Re: Large animal policies | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Craig Ragland (craigragland![]() |
|
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:32:07 -0800 (PST) |
I'd urge caution about labeling almost any local food production as "individual household's hobby." As cohousing communities we have the increasingly rare opportunity (and perhaps responsibility?) to use our commonly-owned land in support of individual initiatives that benefit others, including our communities and the planet. Here at Songaia (38 people, 11 acres, 15 homes, near Seattle), we have upwards of an acre in organic gardens. Part is in small family plots and part is "common." The common part is intensively worked by just a few (most of whom also have family plots), with a handful of others that put in some time and another handful of others (like me) that pitch in on the rare occasion, and then some that never help at all. The common gardens contributed several thousand dollars "worth" of fresh produce, eggs, and chicken meat to our common food program in 2007. Hundreds of pounds was also donated to a local food bank. Our local food production also helped everyone on the planet by reducing consumption of energy to transport foodstuffs from everywhere else it would have come from to us. Perhaps more importantly, it lets us raise our children with real-world stories of how we make a difference. As cultural creatives, it gives us models to share with others about positive ways that we can address climate change and work/play our way toward more sustainable lives. OK, stepping off soapbox... (mostly) I think I do get your point about individual vs. community-wide values and interests. In our case, our community has made the concious choice to highly value local food production and consumption (we also skew our food program shopping toward local sources). Every cohousing community has the possibility of making the choice to honor and support individual initiative in food production or consumption as useful strategies toward doing good. On Feb 1, 2008 2:55 PM, J Boerst <julieb [at] whitehawkecovillage.com> wrote: > One concern about larger-scale agriculture (in terms of land use--1 acre+) > engaged in by individuals, not the community as a whole, is that it uses a > significant piece of land for what would essentially amount to an individual > household's hobbies. I know at Dancing Rabbit in Missouri they do have a > lease system, and I'm wondering if anyone else has something similar. > People dabbling in growing veggies would probably use less land than people > dabbling in raising dairy cows, so it does become more of an issue when > animal agriculture is on the table, as does the expense of fencing, barns, > etc. > -- Craig Ragland Coho/US Exec. Dir. www.cohousing.org
- Re: Large animal policies, (continued)
-
Re: Large animal policies Rob Sandelin, February 1 2008
-
Re: Large animal policies Ann Zabaldo, February 1 2008
- Re: Large animal policies Rob Sandelin, February 1 2008
-
Re: Large animal policies Ann Zabaldo, February 1 2008
-
Re: Large animal policies J Boerst, February 1 2008
- Re: Large animal policies Craig Ragland, February 1 2008
- Re: Large animal policies Ed and/or Kathryn Belzer, February 1 2008
- Message not available
- Re: Large animal policies John Beutler, February 2 2008
- Re: Large animal policies Sharon Villines, February 2 2008
- Re: Large animal policies Racheli Gai, February 2 2008
-
Re: Large animal policies Rob Sandelin, February 1 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.