Locavore Math

Stephen Budiansky published a well written and enjoyable read on locavorism in yesterday's NYT Op Ed section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opini ... ef=opinion

If it's been covered here, moderators please remove.

His blog is worth the visit. Please scroll down to his graphic on ground zero:

liberalcurmudgeon.com

Hi- I have a hard time believing that the total farm land area in America remains basically unchanged from what it was a century ago. What about all the farms that used to exist in the collar counties of Chicago, that no longer do?

He also talks about how much gas is wasted driving to the farmer's market to purchase the produce. What about the gas that is used to drive to the grocery store to pick up the same produce? In my case, it only takes me 10 minutes to walk to the downtown Evanston market on Saturday, and it only takes me 5 minutes to walk to the Wednesday market at the Y. During melon season, there are times I wish I would have driven to the market though. The nearest Jewel or Dominick's is twice as far, and I usually drive there.

I find that when the farmer's market is open, I don't spend nearly as much at the grocery store.

Hope this helps, Nancy

Presumably the "locavore" he cites was constructed with locally grown straw.

Jen

Nancy
I think youre right about farmland loss...since WWII it's my understanding that we've lost in high teens our total % of US farmland.

Farmland report says:

According to the recently released National Resource Inventory, or NRI about 7.5 million U.S. acres were developed between 2002 and 2007. More than half of the land lost is “agricultural land” (cropland, CRP land, pastureland and rangeland)—land that is readily available for agricultural production. And roughly 30 percent of the land lost contained prime farmland—land best suited to produce food and other agricultural crops with the fewest inputs and the least amount of soil erosion.

and

NRI Findings:

2002 to 2007Development Encroaching on Farmland

* 7,491,300 acres of land converted to developed land
* 4,080,300 acres of agricultural land lost
* 2,288,100 acre decrease in prime farmland

1982 to 2007

* 41,324,800 acres of land converted to developed land
* 23,163,500 acres of agricultural land lost
* 13,773,400 acre decrease in prime farmland

Original article on line Here

Bloggers vs Science. Film at 11

Pie-love wrote:Presumably the "locavore" he cites was constructed with locally grown straw.

Yep, exactly. Here we go again. Another clever article attacking the "locavore" that doesn't exist.

STEPHEN BUDIANSKY wrote:Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by “locavores,” celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations.

OK. I'll bite sir. Which rules? Which chefs? Which organizations?

STEPHEN BUDIANSKY wrote:For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country

Never heard the word "sinful" myself, and mostly I just hear people say at farmers markets that they want to buy local because the hard as rocks tomatoes from California taste like shit.

STEPHEN BUDIANSKY wrote:One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes 36 (sometimes it’s 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast.

Really? Popular? I read more "locavore" stuff than most people I know and I've only heard that statistic come from people like Mr. Budiansky.

STEPHEN BUDIANSKY wrote:Eating locally grown produce is a fine thing in many ways. But it is not an end in itself, nor is it a virtue in itself.

Yes, we know. That's a point that most "locavores" have been making for years now.

I'm really not sure why it's important to go on the offensive to make points like this.

I'm immediately reminded of a recent news story about a "minimalist" who decided to get rid of all his physical possessions. Another news outlet picked up a story on a few other people who were doing what this guy was doing and suddenly it was dubbed "a movement" and there were supposedly blogs and adherents to an extreme minimalist lifestyle around the world. Then, the attackers came out on the blogs throwing stones at this "movement". And now it turns out that the movement barely exist (beyond some simple principles that some people find attractive--sound familiar?).

Big, old media likes to divide things into black and white. One side has an agenda and the other side has to go after the tyranny of that agenda. It's the two-party system superimposed over every set of principles in our daily lives. When you actually start to talk to people who aren't writing news stories, you find that the two sides that the newspapers have constructed don't actually exist. It's all foolish, meaningless drivel.

interesting read, thanks for posting the link.

NFriday wrote:Hi- I have a hard time believing that the total farm land area in America remains basically unchanged from what it was a century ago. What about all the farms that used to exist in the collar counties of Chicago, that no longer do?

I suspect it's true, though I don't think it has any relevance. The U.S. population a century ago was about a third of today's population, and there were large sections of the country that were almost completely unpopulated.

Weirdly argued piece in the NYT wrote:The best way to make the most of these truly precious resources of land, favorable climates and human labor is to grow lettuce, oranges, wheat, peppers, bananas, whatever, in the places where they grow best

Exactly why I shop at the farmer's market this time of year (and eat a hell of a lot more peaches than oranges for a few months). The other curious arguments (which assume, I guess, that I live above the Jewel and wouldn't drive to it or refrigerate its products, either) are irrelevant at that point.

Yes, Mike, that was a funny one

Cooking and running dishwashers, freezers and second or third refrigerators (more than 25 percent of American households have more than one) all add major hits. Indeed, households make up for 22 percent of all the energy expenditures in the United States.

Only locavores cook! Run dishwashers! Have refrigerators...and freezers!!

Some of the standard replies to this kinda op-ed can be found here: http://www.grist.org/article/food-fight ... ssons/PALL

Just a few things I love to point out:

- I love the trope about the energy eating greenhouse tomatoes. Does it not come up in every freakin' one of these pieces. For one thing, the majority of greenhouse tomatoes are factory driven from labs in Canada or Holland and no one of the Local Beet ilk are advocating those. For another, the vast majority of indoor grown produce is enhanced simply with heavy plastic not high energy heaters. That one just gets me all the time.

- Another one that gets me is this: "The best way to make the most of these truly precious resources of land, favorable climates and human labor is to grow lettuce, oranges, wheat, peppers, bananas, whatever, in the places where they grow best and with the most efficient technologies." Sure, on one hand that makes sense. No one believes Nichol's Farm should grow oranges even if I know Lloyd Nichols has managed to try a couple of lemon trees in his hoop-houses. But on the other hand, really, when product is grown in Florida or California or where ever, the only advantages may be government subsidies, cheap labor, tilted water policies and free sunshine. I mean the same people who rage against the mystery green house tomato have no problem with growing ton after ton of food in the vast deserts of California and Arizona.

- Finally, the efficient train argument - God that one irks me. Of course something transported via rail gets better mileage but does that still mean that less fuel was actually used. And as I've said many a time, who buys their food at the rail yard. (Or as it has been pointed out to me, who grows their food at the rail yard).

OK, I got to get back to the Local Beet and address whether farmer's markets are in fact, Bulls$%&

auxen1 wrote:Nancy
I think youre right about farmland loss...since WWII it's my understanding that we've lost in high teens our total % of US farmland.

And farm productivity and yields have improved 600-800%?

In other words, how much is that loss really missed. Very little.

The increase in productivity may also be an argument for industrialization. Especially with anticipated population growth.

But the loss of arable land to urban sprawl is a serious issue.

The trade that's been made is growing vegetables and fruits on land that has to be irrigated so that multiple crops are possible off the same acre each year. Versus growing vegetables on rich, dark soil that needs far less irrigation, but only produces one crop.

I suspect the water argument might be a stronger way to go at him than the energy argument. Or the taste argument. Or nutrition.

On his comment board there's a comment and link to a study that suggests a "regional" infrastructure is most sensible (versus "local" or "national").

Hi- Here is a link to Mr. Budiaski's own blog, where he publishes an addendum to his op-ed piece, and also displays comments made by readers of the piece.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-schmocal.html#comments

Probably 90% of the comments are pro locavore.

One of the big reasons that I like to eat local, is because it usually tastes much better. I will not even buy fresh tomatoes in the grocery store. I use canned tomatoes in the winter time.

Hope this helps, Nancy