Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Is America on the Brink of a Food Crisis?

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2009.


If we continue our offenses against the land, we will have a problem far more complex than the failure of our economy.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Robert Jensen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As everyone scrambles for a solution to the crises in the nation's economy, Wes Jackson suggests we look to nature's economy for some of the answers. With everyone focused on a stimulus package in the short term, he counsels that we pay more attention to the soil over the long haul.  

"We live off of what comes out of the soil, not what's in the bank," said Jackson, president of the Land Institute. "If we squander the ecological capital of the soil, the capital on paper won't much matter."  

Jackson doesn't minimize the threat of the current financial problems but argues that the new administration should consider a "50-year farm bill," which he and the writer/farmer Wendell Berry proposed in a New York Times op-ed earlier this month.

Central to such a bill would be soil. A plan for sustainable agriculture capable of producing healthful food has to come to solve the twin problems of soil erosion and contamination, said Jackson, who co-founded the research center in 1976 after leaving his job as a environmental studies professor at California State University, Sacramento.  

Jackson believes that a key part of the solution is in approaches to growing food that mimic nature instead of trying to subdue it. While Jackson and his fellow researchers at the Land Institute continue their work on natural systems agriculture, he also ponders how to turn the possibilities into policy. He spoke with me from his office in Salina, Kansas.  

Robert Jensen: This is a short-term culture, and federal policies typically are aimed at short-term results. Why the call for a farm bill that looks so far ahead, especially in tough economic times?  

Wes Jackson: For the past 50 or 60 years, we have followed industrialized agricultural policies that have increased the rate of destruction of productive farmland. For those 50 or 60 years, we have let ourselves believe the absurd notion that as long as we have money we will have food. If we continue our offenses against the land and the labor by which we are fed, the food supply will decline, and we will have a problem far more complex than the failure of our paper economy.  

We need to reverse that destructive process, which means recognizing the need for fundamental changes in the way agriculture is practiced. That requires thinking beyond the next quarterly earnings report of the agribusiness corporations and beyond this fiscal year of the feds. We need farm bills -- laid out in five-year segments, with a view to the next 50 years -- that can be mileposts for moving agriculture from an extractive to a renewable economy.  

RJ: What are some of the key aspects of a long-term solution?  

WJ: Support for soil conservation and protecting water resources have to be central. There needs to be funding for research on a different model for agriculture. And we have to avoid wasting any more resources on biofuels made from annual crops, especially corn, which is certain to exacerbate soil erosion, chemical contamination and a larger dead zone in the gulf.  

RJ: But it is true that most people, including those in the new administration, are focused on short-term problems in the financial and industrial economy. Is there any chance people -- especially people in an overwhelmingly urban nation -- will pay attention right now?  

WJ: Remember, if our agriculture is not sustainable then our food supply is not sustainable, and food is an issue as close to every one of us as our own stomachs. Either we pay attention or we pay a huge price, not so far down the road. When we face the fact that civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland, it's clear that we don't really have a choice. Beyond that, changing the way agriculture is practiced would incorporate partial solutions to major problems that people do care about: climate change, overconsumption of energy, water problems. Yes, a 50-year bill is sensible right now.  

RJ: What would such a 50-year plan look like? What are the key features?  

WJ: We start by acknowledging the necessity of moving from an extractive, unsustainable economy to one that is renewable and sustainable, and the first place to look is to the production of the most basic commodity -- food. Once we face that necessity, we move to examining the possibilities for achieving this, recognizing that we have to act now while we still have slack, some room to move. Here's a sobering thought: If we don't achieve this sustainability first in agriculture, it's highly unlikely we will in any other sector of the economy and society. That's what makes this so imperative.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: agriculture, organic, farming, wendell berry, sustainable agriculture, wes jackson

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas, Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book, All My Bones Shake: Radical Politics in the Prophetic Voice, will be published in 2009 by Soft Skull Press. He also is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
CSA
Posted by: larryschmidt on Jan 29, 2009 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joining a local CSA is a way to make an impact toward sustainable agriculture right now. Check out this CSA video about a farm near the Twin Cities in Minnesota.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CSA Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: CSA How to Farm? Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: CSA How to Farm? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: CSA How to Farm? Posted by: MyLeftFoot
What a crackpot! A pure hallucination!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Jan 29, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American farmers lead the world in productivity. They have a vested interest in preserving the productive capacity of their land. American farmers, in concert with American universities, have revolutionized food production on this planet! Famine used to be a periodic catastrophe, but those days are passed, thankfully. Now, even the poor are obese! This is pure bunk! I should know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not sustainable! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» The poor obese? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: The poor obese? Posted by: richholland
» RE: The poor obese? Posted by: mandiwrite
» I stand by my point Posted by: AJR Journal
Not surprised
Posted by: beandang on Jan 29, 2009 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly would not surprise me. Sooner or later water will cost more than gas so a food shortage is no big surprise.

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't click on that link! Posted by: GuitarBill
Yet Another Issue
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jan 29, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually thought that this article would be about global climate change. In the last few days there have been reports that the world has already passed a tipping point and it will now be nearly impossible to maintain climate conditions in the range we have experienced while man has been on this world.

Models suggest that agriculture will be significantly affected by climate change as dry areas like the California central valley will become even more dry while wet areas like much of the south will become more wet.

All this on top of the problems mentioned in the article give good reason for concern. The argument that we are now the leading agricultural country in the world is an interesting one. In the 1960's the U.S. was the leading manufacturer and exporter in the world. These things can change in a fairly brief period of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Control our birthrate, or nature will control it for us
Posted by: zoz on Jan 29, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article only touches on the problem that even now there are too many of us for the planet to support for much longer.

We are facing large scale starvation, not a fun way to die. We may not know exactly when this will become widespread, but it will.

We must do what we can to lessen the inevitable impact by creating sustainable agriculture, but also by voluntarily controlling our overall birthrate worldwide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change corn-fed to grass-fed and watch the environment be repaired.
Posted by: jwverez on Jan 29, 2009 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, people won't be getting so damn hungry and obese. To hell with corn-fed meat and diary, high fructose corn syrup, and corn-based ethanol !

Join Ron Paul and some Democrats in their attempts to cut down on Big Government subsidization of Big Agri and King Corn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

let's dance!
Posted by: quito on Jan 29, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's either suicide or change. the old way is based on silly dreams of where we came from and where we are going. guy in sky makes mud figurines, gives blow job to make them alive...; earth is a gift to be used up, big guy will come back and make a new one. when we die; pie in the sky.
meantime we go to mars and build a fancy costly artificial environment to allow a handful of survivors there, while we rape and destroy life and it's support system here. What a silly joke!
We have this beautiful earth floating through this wonderful vast and glorious universe. And we just screw everything up and deny a future to all living things and to our own kids. what a joke! and for what? Money? Fame? Power?
We have our heads way up somewhere. We are fools, always have been. Now we are educated and articulate fools. we can justify any stupidity and sell it to ourselves.
We have a choice to make. It might hurt to look at what we have been doing till now, but the choice is actually simple; live or die; join the dance and the wonder of creation, or vanish. there is a glorious future ahead if we dare. I'm optimistic. we yet might dance!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it is late in the game
Posted by: leemiller38 on Jan 29, 2009 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After 10,000 years of plundering the planet, it looks to me like it is late in the game for perennial food crops to stave off disaster, but I admire Wes Jackson for his vision and tenacity. Here in California and in most of the world we have been slowing soil erosion, by paving it over with sprawl as population growth destroys the planet. It will take awhile for the concrete and asphalt to go away.

In the last depression over 50% of the population was still on subsistance farms and we were still a rural nation. Today 2% are on farms and most of them don't garden or know how and they buy their food at supermarkets. Is this a recipe for a monumental disaster or what?

Gardening is likely the only activity that can save remnants of humanity since hunting and gathering was doomed a long time ago, when civiization started us on this path to oblivion.

The industrial ag model is not sustainable because it is based on energy inputs that result in our getting less food energy than was invested to produce it. So lets get beyond bragging about how great our non-sustainable agriculture is when we choose to ignore the inefficiency of it. This doesn't even take into account all the bank and credit arrangements needed to support this unsustainable productivity. Good luck humanity and stop breeding!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I think it is late in the game Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: I think it is late in the game Posted by: pelican beak
a nation's strength
Posted by: kellysgarden on Jan 29, 2009 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A nation's strength lies in it's ability to feed its people. A nation which cannot feed its own people is weak and dependent upon those who control its food infrastructure.

Our food system is largely dependent upon China, Monsanto, Cargill and ADM. Our government is controlled by them, and this is the reason we get government to do their bidding and pass those stupid trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.

Watch for the upcoming NAU to be helped along by these types of trade agreements.

And learn to grow and produce some of your own food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a nation's strength Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: a nation's strength Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: a nation's strength Posted by: lwolf
If things get bad enough ...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 29, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's always ... Soylent Green ....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zero Population Growth & Immigration control
Posted by: stilldreaming on Jan 29, 2009 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos that this article at least mentions population. But how can Jensen the writer and Jackson the ag specialist even talk about this topic without mentioning that we need to stop popultion growth (globally and in USA / North American continent) ?

Even if every woman on Earth decides today to limit the number of children she's going to have to less than two, global population is still going to grow, due to the large percentage of young people in many parts of the world.

But as long as we are not talking about humane, voluntary ways to reduce population (both population growth and actual number) .. science and technology won' t be able to create long-term sustainability for civilized human life. Civilized meaning with the reasonable balance between freedoms and responsibilities, between individual rights and rights of others, and between human rights and the rights of nature, animals, and ecosystems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dust Bowl 2.0
Posted by: Alternutty on Jan 29, 2009 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's coming. You think decades of saturating the dirt with refined chemicals has no consequence? Top soil in the midwest used to be from 4 to 12 FEET deep. Now we are lucky to see it 12-16 INCHES deep.


All this just in time for the Bush Depression. Joy.

I feel really bad for the whole generation of mental midgets raised on ipods and American Idol who won't be able to feed themselves soon. Well, actually, I don't. More for me, you see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dust Bowl 2.0 Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Dust Bowl 2.0 Posted by: FAITHCARR
Please Don't Eat the Animals (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 29, 2009 9:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The world Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 29, 2009 9:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grow your own
Posted by: oldfatguy on Jan 29, 2009 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grow your own. Use every square inch to grow food. Learn to can your food. Start a community garden. Better get busy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grow your own Posted by: Dboy
More by Wes Jackson
Posted by: YERTMark on Jan 31, 2009 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had an opportunity to meet and interview Wes Jackson last year on the YERT adventure, and the visit changed my life-- particularly through my outlook on the world. He understands the ways in which people and the planet interact better than most. Here are a couple of links to some videos we created about him that may well change your perspective on the world, too...

Video: The Most Important Human Challenge Ever!

Video: Perennial Good Food in Kansas

Peace
Mark

YERT.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Food CRISIS
Posted by: pfm on Feb 3, 2009 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no doubt America and the world at large is headed head long into a food calamity though I suspect I might differ as to why…? One needs to recognize the significant contributions science has made to increasing quantities of food world wide. What we choose to not address is the long term cost associated with our increased use of nearly everything genetically modified from seed to soil and water too. While the quantity of most food stuff has increased the nutrient value has appreciably declined to the point where food today has little if any qualitative value for man. In our desire to produce more and more, we have stripped the soil in which things grow of its ability to support anything save without man’s artificial chemicals with dubious value to man’s health. The very water used to grow these crops is genetically altered too with unknown quantities of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, genetically altered seeds, not to mention all those things we throw unconsciously down our commodes becoming the reuse water agriculture often uses. Everything from Viagra to estrogen, heart medicine, uppers, downers, inbetweeners, a virtual plethora of pharmaceuticals, household cleaning chemicals, Clorox, cleansers, and so much, much more. Corporate agriculture around the world may grow “stuff” that looks like lettuce, carrots and things, and big ones too, the question one needs to ask … is there truly any food value in it…? Each passing day seems to resonate a – no…?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Feb 3, 2009 4:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What me worry ? We all voted in the savior to fix all the problems. Dont be concerned.............

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The important thing is no bare soil
Posted by: greenknight on Feb 4, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perennial crops are fine, but we can continue to utilize annual crops as well - what needs to be eliminated is the practice of clean cultivation, where the soil around the crop plants is kept bare. This bare soil is losing carbon, and is subject to erosion, whether the crop is annual or perennial.

You can cover the soil with mulch, but even better is a cover crop - living mulch that is actually capturing carbon as it protects the soil. Often, legumes are used as cover crops, so they add nitrogen to the soil as well.

Where annual crops are grown, winter-annual legumes such as vetches and subterranean clover (subclover) are often used - these grow over the winter, flower in spring, reseed themselves, and then die. Annual crops are then planted through the mulch provided by the dead cover crop. Subclover is especially good for this, as it's low-growing, and it burrows its seedheads into the ground - though it may not be hardy enough for very severe winter areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know that pesticide you're putting on your lawn?
Posted by: PaulK on Feb 7, 2009 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it's carcinogenic. You don't want to be eating it. Your lawn is your food source in hard times, your victory garden.

Also, it kills off all the natural predators of the bugs that you don't want. Then in three months you get exactly what you don't want.

Urban lawns are often poisoned by pesticides and by lead. It's too bad we don't care for the local soil and then imagine the problem is way out west somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement