[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
food security postings from SUSTAG-L
Greetings SANET-ters:
Below are some of the local food security/foodshed messages sent to
SUSTAG-L which were not copied to SANET, and one or two that were
sent directly to me. Thanks to everyone who responded; I hope that
the sharing of knowledge among the grassroots food systems projects
from around the country will continue. It seems like the re-
connection of the consumer and the local producer is a win-win
situation.
Best regards,
Tom Akin
-------------------------------------------------------
begin forwarded messages
Fri, 31 Mar 1995 16:36:05 -0600 (CST)
>From: William T Vorley <wtvorley@iastate.edu>
Subject: Foodsheds
To: tjakin@pssci.umass.edu
Message-id: <9503312236.AA15826@isum2.iastate.edu>
X-Mailer: EasyVincent 3.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
May I draw your attention to 2 articles Joel Salatin in New Farm:
Sept/Oct 91 8-12 and Jul/Aug 94 47-48. His "FARM" organization in
Willis VA looks very interesting.
--
Bill Vorley
wtvorley@iastate.edu
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 3216 Agronomy Hall,
Iowa State
University, Ames IA Tel. (515) 294 7853, Fax. (515) 294 9696
>From: WLockeretz@Infonet.Tufts.Edu
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 10:36:15 EDT
Subject: Foodsheds (again)
The characteristic of a watershed (American usage) that makes it
precisely definable and useful is that not only does a particular
body of water always receive its water from a particular area, but
also the reverse: that the water running off from a particular
place always follows the same course (i.e., the line of steepest
descent) and always ends up in the same body of water. Is that
supposed to apply to a "foodshed" too? That is, must a given
farmer always sell everything through a single channel, to be
consumed in a single place? If a farmer produces both wheat and
vegetables, and sells the vegetables in a local farmers' market,
must the wheat be sold there too? A stream of water doesn't
split and go to two places. Unless we want to impose the same
restriction on where farmers sell, maybe we need a "wheatshed," a
"vegetableshed," and so on (maybe even a
"Not-otherwise-Classified-shed." And if the farmer also raises
cows, would they be sold in the cowshed?
William Lockeretz
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:55:50 CST
>From: Greg McIsaac <GFM@age2.age.uiuc.edu>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Linguistics (fwd)
On Wednesday April 5 Alasdare McKay described some confusions
around the term "watershed" in the English speaking world and
argued that using the term "foodshed" may create similar
confusions. Being an engineer who works with water movement and
watersheds, I am in agreement with Mr. McKay. However, it seems
to me that much of the confusion over watershed terminology occurs
on the international level and it is not surprising that the
objections to the term are coming from outside the US. In the US,
the term "watershed" is most often used to describe an area that
sheds water to a particular outlet, which is what everyone else in
the English speaking world refers to as a "catchment." The ridges
that divide catchments are referred to "watershed divides" in the
US. However, people in the US will still use the phrase
"watershed" to refer to events or periods of time in which some
great change occurred (e.g. "It was a watershed in American
History"). In that usage they are using the term "watershed" to
refer to the divide.
Nancy Lee Bently prefers the term food circle to describe what
seems to be a similar set of concepts, and this term may
eliminate some of the confusion about foodshed terminology on the
international level. However, I don't particularly care for the
term food circle, for two reasons. A circle is a rather precise,
rigid, two dimensional geometric form, that does not capture the
dynamic, flexible, multidimensional character of food systems.
The ecologists have had the term "food web" for quite some time and
that seems to capture what much of what foodsheds and food circles
seem to be about. Why not use that terminology, since it seems to
be fairly well established, is ecologically oriented and may
circumvent some confusion on the international scene?
Gregory McIsaac
Agricultural Engineer
University of Illinois
> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
> Reply-to: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
> From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)"
<sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-
l@listproc.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Linguistics (fwd)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 10:40:24 -0300
> From: Alasdair McKay <aa233@cfn.cs.dal.ca>
> To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)"
<sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Linguistics
>
>
> > Presumably those folks having trouble with 'foodshed' and even
> >'watershed' have equal trouble comprehending 'software' (Duh, is
> > that a fabric treatment or something..?) and 'floppy.'
>
> No very great problem with "foodshed" as an alternative to
> "store" "barn" "larder" "pantry" or the like, but when you
associate it with "watershed" - which means different things to
different people, the intended meaning becomes very obscure.
>
> > The 3 1/2" floppies must cause apoplexy, because they're not
> > very bendable.
>
> Some people have no curiosity -- try dismembering one.
>
> "Watershed" to me (and many others in the English-speaking world)
> means "a line on either side of which surface water flows under
> gravity into different river systems". This is a precise concept
> and I have no difficulty in understanding it. The use of "shed"
> in this sense has also long been used to describe the parting of
> hair on the head in hair-styling circles ( left shed; middle shed
>; right shed ).
>
> I am also very well aware that there are many other people in the
> English speaking world who use the term "watershed" in quite a
> different way - usually to describe what I would call "catchment
> area", but in arid areas, where flow under hydraulic pressure
> may be more important than surface runoff and where no river
> system develops such that one cannot speak of its catchment
> area, other definitions must be used. I have often thought that
> this second usage of the term "watershed" must have come about
> through sloppy application of the first usage (arising out of a
> mis-understanding of the concept), but I am open to correction on
> that point by anyone who has good linguistic historical evidence
> on the matter. After a time, one can get used to this Babel,
> just as one contends with other foreign languages.
>
> > C'mon, people. I speak several languages, and the ongoing
> > beauty and strength of English is its very maleability and
> > adaptability; borrowing, adapting, adopting, shaping, modifying
> > words to expand and introduce meaning.
>
> Undoubtedly - but most languages can do this. If they could not,
> they would
never have evolved in the first place. Probably the way in which
> English
differs to some extent is in the facility to commute the function
> of a word
without altering its structure to fit verbal or other inflection :
>
> E.g. Shakespeare's use of "spaniel" as a verb.
>
> - But words which have been hammered out of words whose meaning
> is different to different people do begin to cause problems.
> Technical terminology will arise spontaneously when even the rich
> English vocabulary of "words to use when you don't know what to
> call something" prove inadequate for the situation. In very
> narrow technical fields, only a few people need ever understand
> such terms.
> Children, over the generations, have also invented vocabularies
> for themselves. Usually these are left behind as things of
> childhood, but some pickings may survive to enrich the language.
>
> > English has become the language of preference for
> > international communication in large measure precisely
> >_because_ its speakers can (and do) coin words like 'foodshed'
> > to explain a concept.
>
> Come on! English is now an international language because the
> two dominant Imperial powers of the last three centuries -
> Britain and the United States - both used English. An over-rapid
> evolution of the English language at the present day would
> threaten its utility as the lingua franca of, say, the Orient
> rather than perpetuate it.
>
> > If you want to stand up and wave the flag for integrated,
> >corporate, centralised, and heavily subsidised agriculture, by
> >all means do it, and it can be discussed in those terms.
>
> I have no desire whatsoever to do this.
>
> > Please don't, however, set
> > up a term such as 'foodshed' as a straw-man and attack the term
> > rather than discussing the concept.
>
> The discussions about food supply are both interesting and
> important and should be conducted in a language which as many
>people as possible can understand readily. In this particular
> topic, the invention of a lot of new technical terms may be
> unwise unless they are genuinely necessary for precise and
> succinct discussion by some very specialised group of people. If
> nothing else, the proliferation of new terms makes me suspicious
> that someone is trying to "pull the wool" (if you get my drift).
> I know "straw-men" in various guises from the West and the
> Orient, but do not quite understand the relevance of the
> term here - although the meaning is fairly clear from the
> context. I presume that this particular straw man comes from
> some bit of literature with which I am unfamiliar.
>
>
> Why don't I knock you up tomorrow morning and we'll go out and
> have a look at this food shed of yours and then we'll find
> somewhere nice where you can eat on me?
>
> (Possibly offensive to some, but immediately recognisable by
> others as nothing but an indication of willingness to come by at
> an early hour for a pre-prandial stroll around the foodshed
> followed by an invitation to breakfast a good restaurant.)
>
> Alasdair McKay
>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 21:49:02 -0700
>From: Bruce Gregory <rbgreg@pacificrim.net>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Linguistics (fwd)
On Wednesday April 5 Greg McIsaac described some alternative word
useage to
"foodshed" presenting the ideas:
>the term "watershed" in the English speaking world and argued that
using the
>term "foodshed" may create similar confusions. Being an
>engineer who works with water movement and watersheds, I am in
>agreement with Mr. McKay. However, it seems to me that much of
>the confusion over watershed terminology occurs on the
>international level and it is not surprising that the objections
> to the term are coming from outside the US. In the US, the term
> "watershed" is most often used to describe an area that sheds
> water to a particular outlet, which is what everyone else in
>the English speaking world refers to as a "catchment." The
> ridges that divide catchments are referred to "watershed
>divides" in the US. However, people in the US will still use
the phrase "watershed" to
>refer to events or periods of time in which some great change
occurred
>(e.g. "It was a watershed in American History"). In that usage
they are
>using the term "watershed" to refer to the divide.
>
>Nancy Lee Bently prefers the term food circle to describe what
seems
>to be a similar set of concepts, and this term may eliminate
>some of the confusion about foodshed terminology on the
international
>level. However, I don't particularly care for the term food
circle,
>for two reasons. A circle is a rather precise, rigid, two
>dimensional geometric form, that does not capture the dynamic,
>flexible, multidimensional character of food systems. The
ecologists have had
>the term "food web" for quite some time and that seems to capture
what
>much of what foodsheds and food circles seem to be about. Why not
>use that terminology, since it seems to be fairly well
established,
>is ecologically oriented and may circumvent some confusion on the
>international scene?
A better alternative word has been buzzing through my mind of late,
most often
as another description on the "foodshed" idea. How about "foodnet"?
The growing,
transportation on the local, interstate or international scale all
depend upon
a system of networks, (such as the media we are using now. . .)
Networks of
natural systems, human made systems, you get the idea.
Bruce Gregory
Mitchell Bay Farm
rbgreg@pacificrim.net
(8U---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)"
<sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> Cc:
Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re:
Foodsheds (again) (fwd)
Maybe its not is shed but a web.
Jonathan Haskett
On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) wrote: > From:
WLockeretz@Infonet.Tufts.Edu
> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 10:36:15 EDT
> Subject: Foodsheds (again)
>
> The characteristic of a watershed (American usage) that makes it
precisely >
definable and useful is that not only does a particular body of
water always >
receive its water from a particular area, but also the reverse:
that the > water
running off from a particular place always follows the same course
> (i.e., the
line of steepest descent) and always ends up in the same body of
> water. Is
that supposed to apply to a "foodshed" too? That is, must a given
> farmer
always sell everything through a single channel, to be consumed in
a > single
place? If a farmer produces both wheat and vegetables, and sells
the >
vegetables in a local farmers' market, must the wheat be sold there
too? A >
stream of water doesn't split and go to two places. Unless we want
to impose
> the same restriction on where farmers sell, maybe we need a
"wheatshed," a >
"vegetableshed," and so on (maybe even a
"Not-otherwise-Classified-shed." > And
if the farmer also raises cows, would they be sold in the cowshed?
>
> William Lockeretz
>
>
Thomas Akin
Extension Educator
Plant & Soil Science Dept.
Bowditch Hal Box 30910
University of Massachusetts TEL: (413) 545-5236
Amherst, MA 01003-0910 FAX: (413) 545-0260