3 ms·
It might also make sense to look at it from a gallons of fuel per acre too. Even if you only break even in terms of production, if you can eliminate the relian
by msandford 12y ago
It might also make sense to look at it from a gallons of fuel per acre too. Even if you only break even in terms of production, if you can eliminate the reliance on diesel and all the compromises that must be made there might be substantial wins nonetheless.
For example as farming gets more labor intensive you can do things like cut steps into a hill to stop erosion or to till and plant always perpendicular to the slope of the hill so that there aren't any easy channels for runoff to head downhill.
I've read that in the US there are 9 calories of fuel in every 1 calorie of food delivered to the table. In other places around the world, it's more like 1 calorie of fuel to every 1 calorie of food.
In other words, many places are turning fuel directly into food on a 1:1 basis. It takes us 9 times as much fuel to make food, which is pretty friggin awful.
If you don't mind that he's an outspoken, right-wing, traditional Christian kinda guy Joel Salatin has some very interesting ideas about getting a lot of use out of land with very, very little fuel and not much feed input. Here's one video but there are tons more in the sidebar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13i1ZUovj6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13i1ZUovj6Y