Comments pyewacket has made
More local ice cream
I love my ice cream maker, but I love going out for a cone just as much. If people are looking for local ice cream providers in the New England area, I have a list of farms that makes their own ice cream at the bottom of an article about the Great Brook Farm State Park ice cream stand in Massachusetts: here.On How to stick it to the ice-cream Man posted 2 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses
Another thing
Comparisons that find that sustainable methods don't produce as much food as non-sustainable methods usually assume that a single field is used for a single crop. But the very heart of sustainable ag is anti-monoculture - many crops may be rotated through over the course of a year, or livestock rotated through, then chickens, and so on. Grass-fed meat is raised on land that generally is of low-quality for crops - how does that fit in the scheme?
Several studies have come to the conclusion that small, sustainable farms can produce more food in a small area. That doesn't mean that particularly rich areas, like California, won't have to do some of the effort for providing food for particularly food-poor areas. But more can be done locally, and that will provide greater food security. When global warming starts wreaking havoc with the climate in prime growing areas, or when a big earthquake destroys the infrastructure of California, I'll be glad New England has some small farms to pick up the slack.On Why The Economist's recent assault on "ethical food" missed the mark posted 2 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses
I don't think so
Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I don't see how you can read these results as very good. For one thing, it means almost nothing to ask if something is a major reason for voting a particular way in an election if you don't make people pick among different reasons. Everyone always says everything is important. The only ways to find out what is really important to people are 1) give a list and make them pick or 2) ask an open-ended question and let them say what comes to mind.
Also, I don't understand why gas prices should be considered a positive environmental issue - most people who are voting on gas prices don't want to conserve. They just want cheap gas and plenty of it. How is that environmentally good? I can see the opportunity inherent in people's frustration, the place where environmentalists can talk about alternative energy, but I don't think the concern about gas prices is an environmental issue per se to those who voted.On Energy polled high in voter concern this past election posted 3 years ago 3 Responses
Well, how about
Joel Salatin's suggestion that regulations be based more on results than on process? His argument is that his small-production butchering is cleaner than most large facilities, and he can back it up with tests that show his chickens have lower levels of pathogens (1/25) than supermarket chickens. But because his butchering area does not fit regulations, it can't be used. However, looser regulations with tighter and more frequent inspections for actual contamination might be wokrable. God knows it would be helpful to have more factory meat tested for pathogens. This method, combined with, yes, different regulations for smaller facilities and why is this so strange? In Massachusetts, restaurants are only required to, for example, have public bathrooms if they are over a certain size, or provide health care to employees or so on - distinctions are commonly made between large and small businesses. A menaingful distinction in the case of farm would be direct-to-consumer or not. In other words, a more basic processing facility would be allowed for farmers who are selling directly to the customer, because the transparency of the process would provide some protection.
At the moment, it is illegal for almost any farmer in the US to grow chickens, buthcer them on premises, and then sell them to a neighbor. That's crazy - food has been grown that way since time began. Sure, there are risks - there are risks with factory-farmed meat as well. I would be more comfortable taking my risks with a small, local farmer.On Calls the Mounties -- someone's enjoying locally raised meat in rural Ontario posted 3 years ago 28 Responses
I don't know the answer
to the question overall, but I can say that certain animals, like goats, can be grazed on land that is essentially useless for growing crops. So I suspect that the answer is that in certain circumstances, growing meatis environmentally better for a particular piece of land than growing crops is.
As idealistic as I am, I don't believe that 1) people are going to give up eating meat entirely or 2) farmers are going to keep lots of animals and not slaughter some for meat. To say that you are against killing animals for moral reasons is very different from saying that a meat-based diet is environmentally unsound. I would say that in general, there are three changes most Americans need to make in their meat-eating:
- Eat less meat. No need for meat every day, certianly no need for meat at every meal. It would be a significant nutritional and environmental improvement for most Americans to replace a large number of their meat-based meals with vegetable-based meals.
- Eat sustainable-grown meat from local producers.
- Eat different kinds of meat. Squirrel, I was surprised to find out, is tender and flavorful. Venison is delicious and many areas are currently overpopulated with deer. Rabbit can be grown on small lots. Lamb and goat can survive happily where larger animals can not. We need to educate people to move beyond beef and chicken - it would be great for the country environmentally and culinarily.
- Eat less meat. No need for meat every day, certianly no need for meat at every meal. It would be a significant nutritional and environmental improvement for most Americans to replace a large number of their meat-based meals with vegetable-based meals.
Here's the thing
I eat pork, beef, lamb and chicken. Not daily - let's say I eat meat about every other day, one meal. But I buy my meat from local farmers using sustainable methods.
For example, I buy my pork from a fellow who raises his pigs in the woods. Really, you walk through the woods and suddenly: Pigs! He uses a moveable eletric fence to create an area for them to forage in, which he moves every week or two. He raises about ten pigs at a time. Their food consists of forage, the whey from a local organic yogurt manufacturer, leftovers from a local health food restaurant, plus some small amounts of feed. Sometimes he uses the pigs to clear brushland - they are followed by the hens, which clear small plants and leave nourishing droppings, and then the land is ready for planting (with some added manure, of course). The woodland area remains woodland, the cultivated areas are minimized in size (no large equipement brought in to clear), and he doesn't have to buy lots of fertilizer, because the animals make it for him. I buy 1/2 pig at a time from him, which he drops off when he is coming into the city anyway. So, which is more environmentally friendly - the pork from my farmer's pig or soybeans grown on vast "organic" monoculture farms somewhere in the Midwest and then shipped thousands of miles for me to eat?
The point is that it's actually harder than most people think to have a truly sustainable farm without animals. When "factory-grown," meat is much worse for the environment than vegetables - but not when raised properly.On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses