coming food crisis

[pinkytoe]

I put this under policy as I think our leaders should be giving this more urgent action:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/our-coming-food-crisis.html?src=me&ref=general

[ApatheticNoMore]

I put this under policy as I think our leaders should be giving this more urgent action:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/our-coming-food-crisis.html?src=me&ref=general

I think our leaders should be giving a lot of things more urgent action. I used to get really frustrated they ignored things (climate change say) - and almost attributed their behavior to obstinance that I could what ... NAG them out of our something :laff:. I used to wonder about the powerful: "why are they so obstinate? why do they deliberately ignore major problems and only talk about other things? why don't they take this seriously etc.?" I no longer think they are anywhere near that innocent. Maybe they know and have planned for the worst, maybe they don't care what happens to YOU (to most people iow). If we all starve - what is it to them?

So .... beyond building mass resistence to object to this travesty and attack all the key planks in the corruption (ultimately maybe the ONLY solution and deadly serious because mitigation only goes so far). This is what I think ordinary people should be giving more urgent action to as temporary mitigation: planting their own food if it makes sense, community gardens - starting more of them, land sharing so that people without land can plant food when others have land they aren't using, support of local argriculture, reducing food waste (mostly companies that throw out food is what I'm targetting here) etc..

[Gregg]

Same problem here as there is using fruit juice to cure cancer. There's no money in the cure, its only in the status quo. Compost, rainwater harvesting, gray water usage, perennial crops (especially perennial crops!)... You cut out a whole lot of profit centers for some very large businesses. Our current Congress is way too spineless to ever buck that trend, no matter what the consequences. Probably the best way around it, for now, is for all of us that can to implement the same measures in our own backyard gardens.

[creaker]

They've been giving it plenty of action - unfortunately I think that action has more involved beefing up their ability to manage future civil unrest than anything else.

[ApatheticNoMore]

They've been giving it plenty of action - unfortunately I think that action has more involved beefing up their ability to manage future civil unrest than anything else.

haha, yea no kidding. HOWEVER, I do wonder if even they realize how bad it can get. They seem to believe that they can protect themselves somehow in a little bubble, if only they build the perfect police state (and they are, every single aspect - everything monitored, limits put on protests, no information allowed to see the light of day, absolute right to imprison without trial, state targeted murder, drones on the border to prevent any escape - it's over, they won), if only the totalitarianism is total enough.

But you *still* need a livable planet, even the 1%, even the rulers. Period. So the police state buys them temporarily mitigation at best.

So what I mentioned is what could be the kind of temporary mitigation ordinary people could work on ....

[Gregg]

...planting their own food if it makes sense, community gardens - starting more of them, land sharing so that people without land can plant food when others have land they aren't using, support of local argriculture, reducing food waste (mostly companies that throw out food is what I'm targetting here) etc..

+1 ANM. This kind of movement will pretty much only get started at a grass roots level. Too much money, greed and probably corrupt behavior in the hallowed halls to move this direction at a national level. Coming from a big ag state I wouldn't pin much hope on the state level, either.

[pinkytoe]

I wonder if the municipal level will be the answer as well as individuals. Our city is working on plans to legalize all urban farming, etc so that stupid things like HOAs can't tell a homeowner they can't grow food in their yard. Nevertheless, with water restrictions like they are, it is going to tough to keep things alive even so.

[bae]

So what I mentioned is what could be the kind of temporary mitigation ordinary people could work on ....

You might be quite interested in the Cuban experience, ANM:

http://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/cuban-urban-agriculture-as-a-strategy-for-food-sovereignty

My own opinion is closer to Kunstler and Orlov. I do not believe our current society is remotely sustainable, and I think it is sufficiently complex and interconnected that it is not at all resilient to failures. I am so very glad I do not live in the suburbs or an urban area, and that the rural, food-producing area I do live in presents significant challenges to folks trying to get here.

Good luck...

[ApatheticNoMore]

I wonder if the municipal level will be the answer as well as individuals. Our city is working on plans to legalize all urban farming, etc so that stupid things like HOAs can't tell a homeowner they can't grow food in their yard.

I think that's a good idea - also the community level. I get the sense it's not always easy to get the municipalities attention, but I don't think they are hopelessly corrupt at least (depends on where you are I guess ... they seem to have some good intentions here).

[Gregg]

I can see the municipal level promotion of certain practices being extremely beneficial in small towns, villages, etc. In large cities I'm not so sure. The potential to do great things is certainly there, but I'm not convinced most major metro administrators are any farther removed from influence than state or national politicos.



My own opinion is closer to Kunstler and Orlov. I do not believe our current society is remotely sustainable, and I think it is sufficiently complex and interconnected that it is not at all resilient to failures.

I'm usually not far behind that thinking either, bae. Curious, have you focused on a particular time frame or any specific tipping point that you think would cause a slide to be irreversible? There seems to be so many straws on this camel's back that I have no idea which will be the final one, but I generally think it will be something in the environmental realm.

[Yossarian]

I'm more of an optimist. People have been predicting doom and gloom for a long time. Nothing lasts forever so yes, on a long enough timeline our odds of survival rate will drop to zero, but for now I think innovation, both in genetics and engineering, will keep things afloat for the foreseeable future. Hunger has been more of a problem of politics and distribution than production. But now technology is helping inhospitable places adapt. For example Israel is using desalination to provide fresh water and even export it to its neighbors. There is no reason that Africa couldn't be a much more effective food producer if managed correctly. And we are becoming more adept at growing in nontraditional locations.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/24/growing-food-in-the-desert-crisis

Indeed, the work that Sundrop Farms (http://www.sundropfarms.com/), as they call themselves, are doing in South Australia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/australia), and just starting up in Qatar, is beyond the experimental stage. They appear to have pulled off the ultimate something-from-nothing agricultural feat – using the sun to desalinate seawater for irrigation and to heat and cool greenhouses as required, and thence cheaply grow high-quality, pesticide-free vegetables year-round in commercial quantities.

So far, the company has grown tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers by the tonne, but the same, proven technology is now almost ready to be extended to magic out, as if from thin air, unlimited quantities of many more crops – and even protein foods such as fish and chicken – but still using no fresh water (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/water) and close to zero fossil fuels.

[puglogic]

I don't see technology saving many of us. As has been pointed out by a number of researchers, the raw materials (the shiny tracking mirrors, the desalination equipment, the materials to build growhouses where growing seasons are short, the transportation required to get food from point A to point B...) and the fossil fuels required to create this sort of infrastructure is not even close to sustainable, save for a few small pockets of well-funded populations. It's a very noble effort and I am a huge fan of trying, but it's not a solution that's going to help seven billion people for very long.

The bigger problem is that well-meaning citizens AND our so-called leaders point to "solutions" like these as our salvation, and it keeps them from making the very difficult decisions that need to be made right now. As much as I dislike Kunstler, Orlov, and the rest of their ilk, for that reason I think they're closer to right than the optimists.

[Yossarian]

it's not a solution that's going to help seven billion people for very long.



But that was only an cool illustration, not the whole solution. I think there is more promise in the bio crops but that's a hot button here so I just mentioned the pesticide free and no/low petroleum example, and agricultural reform in Africa could have a huge impact. So while it's valid to raise the issues I don't think it's game over by any measure.

[Gardenarian]

I wish there was someone in charge of this. We need a Manhattan Project to work on climate change.

[Gregg]

So while it's valid to raise the issues I don't think it's game over by any measure.

There is certainly no reason it has to be game over. A lot of people view technology as a panacea, but I don't think it is. Its part of the puzzle to be sure, but I think we need to change the whole system. We can and do produce enough food to feed 7 billion, but it is ever lower quality nutritionally and (as Yos mentioned) its grown too far from where its needed. All the tech that can turn deserts into oases is wonderful and will certainly help delay any societal nosedive, at least regarding food production, but its difficult to see how we will be able to feed 9 billion in 35 years without destroying the environment in the process if methods of production don't fundamentally change.

[Yossarian]

We can and do produce enough food to feed 7 billion

Indeed.

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/events/archive/2011/paa/lam_slide1.jpg


It's an issue that needs to be managed and I won't be around on this website to collect but I'd be willing to bet in 50 years things may be different but there won't be mass starvation. Maybe some different choices or adaptation, but no cataclysm.

[bae]

I'm usually not far behind that thinking either, bae. Curious, have you focused on a particular time frame or any specific tipping point that you think would cause a slide to be irreversible?

I am basing my opinion purely on the complexity and vulnerability of our culture's processes and technologies. I think it is mathematically certain that *unless things change significantly* we will stumble into disaster of some sort at some time. Nearly every culture of the past has done so. We will just be stumbling from a greater height, and there will be more of us involved.

I think the tipping point was the adoption of agriculture :-)

[Rogar]

A good article, but sometimes I think the NYT is out of touch with real rural and environmental issues. Or maybe the author is just pointing out some things that would exist in the perfect world. Farming is big business these days and my suspicion is that farmers with continue to pour fertilizers onto GMO crops to produced soy and HFCS until the figurative cows come home. Something really should change and it seems to me like gov't programs should be at the head of change initiatives.

[Gregg]

Something really should change and it seems to me like gov't programs should be at the head of change initiatives.

+1 Eliminating subsidy for HFCS's source crop would be a good start. Someone should tell Washington that the original Depression has been over for 70 years or so and maybe its time for a new program. Almost all the farmers I know are in favor of doing away with subsidies. The program doesn't really benefit them. It does, however, substantially benefit the Con-Agras and Cargills of the world who, in turn, are able to hold a financial gun to the farmer's heads. But hey, I'm apparently already an anarchist for believing we should charge oil companies market value for leases, not bail out banks who lost money trying to manipulate markets, let too big to fail fail, let auto makers who make autos no one wants to buy go under, etc. Time to shut down quasi-capitalism and get back to the real deal. We've been a little pregnant for too long.

[Rogar]

Greg, I don't know how accurate this, but was talking with a friend with links to the corn belt in Iowa. He said that with modern fertilizers and GMO crops, that crop rotation has been much less important and that the soil has become little more than a substrate to hold roots. As a result, and according to some of the articles he directed me to, the nice rich top soil in the mid west is suffering significant erosion and is gradully going away. It has been especially bad this year with the heavy rains.

Not only is this a loss to the agricultural environment, but the run off goes into streams and rivers adding significant sediment and also all of the bad things that go along with allowing the high nutrient fertilizer run off into waterways. Apparently agriculture has some exemptions from the Clean Water Act and agricultural run off has become the major source of non point source pollution.

This almost seems like the great dust bowl in reverse to me and makes any reversion to traditional farming impossible? I wonder if discontinuing the current government subsidies is enough, or if there should actually be incentives to support more sustainable and wise farming methods. I really don't know the answers, but it seems like it was the government programs that pulled us out of the dust bowl farming methods.

[Gregg]

Rogar, as I see it any quick return to more traditional farming practices would only be possible if we're willing to cull a billion or so people who live in the wrong place from the human population. I'm in Nebraska (and can see a field of king corn from my window) and part of a several generation long chain of farmers so the topic does come up. The situation here is every bit as dire as your friend's description. Consider just the short list of consequences from large scale, mono-crop agriculture:

1. Erosion from wind and rain, caused by unsustainable tilling practices, has significantly reduced or eliminated top soil layers. And yes, that is responsible for silting in waterways from tiny streams to the Mississippi.

2. Any top soil remaining in the fields is dead. Thanks to the sheer volume of chemical application the microbial foundation of the ecosystem no longer exists. Your friend is right about it being substrate. It might as well be styrofoam peanuts.

3. Chemical pesticides and fungicides are now being blamed for decimating the bee population (http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/) that is estimated to be responsible for >40% of all pollination. Without them we will still have food...as long as corn is all you want to eat. This could end up being the elephant in the room before its all over.

4. Every time a Round-up resistant GMO hits the fields a weed modifies its genes to be resistant all by itself. If we stop all such plant & spray practices today its already too late on that front. The "franken-weeds" would start to take over the fields.

5. Ground water depletion ranges from moderate to severe and countless rivers and streams now run dry in late summer. That's thanks to irrigation, especially center pivots, used to turn the Great American Desert into a 10 million square mile oasis. It took millions of years to fill those aquifers. It will again.

6. Smaller waterways that don't run dry are often choked with vegetation. Growth of those plants is made possible by the constant diet of fertilizer running off the fields. When you consider all the other chemicals used that also run off you get a picture of what effect it might have on the other members of those ecosystems. Bugs, fish, beavers, kids swimming in the creek...

7. We all know the problems associated with fossil fuels upon which modern big-ag is 100% dependent. Not only do they power every machine at every step from seed to table, they are used to produce the insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, etc. without which big-ag (as it presently exists) wouldn't be possible.

That's just the short list. As said above, its not too late. It is, however, too late to change without making a full on paradigm shift with regard to food production.

[Rogar]

Thanks, Greg. Interesting and a few similar items to what I could run across. If you should have any thoughts on a hypothetical solution, do you see something beyond the end of government assistance. For example, different monetary incentives to shift away from mono-culture GMOs and intensive chemical use. Or maybe regulations from the EPA that would somehow limit non point source pollution or agricultural run off. The original article seemed to have some suggestions that are more focused on smaller scale farming that really don't address to or have practical solutions the issues in the bread basket of our agricultural areas and mega corporate management, but do suggest government help...

"... the farm bill should include funds from the Strikeforce Initiative of the Department of Agriculture to help farmers transition to forms of perennial agriculture — initially focusing on edible tree crops and perennial grass pastures.."

"... Yet current budget-cutting proposals threaten to significantly reduce the number of federal plant material centers, which promote conservation best practices."

I would imagine that the agriculture lobby is strong and they will continue to want short term profits without some sort of change incentive.

[bae]

On topsoil, I greatly enjoyed this book a while back:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51L54cWnKvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Zoebird]

I agree with Gregg on so much of this.

For my own part, sticking with local farmers and community gardens as food sourcing is the way to go -- imo. It builds community and also provides food. It's an exciting process. I'm learning to eat more seasonally, and now we are learning to forage, too. At least we'll be fed (we hope) should there be a major collapse.

Perhaps I'm just chicken and hope it's not in my lifetime.

[Gregg]

If you should have any thoughts on a hypothetical solution, do you see something beyond the end of government assistance. For example, different monetary incentives to shift away from mono-culture GMOs and intensive chemical use. Or maybe regulations from the EPA that would somehow limit non point source pollution or agricultural run off. The original article seemed to have some suggestions that are more focused on smaller scale farming that really don't address to or have practical solutions the issues in the bread basket of our agricultural areas and mega corporate management, but do suggest government help...


As with most things I really do believe the only logical path is going to involve multiple solutions, there is no magic pill. It also pays to remember that you're not only going to see opposition from the trillion dollar a year big-ag lobby. All the chemicals come from big oil. All the end products are sold by big food. All the maladies borne from ingesting that $#!* food are treated by big pharma and big healthcare. Nothing much has changed because anyone who tries at a significant level runs smack into what?...ten trillion dollars a year worth of congressional ownership? That's the real reason that I said it can only start with grass roots consumer education.

From a government standpoint I'd be happy with the elimination of most, if not all, ag subsidies (but see above to discern the actual chance that will happen). If the real cost of production were reflected in cereal grain prices there would be a whole lot less incentive for consumers to choose products using them over fresh produce. That should also translate into less $.99 cheeseburgers on the market. Consumer choices almost immediately trickle up. As soon as we curb our appetite for massively overprocessed convenience food other choices will start to appear. Subsidy elimination would also free farmers up to try different crops, including green manure crops that could help make rapid and significant advances in replenishing topsoil.

GMOs are not necessarily always a bad thing. In the broad sense it simply mimics natural selection. Engineering crops to, for example, produce heavier yields with less water should be beneficial. Engineering them with terminator genes to create sterile seed stock so growers have to return to the well every year for more seed, not so much.

The whole chemical cesspool that exists in the farm belt is (to me) a very troubling matter. Cancer rates among farmers, and for that matter most of the rest of us, is very high and going up. There are thousands of examples of mutated farm animal offspring. Whole ecosystems are on the verge of collapse. Weeds and pests have developed immunity to the chemicals so now we have super-weeds and super-pests that no one knows how to kill with anything except stronger chemicals. It is the very definition of insanity and I have no ideas on how to reverse course. Hopefully there are some learned people out there that will come up with some ideas.

I also think most of the beautiful solutions will be found considerably below the federal level. Every school in this country should have a garden. The kids should grow the food. The cooks should use the food in the lunchroom. The kids should compost the scraps. The cycle should lather, rinse, repeat from kindergarten all the way through graduation. Every municipality should make some of its underutilized land available for community gardens so those kids can teach their parents how to grow good food. Every city should compost all the yard waste, tree trimmings, etc. that it generates and should make that compost available to anyone who needs it for free. If we're going to subsidize anything it should be farmer's markets, co-ops, CSAs, etc. Any organic produce, or for that matter any organic food, should be completely tax exempt. Maybe the first $50,000 of income from organic production could be tax exempt. Talk about a way to get a whole lot of start-ups going! Of course Con-Agra's first $50k should be exempt as well. I should be able to get a very low interest loan to build a large organic greenhouse operation (assuming a solid business plan in in place) with no hassles at the bank once I prove worthiness. Organic pest controls should be cheap or sometimes even free because we offer massive tax incentives to people who make them rather than to those who use petrochemicals to make bug killer. They can be the same people, btw. With DuPont's resources and distribution network I would LOVE it if they became the world's biggest producer of organic pest control. Water should become extremely expensive above certain usage levels to encourage conservation. Lots more, but you get the idea.

[flowerseverywhere]

One more thing to consider: food waste. Some estimates are as high as 40% of food is wasted. I know we all here have thrown out food. We would need far less water, far fewer chemicals if we wasted much less. And Greg, you posted very good points about the problems with our current farming practices. We can add hydrofracking to the list of problems. Injecting water and chemicals at a high pressure underground just doesn't seem like a great idea for the water supply.

[Rogar]

I have to mostly agree with Greg's excellent list. It's not just one problem but several and there are no easy answers. It sent me off to refresh my memory and do a little research. Of course home gardens, local farms and CSAs, and organic foods are a great idea but are a small part of the solution and will not ease any of the corn belt farming practices. At least when it comes to the corn belt that stretches across the mid-west, it is a slight misconception to think that the corn we grow is used to feed the people. According to one article, 40% of the corn crop goes to biofuels. Another 35% goes to animal feed. (There is a big part of the solution, as cattle are very inefficient at converting protein. So another solution is having the price of beef reflect the true cost of grains without subsidies. And for people to eat less beef or at least beef from concentrated feeding operations.) Then you subtract the corn used for HFCS and the corn that is exported, there isn't much left. I think at least part of this is presented in the movie King Corn.

My perspective is that placing the burden on the consumer to making educated choices and hoping for an evolution of farming to a more healthy and sustainable system is already happening on a small scale. Here in Colorado I am seeing a trend for successful smaller markets with less processed foods and more organic non-GMO options. I'm actually wondering if the big chain traditional supermarkets are going to take a big hit in business before long. I don't see the total of these as being the total solution.

As a part of the solution I see a role of the government beyond removing the subsidies that make monoculture corn production a good business. My further hypothetical solution would replace this with subsidies that reward farmer for a more diverse landscape with corn woven in with all kinds of grains, vegetables and fruits that have honest to goodness nutritional value. That are efficient and real food sources rather than biofuels, HFCS, and animal feed. I see a role of the government in preserving rich soil, clean water, and a thriving landscape for future generations. Some of this coming from regulation, some from government sponsored research and education, and possibly some from reward incentives.

In terms of putting the true cost of food back to the consumer, it would be interesting in a hypothetical way to pass along the costs of all the waterway pollution, including the anoxic death zone at the mouth of the Mississippi. At least one indirect approach would be to tax farms not using wise soil conservation practices and using the money clean up the waterways. I am just a city boy, but see many similarities to run amok farming practices of the dust bowl era. It pretty much took a lot of government intervention to bail us out and stop all the craziness, but now some of those interventions are coming back to haunt us.

[Zoebird]

I definitely agree with the kiddos growing their own food. DS's kindy and his future school both grow food. His kindy grows and eats most of it raw (since it's that kind of food -- stuff you can eat raw), and the school he'll be going to not only has gardens, but has a market day when parents and neighbors can buy food that the kids grow. Running a shop is part of the lesson plan, too. And, what isn't sold at the shop is then cooked up and shared among the school kids -- usually cooked by the older grades. it's a pretty cool system, I have to say. :)

[Gregg]

Very true about corn usage Rogar. For example, it takes roughly 7 pounds of grain for a 1 pound yield of beef. That's why I think eliminating corn subsidy would also eliminate $.99 cheeseburgers. Ethanol is either energy neutral or a net energy looser depending on who you talk to. If we made cellulosic ethanol using the leaves and stalks instead of the kernels it might be a different story, but we don't. As it stands now its nothing but a sham devised to justify overproduction by giving producers a way to burn the excess up.

Mandating kids in schools raising food sounds like a small step, but its not. There are approx. 100,000 public schools in the US. Add to that another 35,000 or so private, charter, church affiliated and other non-public schools. K-12 enrollment in the US in 2010 was over 55,000,000 students. Add the kids parents into the mix and you're approaching 100,000,000 people who are involved with their own food production by taking one simple, if controversial, step. Its the low hanging fruit, so to speak, in the switch to organic food. Btw Zoebird, your school's plan sounds phenomenal! Do they have a web site?

There are similar threads between today and the dust bowl, but also huge differences because the problems in the 30's were really pretty simple. That disaster was brought on by the advent of mechanized farming (reasonably priced tractors), a single ill advised farming practice (deep tilling) and natural disaster (extreme drought over a huge area). It really was a perfect storm of sorts. The government programs did a lot to stabilize commodity prices when farmland blew away. Other programs did things like planting 'shelter belts' of trees to slow the wind down and setting aside land that could return to native grasses. Even with everything FDR & company did there was really only one reason the dust bowl ended: it rained. Short of something cataclysmic there is no single event or shift that is going to get us out of the bind we're in today. Realistically I think the best thing the government can do is shift economic incentives, mostly in the form of tax breaks/credits, from big, mono-crop ag to (any size) organic operators. That, and the aforementioned mandatory school programs.

[Zoe Girl]

We have a similar program in many of our schools. There is a garden to kitchen program where the garden sells to the kitchen at that school. Also the garden club is shared by PTA and students and with my grant I hired an urban gardener to support it. I would love to add edible landscaping in many areas, I put a front garden in and added pumpkins close to the sidewalk, we may sell them if they didn't start too late in the season.

[Lainey]

Very informative discussion. Thanks to all for giving input - we readers in the peanut gallery are enjoying it.

[Rogar]

...Ethanol is either energy neutral or a net energy looser depending on who you talk to. If we made cellulosic ethanol using the leaves and stalks instead of the kernels it might be a different story, but we don't.

Actually, I don't think that is too far off. A company recently located to Denver planning to do just that through some form of cellulose bacterial digestion and maybe fermentation. They think they will have 300 + employees and claim to produce carbon negative gasoline. I looked but could not find the right link. The technology obviously has a ways to go.


Mandating kids in schools raising food sounds like a small step, but its not...

I don't mean to beat a dead horse. This is a great idea, but it will have very little effect on the monoculture corn crop in the corn belt, since the corn there is basically not a food source. And so no effect on the soil erosion and waterway pollution we talked about. It isn't a solution for that.

I have a small garden, but here in the city and the arid west where water is a valuable resource, I think the economies of scale make buying organic at the store or farmers market a better use of resources. Especially if local is in season. Also, our harvest season for most garden things is short. A person has to have the time and equipment to preserve foods to make it efficient and practical for more than a couple or few months of the year. Most people just don't take the time for that. I debated converting part of my yard to more garden but went xeriscape instead. Still, I think everyone should have the skills to grow their own food.

[Zoebird]

Gregg,

if you look up pretty much *any* steiner/waldorf school, you'll learn about how they integrate gardening into their curricula. It's really one of the core ways that they teach a lot of subjects (along with hand crafting such as spinning, knitting, crochet, weaving, wood and metal working -- all of which are part of the curricula, too). Music, art, and foreign language as well.

The kimberton waldorf school teaches gardening in french, for example, and in addition to veg, they also have rabbits and chickens. our school -- raphael house -- just has raised beds because it's not as rural as kimberton waldrof in PA, but they follow the marimataka (maori planting calendar -- which is lunar like the biodynamic method) and usually do the gardening in a combination of maori and english. german and french are the languages taught at that school, as well as a bit of hebrew, greek, latin, and japanese. There's a waldorf school in -- north carolina, i think -- and the older grades explored permaculture food foresting as part of the curricula, so now it's an integrated part of the whole school. I believe they teach gardening in spanish.

Anyway, it's a pretty cool way to do things. Not all waldorf schools have them -- more urban ones are less likely to have gardens -- but if a parent gets a bug in the bonnet about it, the school will usually allow them some space to start a garden for the school. Pretty cool, really.

---

While this won't necessarily change "big ag" and what not, it is a small, local change that will provide sustainability for communities both through shared knowledge, things already being established and underway, and also the community connections that this provides.

The local community garden, for example, provides 1/2 the fresh produce served at the local food refuge (hard to describe what that is -- btu ti's basically a community center where you can get a free meal if you need one). the remainder comes from donations from grocery stores.

Back in PA, the local community garden -- which ws managed by quakers -- our "rent" for a plot was 10% of our harvest going to charity. With each plot giving 10%, we gave so much produce to the food bank (along with recipes), they asked us to start donating to a foodbank in the town over because they couldn't give away that much produce in their daily boxes!

A small community garden can go a long, long way.

[puglogic]

In our community garden, we donated beds to the two local elementary schools, the district's special needs program, the food bank, and a couple of other programs. They come and grow things, and we give workshops and mentoring on how things grow, how to grow without chemicals, why most chemicals are terrible for the food chain, and how grocery store food gets there, and where it's coming from (corporate farms...) etc.

Secretly, what I hope with these kids is that we are planting the seed of contempt in their minds. They see our plants growing strong and healthy, bearing fruit, lush and mostly pest-free, and no poisons in sight. Kids question everything these days, and I hope they start to look askance at an entire industry refusing to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the damage it is doing. Of course, Big Ag has many supporters (even on this board) and I fully understand its so-called mission to produce as much food as possible for a hungry planet. But I hope all these fresh new minds will some day see Big Ag for what it is: a greedy, backwards, short-sighted industry dependent on the Nanny State for its profits.

And I hope they will not put up with it, the way we now do. Doing my insidious part, anyway ;)

[pinkytoe]

I hope they will not put up with it, the way we now do.
This is what puzzles me most. I guess we all vote with our purchases and I am not supporting that kind of food whenever I can.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse. This is a great idea, but it will have very little effect on the monoculture corn crop in the corn belt, since the corn there is basically not a food source. And so no effect on the soil erosion and waterway pollution we talked about. It isn't a solution for that.

I wasn't debating whether the optimum route to social change is through individual and community and municipal actions or through fixing the political system (what day is it, I need to know if it's odd or even so I can know what position to take :). Actually I do think we need massive reform of the political system.). I was talking about not expecting much good to magically come of the the *existing* corrupt political system without massive reform, and therefore building whatever redundancy one can into SURVIVAL systems - for the sake of survival. Far more nuts and bolts than any form of idealism. But there's work for that and for fighting to change things - especially as all our mitigation may not be viable long term without fundamental change - just call it hoping for the best and having at least a short term plan to deal with the worst.

[Zoebird]

i got into watching survivalists for a while, and noted that i started "bugging out" a bit too. Perhaps I'm naturally prone to that anxiety. This is why I'm so into community gardening, learning to put things buy (without needing electricity/freezers, etc), and making community connections. I feel like we can really support each other and do well for each other if we pitch in and get to work. And i believe that most people are decent.

Here, since we've had a bunch of earthquakes (and are still having little ones across the same fault line -- it's been a "cluster"), it really makes you appreciate how important those community connections are, as well as larger government actions. We had no real problems here, but christchurch is still fresh in the mind.

I had a friend who lived there. her husband got the opportunity to leave -- and he took that opportunity for the work/$ -- but my friend and her two teen girls decided to stay in CC. Why? Becuase their neighborhood was largely abandoned except for the seniors. And those seniors needed people to help.

I believe it was about 4 months before plumbing came back to the neighborhood. I think it was 3 months without power. Luckily, they had a wood-burning stove -- common in the neighborhood, and they knew how to cook on the darn thing as well as make fires. And also lucky, they and most of their neighbors had gardens growing.

My friend and her girls spent most of their days harvesting with their senior neighbors and making food and putting things by, since they couldn't consume all that the gardens were producing even after abandonment. Several families had chickens, too, so they had eggs.

One teen daughter took on the job of visiting and organizing the neighbors. Neighbors who were particularly in need were moved into their home, while others stayed in their homes. They collected baby-monitors (with batteries) to be able to hear some of the neighbors call out if they needed help. She also was the one responsible for organizing everyone's medications and going and picking them up from the nearest pharmacy -- which at this point was a good half-day's bike ride away (with red-zone areas in between, btw).

The other teen daughter was responsible for all of the cooking and cleaning of the homes -- something she volunteered to do -- making sure that everyone was safe and sanitary. She realized at some point that the water delivery was likely to stop (as this was her daily job -- getting everyone's clean water), and so she hitched a ride to a local library, learned how to make a solar distiller, and then found parts around town, cleaned them up, and set up a distillery for all of the water that was collected in various rain barrels around the neighborhood -- just making sure that everyone had potable water.

Mom -- my friend -- was basically in charge of running the whole show, keeping communication lines open between her neighborhood, local volunteer help (since that is common here), as well as city and national organizations that were helping. She was also organizing the food (with the seniors) and made sure that everyone who was able had a role to play to get them through. They had a hand-crank radio and solar charger for their cell phones and computers, which they used to good effect.

And, the girls were schooled part time during this time, becuase honestly, their neighbors needed them -- so the rest is considered home schooled.

If that isn't courage, i probably don't know what is.

Truth be told, as ANM says, just having some things in place for survival isn't a bad idea. And one of our greatest assets is our community. Including our seniors who know all kinds of things.

[Gregg]

Incredible story of people dedicated to a community Zoebird! Won't hijack the thread with this sidenote, but I did get to spend some time at a Waldorf school in our previous community and was continually impressed with the direction they were heading.



I don't mean to beat a dead horse. This is a great idea, but it will have very little effect on the monoculture corn crop in the corn belt, since the corn there is basically not a food source. And so no effect on the soil erosion and waterway pollution we talked about. It isn't a solution for that.

You're not, Rogar. A large scale school garden program, or similar, would start to address the OP (coming food crisis), but would have minimal impact on the coming energy crisis or the coming environmental crisis or any other crisis du jour. It is only a starting point, not a solution. I'm with ANM that there are many benefits to diversification and planning and with pug when it comes to planting seeds that grow a lot more than zucchini. Every step in the right direction is helpful, but it will take a generation or two for any kind of wholesale changes to take place. I just hope they will still be voluntary changes.

[flowerseverywhere]

actually, when you read about the native americans and similar cultures they did not preserve food through canning and freezing. Many crops were grown that you could store. Carrots, cabbage, onions, squash, and turnips were among the crops stored in cold cellars. Even as a kid I could not imagine being able to buy watermelon and strawberries in January like we can now. Some food was dried in the sun. One of the more interesting books I have read about how people lived before modern supermarkets in this country was John Grisham's "A Painted House" about his childhood. Sitting on the porch listening to baseball games because it was cooler outside. A kitchen garden and he describes what they ate all summer and what they put up. So far removed from our current lifestyle and this contrast is in our lifetime. And as farmers they sure worked hard and a locust swarm, flood or drought could quickly put you in deep debt. A very hard life but I bet the vegetables were a far cry in taste to what you can buy today in a supermarket.