Re: Can the world live NT?

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But, with the current population and climate at least, no one would starve.

I'm not at all sure of that, though any kind of real answer is probably

beyond us to calculate without resources we don't have. One problem is

that in a very meaningful sense the current population is *already*

starving -- for actual nutrition. Today's foods are empty

calories. Probably even most of the better stuff we NT types work hard to

get is merely mediocre compared to the ideal in terms of actual nutrient

content and food quality. And also, there's NT eating and then there's NT

eating, and there's a world of difference in terms of resource footprints

between them. You can eat grains and other lower-quality foods, but as

long as they're properly prepared, it's technically NT. Or you can eat a

diet of largely animal products, and even though the PETA-type stats

against animal foods are half BS and half the special case of factory

farming, which we're all against, it's still true that eating animals

requires a larger footprint than eating plants.

What sort of population this country could support if all agriculture were

switched over to sustainable, organic, biodynamic, soil

fertility-nourishing principles and people started eating lots of animal

fats again I don't know, but I doubt it would be 300 million -- not in

robust health. And though I know you limited your comment to current

conditions, the climate is changing for the worse and our population is

climbing, at least for now. It's possible that famine or epidemic will

change that, but until then, in some ways things will just get worse.

-

[Guest guest]

[] I'm not at all sure of that, though any kind of real answer is probably

beyond us to calculate without resources we don't have. One problem is

that in a very meaningful sense the current population is *already*

starving -- for actual nutrition. Today's foods are empty

calories. Probably even most of the better stuff we NT types work hard to

get is merely mediocre compared to the ideal in terms of actual nutrient

content and food quality.

[Heidi] Well, that's part of the point. Our really fertile farmland is growing

food that has zero nutrients (esp. once it is processed). Only some small

percentage of THAT is actually eaten. Even so, most people eat way too

many calories and we are all overweight. It would take a lot less farmland

per person if people ate what they needed, the food wasn't processed,

etc. It certainly would not take MORE farmland.

And I suspect with garden vegies anyway, that the homegrown stuff is

as high in nutrients as vegies ever were. They taste like it, anyway! Far

different from supermarket vegies, much crisper and deeper flavored.

Ditto for our local organic farmer, who, mind you, runs a very small

operation. It's not that difficult, for a small operation, to amend the

soil, esp. if you aren't expecting these super-high yeilds that you need

to be economical on a large scale.

>[] What sort of population this country could support if all agriculture

were

>switched over to sustainable, organic, biodynamic, soil

>fertility-nourishing principles and people started eating lots of animal

>fats again I don't know, but I doubt it would be 300 million -- not in

>robust health. And though I know you limited your comment to current

>conditions, the climate is changing for the worse and our population is

>climbing, at least for now. It's possible that famine or epidemic will

>change that, but until then, in some ways things will just get worse.

>

>-

[Heidi] I'm all for less population ... but the Cambodians, for example,

are said to have a great diet and they live in more crowded conditions

Population density of Cambodia: avg of 64 people per km2.

http://www.nis.gov.kh/CENSUSES/Census1998/density.htm.

In 1998, the world's population density was almost

40 persons per sq. km. The U. S. population density was only 28 persons per sq.

km., a

level substantially below the world average. The population density in China at

130

people per sq. km. is more than three times the world average, even though vast

arid areas

in the western part of China are sparsely populated. India is one of the more

densely

populated countries of the world. Its density of 307 people per square km. puts

it at

almost eight times the average world population density.

So if Cambodians can raise good food at 64 persons per sq km, we can't

on 28? Granted a lot of the US is NOT good farmland, but much of that can

raise fine cattle. The dry, yecchy grassland east of us is said to have better

hay than this nice moist area on this side (rain leaches the soil).

And granted most of our food is lousy, and it is difficult to get healthy

grain crops. It's pretty easy to raise healthy greens though, they don't have

near the soil needs that grains do.

The fact the climate is changing etc. is one reason I've been researching

better ways, and more local ways, to eat! I do not want to be dependent

on mega farming, or on food distribution. On the East Coast things are

different, I know, but at this point, in Washington, there is no reason

we can't be independent if we need to be. Meat animals and greens and potatoes

are the most efficient ways to eat that I've found.

But you are right, it would take more tools than we have to get a good

estimate. In our personal lives though, I'm relatively sure that we use

far less farmland NOW than we did a few years ago: plus our household

wastes a lot less food in general.

[Heidi] Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/04 11:51:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In 1998, the world's population density was almost

> 40 persons per sq. km. The U. S. population density was only 28 persons

per

> sq. km., a

> level substantially below the world average.

___

Most of the US isn't very densely populated. New York City certainly is, but

there's still vast, vast areas of wilderness despite the fast pace of

development. I've noticed that if I go hiking and look down, there's much less

development than it seems from the ground. All the development is crowded

around

streets, so everywhere we go on the ground, all we see usually is developed

areas. But in my state, from above, you can see that the streets make up a

small

portion of the total land.

Some states are mostly wilderness. Wyoming, iirc, is 95% wilderness.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> I know this has come up before, how people say that if " we all ate

> NT, we would starve " . I obviously do NOT believe this, but in

> way of evidence, I'd put forth the following:

>

> 1. The countries that DO eat NT, use a lot less acreage per person

> to survive. There are countries that are a lot more crowded than

> the US, and they still eat healthier than we do.

>

> 2. Much of the " environmental footprint " of our food choices is

> not so much whether the food is grain or meat, but how much

> it is processed.

> Heidi Jean

Don't believe it either, Heidi. France is the best example I can think of as

far as nearly self supporting and healthy.

First hurdle is giving something up (even a food item) voluntarily which

just isn't in this country's population's mindset. Food changes have all

been quiet. If everyone ate NT and ate for their metabolic type they'd be

satiated and wouldn't miss it. Some would need more meat, fat, others less

and more veggies, fruits. All would eat less.

Second hurdle changing lifestyle to have the time to prepare your own food

from scratch, grow and raise some if you have those means. Its real simple

to sear a steak, fry potato and steam asparagus and be satisfied to the next

day instead of nibbling all night because what you had for supper was empty

SAD diet or any variation that doesn't suit the individual.

This would not only lose some transportation, processing etc. it would

benefit health care costs, labor productivity, creativity. As you can see

labor and economics takes the win over health and environment. Gluttony

everywhere.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.0 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

[Guest guest]

[Wanita] Don't believe it either, Heidi. France is the best example I can think

of as

>far as nearly self supporting and healthy.

[Heidi] France is a great example. Esp. as I know a person who goes there MAINLY

for the food. I think it is really sad that you have to go overseas

for good food ... what is even stranger is that the person who does this

also gets after me for spending so much of my mental space on food.

>[Wanita] First hurdle is giving something up (even a food item) voluntarily

which

>just isn't in this country's population's mindset. Food changes have all

>been quiet. If everyone ate NT and ate for their metabolic type they'd be

>satiated and wouldn't miss it. Some would need more meat, fat, others less

>and more veggies, fruits. All would eat less.

[Heidi] I've really found this to be true. I eat mainly one meal a day, and

enjoy

it a lot, but there is just a lot less involved in that meal. A potato and steak

and some greens and I'm fine. And some kefir beer and kimchi. But I can't

imagine where I used to put all those other boxes and bags of stuff I used

to buy.

>[Wanita] Second hurdle changing lifestyle to have the time to prepare your own

food

>from scratch, grow and raise some if you have those means. Its real simple

>to sear a steak, fry potato and steam asparagus and be satisfied to the next

>day instead of nibbling all night because what you had for supper was empty

>SAD diet or any variation that doesn't suit the individual.

[Heidi]THATS the hard part! I'm hoping my kids won't have to

learn from scratch.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>[Heidi] Well, that's part of the point. Our really fertile farmland is

>growing

>food that has zero nutrients (esp. once it is processed). Only some small

>percentage of THAT is actually eaten. Even so, most people eat way too

>many calories and we are all overweight. It would take a lot less farmland

>per person if people ate what they needed, the food wasn't processed,

>etc. It certainly would not take MORE farmland.

Well, first I think we have to separate the question of how many people

this country could support under ideal conditions (i.e. with soil at

maximal fertility) from the question of how many people it could support

*now*. (Also remember that destruction of soil fertility goes way back to

the early days of colonization -- one reason people kept pressing west is

that they kept exhausting the farmland, even without modern methods.) Even

under ideal conditions, large parts of the country simply wouldn't be able

to approach any sort of ideal, as according to Albrecht, rainfall needs to

be within a fairly narrow range to maximize fertility -- enough to

sufficiently nourish the ecosystem, not enough to leech too many nutrients

out of the soil.

It is true that we'd reap an enormous bonus if we stopped all confinement

husbandry immediately and switched over to pasturing, since the

inefficiency of growing grain and legumes and feeding them to animals would

be eliminated at a stroke, but remember that grass feeding and pasturing

aren't a panacea. It's still eminently possible to produce low-nutrition

meat the old-fashioned way.

But a large part of your assumption is that everyone would eat a lot fewer

calories if we transformed the food supply, and I don't think that's

necessarily a defensible conclusion. *Some* people would eat less, for

sure, but everyone? Look at old-time cookbooks. Various people, including

WAPF, have concluded that people ate bigger, heartier meals, and not just

farmers and laborers either. Consider the fact that some estimates suggest

that as much as 40% of the US population suffers from some degree of

hypothyroidism. If everyone dealt with their hypothyroidism, nutritionally

or otherwise, they'd need more food. Furthermore, a lot of people who lose

weight by low-carbing find that they eat much the same number of calories

they used to or even more. That's the metabolic advantage of low-carbing

at work, presumably due to the damage the SAD does to the metabolism. I

think it's eminently possible that if the country switched over to

genuinely healthy eating habits high in animal fats and meat and low in

concentrated and refined carbs, people would be more active and would eat

more, or at least more foods from high on the food chain, which require

more land to generate.

>And I suspect with garden vegies anyway, that the homegrown stuff is

>as high in nutrients as vegies ever were. They taste like it, anyway!

Here and there, I'm sure, but not in general I don't think. I buy from the

best small farmers I can at my local farmers' market whenever I can, and

even though some of their stuff is better than most of the stuff I can get

at the best stores here (Whole Foods, for example) it's still not a patch

on what it should be. And I'm betting that most or all of us simply don't

know what food should *really* taste like, so food that's towards the top

of today's bell curve seems fantastic when maybe it's really just middling

on an absolute scale.

>[Heidi] I'm all for less population ... but the Cambodians, for example,

>are said to have a great diet and they live in more crowded conditions

>

>Population density of Cambodia: avg of 64 people per km2.

I'm not sure, but I think Cambodians tend to be pretty short, which

suggests protein constraints, and anyway, it's a very small country

presumably with a pretty uniform climate.

-

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>France is the best example I can think of as

>far as nearly self supporting and healthy.

That's the thing, though. France is only " healthy " if you grade on a

curve. Really, they're less unhealthy than we are, that's all.

-

[Guest guest]

>[] Well, first I think we have to separate the question of how many people

>this country could support under ideal conditions (i.e. with soil at

>maximal fertility) from the question of how many people it could support

>*now*. (Also remember that destruction of soil fertility goes way back to

>the early days of colonization -- one reason people kept pressing west is

>that they kept exhausting the farmland, even without modern methods.) Even

>under ideal conditions, large parts of the country simply wouldn't be able

>to approach any sort of ideal, as according to Albrecht, rainfall needs to

>be within a fairly narrow range to maximize fertility -- enough to

>sufficiently nourish the ecosystem, not enough to leech too many nutrients

>out of the soil.

[Heidi] I think we've had this discussion before, and I guess someone

would have to run some experiments with the more modern methods.

But ... I think we can agree that fertile soil is generally MORE productive,

not less. It is true soil gets exhausted, esp. with the amazingly wasteful

methods most farmers use. But it hasn't been my experience that

it is terribly hard to make it fertile again, certainly not for smaller

plantings.

Our soil is horrid, and gets way too much rain, and not enough sun (which

is really the limiting factor!). But it grows great food, and adding fish

fertilizer brings the minerals/biotics etc. up to par and more rather quickly.

So do chickens. We tested our garden soil and it was at the top of

the scale on everything.

Given that in our current system we are dumping TONS of animal waste

and sewage into the oceans, composting that and adding it to the soil

would solve a big part of the fertility. The bigger problem is mulching,

which the farmers just don't do because it is too labor intensive. Issues

like THAT are why small plantings can be more productive. And bug problems,

which I'm trying to solve by making the garden more accessible to

weeding/bug eating by ducks and chickens.

Interestingly I haven't seen anything about mulching in anything I've read

about Albrecht or other " farm advice " . Or using duck-weeding. The standard

advice all has to do with how you plow. Soil doesn't lose it's fertility fast

in rain if you pile straw or bark or even rocks around the plants, or like Katja

was saying, use a ground cover.

>It is true that we'd reap an enormous bonus if we stopped all confinement

>husbandry immediately and switched over to pasturing, since the

>inefficiency of growing grain and legumes and feeding them to animals would

>be eliminated at a stroke, but remember that grass feeding and pasturing

>aren't a panacea. It's still eminently possible to produce low-nutrition

>meat the old-fashioned way.

Could be, but animals have never had " ideal " grazing conditions, and much

of the " waste " land that is now being used for grazing (again) for " grass

fed " cattle is really " cheap junk " land, doesn't get much rain, so it's never

been farmed at all. It's as good as it ever was, and since it doesn't

rain much there, it probably is pretty high in minerals. I talked to someone

East of the mountains who knows someone that is grazing

Longhorn on this area that is full of crags, rocks, ravines. She said it's

dangerous land and he has to use a horse to round up the cattle, but

they have a lot of land to roam around in and he's letting them

pretty much raise themselves. Kinda like in the old days ... those hills

used to be full of Longhorn and Buffalo and antelope, now they are

a fire hazard. Those lands can support a LOT of cattle, and the cattle

would be good for fertilizing the grass too. A whole big swath of the

West is like that ... empty, waiting for ruminants ...

>But a large part of your assumption is that everyone would eat a lot fewer

>calories if we transformed the food supply, and I don't think that's

>necessarily a defensible conclusion. *Some* people would eat less, for

>sure, but everyone?

It's not necessarily eating " less " but " more effiiciently " . I don't know if I

eat less calories now or not. But I used to bring home 10 BIG bags of

groceries every week to feed our family and guests. Each of those bags

had stuff that was inherently wasteful. One box of cereal, for instance ...

well, the box had to be made, the sugar imported, and a lot of the grain

used was thrown out in the process, and a lot of machinery etc. was

used to make it. And usually, half the box got tossed out because it

went bad too fast, and the kids would never finish a full bowl. Plus,

we had to buy umpteen BRANDS of cereal because of the advertising,

so we'd have maybe 10 boxes of cereal out at once, most of which

the kids would decide they didn't like anyway, so they'd get tossed.

And I don't think we were unusual in that. AND that kind of thing applied

to umpteen other products in our home.

Now, I buy a 50 lb bag of rice. The only manufacturing is the bag, and ALL

the rice gets used (it's easy to use leftover rice in soups etc.). And I get

50 lbs of potatoes (tho this year more are from our garden). Far, far

simpler, far less waste.

Ditto for meat ... I buy ONE steer, per year. It isn't made into anything,

there is minimal processing. It all gets used (well, I'm working up to

that!). I used to throw out a lot of meat because of freezer burn

or because the family didn't like the way it tasted (chicken fingers,

fish sticks, sausages). Now the meat is always good, and leftovers,

gristle etc. goes into soups.

Anyway, in our garbage, we used to have say 100-200 lbs of waste

food per month. Now it is almost zero, and we don't even have

enough leftovers to feed the chickens anymore (so we are

switching to innards and beef fat ...). Add to that the lack of waste

in the processing, and the lack of energy used in processing, and

I'd say we are using about 2/3 less than we used to. We also SPEND

about 2/3 less!

That's the metabolic advantage of low-carbing

>at work, presumably due to the damage the SAD does to the metabolism. I

>think it's eminently possible that if the country switched over to

>genuinely healthy eating habits high in animal fats and meat and low in

>concentrated and refined carbs, people would be more active and would eat

>more, or at least more foods from high on the food chain, which require

>more land to generate.

It may be true, but I also deal with folks who have been damaged by

celiac, and the universal complaint among them is that they don't

eat much anymore! They used to eat like hogs and never gain weight,

but now they just can't. Probably because they can now *digest*

fats. I do think a lot of folks that eat a lot of fat and don't gain

weight, aren't digesting it. I used to be in that category ... I was skinny,

but ate fat a lot. Then when I was pregnant, my digestion slowed down

and got more efficient (a known side effect of pregnancy) and suddenly

I gained weight. That also triggered more gluten-related problems: maybe

my digestion was rushing things through to avoid said problems? Anyway,

my husband is big and muscular and gets lots of exercise, and he eats less than

he used

to also, even though (or perhaps because of) the food being very

meat centered.

>>And I suspect with garden vegies anyway, that the homegrown stuff is

>>as high in nutrients as vegies ever were. They taste like it, anyway!

>

>Here and there, I'm sure, but not in general I don't think. I buy from the

>best small farmers I can at my local farmers' market whenever I can, and

>even though some of their stuff is better than most of the stuff I can get

>at the best stores here (Whole Foods, for example) it's still not a patch

>on what it should be. And I'm betting that most or all of us simply don't

>know what food should *really* taste like, so food that's towards the top

>of today's bell curve seems fantastic when maybe it's really just middling

>on an absolute scale.

I'm not sure " the farmers " are really doing it right ... none of the ones

I've seen are. They are getting closer. As for the ideal " what food should

*really* taste like " ... that is a form of idealism, I think, like " well, in the

OLD

days things were better " . Heirloom vegies grown in a good garden can

be, and in my experience are, darn good. You can measure the nutrients

in the soil ... there aren't that many, really ... and you can add good bacteria

and bacteria food (like fish fertilizer, or the EM products). But most of the

world does NOT have great soil, never has: there are a few really great

fertile spots which was where farming started. Nevertheless, humans

were still a lot healthier before they started farming, even though

presumably they were farming healthier land than we have now.

>

>I'm not sure, but I think Cambodians tend to be pretty short, which

>suggests protein constraints, and anyway, it's a very small country

>presumably with a pretty uniform climate.

Yeah, them and their rice! Maybe France is a better model. Or Crete.

Well, on Crete they have access to seafood, but most of the world

was mainly self-sufficient foodwise until very recently, even in

the places that were and are more crowded than most of the US.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

>

> Now, I buy a 50 lb bag of rice. The only manufacturing is the bag, and ALL

> the rice gets used (it's easy to use leftover rice in soups etc.). And I get

> 50 lbs of potatoes (tho this year more are from our garden). Far, far

> simpler, far less waste.

>

> Ditto for meat ... I buy ONE steer, per year. It isn't made into anything,

> there is minimal processing. It all gets used (well, I'm working up to

> that!). I used to throw out a lot of meat because of freezer burn

> or because the family didn't like the way it tasted (chicken fingers,

> fish sticks, sausages). Now the meat is always good, and leftovers,

> gristle etc. goes into soups.

>

> Anyway, in our garbage, we used to have say 100-200 lbs of waste

> food per month. Now it is almost zero, and we don't even have

> enough leftovers to feed the chickens anymore (so we are

> switching to innards and beef fat ...). Add to that the lack of waste

> in the processing, and the lack of energy used in processing, and

> I'd say we are using about 2/3 less than we used to. We also SPEND

> about 2/3 less!

OK, Heidi....you MUST create a pdf or (even better) a book. Something

like " You can do it! Sustainable living on an acre. " It's a fantastic

model and you articulate it very well. Almost makes me want to move

to the 'burbs. *Almost* being the operative word. I do have

fantasies of buying a brownstone in Brooklyn and having chickens in

the backyard, though...

[Guest guest]

> I am putting a book together, " Off the food grid " ... for folks who

> don't want to live off " food products " .

Sounds fantastic. Let us know when it's done and be sure to charge for it!

[Guest guest]

>OK, Heidi....you MUST create a pdf or (even better) a book. Something

>like " You can do it! Sustainable living on an acre. " It's a fantastic

>model and you articulate it very well. Almost makes me want to move

>to the 'burbs. *Almost* being the operative word. I do have

>fantasies of buying a brownstone in Brooklyn and having chickens in

>the backyard, though...

>

>

Well, it would be dishonest ... I don't actually GROW most of my food!

We do have 5 acres, but I don't have a big garden at all. Someday I'd

like to grow most of our own meat, at any rate, but steer are really

big animals and I'm not sure how to handle them. Growing greens

is absurdly easy and doesn't take much land at all ... actually my

most successful ones are on my balcony, where there is more sun

and I remember to pick them. Berries are wild around here, and

if you keep a plum or apple tree, you can pretty much live off homegrown

all year, but so far I've only got organized about berries and rhubarb.

As for chickens ... if you can keep a dog or a parrot, a chicken

is easier! Meat chickens you only keep for a month or at most

two, and you you can stock your freezer once a year that way.

They do attract flies though, so it might be a problem right now

in the 'burbs. I raised 140 lbs of chicken this year, which will do

us for the year I think, in a pen 10' by 15'. You can toss them

in greens (weeds from the garden) or have a moveable pen, but

meat chickens can't " go wild " because animals eat them, they

don't run fast. So you CAN grow them in your average neighborhood,

if they are legal.

I am putting a book together, " Off the food grid " ... for folks who

don't want to live off " food products " . It's not a bad way to live

at all, actually, when I started cooking this way folks here referred

to it as " Heidi's new gourmet cooking " , which made me laugh! Mostly

I was motivated by trying to avoid gluten, just because it makes me

(literally) nauseated.

But my staples: beef, potatoes, onions, carrots, rice ... I still buy, though

I buy them in bulk and a lot less often, and I try to go direct to

the farmer. We're trying to add one more " homegrown " thing

each year ... but you don't have to " grow your own " to get

" Off the food grid " , just simplify ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> That's the thing, though. France is only " healthy " if you grade on a

> curve. Really, they're less unhealthy than we are, that's all.

,

You're right. There are only comparatively healthier than us countries. None

that are healthy. If and when somewhere, total health of mind, body, spirit

and environment was tackled there might be a comparative healthiest area

that could serve as example. Don't expect it in my lifetime though.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.0 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>I raised 140 lbs of chicken this year, which will do

>us for the year I think, in a pen 10' by 15'. You can toss them

>in greens (weeds from the garden) or have a moveable pen,

The problem, though, is that in order to get really good chicken meat and

eggs, you need to use some form of chicken tractor so that they can graze

fresh pasture (or whatever you call what chickens do -- forage?) frequently

enough to get adequate bugs and food without damaging the pasture they're

on. And chicken itself just isn't an especially good meat compared to

grass-fed beef, though certainly heirloom breeds raised on pasture will

beat the pants off modern breeds raised in confinement.

-

[Guest guest]

>The problem, though, is that in order to get really good chicken meat and

>eggs, you need to use some form of chicken tractor so that they can graze

>fresh pasture (or whatever you call what chickens do -- forage?) frequently

>enough to get adequate bugs and food without damaging the pasture they're

>on. And chicken itself just isn't an especially good meat compared to

>grass-fed beef, though certainly heirloom breeds raised on pasture will

>beat the pants off modern breeds raised in confinement.

>

>-

Meat chickens are decidedly a compromise just because they

are meat chickens. They are unnatural! But their issues are a lot

different than laying hens or " normal " chickens. A moveable pen

is best, but they just grow too fast for it to be as much of an issue.

If you throw in weeds, the weeds will include roots and bugs (at

least mine do). You can also feed them earthworms from the worm

bin, kefir, and other good stuff. I think it would be neat to grow

bugs for chickens, have a big " bug bin " . Worms are easy though.

Homegrown meat chickens aren't as good as wild slower growing

birds, and I'm with you that beef is the best. But homegrown meat

chickens beat the pants off commercial chickens any day! I think

goose is a good bet too (again, beef is probably better, but goose

is sooo tasty!). Geese don't rip up the pasture as much as chickens,

and they can defend themselves, so they can be kept in a large lawn

area with fairly low fencing. Like a dog. I don't think they'd be legal

in the city though.

Personally I don't think chickens are a good choice for " pasture birds "

anyway. They will eat grass, but they prefer small weeds like chickweed.

And they really like to scratch in DIRT, not walk on grass, so they rip

up the grass as fast as they can. Mine will wander over to where there

is hay or bark, they LOVE that. But most of all, they don't like the

open sky much. Birds in the air scare them, and they don't like rain.

So they mostly cluster under our boat, or the henhouse (which is on

stilts), or under bushes. So I moved them out to the forest ... they

are descended from jungle birds, after all ... and they love it there.

On sunny days they will take dirt baths and sun themselves, but

otherwise they seem to avoid the sun.

Geese OTOH actually LIKE foraging on lawn, and they like wide open spaces,

and they are fairly predator-proof, so I'm going for them as lawn birds,

when I get our lawn fenced. It's expensive for farmers to raise geese,

they grow too slow, but I think they'd be fine for us, esp. if they

eat grass.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

" " Hydroponics, by contrast, is the ultimate in wasteful,

single-use consumption of resources. Unlike soil, the growth medium is not

self-sustaining. (In fact, the raw materials generally used aren't even

healthy or organic.) And because the medium is a simplified chemical bath,

the resulting food cannot compare nutritionally to good food grown on good

soil. " "

OK, this is a subject that is very interesting to me! I am intrigued with

hydroponics (for the flexabilities that it offers...among other things...) You

say alot of generalities about hydro.

What about using " gro-rocks " which is a clay aggregate...these can be

re-used over and over again! We also now have " coconut husk fiber " , which IS

truly organic!, and completely recyclable...We have come a long way in

hydro...check it out!

I also use a product called " Earth Juice " , and also " Metanaturals " and they

are most certainly organic too! There are many different methods for gardening

hydroponically, the same as there are many different ways to grow in soil (good

and bad!)

I feel that it isn't going to be quite as good, or quite as nutritious as a

pampered outdoor garden in soil....but isn't it ALOT better than getting produce

that isn't local and has been sitting for who knows how long...compared to my

organic hydro farm, where I can go out right now, and pick FRESH veggies off and

eat immediately? Avaliablilty of quality produce is a concern for many

folks...and if they don't have the room or resources to have a good sized garden

outside...this as a great alternative, I think!

Yeah....the " brix " rating might not stand up to a PROPERLY( and how many

folks really get that? ) grown soil veggie, but I'd challenge MOST people, that

they couldn't taste any appreciateble difference in flavor between " store bought

veggies " (organic) and my organic " hydro " veggies.

Sometimes we have to compromise depending on our situation and I don't feel

that hydro is a " disaster " , I think it is something that has a lot of potential

for many instances...we just need to keep improving and advancing in this field!

Until I get my farm up and rolling with compost piles, and get animals for

manure, which takes TIME....I'll most certainly look into building my own

outdoor hydroponic garden so i can start eating fresh, homegrown veggies NEXT

SUMMER! Without all the waiting of digging gardens, and ammending them right,

and waiting for things to " break down " into usable nutrients, and relying on

rainfall, and all that.....I'll be able to get veggies right away, and even

without getting my " hands dirty " :-) !!

I have found some places on the web that show some of these guys homemade

hydro units....and they are amazing...some people a very ingenuitive with their

ideas!

" " Maybe someday the technology can advance to the point of generating quality

food, " "

I think we are geting there...

" " but I think it's a crummy direction to go in when ecological

production can work perfectly. " "

Not for everyone....

--

Steve (just trying to learn more...)

<HTML>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

<BODY>

<FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

<UL>

<LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

<LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

<LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a message</LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

to the list</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

<LI>Send an <A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

> Steve-

>

>> I think you forgot about hydroponics....

>

> Not at all. I think hydroponics is a disaster.

>Hydroponics, by contrast, is the ultimate in wasteful,

> single-use consumption of resources. Unlike soil, the growth medium is

> not

> self-sustaining. (In fact, the raw materials generally used aren't even

> healthy or organic.) And because the medium is a simplified chemical

> bath,

> the resulting food cannot compare nutritionally to good food grown on good

> soil.

>

> -

Steve & ,

From what I understand of hydroponics is that you can't grow sufficiently

enough for production without nitrogen based fertilizers. There is a local

fish farm that uses the fish excrement to grow basil. Have never seen

hydroponic organic lettuce.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 12/21/2004

[Guest guest]

>

> >> >

> >Actually, simply not tilling after a harvest yields the biggest

single

> >dividend in terms of stopping erosion. I don't know how fast no-

till

> >farming is catching on, but I read about farmers adopting it in

some

> >mainstream publication a few years ago, so it must be getting at

least sort

> >of common.

>

> Cool!

>

>

<><>><<<<><Do you folks realize " no-till " is farming with bunches

of pesticides, herbicides and toxic fertilizers? Dennis

>>Interestingly I haven't seen anything about mulching in anything

I've read

> >>about Albrecht or other " farm advice " .

> >

> >Well, nobody has the whole story, unfortunately. You just have

to piece

> >together the best of everything and try to make it all work

together along

> >with what you figure out yourself.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> [Dennis] Do you folks realize " no-till " is farming with bunches

> of pesticides, herbicides and toxic fertilizers?

>

> [MAP] As I understand it, no-till farming is the idea popularized by

> Masanobu Fukuoka as part of his paradigm called " natural farming "

No-till as permaculturist/alternative ag folks understand it is

Fukuoka-san. No-till as the conventional ag world understands it is as

Dennis describes.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>As I understand it, no-till farming is the idea popularized by

>Masanobu Fukuoka as part of his paradigm called " natural farming " , the

>key components of which are 1) not tilling 2) not fertilizing 3) not

>weeding and 4) not using chemicals like pesticides.

That's definitely not the context in which I read about it, but I suppose

Fukuoka's and American-style no-till could be entirely separate, or perhaps

American no-till is just an application of a single isolated principle of

his system. The no-till I read about arose because farmers did (and I'm

sure still do) till their fields after harvest, leaving bare earth over

winter. This increased soil erosion to a stunning degree, and while back

(sometime in the 90s) some farmers stopped tilling after harvest to cut

their soil losses even though they had to endure a lot of peer pressure to

till and a lot of scorn over their " ugly " fields.

-

[Guest guest]

I don't know that much about no-till, but at a soil health seminar I just

attended, the man speaking (he was from the Maine Organic Farmer and Gardener

Association) mentioned a group in PA (I think!) that has done a lot of work in

organic no-till ag. He said that the farm where this was done had to till and

covercrop repeatedly over many years (within other crop rotations) to get the

soil to the condition and the weeds under control to a level where " no till " was

even possible. That description makes some sense to me as a small scale farmer

working on newer fields with lots of weed problems...thankfully they get better

over time if the fields are properly cared for! But, I guess his take-home

message was that " no-till " may require some (or many) seasons of tilling and

cover cropping before it can effective on a farming scale.

As an aside, this man also argues that there can be no such thing as " organic

hydroponics " since the definition of organic agriculture is really a set of

practices dealing with the care of soil and soil fertility.

FWIW,

Vivian

********************************************************************************\

*****

The no-till I read about arose because farmers did (and I'm

sure still do) till their fields after harvest, leaving bare earth over

winter. This increased soil erosion to a stunning degree, and while back

(sometime in the 90s) some farmers stopped tilling after harvest to cut

their soil losses even though they had to endure a lot of peer pressure to

till and a lot of scorn over their " ugly " fields.

-

<HTML>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

<BODY>

<FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

<UL>

<LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

<LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

<LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

<LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

<LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

<LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

--- I don't know exactly why they use " no-till " . However, it's used

extensively in the midwest nowdays. Probably helps retain carbon

from stubble(of previous crop), reduce fuel costs, reduce equipment

costs(cause they hire custom spray rigs),and greatly increase

chemical bills. They save time too cause the spray rigs cover a

thousand acres in one day. In the 1950's we only tilled 2 or 3 acres

daily with each tractor and plow or maybe 20 acres with one tractor

and disc. They are certainly ruining soil structure and soil foodweb

with all the toxic chemicals.Dennis K

In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote:

> Dennis-

>

> ><><>><<<<><Do you folks realize " no-till " is farming with

bunches

> >of pesticides, herbicides and toxic fertilizers?

>

> I think technically it's just an adjustment to farming practices,

but while

> I suppose organic or maybe even biodynamic farming could involve

tilling,

> you're probably right that in actual practice, no-till is really

only

> meaningful among conventional farmers looking to reduce erosion.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

--- Those " no-till " farmers then spray herbicides in the spring just

prior to spring planting along with all the so called recommended

soil amendments, generally backed by some land grant institution,

the way I see it.OR also the fall harvest is quite often planted

with winter wheat and herbicides and fertilizers(not compost and or

compost tea which is much more eco-friendly).Dennis K

In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote:

> Mike-

>

> >As I understand it, no-till farming is the idea popularized by

> >Masanobu Fukuoka as part of his paradigm called " natural

farming " , the

> >key components of which are 1) not tilling 2) not fertilizing 3)

not

> >weeding and 4) not using chemicals like pesticides.

>

> That's definitely not the context in which I read about it, but I

suppose

> Fukuoka's and American-style no-till could be entirely separate,

or perhaps

> American no-till is just an application of a single isolated

principle of

> his system. The no-till I read about arose because farmers did

(and I'm

> sure still do) till their fields after harvest, leaving bare earth

over

> winter. This increased soil erosion to a stunning degree, and

while back

> (sometime in the 90s) some farmers stopped tilling after harvest

to cut

> their soil losses even though they had to endure a lot of peer

pressure to

> till and a lot of scorn over their " ugly " fields.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

---Organic 0 till is another ballpark. And rodale is working, in

Emmaus with a half million dollar grant to prove it can be done(my

definition of what they're doing). They developed new machinery to

use their method. It looks exciting to me though. Dennis Kemnitz

\

In , " Vivian Kooken " <vslk@t...>

wrote:

> I don't know that much about no-till, but at a soil health seminar

I just attended, the man speaking (he was from the Maine Organic

Farmer and Gardener Association) mentioned a group in PA (I think!)

that has done a lot of work in organic no-till ag. He said that the

farm where this was done had to till and covercrop repeatedly over

many years (within other crop rotations) to get the soil to the

condition and the weeds under control to a level where " no till " was

even possible. That description makes some sense to me as a small

scale farmer working on newer fields with lots of weed

problems...thankfully they get better over time if the fields are

properly cared for! But, I guess his take-home message was that " no-

till " may require some (or many) seasons of tilling and cover

cropping before it can effective on a farming scale.

>

> As an aside, this man also argues that there can be no such thing

as " organic hydroponics " since the definition of organic agriculture

is really a set of practices dealing with the care of soil and soil

fertility.

> FWIW,

> Vivian

>

*********************************************************************

****************

>

>

> The no-till I read about arose because farmers did (and I'm

> sure still do) till their fields after harvest, leaving bare

earth over

> winter. This increased soil erosion to a stunning degree, and

while back

> (sometime in the 90s) some farmers stopped tilling after harvest

to cut

> their soil losses even though they had to endure a lot of peer

pressure to

> till and a lot of scorn over their " ugly " fields.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

> ]