Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] TWO AGRICULTURES, NOT ONE, By John Michael Greer

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <pbunch@cox.net>
  • To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] TWO AGRICULTURES, NOT ONE, By John Michael Greer
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 8:55:56 -0700

I don't think there is a perfect answer to this question. We can study how
our agro-ecological systems actually work, understand what manipulations we
can make without causing grave damage. We can experiment and share our
results. We can take the positon of stewards and managers. We will learn a
lot as we focus on the opportunities.

IMHO In the short-term I think we should understand as well as possible the
land we are responsible for. This means learning what the actual condition of
the soil may be. We should learn what sources of required amendment are
available and what the effects of making changes may be. Some soils will
allow much more leeway in management practices. Organic matter may be
harvested for some time with minimal adverse effects for some locations and
transported to others when soil and rainfall conditions a favorable. One
should however keep in mind that, that which is exported is like taking money
out of an account. It needs to be paid back if you want to maintain your
capital. The pay in can be from natural inputs or from management efforts.
What is important is keeping an eye on the balance.

I think we should take advantage of organic matter and nutrients others are
carelessly wasting when they are available. Carelessness with them has
adverse effects on ecosystems in general. When they can be used for
beneficial purposes they should be as part of a management program.

---- Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote:
>
> Fair question, IMHO. But they say getting the question right is 90% of the
> answer ...
>
> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
>
> “All of the debts for society’s century-long industrial fiesta are
> coming due at the same time. We have no choice but to transition to a world
> no longer dependent on fossil fuels, a world made up of communities and
> economies that function within ecological bounds. How we manage this
> transition is the most important question of our time.”
> -- Richard Heinberg
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 9/30/2010 at 5:40 PM Mike wrote:
>
> >I absolutely agree. We do the same here. I was more making the point
> >about harvesting organic matter, that was grown specially for the
> >purpose, as a growing system.
> >
> >As for the shovel or hoe? What a different world we would live in if the
> >non-renewable resources had been used to create a renewable
> >(sustainable) world. If our oil had been used to create shovels or other
> >technology that could thereafter be used with the energy from the field.
> >Instead we used our oil and steel to create a world that consumes oil.
> >
> >So back to the waste organic matter. It is here and now. But we have
> >pretty much agreed that it is not going to be available forever. The
> >question is, then, how can we use this non-forever resource to create a
> >forever system. We absolute must use it. Otherwise it is like letting
> >the oil gush into the sea. And in all probability, just as polluting.
> >
> >I don't have an answer, just the question.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >Tradingpost wrote:
> >> Sustainability is not the only consideration. I strongly urge recycling
> >whatever organic waste we can use for growing. The fact that it may not be
> >around at some time in the future is beside the point. It's here now and
> >we can make good use of it or do less without it.
> >>
> >> You can take that argument to its logical conclusion and figure that if
> >the resources to make the tiller or shovel or hoe didn't come from the
> >selfsame plot then it's not sustainable.
> >>
> >> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page