permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflj@intrex.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] NY Times article: "Food that Travels Well"
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:26:53 -0400
From: Lawrence F. London, Jr. <lflj@INTREX.NET>
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group 
<SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Organization: Venaura Farm

Jane Grimsbo Jewett wrote:

> I was pleasantly surprised to find a 
> cogent discussion of the limitations of buying local, the necessity of 
> factoring in the production methods for the food, and the importance of 
> locating food production efforts in the areas that have the best soil 
> fertility and climate. 

"importance of locating food production efforts in the areas that have the 
best soil
fertility and climate"

Conveniently ignored in the "theory" and the news article is the fact that many 
"areas that have the best soil
fertility and climate" are no longer available for farming because of 
commercial, industrial and residential development
including landfills. Some of that land may seem insignificant in size for 
agricultural use but for the fact that it may
be in an ideal climate offering long periods of production during the year, 
have soil of exceptional quality, reliable
and adequate rainfall and the ability to store it in large impoundments (and 
plenty of sunlight for solar arrays to
provide power for pumping it to crops through low flow microspray or drip 
irrigation). Much of the best farmland in
North Carolina has been lost to development, same in many other parts of the 
country, the Midwest and California. The
"theory" ignores the intense production capability of small naturally-managed 
farms on exceptionally high quality soil
that can in many cases can grow certain high demand crops, staple and 
gourmet, to meet local needs (grapes, apples,
fish, grain). These types of farms together represent a lot of production and 
there could be many more of them going
online in the future. Regarding growing table-quality grain, if customers 
would buy more whole grain, unadulterated,
unprocessed in the supermarkets, North Carolina, for example, could meet much 
of the demand. If municipal sewage (free
of chemical pollution) were recycled to grow biomass crops that would be used 
to improve soil and reduce irrigation
needs on food-producing farms then local production would go up dramatically 
and the carbon footprint for such would go
down.

Of course high population density, highly developed areas go hand in hand with the 
"well, a shame we've lost all this
great farmland but we can always bring food in from California, Mexico, a few 
other remote regions around the country or
elsewhere outside the US (apples from China?).

Grow crops on the best land, impound the best quality irrigation water, 
recycle everything that can be utilized for
agricultural purposes and farm naturally, sustainably and employ permaculture 
principles and methods (stacked functions).

The "theory" in question seems shallow in that it leave out so many important 
possibilities for local and sustainable
food production.

What does it matter if production transportation of locally-grown foods to 
market is a little inefficient at times
(if true at all) when politicians are getting pork $$$'s to build 
$336,000,000 bridges from a city to a village of 50
people. The real problem is not the possible inefficiency of local farming 
systems and foodsheds but elsewhere,
including big farm subsidies to the wealthiest farmers using conventional 
methods and gmos and the need for dietary
reform among many Americans.

--
Lawrence F. London, Jr.
lflj@intrex.net
lfljvfarm@gmail.com
Venaura Farm http://venaurafarm.blogspot.com/
Market Farming & Permaculture 
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/market-farming
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?PermacultureWiki
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SoilWiki