Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

The masses have to learn to feed themselves, but won't for the most part. I
do my part where I am. I've proved to myself it can be done, and on very
little land without much investment, but they can't be forced against their
will. Actually native americans - probably upwards of ten million - did
have domesticated stock in some places, but relied more on gardening and
gathering to have food year round, and did extensive long distance trading.
The official version you rely on has nothing to do with the real history. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/14/2007 at 5:46 PM su do wrote:

>I think the high volume to feed the masses is the real
>problem. The Indian did not raise cattle, they hunted
>the free roaming herds. Well we know the rest of
>history!
>--- TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Basically agree, livestock have a place. I'm not
>> vegetarian but have cut my
>> beef consumption way back in my later years, partly
>> for health and partly
>> for other reasons. Yes, livestock do fertilize the
>> land. I recycle manure
>> from nearby and value it highly. It's the factory
>> farms and monster
>> feedlots, esp of the midwest breadbasket, that
>> consume so much corn and
>> grain production, and their manure simply goes to
>> waste and pollutes our
>> waterways instead of fertilizing cropland. It's way
>> over the top. We don't
>> need to eat so much meat. And we need that
>> productive farmland to be
>> producing wholesome food to eat directly, and we
>> need to be using our
>> freshwater more efficiently. So if livestock was
>> raised only in areas
>> suitable only for pasture, without grain diets, we'd
>> raise a lot less beef
>> and farm far more efficiently and sustainably, and
>> be better off for it.
>> This is the middle ground that seems sensible to me.
>>