Paleo
- Thread starter cory
- Start date
- Replies 138
- Views 20K
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Hmmm. That gives me an idea...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #103
I, for one, am willing to get "smarter " by getting an answer to the question of how the individual consumer can do his part to drive positve change by buying healthy food that is grown using techniques that protects soil. But in the 80% I watched, I didn't see that addressed.
I have a good idea- if "organic" means jack doodley, then one of you guys who knows the answer to the above question could just.......tell me!
I have a good idea- if "organic" means jack doodley, then one of you guys who knows the answer to the above question could just.......tell me!
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
In the olden days farm land was broke out in large blocks. You might have fields that were a half section to a full section, 640 acres.
These fields were pretty young yet, and still had quite a bit of organic material still in them. The farming was done with conventional, heavy tillage. The dust clouds that came off these fields were devestating, water ran off carrying huge ammounts of soil, the biological life and nutrients were depleted.
Later these fields were narrowed into strips to lessen wind and water erosion. It helped some, the dirt would not blow as far and residue from the previous crop would hold the soil some.
Later came chemicals and no till. The erosion was lessened greatly, and the soils had better biological activity and organic matter.
No till keeps the carbon in the soil, builds organic matter, lowers the temp, conserves water and lowers erosion. It does not keep a living root in the soil on fallow years though.
So on one hand you have bare dirt, high erosion losses from wind and water, high soil temps, less organic matter, lower microbe activity, lower yeilds, high fossil fuel usage,........but no chemicals.
No till has lower erosion, more water, holds way more carbon, cooler soil temps, more organic matter, better microbe activity, better residue, uses less diesel, higher yeids, but.............uses chemicals such as fertilizer and herbicides.
So in my opinion, no till is the lesser of two evils.
Organic pays better, so once agian huge solid blocks of land are being tilled to bare dirt, just like in the 30s.
Often this land was planted to CRP because it was poor to start with.
High demand and high prices are driving the push to break more organic acres, and farmers that are struggling to make it are very willing to produce.
You are told organic is better for you and your family, so you pay for it. I am not sure the food is any better for you or not, but I dont think it is better for the planet.
Cory, I think Dave is right, I just dont know why or how. I think education is the key, but I cant tell you where to get it.
We are only too willing to buy what is produced, and rightly so. Its food, we goddamn need it.
Look what is being done now on a small scale, less antibiotics, free range, cage free, grass fat, local, seasonal,......ect.
Thats from you guys. Consumers want it, demand it, are willing to pay for it, so it gets produced. Govt is scrambling to figure out a way to frig it up as we speak! Sorry....
So maybe if we get past the buzz words and discover what is truely better for the planet, we can work together to make positive changes.
Once we figure those methods out, we might have to demand that the govt lets farmers use these methods, and make a living doing it.
At the end of the day, farmers need to make money to continue, and the old way pays the bills. Plus, the govt largely does not support these methods. We have very little real support. Tell your govt to cut the bullshit, support these changes, and support the farmers trying to make the changes needed, buy these products.
We all win in the end.
Thats my take on it. Where do we go from here Dave? How do we get the govt and consumers to support this?
These fields were pretty young yet, and still had quite a bit of organic material still in them. The farming was done with conventional, heavy tillage. The dust clouds that came off these fields were devestating, water ran off carrying huge ammounts of soil, the biological life and nutrients were depleted.
Later these fields were narrowed into strips to lessen wind and water erosion. It helped some, the dirt would not blow as far and residue from the previous crop would hold the soil some.
Later came chemicals and no till. The erosion was lessened greatly, and the soils had better biological activity and organic matter.
No till keeps the carbon in the soil, builds organic matter, lowers the temp, conserves water and lowers erosion. It does not keep a living root in the soil on fallow years though.
So on one hand you have bare dirt, high erosion losses from wind and water, high soil temps, less organic matter, lower microbe activity, lower yeilds, high fossil fuel usage,........but no chemicals.
No till has lower erosion, more water, holds way more carbon, cooler soil temps, more organic matter, better microbe activity, better residue, uses less diesel, higher yeids, but.............uses chemicals such as fertilizer and herbicides.
So in my opinion, no till is the lesser of two evils.
Organic pays better, so once agian huge solid blocks of land are being tilled to bare dirt, just like in the 30s.
Often this land was planted to CRP because it was poor to start with.
High demand and high prices are driving the push to break more organic acres, and farmers that are struggling to make it are very willing to produce.
You are told organic is better for you and your family, so you pay for it. I am not sure the food is any better for you or not, but I dont think it is better for the planet.
Cory, I think Dave is right, I just dont know why or how. I think education is the key, but I cant tell you where to get it.
We are only too willing to buy what is produced, and rightly so. Its food, we goddamn need it.
Look what is being done now on a small scale, less antibiotics, free range, cage free, grass fat, local, seasonal,......ect.
Thats from you guys. Consumers want it, demand it, are willing to pay for it, so it gets produced. Govt is scrambling to figure out a way to frig it up as we speak! Sorry....
So maybe if we get past the buzz words and discover what is truely better for the planet, we can work together to make positive changes.
Once we figure those methods out, we might have to demand that the govt lets farmers use these methods, and make a living doing it.
At the end of the day, farmers need to make money to continue, and the old way pays the bills. Plus, the govt largely does not support these methods. We have very little real support. Tell your govt to cut the bullshit, support these changes, and support the farmers trying to make the changes needed, buy these products.
We all win in the end.
Thats my take on it. Where do we go from here Dave? How do we get the govt and consumers to support this?
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Holy shit, what a post.
Ask me some direct questions Cory, I will try to give you direct answers if the last essay was not clear.
Ask me some direct questions Cory, I will try to give you direct answers if the last essay was not clear.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #106
Ha ha, Big Jim...The treehouse rocks!!!!
As I was reading your post I was thinking, great post, I'm learning something here! You laid out clearly and succinctly the old way (tillage) vs new way (no tillage, but chemical use). I never thought of the down side of organic (erosion). I learned a lot there.
So each approach has disadvantages. But I thought your new approach used no till (no erosion) but the right cover crops to eliminate need for chemicals (eventually at least). Am I off base there?
And re my specific question earlier (what should consumers patronize to do the best for soil and quality food products) I guess you are saying its a judgement call, and you personally side with no tillage and using chemicals.
As I was reading your post I was thinking, great post, I'm learning something here! You laid out clearly and succinctly the old way (tillage) vs new way (no tillage, but chemical use). I never thought of the down side of organic (erosion). I learned a lot there.
So each approach has disadvantages. But I thought your new approach used no till (no erosion) but the right cover crops to eliminate need for chemicals (eventually at least). Am I off base there?
And re my specific question earlier (what should consumers patronize to do the best for soil and quality food products) I guess you are saying its a judgement call, and you personally side with no tillage and using chemicals.
Organic is good, it is just that if you look at it as a label for "goodness" and look no farther, you will fall short of your goal. It is a term, like "all natural" that is easily abused. There are multiple ways to achieve organic produce, including no till and no herbicide using crop rotation with direct seeding into the previous crop residue.
Please understand that I am not trying to be elusive with my answers but it is not simply something that you can read on a label and go, ah this one is right! Dr.Jones did explain how degraded soil leads to degraded nutrition. How that leads to bad health and increased disease. Because labels can not give you the answers as to how your food is grown, you, as in everyone, need to ask questions, lots of questions often and loud. Producers need to understand that consumers are becoming aware that healthy soils are needed to grow healthy food and that doing so creates a better world, at least on that one level.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #109
Fair enough, makes sense. As you and Jim noted earlier, consumers are a major force, so that gives hope for the future.
But it sounds like it is basically impossible to determine the "goodness" of food because virtually no current labelling addresses these questions, afaik.
Dave, how do you choose what foods to buy if you are buying with "goodness" as a criteria, or are you off the grid? Just curious, if you are comfortable sharing. Thanks.
But it sounds like it is basically impossible to determine the "goodness" of food because virtually no current labelling addresses these questions, afaik.
Dave, how do you choose what foods to buy if you are buying with "goodness" as a criteria, or are you off the grid? Just curious, if you are comfortable sharing. Thanks.
Quite comfortable sharing, Cory. First, we buy local and from the source. Virtually every community has local producers and a network of people that use them. If hunting and gathering is an option use it. We eat whole foods that we cook ourselves. Sylvia makes a great Bulgarian yogurt made from whole milk from a local organic dairy. Our diet is eclectic I guess, raw greens and cooked vegetables make up the bulk, meat and some starches. No breads, wheat, corn or soy products and no added sugar.
Because of our simple food requirements, shopping or acquiring from a known source is the rule. Some items like balsamic vinegar or other non native items, the best we can do is research the source and hope we make the right choice.
The important thing is to do the best you can while understanding why you are doing it.
Because of our simple food requirements, shopping or acquiring from a known source is the rule. Some items like balsamic vinegar or other non native items, the best we can do is research the source and hope we make the right choice.
The important thing is to do the best you can while understanding why you are doing it.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
I agree, we need to look past the labels. Gabe Brown is not an organic producer. His customers are the crunchiest granola bastards in North Dakota. They dont give a shit that its not "organic". He produces products that are beyond organic, they are sustainable, real sustainable, not bullshit sustainable. Most organic is not sustainable. He uses a bit of herbicide, but not very much, and is trying to get away from it completely.
Once people see his operation, they buy all he has.
Yes, there is a small amount of organic no-till. Using a cereal rye cover that is crimped down, and seeded into. The trouble with that is a lack of diversity. Its basically a mono culture cover crop. Still good, but you need to manage that with the type of cash crop. Any cereal rye that volunteers into a crop of wheat or barley renders the crop valueless. So not quite a silver bullet, but its a good start.
For my money, on the large scale that is needed, conventional no till is better than bare soil organic, which is how most organic crops are produced.
Yes, we are going to use cover crops on every fallow acre Cory. Some tillage, some chemicals, but WAY less than before. The transition is ongoing, not built in a day so to speak.
You the consumer have a lot of power, but make informed decisions. No sense in starving millions if you dont have too.
The reality is that until the foundation AG is changed, little real progress will be made. Since they control everything anyway, we need to let the govt know that the old way is not turning our cranks anymore.
Farmers need to be rewarded for making the switch, for producing responsibly, sustain-ably, regenerativly. Not punished or threatened.
That task is so monumentally huge, the task of making real changes, that it is hard to figure out where to start.
Once people see his operation, they buy all he has.
Yes, there is a small amount of organic no-till. Using a cereal rye cover that is crimped down, and seeded into. The trouble with that is a lack of diversity. Its basically a mono culture cover crop. Still good, but you need to manage that with the type of cash crop. Any cereal rye that volunteers into a crop of wheat or barley renders the crop valueless. So not quite a silver bullet, but its a good start.
For my money, on the large scale that is needed, conventional no till is better than bare soil organic, which is how most organic crops are produced.
Yes, we are going to use cover crops on every fallow acre Cory. Some tillage, some chemicals, but WAY less than before. The transition is ongoing, not built in a day so to speak.
You the consumer have a lot of power, but make informed decisions. No sense in starving millions if you dont have too.
The reality is that until the foundation AG is changed, little real progress will be made. Since they control everything anyway, we need to let the govt know that the old way is not turning our cranks anymore.
Farmers need to be rewarded for making the switch, for producing responsibly, sustain-ably, regenerativly. Not punished or threatened.
That task is so monumentally huge, the task of making real changes, that it is hard to figure out where to start.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Yeah, people should eat all the wheat and bread and such that they can get their hands on. Thats science.
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Thanks for the kind words Cory.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
You can spend days reading about the pros and cons of modern wheat and find evidence to support your individual beliefs to whichever side you choose. However it is one thing to read about something, take sex as a for instance, but it can be a real eye opener when you actually try it. It seems that many that ask the above question have not. I would suggest giving it a try and see what you think.
I would not use myself as an example of health because at my age and with my families short life expectancy just waking up each new day is a gift. Add the fact that 47 years as a worker/climber within the tree industry has taken its toll. But removing basically all refined foods has left me feeling better in so many ways that I would never consider eating any other way.
Cory, you have a strong tendency to ask questions that do not have simple answers and yet want simple answers. Why is that?
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Isn't that what's best? Simple answers?
Mick!
TreeHouser
Isn't it a no bread/wheat thing because Paleolithic man didn't mill grain so wouldn't be eating it?
Or something like that.....
Is it? Or does a simple answer just not include, the rest of the story.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #120
Your benefits from cutting out refined foods is good to know.
I just ask questions that seem warranted, and whatever the accurate answer is, I'm good with that. When I asked what is the "right" food to buy after I learned from you guys about the downside of organic (tilling), I thought there would be a relatively concise or simple answer. Alas, no. But I'm taking in a lot of good info from y'all. Long live the Treehouse!!
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
That is the trouble with putting out info. We need to find better ways to deliver that info into packages that can be digested by the people.
There has to be a balance between content and time.
You can sit down to a 3 hour, 15 course French dinner or you can slam a big mac. Same purpose, nourishment.
The french dinner is a wonderful experience, but one you need to plan for. The big mac is fast, but lacking in real nutrition.
Something inbetween often is the best choice.
There has to be a balance between content and time.
You can sit down to a 3 hour, 15 course French dinner or you can slam a big mac. Same purpose, nourishment.
The french dinner is a wonderful experience, but one you need to plan for. The big mac is fast, but lacking in real nutrition.
Something inbetween often is the best choice.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #122
[SUP][/SUP]
Excellent point.
Excellent point.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #123
Vegan problems, posted in "in the news"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...raising-risk-of-cancer-and-heart-disease.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...raising-risk-of-cancer-and-heart-disease.html
FireFighterZero
Captain Zero!
Good news about all the Paleo stuff. It is driving up the consumption of red meat! Keep eating them steaks!
Cooked some beef fajitas tonight. Spanish rice, re fried beans and corn tortillas. Pretty good, but I got every bleeding pan in the house dirty!
Cooked some beef fajitas tonight. Spanish rice, re fried beans and corn tortillas. Pretty good, but I got every bleeding pan in the house dirty!
Similar threads
