|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
 |
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 17, 05 8:56 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Wow, this topic is flying about a bit!
I'm an ideas person. My knowledge is limited, (but so is everyone else's). I'm very well used to folks shooting little holes in good ideas - it's actually very easy to shoot little holes in good ideas. And not at all constructive.
On these points I remain (at present  ) unalterable:
Nobody needs to eat animals, ergo nobody needs to farm animals.
Nobody needs animal manures - manure crops can be grown.
Nobody needs to use artificial fertilizers.
Trees, esp. broadleaved, produce their own manure with leaf fall.
We do need to grow food in Britain - the environmental cost of transporting so much of it from elsewhere is so unsound as to be way beyond bonkers.
Culling is a euphemism for killing -"pest" control is such a tiny part of the bigger picture.
* Soya milk - It's not milk.
Correct.
* It's not clever.
It's a site cleverer than forcing cows to produce calves to produce milk for humans who don't need it at all and then killing the cows at an early age because of BSE and the physical exhaustion caused to the animal which left to its own devices would live about 30yrs.
* It's not even pleasant.
You've tried the wrong stuff - try organic unsweetened.
* And, more to the point, it's invariably made with soya that's travelled half way across the world.
Fair point.
* And as for soya cheese...
It tastes like soap, except for some I find recently called Cheazie, (I think) which really is very palatable. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 05 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
Wow, this topic is flying about a bit!
I'm an ideas person. My knowledge is limited, (but so is everyone else's). I'm very well used to folks shooting little holes in good ideas - it's actually very easy to shoot little holes in good ideas. And not at all constructive.
|
That's true. It's also a whole lot easier to shoot holes in bad ideas
Throw as many ideas into the forum as you like. I think you'll find that not all of them are accepted, but I also think you'll be surprised how well they're taken.
| Quote: |
On these points I remain (at present ) unalterable:
Nobody needs to eat animals, ergo nobody needs to farm animals.
Nobody needs animal manures - manure crops can be grown.
Nobody needs to use artificial fertilizers. |
Guest, I'll assume for the moment that you are Milo. Yet you haven't dealt with the points put to you, namely, how do you maintain good soil quality and fertility, in a system that of necessity integrates land that cannot easily be used for growing plants as well as the good arable land, without animal inputs? Or, to put it another way, how do you get good yields year after year in an organic system with no animal inputs?
| Quote: |
Trees, esp. broadleaved, produce their own manure with leaf fall.
We do need to grow food in Britain - the environmental cost of transporting so much of it from elsewhere is so unsound as to be way beyond bonkers. |
Errm, yeah, sort of. A forest without animals in dies very, very fast, and you really need the churning of a forest floor by animals (earthworms are most important) to keep a deciduous forest happy. But that's without taking anything out; human activity, farming a forest, takes nutrients out, and you have to put them back in somehow. You either need some manner of fertiliser, some manner of dilute and lucky run off from a hillside, or you need more nutrients to be deposited by bird and animal excreta by pure luck. If you don't then the fertility of the system will decline.
We really, really do need to produce more food closer to home; it is not immediately apparent to me that the way to do it is arboreal permaculture.
| Quote: |
| Culling is a euphemism for killing |
No it isn't. Culling is a specific term applied to population control and/or periodic harvesting of wild animals. Killing is a general term; 'Killing' is not necessarily 'culling'.
| Quote: |
-"pest" control is such a tiny part of the bigger picture.
|
I don't understand that point; what do you mean?
| Quote: |
* Soya milk - It's not milk.
Correct.
* It's not clever.
It's a site cleverer than forcing cows to produce calves to produce milk for humans who don't need it at all and then killing the cows at an early age because of BSE and the physical exhaustion caused to the animal which left to its own devices would live about 30yrs.
|
You will be unlikely to find anyone arguing in favour of intensive dairy farming on this site.
I'll add, though, that I have no problem with a cow being killed at an early age. If it's been humanely treated I'm happy.
| Quote: |
* It's not even pleasant.
You've tried the wrong stuff - try organic unsweetened.
|
That is, in my opinion, by far the most unpleasant sort. Like drinking bread.
| Quote: |
* And, more to the point, it's invariably made with soya that's travelled half way across the world.
Fair point.
* And as for soya cheese...
It tastes like soap, except for some I find recently called Cheazie, (I think) which really is very palatable. |
Cheazie... I'll look out for that one, thanks. One of our friends has a kid who gets migraines if he has dairy produce, so we stock up on soya milk and the like when they visit.
Incidentally, I'm SURE someone here knows how to make soya milk. Where did I see that recipe? |
|
|
|
|
Ebyss
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 05 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
| Bugs wrote: |
| Ebyss wrote: |
| They could always go the Fukuoka route (which I will be doing) which would be ideal |
What's this? Could you tell us more please, Ebyss? |
Certainly. Masanobu Fukuoka is a small rice farmer in Japan who practices "Do-nothing" farming. Basically, he does as little as possible, working about 3-4 hours day with a few full days work around seeding and harvesting. He has 5 helpers and they all work the same amount of time each day on 12 acres of rice, barley and orange groves.
His whole premise is based around the fact that nature can do all the work for us, we don't need chemical fertilizers, pesticides, tilling or anything like that. It's like organic farming, permaculture and polyculture all rolled into one.
His methods work like this : Grow clover as a green manure and cover crop, scatter seedballs (more on this below), leave nature to grow the crop, leave the pests to be dealt with by birds and insects, harvest when the crop is ripe, scatter the previous harvests straw on the fields... and repeat. He does this twice a year and gets the highest yields of rice and barley in Japan.
There's no tilling, ever. To protect the seed from birds and mice, he rolls them into little clay balls (www.seedballs.com) and scatters these in the field. The seed is thus protected from pests, unexpected frosts etc.
He uses the same method for his vegetables.. puts the seeds in seedballs, scatters them randomly in his orchard and lets them do their thing. The ground cover of clover prevents damage to the young seedlings. He then harvests when they're ready. Some go to seed naturally, and over the few years the plant reverts to a wild form which is very hardy.
His only "fertilizer" or soil conditioner is straw. He feels that composted manure is too much work for the same return as the straw, although he does scatter some poultry manure once a year. The clover also counts as a soil conditioner.
This outlines his methods briefly, and may not sound staggeringly new or anything, but the philosophy behind his writing is directly in opposition to modern "agriculture" that depletes the soil (and on which the soya bean studies are based I believe). I fully recommend his books "The One Straw Revolution" (his philosophy and method, a beautfully written book), "The Natural Way of Farming" (his method in greater detail) and "The Road Back to Nature" (A collection of essays from his trip around Europe).
Article about Fukuoka
Incidentally, he believes that natural food should be the cheapest food to buy as it costs the least to grow (no chemicals, no tractors etc). He thus sells his produce at very low prices, despite their high quality. He puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
| Quote: |
| Is it possible to grow soya on any kind of efficient scale in the UK or Europe? |
I'd love to know this too, as I adore soya milk (I don't know how to make it, but I know it's relatively painless... if you have the right equipment)[/url] |
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 05 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
* Yet you haven't dealt with the points put to you, namely, how do you maintain good soil quality and fertility, in a system that of necessity integrates land that cannot easily be used for growing plants as well as the good arable land, without animal inputs?
I too am unhappy when questions I pose are ignored, but you've confused me. What land cannot easily be used for growing plants? Bogs and very high hillsides obviously. Trees, and not just conifers, can be grown up to 2000' od in the UK especially in very large schemes where the trees themselves provide their own shelter. Trees have grown pretty damn well in the ancient beechwoods of the south of England and the ancient oakwoods of Wales. And if you fence out the deer and sheep in Scotland they do very well there too.
* Or, to put it another way, how do you get good yields year after year in an organic system with no animal inputs?
I haven't made mention of "no animal inputs" have I. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that Ebyss has done a damn good job of answering this question.
* Trees, esp. broadleaved, produce their own manure with leaf fall.
We do need to grow food in Britain - the environmental cost of transporting so much of it from elsewhere is so unsound as to be way beyond bonkers. * Errm, yeah, sort of. A forest without animals in dies very, very fast, and you really need the churning of a forest floor by animals (earthworms are most important) to keep a deciduous forest happy.
* But that's without taking anything out; human activity, farming a forest, takes nutrients out,
If you clearfell and leave open land to be blasted by the elements, but not if you maintain continuous cover.
* and you have to put them back in somehow. You either need some manner of fertiliser, some manner of dilute and lucky run off from a hillside, or you need more nutrients to be deposited by bird and animal excreta by pure luck. If you don't then the fertility of the system will decline.
See above re clearfelling.
* We really, really do need to produce more food closer to home; it is not immediately apparent to me that the way to do it is arboreal permaculture.
 That's (close to) sarcarstic. Did it appear that I was advocating one at the exclusion of the other?
* Culling is a euphemism for killing. * No it isn't. Culling is a specific term applied to population control and/or periodic harvesting of wild animals. Killing is a general term; 'Killing' is not necessarily 'culling'.
OK, I was oversimplifying, but there's no culling without killing, is there. Mutton is a euphemism for dead sheep?
* -"pest" control is such a tiny part of the bigger picture. I don't understand that point; what do you mean?
I think I'm saying that concentrating on pest control as an issue, or a reason not to do something otherwise considered to be beneficial, might well amount to nitpicking!
* You will be unlikely to find anyone arguing in favour of intensive dairy farming on this site.
Good-oh.
* I'll add, though, that I have no problem with a cow being killed at an early age. If it's been humanely treated I'm happy.
But is the cow?
* You've tried the wrong stuff - try organic unsweetened. * That is, in my opinion, by far the most unpleasant sort. Like drinking bread.
Ah, well, nobody likes every food nor every drink. I find water to be pretty good stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Ebyss
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 05 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
| Milo wrote: |
Or, to put it another way, how do you get good yields year after year in an organic system with no animal inputs?
I haven't made mention of "no animal inputs" have I. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that Ebyss has done a damn good job of answering this question.
|
But there is a caveat... there is always a caveat. This kind of farming requires polyculture. It cannot be done using the monoculture systems in modern farming. Unfortunately, in order to feed the population of 6.5 billion people that exist due to phantom carrying capacity (created by the "green revolution" of chemical fertilizers and pesticides) monoculture is needed. If we truly want the whole world to turn to purely "Fukuoka-esque" systems, we need to get rid of 4.5 billion people. I would truly love to see someone prove me wrong on that one, if the whole world could turn to "do-nothing" farming, I would be so happy I'd turn vegetarian 
Edit I find myself disheartened at what I've just written. Perhaps the whole world can turn to "Do-nothing" and feed 6.5 billion. Who I am to say it can't be done? I have numbers and data to support that it can't, but no studies have been done to show that it can... hence no numbers. Why limit ourselves to studies using limited variables that don't take all possibilites into account? I just don't think it will be done 
I do agree that people should seriously reduce the amount of meat they consume, but if people are willing to take responsibility for producing their own meat, like those on this board, I think you will find that quality of life for the animal is paramount. I'd be very surprised to find an advocate of the mass-produced-meat industry on this board.
Also, vegetarianism is not a good idea for a global population. It would destroy ecosystems and wildlife everywhere :
I quote myself from the RC board, as I can't write it all out again from scratch at this time of night! The topic was "Should we eat animals"
| Quote: |
"Should we eat them". Well it all depends on your reasons for eating them/not eating them. We are omnivores, as hunter gatherers we were designed to eat meat as well as veg/fruit/roots/nuts. Not to eat meat would be going against nature in some way, but we all know it can be done.
The real question is "Should we ALL stop eating meat". The world simply cannot sustain 6.5 billion vegetarians. The argument that you can grow more soya protein than animal protein in one acre is an oversimplified way of looking at veg growing. There just isn't enough viable arable land suitable for veg/grain growing to feed a world of vegetarians. Look at many sheep farms, they use areas that are mountainous, rocky, boggy... areas that veg/grain simply won't grow without massive irrigation/drainage/fertilisers/pesticides (read: destruction). And yet sheep thrive on these areas.
To turn all animal grazing to veg/grain growing would decimate wildlife and their habitats. It's not sustainable, it's not natural. Nature is designed to work in balance. We are way out of whack with this natural balance as it is, flipping the scales to the other extreme is not a solution, regardless of our ethical beliefs.
Also, current monoculture of grain/veg already destroys native wildlife in some areas (think bananas)... I remember hearing a horrible story about an organic potato farmer in the States who would shoot deer in the gut, so they would hobble off to the nearby woodland to die so they wouldn't contaminate his crop.
Also, turning over to grain and veg production would result in a massive cull of pests each year (think Hugh and pigeon pittas..what was it? 5 million pigeons shot each year?); hardly animal friendly or morally acceptable to a world of vegetarians against animal suffering.
The current system of intensive agriculture is starting to falter : https://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html
| Quote: |
:
World grain yield fell for four successive years from 2000 to 2003, bringing reserves to the lowest in thirty years. The situation has not improved despite a 'bumper' harvest in 2004, which was just enough to satisfy world consumption. |
| Quote: |
:
True costs of industrial food production system
1 000 tonnes of water are consumed to produce one tonne of grain
10 energy units are spent for every energy unit of food on our dinner table
1 000 energy units are used for every energy unit of processed food
17% of the total energy use in the United States goes into food production & distribution, accounting for more than 20% of all transport within the country; this excludes energy used in import & export
12.5 energy units are wasted for every energy unit of food transported per thousand air-miles
20% of all greenhouse gases in the world come from current agriculture
US$318 billion of taxpayer's money was spent to subsidize agriculture in OECD countries in 2002, while more than 2 billion subsistence farmers in developing countries tried to survive on $2 a day
90% of the agricultural subsidies benefit corporations and big farmers growing food for export; while 500 family farms close down every week in the United States
Subsidized surplus food dumped on developing countries creates poverty, hunger and homelessness on a massive scale |
Hardly sustainable or feasible if the whole world were to turn to veg/grain as their only source of food.
The question of ethics when eating animals will always come up, and well it should. Should we feel guilty about eating animals? Yes... it's up to us as individuals to decide whether or not we can deal with that guilt and use it to ensure that our animals have the highest standards of welfare we can possibly achieve.
Look at nature, she works in balance, a cruel, painful but effective balance. Lions are pretty efficient hunters, but it's plain ignorant to suggest that their prey does not suffer. The chase is highly traumatic, the catch though swift, is violent. The kill is not as quick as one might think, the "gap" in lions teeth, though suited to most herbivore vertebrae and windpipes, don't always provide a clean painless break (if ever) . Many times a predator will start to eat it's prey while it is still alive, as suffocation takes a little while. There's nothing pleasant about being killed by a predator. But that's nature. It's not great, but it works.
Incidentally, predators are FAR outnumbered by prey, and for many hunters only 1 in 5 hunts actually ends in a kill. You are far more likely to die if you are a young predator than a young prey animal.
Now, in domesticated animals, we give security, food and water. Lots of it. (I'm talking about good husbandry here, not factory farming, which is an abomination). As a trade off for the life of luxury, some of these domestics must give up their lives. It should be a quick painless death, as stress free as possible (sadly this is not always the case).
It should be noted that man did not "domesticate" animals in the typical "club over the head/keep you in a cage" stereotype. I recommend Stephen Budiansky's work for a more detailed account of domestication. Put simply it's an evolutionary strategy seen all throughout nature. Different species form alliances to keep an eye out for predators, the most well known being the relationship between Zebra and Baboons. They each detect predators in different ways, and when one group sees the other group send out warning signals (calling, body posture changes etc) they are alerted to the danger. It's an excellent system, although, Baboons do sometimes kill baby Zebra (or other species partners) . It's a trade off the Zebra accept for the extra security they get from the Baboons.
A similar process happened with humans and our now domestic animals (I believe HFW alluded to this in the Meat book). As an evolutionary strategy it succeeded magnficently. Domestic animals are now the most plentiful species on the planet.
I for one believe that an attack of the morals in favour of vegetarianism now would be suicide for humanity, and would destroy the planet (as if we haven't already done enough damage). We can cope with the current amount of vegetarians/vegans, indeed probably a good deal more. We just can't cope with the whole world doing it (not without drastic population decrease.. which may not be such a bad thing anyway).
|
Apologies for the long post. Milo, I think you may be preaching to the converted on this forum. People here actually care about the animals they raise for meat. If they weren't going to eat them, they wouldn't raise them, and the animals would never have existed. You raise a fair point, but it will always come down to opinion. Nature dictates that we should eat meat, morals and guilt suggest that we shouldn't. It's a choice. However... the current system of disgusting factory farming is the most serious abuse of our position at "the top of the food chain". I think your protests should start there, and maybe not on a board where animal husbandry is already at the highest standard : ) ; I hope that does not offend you, it is not my intention. I have always found this particular debate to be most important. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 05 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
| Milo wrote: |
I too am unhappy when questions I pose are ignored, but you've confused me. What land cannot easily be used for growing plants? Bogs and very high hillsides obviously. Trees, and not just conifers, can be grown up to 2000' od in the UK especially in very large schemes where the trees themselves provide their own shelter. Trees have grown pretty damn well in the ancient beechwoods of the south of England and the ancient oakwoods of Wales. And if you fence out the deer and sheep in Scotland they do very well there too. |
But you can't realistically grow crops on such hillsides because you can't get to them to take the crops out. Sheep farming has proved to be the only way to get a useful return in such locations; it's also quite a cheap, effective, and ethical way of producing protein in marginal land.
Regarding sheep and deer in Scotland, deer fencing is a menace and often ineffective. Ever seen a snow drift? More to the point, ever seen a capercaille stupidly stuck in a fence that it's flown straight into?
Regarding tree cover, yes, most of Britain was forested, but people often have a skewed idea of what that meant. Much of central and Southern Britain would have been scrubby, open woodlands, and tree cover on some of our uplands would also have been very sparse. It would be a mistake to assume that because trees can grow on a patch of ground it must be possible to use it as high or reasonable productivity arable land.
| Quote: |
I haven't made mention of "no animal inputs" have I. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that Ebyss has done a damn good job of answering this question.
|
No, not really. Fukuoka hasn't demonstrated convincingly that he gets sufficient yields for his practice to be taken seriosuly. It's interesting as an experiment in permaculture, but that's about it. You'll also note that he maintains yields with chicken manure.
| Quote: |
If you clearfell and leave open land to be blasted by the elements, but not if you maintain continuous cover.
|
No. If you're taking a crop, you've got an output. Your crop contains carbon and water (which can be viewed as free outputs), nitrogen (which isn't, unless your output is very low), phosphoropus, potassium, sulfur, oxygen and other trace nutrients, none of which are free. Keep taking a crop out and your fertility goes down, UNLESS you replace what you remove. Nutrient cycling within the system (leaf fall and rotting, and the like) neither increases nor decreases the fertility of the system; taking a crop from the forest does decrease the fertility. It's inevitable and unavoidable, unless you put something back in. You don't have to clear fell to reduce the net amount of nutrients in the system.
| Quote: |
That's (close to) sarcarstic. Did it appear that I was advocating one at the exclusion of the other?
|
You'll excuse me for commenting based on what you've said; if you believe that such permaculture could be part of the solution then your position is not so very different to mine.
| Quote: |
OK, I was oversimplifying, but there's no culling without killing, is there. Mutton is a euphemism for dead sheep?
|
Euphemism? Why not try 'name for product produced from'. Euphemism implies some kind of obfuscation, which is not inherent in either culling or butchering.
Anyway, what of it? Killing animals for food, within certain constraints of law and ensuring the animals are not mistreated, is not in my opinion unethical. I'm happy for you to refer to a culled animal as killed. Don't see why it would bother anyone (unless the term 'killed' is being used specifically to make the issue more emotive, which is un-necessary).
| Quote: |
I think I'm saying that concentrating on pest control as an issue, or a reason not to do something otherwise considered to be beneficial, might well amount to nitpicking!
|
Pest control is a fact of life. Rabbits get out of hand and blight crops; if you've an overpopulation that is causing damage to other peoples land then you are legally obliged to do something about it. So eat them. Makes perfect sense. Oh, you COULD try using some means of keeping the rabbits out of everyones land and just let them starve, I suppose. Let the population rise till they suffer, then when their immune systems stop working so well myxie will wipe them out for a year or so till the whole thing happens again.
What treacodactyl has put forward is the idea that as these species are controlled we should eat them; I do something similar, in putting edible weeds that come out of the garden ormy allotment into the basket to eat. It's otherwise a complete waste. Do you disagree?
The ones we eat are. Visited them a while ago.
| Quote: |
Ah, well, nobody likes every food nor every drink. I find water to be pretty good stuff. |
Me too (is it still so very heavily chlorinated up there?). Pretty hopeless for making cheese, though |
|
|
|
|
judith
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 22789
Location: Montgomeryshire
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 05 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
Cab, you're right, the water up here still stinks. We have a filter.
At the mo I just can't make the time to reply piecemeal to all of yours above, and I've just had to go off-line, but bear with me......
* It would be a mistake to assume that because trees can grow on a patch of ground it must be possible to use it as high or reasonable productivity arable land.
Hell's teeth, I can't be making my point(s) very well if anyone thought that that was what I was getting at - I was talking about producing timber between the arable zones and up to 2000', not lettuce!
And as for the 6.5 billion turning veggie, I had hoped it was clear that I wasn't really aiming to include, for example, the Esqimaux, the Massai, nor the Tibetan yak-herder in the "grand scheme".
Here's something I prepared earlier:
* Nature dictates that we should eat meat,
I am most reluctant to risk winding up a bunch of nice peeps on this forum, but where (on earth) does nature dictate that?
Some state convincingly that man's early eating of meat was almost entirely incidental and a very, very minor part of his diet. The massive population of India has never until recently eaten hardly any meat.
Unfortunately the ugly influence of MuckDonalds, etc is changing this.
* morals and guilt suggest that we shouldn't. It's a choice.
Ha-ha, so far!
* However... the current system of disgusting factory farming is the most serious abuse of our position at "the top of the food chain". I think your protests should start there, and not on a board where animal husbandry is already at the highest standard.
I�ll repeat that I�m most reluctant to risk winding up a bunch of nice peeps, but I�m not confining my thinking to folks who simply give their animals a high degree of care until such time as they have them killed.
And show me an animal that�s happy to volunteer to be killed and I�ll show you one very sick animal.
* The real question is "Should we ALL stop eating meat". The world simply cannot sustain 6.5 billion vegetarians. The argument that you can grow more soya protein than animal protein in one acre is an oversimplified way of looking at veg growing.
Yes, but it�s far from irrelevant.
* There just isn't enough viable arable land suitable for veg/grain growing to feed a world of vegetarians. Look at many sheep farms, they use areas that are mountainous, rocky, boggy... areas that veg / grain simply won't grow without massive irrigation / drainage / fertilisers/ pesticides (read: destruction). And yet sheep thrive on these areas.
If there were no mutton in Britain would anyone come to any harm? Take sheep out of the equation, (And why not? You�ll reduce methane production and be able to turn most of the upland back into forest).
And what's impracticable about us growing food for people on those parts of the arable lowland which are currently used to produce fodder for animals, animals which we don't need to eat and which themselves produce very little food when eaten?
Put it like this, admittedly very hypothetically, and see if it in any way can be translated to something approaching a global situation:
I'll give you 10 acres of reasonably good farmland on which you have to be self-sufficient in beef only. Why? Because if you choose to "grow" meat on this much land, then you can't produce anything other than that meat and the crops which that meat eats.
You grow those crops to feed your cattle and over a two year period you produce two cows, (nothing else, you don't have enough space).
You and your immediate family eat the two cows, (some parts of which you have perhaps managed to freeze in order to stop them going rotten).
Me, on my adjoining 10 acres I have the mother and father of all allotments and produce relatively vast quantities of every vegetable that will grow in the open in the UK�s current climate.
If the climate changes significantly, you, who have probably arrived at (something close to) a mono-culture of animal fodder, will probably be far worse affected that I with my wide range of different produce.
And I've so much land to spare that, with an eye to the future, I plant fruit trees and nut trees and grow soft fruits, plant trees for timber and still end up with such an excess of food (certain types of which can be clamped, etc., to sustain us throught the winter), that, even after I've fed my family and some of my neighbours, I'm still able to offer you and your carnivorous family, (remember that you can't be omnivorous - you just don't have enough space), some of my produce for sale.
But you can't afford it because you've eaten your cows and you've got to borrow money to buy two more before you starve. |
|
|
|
|
judith
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 22789
Location: Montgomeryshire
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45691
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
Milo
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
judith
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 22789
Location: Montgomeryshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts