Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Limits of macrobiotic/vegan point of view (was Re: Growing your own food - all of it)

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harvey Ussery <boxwood@nelsoncable.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Limits of macrobiotic/vegan point of view (was Re: Growing your own food - all of it)
  • Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:47:53 -0500


Many ppl can live on a macrobiotic diet which consists
mosty of grain. ~su do [Love your handle--gotta be a Linux gal/guy, right?]

I appreciate the concern for wise agricultural resource use that lies behind, this statement, su do. Frances Moore Lappe got us all thinking along these lines with DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET--"ten pounds of grain for one pound of flesh" and all that. But Lappe wasn't a farmer, and was completely blind to some fundamental facts of resource use. There are real-world situations in which eschewing meat as "wasteful" and growing for a diet "which consists mostly of grain" either ignores potential resources or is a disaster in practice. Examples:
*You have a sloped field you want to produce food on. Plow it to grow those oh-so-efficient grains to feed people, and it will erode disastrously. OTOH, you can plant fruit trees on that slope, and graze sheep on the mixed-pasture groundcover. Oh, and let's throw in some geese--both they and the sheep are grazers, but select different plant species by preference, hence more efficiently utilize the resource.
*You have an existing forest. The "efficient grains" point of view dictates cutting it down and plowing. But getting rid of forest has *serious* cascading consequences. Maybe smarter to turn in pigs and turkeys to forage and fatten on the abundant acorns, leaving in place a diverse and valuable ecology? (Which can also be used to grow medicinal and culinary herbs, edible and medicinal mushrooms, nuts and berries, on and on.)
*You have areas in shrubby growth. You can plow them all--to grow grains--and destroy habitat for countless species essential for ecological balance. [This is not hypothetical fancy--I'm simply talking about "conventional" agriculture here.] Or you can leave that habitat in place, and browse goats there. As long as you don't over-browse, you keep ecological diversity in being while using the space as a food-producing resource (milk and meat).

I could multiply examples all day, if it would help change the persistent mantra that grain production is *always* more "efficient," less "wasteful." Wise land use always fits the production model to the existing ground/climate/other conditions--never the reverse.

~Harvey

--
Harvey in northern Va
www.themodernhomestead.us

"Can't you see those dark clouds gathering up ahead?
They're gonna wash this planet clean, like the Bible said.
Now you can hold on steady, try to get ready,
But everybody's gonna get wet--
Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet!" (Jackson
Browne)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page