Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Michael Pollan: Eating Is a Political Act

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: Re: [Livingontheland] Michael Pollan: Eating Is a Political Act
  • Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:36:16 -0500


Harvey and Aliza, I've read all of Pollan's books and many of his articles, and I
believe he would think that your approach (diversified small farm - DSF), is optimum.
However, mostly he is not talking to you, the producers, but to the rest of us, the
consumers. For those of us unable or unwilling to undertake a diversified small farm,
the best we can do is to a) support the diversified small farmer, and b) grow our own
veggies. I don't think Pollan would disagree with either. His "beef" (pun
intended) is with industrial agriculture, not DSF. ~Mitch

Mitch,

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough about the point I was making. Certainly
Pollan favors the traditional diversified small farm. What I was trying
to suggest, at least by implication, is that a problem arises if he
stresses at the same time that we should be eating "mostly plants" and
that vegetarianism is somehow a higher calling because it is more
sparing of resource use.

It is the latter point I am taking issue with. It has become a mantra
for writers like Pollan and Lester Brown and Paul Roberts (The End of
Food)--all of them concerned about what is seriously wrong with our food
system, and wanting us to do something more sensible--to *assume* out of
hand that producing for a largely vegetarian diet is more sustainable
(than the alternative, producing a lot of animal foods in the mix as
well). That meat (and dairy) production is inherently wasteful of
agricultural resource in comparison to growing vegetable sources of
protein and other nutrients.

I call that a "mantra" because I don't think anybody *knows* whether
that's true. The *diversified* small farm relied as much on animal as on
plant allies, to produce circular, mutually supportive synergies that
made for greater biological efficiency and sustainability. To argue
"mostly vegetarian, little meat" is inherently more sustainable is to
argue: Growing 50 acres ditchbank to ditchbank with soybeans and grains
is more productive and sustainable than including a good deal of
livestock in the mix. I don't think *anybody* knows that's true. Would
we get more harvestable protein growing that 50 acres to crop plants
only--or leaving major portions clothed in grass, and harvest that
resource via livestock? We haven't been asking that question, doing big
comparative studies, so we don't know. Certainly when we factor in the
carbon sequestration/climate change aspect, there's a big argument to be
made for lots of grass. Ditto soil loss from frequent/excessive tillage.
Ditto the chemicals we pour on cultivated fields--far more than we do on
pasture land.

~Harvey

--
Harvey in northern Va
www.themodernhomestead.us

I truly believe that as long as we have not found peace with the soil, we won't find peace above the ground. That as long as we justify the exploitation of any organism, other exploitations will follow and we will remain parasites, consuming more than participating, and spiralling into entropy until we commit mass suicide. ~Emilia Hazelip






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page