From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174506.26835@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.191732.24793@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>> 
>>Average topsoil depth on 28 WA certified-organic farms has increased
>>over the last 10 years.
>>
>>Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1987: $300,000
>>Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1992: $2,300,000
>
>Yes, enviro-yuppies will pay outrageous prices for "organic" foods.
>Of course *all* farming is the practice of growing food using
>organic chemistry. Nick says we can make topsoil, you just supported
>his claim. Any farmer knows that long term depletion of topsoil is
>costly. That's why crop rotation, minimum tillage, terrace plowing,
>and the like are routine tools of the farmer. The farmer knows that
>a corn crop will cause short term depletion of topsoil, that's why
>he rotates in soybeans, clover hay, and wheat. That's also why he
>boosts soils with fertilizers, so that what he takes from the soil
>is made up by what he adds.

Organic food isn't always outrageously priced.  Studies have shown
that fertilizers only replace eom of the nutrients.  In agricultural
areas under modern farming techniques for many years, stable yields
requires consistently increasing fertilizer input.  Some LDC
countries have been experiencing continual decrease in yields
because they cannot afford the ever increasing amounts of
fertilizer.  Maybe this just means we need better fertilizers but
maybe it also means we don't completely know what the soil needs.
>
>>>>	3) doesn't redirect or restrict more than 1% of water flow
>>>>		in a given watershed 
>>>
>>>We already redirect water all over the place, and we should do it more.
>>>For example, we can create large amounts of new wetlands -- 
>>
>>What was wrong with old wetlands ? Did we have a rational reason for
>>destroying them, or is this all just post-facto rationalisation ?
>
>Perhaps they were in desirable locations for other uses. Or perhaps
>it's cheaper to drain one swamp and create another than to reroute
>a road. Swamps are useful natural filters, but there are artificial
>filters that work better and take up less space. It becomes a matter
>of weighing costs. If the swamp costs less, use the swamp. Of course
>the EPA is going to pitch a fit if you dump city sewage into a swamp,
>so you're going to have to build the artificial filtering plant anyway.
>Now what purpose does the swamp serve with chemically pure water running
>into it? As Admiral Stackpole told Al Gore, clean the pond too much
>and the water lilies die.

Artificial wetlands are problematic.  Some work well as far as we can
tell and some don't (no wildlife).  The reasons for this are unknown.
Admiral Stockpile had some good one-liners but not much substance.
>
>>>Redirecting water for power and farming is critical to our industries.
>>
>>Hydro-electric plays a limited role in the eastern US.  1% of the
>>waterflow is sufficient for almost all bioregionally-specific farming,
>>especially when labor-intensive, small-scale techniques are used. Such
>>techniques reduce water usage and increase yields - sample plots like
>>Ecology Action's demonstration farm in Willits, CA. exceed USDA
>>averages by up to 1000%.
>
>Indeed, let's return agriculture to $0.50/hr stoop labor. Today's
>farmer feeds 75 people. In the days of stoop labor the ratio was
>4 off farm people for every farm laborer. Labor intensive agriculture
>is back breaking hard work from sunup to sunset. I won't willingly
>go back to cutting cane by hand.
>
Since the farm in Willits had a much higher productivity than old
stoop labor, it seems obvious that the modern labor intensive
techniques are also different.  It would be interesting for Paul
to describe these to us.

>			 
>>			 They are important components in over 90% of 
>>>consumer items. 
>>
>>The most critical (to "standard of living") were made of other things
>>first. Note also that avoidance of petrochemicals doesn't mean
>>avoidance of long-chain carbon polymers. Rayon (made from plant
>>cellulose) as well as Livos plants and oil finishes are examples of
>>combining the admitted utility of carbon chemistry with more
>>sustainable technology.
>
>Cultured and harvested by stoop labor I presume.

Or maybe stoop analysis on sci.environment.
>
>Gary


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)