121–130 of 170 posts
I realise it's not something you can scale or automate easily, but I'm not really looking for that. Just a few hectares for personal use. I understand it will take many years for the trees to grow
I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biointensive gardening and earth-centric/organic/whatever methods definitely have their place, but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy. The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in…
We don't necessarily have to scale this. I think a better approach is to build decentralized food systems using these practices. At the neighborhood or household level, these practices are very practical. It does not require rebooting the whole system. It does not require venture capital, because you're not trying to make a big return. It does not require waiting for conventional farmers to change their practice.
No one is growing wheat on a small scale, much less in the kind of quantities that would allow me to have several dozen kg with which to bake through the winter. Same with legumes, as far as I know.
In any case, I'm not trying to impose a solution here. Quite the opposite; the food system is a large problem that requires multiple irons in the fire, and that may well look like reinventing large-scale cropping to be less destructive and chemical-intense, while simultaneously moving fruit and veg production closer to home with smaller scale operations.
I don’t live in the right zone, but I tell my friends in the lower hemispheres that when they have a child, they must plant at least 1/2 acre of forest. Or a fruit orchard or a hardwood grove. Why? Because at its worst, it’s Ag but is green and income producing. And at its best it’s green, Carbon sequestering long term..medium benefits for a hardwood grove with ebony or teak or rosewood that are super slow growing and will grow with the child..leaving them a legacy and an inheritance.
If anyone wants to collaborate for such a project, please reach out(my handle at gmail). I am still researching for the northern hemisphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.
I know what you mean by "Luddite", but historically, they were not anti-tech either. They broke machines to gain leverage and put pressure over employers to give better working conditions, and not because they hated machines. There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works , but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these pro…
I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
The article doesn't mention permaculture. Permaculture has been used commercial settings (and its design principles includes agroforestry). Permies have been talking about resilient and regenerative systems for a long while now, going beyond sustainability. Permaculture design looks at the whole system. So not just trees, but also things to plant with the trees. With planting along contours and adding swales to catch…
There will always be room for trade in things that you cannot produce locally such as coffee, but for almost every other thing, there are local solutions.
Open Source Ecology [1] attempts to go the high-tech route and they may get somewhere, but they are only one of many approaches to localizing. With the internet we can have many groups working on localizing their own needs and sharing their successes and failures with the world. Add some gamification and wholla we have people competing to actully figure out how to live on this planet while leaving the place better afterwards.
Note that a completely local system would probably not have much need at all for state backed currency except for trade. [1] http://www.opensourceecology.org
If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend checking out Joel Salatin and Polyface Farm. They are doing amazing work. http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ https://vimeo.com/125404937
His book "Restoration Agriculture" details his system, which can be likened to agroforestry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A vanishingly small percentage of beef comes from the lands under discussion. [0] The reason is simple: cattle were not evolved for the alpine desert. Consumers wouldn't even notice if cattle were outlawed completely on BLM land. Wildlife biologists certainly would notice! In reality, these policies are political shenanigans. No Republican wants to be the first to stop providing welfare to the Cliven Bundy types that…
> A vanishingly small percentage of beef comes from the lands under discussion. I don't doubt at all the environmental destruction being wrought. However, the land's use is supporting some market for beef though, or else why would the question of $1 leases to stockmen exist? Is it just that it's cheap and marginal (in both cost and quality) land that can be used for marginal production increases, or is it supporting…
Every one of my travels to western states and every conversation I've had with other cattlemen there and elsewhere implies that it is exactly that. Perhaps once upon a time it was something else, and as the situation changed our government didn't keep up. I imagine that numerous bureaucrats at BLM and other agencies have some personal interests in the disastrous way that things are done. Some call this a "principal-agent problem".
Likewise, the various stupid wars we in USA fight aren't at all about our security or saving democracy or any of the other myths. Those are "UBI schemes" for armaments manufacturers and their employees in politics and the media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living. If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
"Growing up on a farm" can have vastly different meanings across places - from living next to an industrial-scale operation to an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
That sounds more like a country house — or a tax dodge— than it does a working farm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing people don't realize about the BLM and the Department of the Interior in general is that they maintain the world's largest airforce. This Airforce exists mainly as a mountain rescue and forest firefighting unit(s). Also, because we're now in the 2020s, they are the worlds largest purchaser of drones, even beyond the military. A lot of fascinating, cutting edge stuff is going on at BLM and DoI.
It doesn't bother me one bit that the BLM manages land. It's a major public benefit that we have so much information about our natural resources. I think the USDA soil survey, for example, a one of the great wonders of the information age. The thing that bothers me is how they lease out public lands essentially for free to stockmen who proceed to destroy the landscape.