Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [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: Ken Hargesheimer <minifarms2@yahoo.com>
  • To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Limits of macrobiotic/vegan point of view (was Re: Growing your own food - all of it)
  • Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:47:42 -0800 (PST)

Excellant writing.  Ken Hargesheimer

Harvey Ussery <boxwood@nelsoncable.com> wrote:
>
> 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)

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


Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page