6k pounds of food from a tenth of an acre

Don't forget to support your local growers, be they farmers or not. They really need the money.

Thank you for this video. We grow as much as we can as well, and live in a city with a relatively small space, but produce some wonderful things to eat. We were inspired by the same reasons - how do we re-empower ourselves and not support these corporations selling their poisons? Growing fruits and vegetables is easier than most people have been conditioned to think in today's fast food and instant food world. There is nothing like the taste of fresh organic food just picked, that can be had so easily with techniques available to make it simple and not that time consuming (these are the fears most people express to me about growing something for themselves). And yes indeed, our next level of purchase for the rest of what we like to eat are from the local organic growers (local is relative in today's world, but as close by as possible).
If you live in an apartment but have some sunshine and a bit of balcony space there are many things that grow well in containers.

They are living my dream. I hope to achieve what they have done on their fifth of an acre. I wish i had a little more land and longer growing season to help.

I'd try hydroponics if it weren't so damn expensive...

This is pretty awesome. I guess the main problem I'd have in trying to do this is the water restrictions where I live.

Growing ones own food is great. It's Fun it fresher than you can get anywhere else, and is personally satisfying.

I also think that the FDA should test a sample of every food from every farm that sells in the US.

However fear of something simply because it's different is irrational. All those seedless grapes and melons are genetically modified. The bananas the everybody loves are genetic mutants http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/bananahistory.htm that appeared in the 1830's. Nature genetically modified the banana.

convenience is the ruler of the united states. do what is ever cheapest/ easiest/ most convenient.......

no wonder things are so messed up.

Isn't it interesting - the monopolies - virtually all of them, are failing.

Ten years from now a lot of those folks with nice backyards might be growing their own food supplements there. Bye bye swimming pool.

With all the toxicity (that we know about) already pumped into fertilizers, insecticides, animals and Frankencrops, more people are looking to clean local products than in the last 40 years.

Full circle.

Around every town you once found a belt of farms to feed the population. Those farms were considered to be a waste: Developers dreamed of subdivision wealth.

And farmers? They should just forget argicultural colleges and go get real jobs -- indoors.

It's ridiculous that we panic and loft simple poliice investigations into National Security. And then completely disregard security of food and water supplies, without which "National Security" and wealth cannot begin to exist.

The local food trend seems kind of silly to me. The idea, I guess, is to create jobs by supporting local farmers (which also theoretically reduces the carbon emissions created by shipping food across the world).

The reality is that many many more jobs are created through the massive infrastructure for exporting and importing of food, and the energy costs aren't much different in the end. If that last bit seems confusing, take for example tomatoes grown organically in Nebraska in a greenhouse for sale locally. They would have used as much or more energy than growing them in Spain and shipping them to Nebraska (since in Spain there's less one needs to do to make the tomatoes grow as far as fertilizer, electric lights, etc).

So all that's left (that I can see) is a flimsy sense of loyalty to farmers who live near you, geographically. They're certainly not the most in need (that would be the third world farmers who currently supply our food) so why the sudden interest? It makes no sense to me.

OK, tomatoes grown right next door in a greenhouse would NOT take anywhere near the energy required to grow, package, ship, then truck a tomato to Nebraska from Spain; seeing how the Atlantic Ocean and half the US separate the two. Don't know how you came up with that...

Anyway, I love going to the local farmers market because I like to know who's growing my fruit and vegetables. I like to talk to the farmers and ask about what I'm eating. I like to see who's getting my money. I also like the idea that I'm not supporting a corporation.

You should really feel a sense of responsibility and ownership towards your own community, it's the only place you can really effect change.

fauxtank,

I see a great deal makes no sense to you.

Yes, Spain is a nice place, been there, great people, great food, not very fond of Americans, Brits or Germans though. Spend a few months, you'll see.

However nice the pace is, buying products from Spain costs Euros, currently at $1.34177 USD. Shipping requires fossil fuels, no? Expensive now.

Is Spain closer than Nebraska? Does paying Spaniards make more sense than paying Americans for the same produce? And new tech for Nebraska, wind, solar. geothermal, whatever, think there's no incentive now to use it?

If Spain decides that hey - Europe, Russia or China now will pay a lot more money than the US for the same food, where do you think Spanish produce is going?

Think it unlikely? The Russians apparently cut a deal with the Azerbaijani leadership. They would buy ALL of Azerbaijan's LNG reserves at RETAIL, not wholesale prices. Azerbaijan gets both ends of the profit.

On his last visit Dick Chjeney went to visit Baku and was kept waiting for 24 hours - when he made his pitch he got nothing, and left.

This "flimsy sense of loyalty to farmers" has a reverse side. Where do you think vast sums of US oil are being shipped? Everywhere else. Still like that flimsy sense of loyaty? It is being applied to you.

The issue is National Security at a time when, though it is not apparent to you, outside markets are being closed and the global economy is incapable of keeping the old game going.

A smart country has reserves. A smart country supports its own. A smart country invests in its own. A smart country does everything it can to remain self-sufficient.

Why bother?

Because as the article below indicates once you hit bankruptcy - we have - you have zero international credit and your promises of payment are worthless. Thus what you used to buy from Barcelona - you can't, and nowhere else is interested in taking the risk you represent. Once that happens your only new risk is at home - that Nebraska farmer may not sell to you - thinking that you've just got the wrong attitude toward your country.

National Security.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/12/16931/kemp-the-united-states-is-now-in-some-very-general-sense-bankrupt/

http://www.regsw.org.uk/content/industryreports/viewitem.aspx?artID=4624

That's where I was getting the Spain comparison. It's a paper that touches on, among other things, that it's more carbon efficient to ship lamb from New Zealand to England than to just have the lamb in England (because lamb in New Zealand benefit from better fields, whereas English lambs eat feed due to lack of good fields). The tomato example was along those same lines.

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but you have to remember all the supplies have to come from somewhere too- if a country just naturally grows things really well and doesn't have to fertilize or use heavy machinery, it'll save a ton of carbon.

I do still think it's a flimsy sense of loyalty. If it's more efficient to grow something elsewhere, it should be grown there.

Also, there is no such thing as a "self-sufficient" country in this day and age - it doesn't exist. It would also be kind of ludicrous to even try. The only country that is trying is North Korea (and it's going so well up there, after all). We have a global economy, we can't really change that, and it's for the best.

Went to your preferred site -

Problem #1

It states early - "Food miles is a very simplistic concept relating to the distance food travels as a measure of its impact on the environment. As a concept, food miles has gained some traction with the popular press and certain groups overseas. However, this debate – which only includes the distance food travels – is misleading as it does not consider total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

Problem # 2

"lamb in New Zealand benefit from better fields"

No one in England or America can find better fields for lambs? You're dead certain on that? Have you ever been to England? This enlightening "paper" you cite is a PR piece for New Zealand!

Problem # 3

"The tomato example was along those same lines."

And therefore is equally bogus. I grow tomatoes in my own backyard and if somebody told me, after having seen my garden, I really should stop growing things here and buy them from Spain - because they are cheap - I'd know he was barking mad.

Problem # 4

"if a country just naturally grows things really well and doesn't have to fertilize or use heavy machinery, it'll save a ton of carbon."

Got really bad news for you, sport.

If you're over sixty, you know of just such a country - because you're living in it. For centuries all the crap we dump into the earth to pump up yields and profits was unknown and unrequired. It wasn't until the agribusiness model came in that farm to farm competition was gutted and the connectedness between the farming community and the rest of the country was severed.

If you look at what products actually cost - in terms of Standard Cost Accounting - and measure the difference with what they sell for, you realize that what makes these prices exorbitant is all the middle guys. The farmer gets zip.

Problem # 5

"Also, there is no such thing as a "self-sufficient" country in this day and age "

Another Straw Man argument?: Who said there was?

Problem # 6

" It would also be kind of ludicrous to even try."

Credulous. Incredibly dim. It would be suicidally stupid not to "try." You think we'd have an Army, Navy or Air Force without abundant RESERVES?

Problem # 7

"We have a global economy, we can't really change that, and it's for the best."

Dear Doctor Pangloss, in case you haven't noticed, and obviously you didn't read the article at -

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/12/16931/kemp-t...

- the global economy is expiring, we have no choice BUT to change it.

As many economists predicted it has proven a disaster to have done nothing to protect consumers from downside exposure to the hazard side of globalization.

It's a nice mix. You pretend to exalt "environmental protection" as an economic choice in prefering to buy from another country which "doesn't have to fertilize or use heavy machinery, it'll save a ton of carbon."

Which means [counter-intuitively] it is inconceivable to you to do precisely that here?

You get all your news from FOX?

I recently read a book called eating fossil fuels. It did leave me wanting a little, but the research was substantial. This is one of the key methods we can in North America hold our own against the corps who feed us.

From seed to table, food growth in N.A. supports oil and water misuse (even abuse). We are slowly (more quickly than ever) eating our way into a very deep hole that we won't be able to grow our way out of.

Hydroponics may be the answer for every household (or community) in the future.

wtf are you talking about

okie dokie... but did they grow a porterhouse steak????

that's good. like that idea

I don't see how anything you said disproves the fact that "the energy used in producing lamb in the UK is four times higher than the energy used by NZ lamb producers, even after including the energy used in transporting NZ lamb to the UK. Thus, NZ CO2 emissions are also considerably lower than those in the UK." It is obviously more carbon efficient to ship a lamb once, than to have a constant supply of feed shipped in. That paper is not a PR piece... I got linked to it from an article about food miles in the New York Times, they say it's peer reviewed and are confident enough to write about it.

Also, not a straw man argument, you said it "A smart country does everything it can to remain self-sufficient." And it is ludicrous.

I did read your article, and believe it or not, I do share the opinion that the world economy is in quite bad shape, but do you seriously think we're going to emerge from this a bunch of self-sufficient countries? Why would we? We've been importing and exporting massive amounts of food and other products ever since this country started.

Just because I'm not drinking the kool-aid on this doesn't mean I'm a Fox News watcher. I'm mostly into NPR... Just make this make sense to me, you haven't so far. If producers in New Zealand can create lamb most carbon efficiently (even including shipping), why should we not import from them?

Fauxtank,

Wonderfully selective ideological attention span. Inspired by? But too subject to circular argument and perpetual distraction as a response..

Let's deal again with an issue that you fail to fathom or keep in focus. - security of supply as the global market tanks and restoring America's farms.

"If producers in New Zealand can create lamb most carbon efficiently (even including shipping), why should we not import from them?"

Did anyone say we shouldn't?

Who suggested or cited any such barrier, tariff or prohibition? Golly Fauxtank, no one here! But you think by wanting to advance home-grown tech and feed American farmers that conflates to, I'm anti-import and EXPORT?

That is a classic Straw Man argument - to argue against what another never said. Even the suggestion that I would oppose imports and exports is patently absurd.

But again you resort to the same exaggeration - "Also, not a straw man argument, you said it "A smart country does everything it can to remain self-sufficient." And it is ludicrous. "
Not from a National Security economic standpoint - which is the basis of this argument, but somehow you forgot (or evaded?) the nation's security part. Ideology strikes again?

A government doing everything it can - during a time of war, unheard of levels of foreign exchange debt and complete economic upheaval - "to remain self-sufficient" (except to your odd ideology) is not ludicrous, it is an obligation underlying legitimate governance.

You may recall that your argument veered suddenly from NZ lambs to Nebraska tomatoes. The first was documented against English practices but the second was clearly absent of evidence. Nor did you provide any.

The obvious point being Nebraska is not the only state [ever heard of greenhouses?] where tomatoes can be grown or bought. You selected one state arbitrarily and it is all but meaningless as an example. What makes it further ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge that any American farmer should improvise, innovate and actually COMPETE by not using the usual toxins to fluff the crop totals.

You want a Straw Man argument? Try this. Clearly you want America's farmers to fail. Why are you so Anti-American in our hour of greatest need?

We need to take advantage of modern food production like this to keep up with the rising World population.