] the myth of America feeding the world/ was Compost tea and bugs in a jug



Skipping over your points I can only agree with, you ask
But will small areas save Texas from desertification?

Robert, we know the beef industry sucks big time. The country eats ten
times the beef that it needs; cattle are by far the most inefficient use of
land and increasingly scarce (and expensive) fresh water, compared to food
grown for direct human consumption. How many people realize the U.S. is not
"feeding the world" but is a net importer of food? We can't feed ourselves
- the way we farm. Those " vast areas of poor grass land that is grazed by
skinny cattle" should tell cattlemen to give up and get out and leave the
land to people who know how to make sustainable use of it. If people like
Betsy can produce grass-fed beef sustainably (and profitably) in certain
areas, fine. The feedlot factories of the Midwest are obscene. Personally
I couldn't care less how to raise cattle sustainably. Cutting down cattle's
waste of diminishing resources needed by future generations is of more
concern to me. How much of the productive land could be turned into food
production for people instead of hay and grain for cattle? Besides, cattle
should be kept out of delicate ecosystems. I discussed this (tactfully)
with old ranchers in western NM a while back and they're going to keep on
keeping on till they're pushing up daisies in the Quemado cemetery. To get
buried there you only have to tip the guy with the backhoe ... but they
admitted my Genovese were the best tomatoes they tasted since they were
kids eating out of their grandmothers' gardens. Surprising as it may be to
some, grown entirely without compost tea ;-)

I am somewhat familiar with Texas grazing land - at least East TX blackland
clay. My dad had a small grass-fed herd of registered Herefords so we had
pot roast weekly year round. After the drought of '55 and '56, he had me
putting in permanent pasture of Coastal Bermuda and vetch for nitrogen, and
from then on no plowing, discing, or haying. And just in time for record
rainfall in '57, the year of the tornado in Big D. And the old cotton
farmers wore out their acreage and left the land for the banks to put in
permanent pasture. And then nobody knew how to produce any of their own
food.

paul, tradingpost@riseup.net
---------------

The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not
television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only
those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about
it.
- Aldo Leopold in Round River, 1933
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 6/14/2006 at 3:11 PM Robert Norsen wrote:

From the message below, " concentrate lots of stuff on a small area to
build top soil".
I don't doubt that with enough added good stuff on a small area one can
build deep good productive ( top) soil. If raising a garden is the
objective, certainly concentrating on a smaller area, producing heavily in
that area with minimal cost in labor and energy makes sense.

But will small areas save Texas from desertification? We don't want
to lose the SW USA or any other part of the EARTH to Sahara like
conditions. Enough of that already. There are vast areas of poor
grass land that is grazed by skinny cattle. ( herded by skinney people))
Once the cattle are old and big enough to market they are sent to
feeding pens, stuffed with high calorie grains ( etc.) from chemically
fertilzed fields so they produce meat that has rather high fat content but
no CLA. Don't know why CLA is not formed in feed lot fat. It ain't.

These marginal pastures might respond to heavy horse manure or other
good stuff. And water
would sure help. Heavy applications of manure are not available or not
economic. Don't know which. One alternative already used is chemical.
Chemicals work to make more grass but you and I know it also destroys the
pasture because chemicals reduce the LIFE that generates the nutrients f
rom the soil. Chemicals are momentary benefit. Tend to wash away or
percolate down below the root zone.
As chemicals pass by the roots some is picked up by plants. The
majority of the chemical load passes unused into pollution. As chemicals
are used, MORE chemicals are needed. Good sales system!

The LIFE of compost would be great if applied in enough volume and if it
could be applied effectively and economically. Compost, multiplied many
fold, enriched by nutirients that are either absorbed by the LIFE and /
or are included in easily managed liquid form is ACT.

The effect of ACT, as has been recorded by years and infinite area of
pasture and other grass, is to increase growth, root depth, resistance to
drouth, reduction of water needed, improvement in nutrient value and
quantity. The only records on pasture kept and reported that I know of,
are by Betsy Ross. If there are conflicting / supporting records I am not
aware of them. Anyone?

Betsy's records showed mortgage paying improvements in cattle weight
gain per month.

The advantage of grass fed - no Mad Cow hazard - is assumned. Mad Cow
is the result of feeding MC diseased animal parts that were often included
in feed lot feed. Hopefully no more.

The higher CLA content of ACT grazed cattle vs cattle grazed on non ACT
grass and vs feed lot cattle was measured and reported by laboratory
measurements. The report was that the CLA content was about the same as
is found in wild salmon. If true that is a significant economic value in
the market.

The advantage of CLA in the human diet was described at lenght in
articles published by Life Extension, a group of research oriented
doctors I consider highly reliable. www.lef.org

Why not, to be scientific, compare ACT to other applications?
good idea. There have been eons & tons of other stuff added to
pastures in Texas. If they had worked and been economical would Texas
ranchers still be using them? Maybe they are. What Betsy did with ACT
appears to be so effective Texas ranchers are gathering to go in the same
direction.
This move involves vast amounts of compost just to make the ACT. Vast
compost involves vast amounts of whatever it takes to make compost. When
you look at Texas grazing land, you can't see it all because of the
curvature of the Earth. Methods need to fit the task. Bob




_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page