Food and climate change

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

white belt wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:04 pm
Here’s a reference for the variation in EPA content of spirulina by dry mass I’m talking about:
yeah, i don't know about unregulated supplements-- i offered spirulina as an option since you asked about homestead production of omega 3. so that's something one could do. but personally, i detest the stuff :lol:

anyway another is to consumed pastured eggs, milk, and meat--i just don't know what quantities. greens that spoil easy are rich in omega 3s-- which is why they spoil easily.

...maybe certain microgreens? just a thought.

flax, chia, walnuts, etc are a known source of ala. how much of that becomes what, i don't know either, but i aim to find out.

gotta work on that mental wiki...

ok here is a starting point

https://vegan.com/health/omega-3/

i'm not looking to diy these. i eat flax and chia on the regular (flax daily) so maybe i'll live :lol:

and the biodiesel, i mean the algal oil supplement, is still $$... but ok

here some charts... https://www.todaysdietitian.com/enewsle ... 7_01.shtml

quick search of amazon shows roughly $14/mo or yes 50c per capsule like the article says. this is annoying. not a dealbreaker, but annoying.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

so yes, basically i'll be upping my ala intake from plants first and foremost.

eg i already eat most of these: https://www.myfooddata.com/articles/foo ... in-ALA.php

but i'll be sure to add fresh/uncooked or cooked at low temps whenever possible.

then pastured eggs over industrial, pastured butter, more "interesting" greens, etc

after that i won't renew my fish oil supplements when they run out (2-4 months depending on rate).

meanwhile i have a large stash of sardines and salmon cans to work through. it's gonna be a very long breakup :lol:

eventually i'll look into algal oil for epa/dha--maybe. expensive now, but maybe worth supporting harvesting from plants not the middle and top of the food chain. even though it should be cheaper, so maybe it's just a matter of scale to lower costs.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/62722921 ... upplements

--

eta: added fresh-ground flax and chia to my morning whey shake. it was actually tasty. achievement: unlocked. :ugeek: :P

ellarose24
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

I have not read the entirety of this thread--but I do have to wonder if permaculture and backyard farming are as good for the environment as people think they are.

One of the biggest reasons eating beef is so bad is--like was stating in this original post--the amount of land that is used not just for cattle themselves but to also feed the cattle.

Growing monoculture items in your climate organically is not efficient. There are [some][https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... usnews.com] that say that organic itself is worse for the environment as it causes less efficient use of land.

I think one of the bigger risks environmentally is biodiversity--which is absolutely plummeting due to urban sprawl and yes, agriculture. Just as 7wannabe talked about the world not being able to stain hunters, if everyone lived a homesteading life, growing their own monoculture crops--I would have to assume they would do it inefficiently, need more land, and even less biodiversity would be left as land is continued to be replaced with people who don't know what they are doing growing crop.

Massive agriculture functions don't sound very nice, but they are one thing--and that is efficient. Efficiency of scale. I have found organic gardeners to be some of the best gardeners but often doing things that are not good-doing things like releasing invasive ladybugs into the garden.

I am pretty radical in that I believe every person who own land, it doesn't matter how small, has the utmost responsibility to plant native. Even with transport, I am willing to bet the grains and veggies you buy, given they aren't transported from overseas, are more efficient than growing in your garden in terms of water usage, compost, even transport (Hauling bags of mulch). They have the money and the scale to be efficient.

I think a fix for this would be learning to use native foods and to forage native foods. Many native plants have been used as food in the past--acorns/red buds/all kinds of wildflowers/hell even crab grass (which is not native, invasive so BAD) but even crabgrass is a staple crop in some parts of africa with people making flour from it.

Native plants don't need a bunch of extra amendments, either to be organic or chemicals--they are find on your soil as is--in fact putting too much compost may displease them.

I am aware there are certain areas where there likely isn't enough native vegetation to sustain a population--in fact I believe we'd run into the same problem and humans would just eat up the vegetation before wildlife had a chance to it. Truly--I think large scale agriculture is the more efficient and only way to sustain human populations. But if you are going to plant in your garden, instead of growing monocultures that are not adapted to your area and need infinite soil amendments/pesticides (if you do that)/and are a water sink--why not plant native and help increase biodiversity instead?

Or, just let the weeds grow in your yard. I documented my weeds last year. Given, none are native, and most are invasive. But as far as input, they require nothing. Dandelion leaves are more nutritious that spinach, dandelion roots for tea, flowers for wine. Crab grass for flour (haven't tried that one yet, seems labor intensive), wood sorrel, I even made a tincture out of what is called "opium lettuce"--it's a mild sedative and pain reliever. Aren't doing anything GOOD really, but at least you aren't amending the soil, throwing water out, etc.

BookLoverL
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: England

Re: Food and climate change

Post by BookLoverL »

I'm only just learning about permaculture but I think one of the points of permaculture is that it *isn't* a monoculture, with small amounts of a lot of diverse plants.

ellarose24
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

I've been confused a bit with permaculture myself--I initially thought it was exactly what I am describing--which is native food forests.

From my understanding, it actually attempts to change the environment of your ecoregion--so for instance I've seen diagrams of people making certain valleys with trees on one side and water on the other in the middle of a desert to make a sort of forest.

I think these are really good things to have knowledge on, especially as ecoregion become inevitably devastated by climate change and the permies will probably be the best resource on natural ways to combat that. However, I do believe they are still growing non native plants--am I correct? Food forests of non-natives?

Perhaps I am incorrect, I simply remember visiting the permies website and deciding it wasn't what I was looking for. Perhaps they already do native mixed with non native food forests, which I think would be lovely. My biggest concern is replacing native plants with non native plants. Ecoregions are very small and the animals in them have adapted to the food there since the beginning of time. When you replace that native food source with other food sources, the native population of birds and such also dies down. Having, for instance, a native bush with berries will bring a ton of native birds to you yard. Having a lawn with a garden and birdfeeder--you will see starlings and...well mostly starlings--hate the damn things. Where I am, maybe some grackles (who I tend to like), and then every once and a while the color of a native bird--only to be chased away by a god damn starling.

ellarose24
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

**researching and it seems permaculture is exactly that. This will teach me not to read forums on a subject before actually studying the subject itself. And thanks for point it out as I now have research for my own project which I thought was completely novel, but is actually sustained in a name that I have been fighting against.

That being said, the forum of permies to me seemed to be people fighting against their ecoregion to create a little paradise food forest of exotic fruit plants and the like. But that's my bad for taking it from the layman.

Corrupto
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:36 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Corrupto »

My impression of permaculture is that the final result of the practise shouldn't necessarily take the form of a "native food forest" if it's not what the ecoregion should be or is not naturally tending towards already (although it is the ideal that most folks dream of). Certainly in the UK, for example, a typical "climax" ecology would indeed look something like a broadleaf forest with a mix of native and non-native species. (Non-native only because of a long history of human influence on the landscape). This final form isn't necessarily something that's useful to modern folks since we're unable to recognise abundance in that form. It may not even valuable from a biodiversity point of view - it could be argued that native grasses host a greater biodiversity of species than a dense cover canopy forest. As always with these things, it depends. I guess the main goal is to affect the environment to produce yields in a way that is not counter to the natural tendencies of the existing landscape, i.e. using minimal inputs and taking advantage of certain features/forms. Any permaculture system certainly won't meet the same yields as a monoculture system but how long can that kind of farming continue before becoming exponentially dependent on external fertility (if it isn't already!). Humans need to eat and I think permaculture is the best system so far for what a sustainable/integrated food system might look like.

BookLoverL
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: England

Re: Food and climate change

Post by BookLoverL »

I think when it comes to native vs non-native, "technically non-native but has been growing here for hundreds of years already" gives enough time for it to be considered naturalised. But yes, the goal should not be to make all areas globally look like the type of forest historically found in England. Certainly it should be possible to practise permaculture with native and naturalised plants only.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

The most efficient method to promote native bird populations in suburban areas would be to exterminate the human introduced species known as the cat and do away with plate glass windows. Birds in general like trees, so plant a native if that will work, but if it won’t work just plant a tree.

Industrial farming contributes to global climate change which is likely to completely alter bio regions rendering the issue of native or not moot. In fact, depressing argument is now being made that the situation is so dire, we should just favor any plant species that can survive and continue to convert excess carbon dioxide into oxygen.

The bird habitat I was focused on preserving in my northern woods project required native trees that only occupy a niche after a fire. So, in order for this species of birds to survive, humans have to manage the forest towards something resembling 15 years after a fire stage. The acreage of this project is just a couple miles from the spot where the birds start their migration and that area is being flooded out due to heavy rains likely due to climate change.

ellarose24
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

I am researching quite a bit on native land management and perhaps it is all futile. Nature likely knows best. Probably the best thing for nature is to get rid of the human introduced species of humans :lol:

Native Americans it seems did manage their land though--in ways that would promote the biodiversity that favored them. I need to find the article, but when they brought a Native American chief to yellowstone after they had taken the land away from native americans to make national parks--he claimed that it looked unkept and messy.

Perhaps many of the species that we consider native are a result of human influence either way. It is true that many Native Americans tribes had done land management for years in the form of controlled burns, and they themselves selectively bred species such as the sunflower to yield what they wanted. Controlled burns are still used for prairies. It seems that in order to keep biodiversity, well-meaning humans are keeping lands eternally in a specific stage. Since there is less land overall, it makes since. As things like prairies and burned forest would be first to be developed. Like you mentioned trees that come just after a fire or other pioneer plants will be gone shortly as the land progresses to it's next stage.

I would argue native is better than just any tree. I think it would also give birds, used to foraging for native plants, an advantage over invasives. I've noticed the suet blocks I put out attract primarily starlings. However, I've seen cardinals, bluejays, and mourning doves on the native tree in the back.
Image

I also watched this film yesterday, which was a nice respite after seaspiracy which left me with dread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc&t=20s

Notice he let the weeds in specifically to advantage the growth of native trees. I sometimes wonder if digging up my sod, solarizing my lawn, adding woodchips--is even worth it, or if nature would find a way even with the invasives. Probably not, given the tiny size and the use of herbicides/pesticides all around me. It is interesting as the first year I left my lawn to do what it wanted, it was large, taproot type of weeds like wild lettuce and of course dandelions, now it is ground cover with, wood sorrel, and creeping charlie, field madder and vetches.

I remember reading a permie account of solarizing your lawn with cardboard and woodchips without mowing, and planting sunflowers the next year. It's ingenious because the sunflowers would dig through the carboard and deep into the soil underneath, bring nutrient's from the decomposed wood. But what I found really interesting, is that nature itself did this with my lawn without me having a hand in it--with taproots the first year without pesticides, and then an abundance of plant variety the next year--invasive or not.

This year (the third under my watch) was the first year that natives came to my lawn without being introduce--prairie wildflowers like tenpetal anemone, sweetclover, and a type of vervain. I set up a patch of naturalized/native wildflowers, another patch of wood chips, am mowing part of the lawn, and letting the rest do what it will.

All of that is to say, I do not know if human involvement at all is beneficial in any way besides for humans, and if any involvement comes at a cost, marginal or not, to the environment. Perhaps even the Native American management was not sustainable once the population would have reached a certain level, it may have been simply a case of a small population. Who is to know? When I dig up and solarize my lawn, am I reducing nectar, cover, and material that animals would have used, invasive or not--for a season for no good reason? Would natives have sprung up eventually anyways? Perhaps invasives only thrive because we have a hand in it--like trying to feed native birds with manufactured suet or trying to keep land as perpetual prairie when it really should develop into brush and beyond.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Letting the “weeds” do the work for you is a known valid permaculture practice. There are even books written on the topic of soil analysis based on weed cover. One way of looking at permaculture is that you are attempting to intelligently speed up/slow down or otherwise model/manage natural processes and patterns towards balancing earth care and people care.

I am nothing resembling a purist of any kind, I think a very wide variety of projects do and should fit under the umbrella of permaculture philosophy. Probably the most difficult problem of permaculture is that humans do move around a lot, so community level is likely where it makes the most sense. OTOH, community gardens have their own issues. Humans (sigh.)

white belt
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by white belt »

Another consideration, which 7W5 and I have discussed in other threads, is the spectrum that exists between natural forest and bio-intensive agriculture. Things towards the former end produce less yield but require less inputs, while as you move towards the latter end you get more yield but require more inputs. You also have the concept of zones in permaculture to give you an idea of where is most suitable for different types of systems.

All that’s to say is that native trees are great, but it is also likely that there are many native trees destroyed just to grow the food you eat. In a complex system like nature, there are always multiple dimensions to consider. Perhaps there is a multipurpose solution here that can provide yield for human consumption as well, like planting native fruit trees? Of course you will ultimately have to decide how much you are willing to “compete” with nature because if you want yields you’re going to have to keep other critters from eating your fruits.

I do not know the best solution for your situation, but I think most permaculture solutions will incorporate a variety of strategies. For example, on your yard you could have areas with native grasses, a bio intensive annual vegetable garden, perennial fruit trees and vines (food forest), a small pond with some fish to support local wildlife, and so on. There is no silver bullet solution in permaculture or when considering food and climate change.

Edit: Related to native grasslands, I watched this interesting video that shows how goats (non-native and domesticated animals) are used in restorative land management in Wyoming: https://youtu.be/jJBtmSR7Nnc

Qazwer
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Qazwer »

I have been struggling with the concept of native. Is it that of a species after a couple hundred years, thousand, tens of thousands? The biosphere has changed over time. The introduction of humans had a large role over the various time frames. It has been larger than ‘natural’ (not sure what that means) changes over previous time frames. But even prior to human introduction, plants and animals traveled large distances and invaded new eco systems. The systems adapted (not necessarily on a species level). This has been going on for a really long time. If you freeze time to try to create a period of history, which one do you choose?

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Food and climate change

Post by daylen »

@Qazwer See resources on biogeography (e.g. on Wikipedia). In general the separation of Pangea into nearly isolated continents led to an explosion in allopatric speciation events. In more recent times this isolation has partially faded due to human migration, though "native" species are still more likely to "fit in" and are not as susceptible to extreme population growth/crash because of their established reproduction/preditor/prey cycles within the ecosystem. On the other hand, climate change is gradually shifting this native landscape (not gradually enough for many species).

Qazwer
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Qazwer »

@Daylen - that is what I was taught in school
But now we learn new things about how far plants can spread even without people
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04488-4
Sweet potatoes to Polynesia for example

Read
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11915&p=240199#p240199

With the thesis that the nature of entire biome is movement. There clearly has been increased movement with people. But that might not be the entire story

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Food and climate change

Post by daylen »

It seems to be partially a matter of scale. At a larger scale of biological organization, different adaptations or patterns are "rediscovered" periodically, and the distributions of such adaptations vary based upon biogeographical factors. On a smaller scale (e.g. species) some species manage to cross domains but success varies. Humans have managed to make a niche out of movement by grace of a flexible cultural layer but many other species are constrained by geography or otherwise dependent upon birds or other animals to move. Genes move much slower than memes in the aggregate.

Qazwer
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Qazwer »

So then with relative movement even without humans and humans of different eras having grossly different speeds of migration pulling animals and plants along, what do we consider native? Those flora and fauna pre-human - those flora and fauna pre-European exploration era- those that have developed any stable advantageous system to humans - WB example of goats above etc

Is native the correct question even? Should it be about stability and resilience? Should it be about some sense of ‘nature’ from a human perspective? Etc

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Food and climate change

Post by daylen »

You can partially treat the concept as a binary and partially develop or copy more complex treatments that differentiate and compose layers of nativity. This will allow for some grayness more in line with the typical confidence margins of the subject.

ellarose24
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

There is native and naturalized, naturalized being a plant that is not native, but will (mostly) not outcompete native species.

The problem comes with invasive species, species that will outcompete native species at an alarming degree and one which the animals that depend on cannot adapt to in time. Invasives aren't just limited to plants, birds, mollusks, bugs--all can be invasive and they have noticeable and sometimes devastating impacts on the environment around them.

like 7wannabe mentioned--you could think of cats as an invasive species. They are a problem both because humans, ( another invasive species :lol: ), wiped out all predators in the suburbs to keep feral cat populations in check (coyotes/ cougars) or perhaps there just aren't a predators in that area. Cats then wipe out the bird species in that area. Then you have an increase in bugs, perhaps crops are impacted because nothing is keeping the bugs in check, making farmers use more pesticides, etc etc.

The same thing happens, in essence, with plants--just to a different degree.

So the problem ecologists have isn't really whether it's native or not--it is mostly whether it's invasive or not. Well, I think most would prefer native, but invasive is the only true enemy.

I like native personally, because it supports more wildlife and dissuades the invasives of other types (birds).

I have already found many native plants that yield food. I think the answer (that i want, and i know that number one this is an opinion, and number two some eco-regions could not sustain this)--would be gardening native foods. Native American sources are usually where you will find how to do this, at least where i am from. Many plants of the prairie are edible, so are acorns, redbuds, dew berries. Foraging groups and researching native americans local to your area I have found to be the best source.

That being said, I am gardening a 4x4 plot of monoculture myself :). The things with monoculture that is great is that the plants produce a yield far more quickly than most natives, and there is also quite a bit more research on how to extend/increase yields.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

ellarose24 wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:06 am
I have not read the entirety of this thread--but I do have to wonder if permaculture and backyard farming are as good for the environment as people think they are.

[...]

I think a fix for this would be learning to use native foods and to forage native foods. Many native plants have been used as food in the past--acorns/red buds/all kinds of wildflowers/hell even crab grass (which is not native, invasive so BAD) but even crabgrass is a staple crop in some parts of africa with people making flour from it.

Native plants don't need a bunch of extra amendments, either to be organic or chemicals--they are find on your soil as is--in fact putting too much compost may displease them.
hey there. i read this some days ago and wanted to rejoin the thread but was tuned to other frequencies.

yes, there is an ongoing debate on organic vs. borlaug agriculture. and borlaug laughs at permaculturists as a naive lot, but i think he's not taking all factors of permaculture into account. he's more or less counting on "all else being equal," which it's not meant to be under a permaculture paradigm

i used to homestead in the us sw high desert (sort of homestead) and did some experiments with native plants, but they are not so easy to grow as formal crops. in part because the existing tools and protocols and technical support are design towards commercial crops. and then there is a lack of markets. eg you can grow indian corn but people buy sweet corn to eat. indian corn is used for... decorations :(

there is also an issue of increasing desertification and loss of habitat.

now in a city i keep wanting to find a plot to grow amaranth but my proposal gets shot down by neighbors because it's "an invasive weed." even though it's as good as spinach, plus the seed is super protein dense, the flowers are beautiful, etc. invasive weed! o well. but european gruenkohl in need of amendments otoh is well regarded because dietary fashion.

anyway interesting discussion you started i look forward to catching up with the rest of it.
Last edited by Alphaville on Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply