Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Efficiency

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: ryalbinger@earthlink.net, livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Efficiency
  • Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:37:51 -0700



Granted the semi is more fuel efficient. But let's don't forget to allocate
part of the embodied energy in the semi manufacture, or the cost of the
highways. Moreover, it's unlikely that the 1400 mile food was grown without
costly fossil fuel inputs and heavy machinery with embodied energy in its
manufacture. One other factor is the greenhouse produces several times as
much as an area of open ground the same size and lasts several years
besides. In other words, the greenhouse cost is amortized over several
seasons, and its cost should be compared with the various costs of an area
several times its size.

Most commercial greenhouse tomatoes are hydroponic with much higher
embodied energy in their structures, and with strict temperature controls;
hence energy hogs. I favor small intensive local operations in reasonable
climates like mine, at least for high value intensive production. Besides
providing good income from a small space and fresh, healthy tomatoes
locally, it avoids the social costs of migrant labor in Florida etc. The
whole garden it's part of is definitely less energy intensive pound for
pound than the 1400 mile cardboard vegetables.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net


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

On 12/24/2007 at 12:50 PM Ryan Albinger wrote:

>There is one item with the 1400 miles of food transport that we forget, it
>is that 100 pounds of food costs about 0.46 gallons of fuel. Now if that
>1400 miles away is a locale that produces the food without greenhouse,
>without lumber, with less input becuase it is a suitable climate for the
>crop, how likely is the .46 gallons of fuel going to be saved by growing
in
>a more suited location and shipping it than trying to grow it in a less
>hospitable local location where production is lower per unit of input
>required? A 30mpg vehicle would need to haul on average 200 pounds of
>produce to market 15 miles away to match the fuel effcientcy of a semi
load
>worth moved from 1400 miles away.
>
>Merry Christmas.
>
>Ryan
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>> [Original Message]
>> From: TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net>
>> To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Date: 12/24/2007 12:06:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Efficiency
>>
>>
>> Sure. Let's look into the externalized costs of farm and garden
>machinery.
>> What is the true cost of our produce if we use a tiller and commercial
>> fertilizers, and sell to middlemen who transport it 1400 miles on
>average?
>> Don't forget the cost of health consequences, and oil wars and VA care
>that
>> follows. I assume we're only considering dollar costs and not human
>costs.
>>
>> I grow without machinery and retail locally to test the financial
>viability
>> of it in person. There is a gas cost to and from market but we use a
>> recycled '87 van and get 30 mpg. The greenhouse may be Canadian lumber,
>> with 6ml UV plastic from oil, but expected to last several years and
>> produces enormous amounts of naturally grown tomatoes and garden
>> transplants nine months of the year with little added heat and no
>cooling.
>> Plus my electric stapler, drill, and saw were all made in China. Not
>ideal
>> but if there are more energy efficient ways I'd like to find them.
>>
>> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page