Dear Readers.... Both of you. (a response to comments from the last post)

Good points Matthew, and very thoughtful. I think you are correct about our government subsidizing corn and soy and I think that oughta be a crime. I saw the author of Omnivore's Dilemma, Micheal Pollan speak at the Bioneers conference last year. I really enjoyed him and he brought up a lot of the points that you cited from his book. Including an incredible grass farmer who could sustainably produce astronomical quantities of meat by managing the grazing regimes of his animals. I call him a grass farmer because of something a Montana Rancher once said.

"Ranchers are grass farmers. Cows are just the vehicle of turning that grass into a profit. We could be grazing Giraffes out here if we wanted, but I think they'd have pretty sore necks."
Jim Stone.

Your main points,
1.) Cessation of local food production does not necessarily displace food production farther away.
- corn and soy prices are managed by manipulation of production rates
2.) Grass may sequester more carbon if it is cut periodically
- it has a faster growth rate before it reaches the stage of woody stems
- grass evolved with herbivory and fire, and has special adaptations to these disturbances
- self pruning of grass roots in response to loss of above ground mass helps soil

My responses
1.) I think your point here was that the Government's purpose of paying farmers to let their fields be fallow was not a soil conservation reason, but rather a control of commodity prices. Be that as it may, corn and soy as Michael Pollan agrees, are not foods. They are exactly what you said. The process of manufacturing high fructose corn syrup is very inefficient and is only possible due to government subsidies. These subsidies make it cheap to purchase so it is a cost effective sweetener for food processors. Lame. Local food production is depedent on high quality soil and heads up soil management, if the government paid organic farmers in the middle of Vermont's woods to let their fields be fallow, then we'd be in trouble, huh? Do I have a point? not really. Is this example applicable to my backyard in the first place? No. But it is always a pertinent question that any conservationist or citizen should ask. "If we preserve this piece of land, are we exporting those environmental impacts to farther away where we have no control over how the land is managed?"

2.)
- I agree, Cut the grass when it is growing at its optimum and you have yourself a little carbon farm!
- Yeah grass is sweet. It doesn't mind getting walked on and eaten, it doesn't mind droughts and it doesn't really mind fires. It stores most of its life force under ground where it is safe from these petty things that kill foolish trees.
- Here we both assumed that by not cutting the grass, self pruning rates will slow down. This assumption led me to write that the soil would be further stabilized, and it led you to write that lack of root decay will be detrimental to soil formation. I believe we were both wrong. Thinking more closely I believe that the disturbances that cause root decay in a yard are not limited to the lawn mower. Insects, deer, and other biota will munch on the grass.

Also, in order to balance the equation, there are functions that release carbon to the atmosphere as well that need to be considered. I mean decomposition. Microbial respiration in the process of decomposition releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Grass clippings decompose relatively quickly. As do root trimmings underground. The more complex the chemistry of the plant body in decomposition, (i.e. wood more complex than leaves) the slower the release of CO2. If the grass stays whole, bends over under snow, then revives in the spring, its possible the decomposition rates will be enough slower that the slower rate of photosynthesis (or Carbon fixation) is offset. I don't know. Another interesting point: a grassy land will spend part of the year in its dry, light colored state. This color will reflect light and taller grass makes more shade. These factors may reduce soil temperature, to below the soil temperature under a dark green bed of grass. Microbial chemical processes, such as decomposition, are slowed down in lower temperatures. Could this also be an important factor in Carbon cycling?


Dad, It is hard to say about the source of the water, but Isn't there a storm drain right above our driveway? I think that the dye would be a good experiment, or just pouring water on the ground on a dry day. Certainly I think the pavement is the main problem because it is impermeable to water. The cool bricks sound really awesome, I think the less pavement we have the better!

The swale will probably work, but the carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat and other benefits make the grow zone more appealing to me. The Swale essentially increases soil infiltration rates, wich is exactly the purpose of the grow zone, except the grow zone does not require any work to construct, either human respiration, nor vehicular respiration to convey the gravel or what have you.

As far as the bad effects of the soil erosion, they are very small scale. A few understory plants like mosses and stuff will probably get covered up and killed, but then again a seed might fall on that freshly deposited soil and thrive there. This is more of an exercise in soil retention than an urgent solution to Earth's problems. Over a large scale, say an entire town, or the entire united states, if we all stopped mowing the grass... I wonder what would happen. What about that spot between the highways? Why do they mow that? Maybe they oughta stop.