Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

That's a lot of "IFs" and at present what's hauled from far away isn't
likely to have those equal inputs at all. The "suited environment" may be
the most "suited" location for a particular crop energy wise,  yet that
leaves out all other factors. My greenhouse may or may not have less
embodied energy than the energy used in refrigerated trucking of tomatoes
from Florida or Mexico (considering they're often energy hog hydroponic and
aluminum greenhouses). But it does meet another important criteria: it
helps support me, the local grower, with income from a high value crop. AND
it produces a lot more in less space than the "suited" area in the open,
saving productive land. AND picked at the peak of ripeness and sold fresh
same day these tomatoes have higher nutrient value than stuff trucked in
for days from who knows where - even the stuff they call organic at Whole
Paycheck and Wild Oats. Go look at their tomatoes. They're picked green to
ripen on the road and don't develop the sugars after leaving the vine.
That's why there's no comparison for taste and people gladly pay me twice
the price of the nearby supermarket. 

For many foods, only local production sold fresh can offer the best
nutrition for your health. How much nutrition are we willing to give up for
questionable energy efficiency? And if we think about it, how much energy
is wasted on hospitals filled with people suffering from nutrient
deficiencies? 

As a side note, where we're growing there's no food production for miles
around except a few pinto bean fields (I suspect they're only growing beans
to hold on to the land and making no money on it). And a few cattle with a
few irrigated alfalfa circles with pivot sprinklers. Otherwise 99.9% of the
county's open flatland is rabbit brush and clump grass of some sort. There
are thousands of people, many on welfare, scattered around this county with
more room to garden than we have, but they don't. A lot of former farm land
is for sale but nobody's buying. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

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

On 12/25/2007 at 9:53 AM Ryan Albinger wrote:

>Part of the answer sits in your answer.  IF the more prime growing locale
>didn't need greenhouses, that would leverage that area more suitable
>growing.  IF the prime growing area used equal fuel inputs for the same
>area yet increased yield per area with the same inputs.  IF that semi
>tractor took less energy, and here again I will say a semi-tractor
probably
>takes twice the energy to build, but achieves the work of at least 20
>pick-up trucks.  IF the suited enviroment grows the produce with all costs
>considered less energy, then that is the most suited location.
>
>The bottom line in this discussion would be the fact the current market
and
>growing area is the most viable under the current conditions.  I am
certain
>if it were more effcient to grow fields and fields of strawberries in
>Minnesota versus California, Minnesota would be the strawberry capital of
>the world tomorrow.  But the market has justified it is more efficient to
>grow strawberries where they are currently grown and leave the rest up to
>energy effcient logistical movement.
>
>Ryan
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net>
>>
>> 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
>>