Joel Salatin: From a Frog's Perspective | LSS 2019
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лис 2019
- If you were a frog in a pond 500 years ago, what would you know about ecology? In a whimsical fantasy, Joel Salatin - Farmer and Owner at Polyface Farm - takes us back to the most primal templates of nature.
Presented at the Living Soils Symposium on March 29th, 2019, hosted by Regeneration Canada at Marché Bonsecours in Montréal.
Visit the Symposium website for more details: livingsoilssymposium.ca
or the Regeneration Canada website: regenerationcanada.org
Production : Parafilms
Filming : Jean-Marc Abela, Sharif Mirshak, Anne Sophie Deschênes, Noé Sardet, Phile Beauchemin, Sylvain Pouzet
Editing : Anne-Sophie Deschênes, Noé Sardet
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
One of my favorite Joel Salatin videos. I've watched it several times!!!
This talk is a work or art that was so amazing I am in tears, happy tears. For number 11, I think he meant to say, "move over (instead of throw out) the pet dogs, cat, or snake, to make room for chickens as well...". Or, if he DID mean "throw out," he was speaking tongue in cheek! I hope every dog, cat or snake (or domestic pet) lover realizes that!
What a gifted orator and human being! He is yet to become a household name - can't wait for that day to come! Joel, your daddy is sooooooo proud of you, from his spot in heaven!
History will remember him. Genius
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
This guy has a 10ft personality, and strikes me as a real man of God. I'm trying to learn what I can from him. He's an entertaining speaker too.
this needs at least 10x the number of views
Genius of a man!!!!!! Thx for sharing this!!
With unending gratitude for the difference, you have made on this planet and will continue to make throughout the generations by your words I send you big hugs and aloha
Mr Joel Salatin and Mr Allan Savory - geniuses
As an 18 year old this sounds awesome
The Dawn is already here, we just have to have a little more patience for its effects to become visible. That does not mean that there are no more fights ahead of us. But, we will prevail, Joel, and you are one of the great leaders towards the new, ecological, abundant, chem free world! May God bless you and all of your dear ones with health, love, meaning and courage!
Loved every minute of this.
This video shouldn’t be revolutionary, but it is.. What an amazing talk. It’s incredible how much we have to unlearn before we can understand. Also - and I hate to have to mention it - in today’s insane political climate, this talk is incredibly brave.
Thank you, Joel!!!!!!!!
Not if you own a gun. Keeping stupid at bay is all about the position of your fence.
Tell everyone about this guy. Participate in your environment in a positive way 👍
He had me when started a lecture in Quebec Canada with a frog as the lead.
(Godfather of Homestead Ag)
Respect - he sends it everytime -
Thank you Joel
I seen some of his farm videos, he cleans up good.
Nature is our teacher. Listen
I really love him very nice person and talking with real experience for saving entire nation around the world savings from all teaching about neutral reserve save the earth animal food
Punctuation.
awesome.
Talking about all the bison that were here made me wonder how the number of farting bison was much higher (in my opinion) than the number of farting cows.
Joel you should add a google view of your pastures- showing pen movement
Amen
AMEN!
Joel Salatin for President pleaseeeeeeee!!!!!
Joel for President!
Joel is the David Attenborough of farming.
Il s'est vraiment donné dans ce speech! Un peu comme dans « How to work with kid...» C'est le Jack Barnes de la paysannerie! Est-ce qu'il était au courant de la signification pour un Québécois de I'm a frog? Je ne pense pas... de toute façon, une fois bien chanté, ce n'est pas ben ben grave.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-11 KJV
[1] To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: [2] A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; [3] A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; [4] A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; [5] A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; [6] A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; [7] A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; [8] A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. [9] What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? [10] I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. [11] He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
39:00 humans had stone adzes and could carve handles, from wood and bone, and attach them to stone blades with the help of strings (tendons !) and bone glue. or wrapping something into pieces of raw leather hide which shrunk and kept things together. But of course it was a lot of work to produce a highly functional shovel (from some large bones like pelvis), and if the lifestyle is that of a wanderer they had to take the valuable tools (investment of time) with them (or keep it well stored away in a cave or dug out hole that served as sommer camp / storage room.
Foragers often use _digging sticks_ and _prefer_ to work soft, moist top qualtiy soil. (or they really wanted that source of water in the Kalahari or the bulb in the ground. If they needed water and food they invested the effort to dig it out with sticks. Such sticks can be hardened in fire and sharpened with stone blades. Another form of froming a wooden spear to a point is to char it in fire, scratch off some material. That way a hardened point can be created.
Funny to see him without his hat and jeans.
Joel, the blog here: peaceloveandprogressparty.org/blog/f/permaculture is about you. I hope you like it.
Cane toads too?
Pure Corn seeds. Please thanks.
oh yes, he knows.............
vertical gardening
no need for artificial lights, much less reduction for watering needs...
Joel for President, yes...
32:00 - yes creatures / plants all compete and grow as big and procreate as much as they can - the QUOTAS are imposed by nature and are quite cruel. There are wipeouts by cold, heat, draughts, natural disasters and diseases. Mass starvation. Intelligent & social mammals lose often more than 50 % of the young even in good years. For ethical reasons humans want to avoid CULLING (by natural forces, or going to war with each other, or disposing of newly born children). But if you do not want to have the necessary limits imposed by nature (which is cruel, disruptive for INTELIGENT, social species it also disrupts inventions and passing on of culture) you need to SELF restrict.
And that was always a top down rule - usually masquerading as religous or cultural norm.
War (to cull other groups of humans) is costly, some cultures could not afford the costs of conflict (and invariable if the culling happened with help of war and raids a LOT of knowledge was lost). Groups of humans that are hunter gatherers usually profit more if they are on good terms with their neighbours, that can even help with survival in harsh terms.
Only when it got really ! bad desperate hunter/gatherer societies may have resorted to seize the terriotry of others with brute force (the "natural" way), when they had to move because water dried up and the wandering herds were missing.
The other reason would be that one group had made an invention or had such good land that their numbers grew and grew uuntil the land was not enough anymore. if they did not have some form of Birth control baked into the culture (some did, others not) at some point they had to move out and that meant infringing upon the territory of others. Now if other groups were eager to get adult females (of child bearing age) and capable hunters they might have been adopted. But if one group grew that much we can expect tensions .... so that IMBALANCE IN PROCREATION would often have led to violence.
There were several waves of homo xx leaving Africa, most likely they had become too numerous, and or draughts forced them into the more temperate climate zones with more water and cooler temperatures.
Ancients groups of hunter/gatherers gatherers were (often) restricted by nature and harsh conditions. Enough died from illness, giving birth, accidents or famine that the number of humans stayed stable.
social cohesion and emotional ties withing families and group are very important for humans, Culture and the passing on of culture (w/o traumatic disruption) ensures the advantage that humans had over other species. They are intelligent and social animals that can get a lot done if they cooperate.
There is evidence that Bonobo mothers REMEMBER babies they have lost and mourn for them even after months.
Bonobos can be trained to communicate, they were used for the speech experiments. One mother had lost her baby and she got very excited when they told her she would get a baby. (it was an orphan they hoped she would adopt, she then realized that was NOT her baby that her caretakers miraculously had brought back, not sure how the adoption went.).
And she was miffed at one of the caretakers that had taken a leave of absence. The bonobo did not like it that someone she had bonded with had disappeared from her life. The primate did not greet her enthusiastically when she came back, she showed that she was offended. That woman had lost a child (I think during pregnancy, or maybe even an infant) that was the reason for her leave of absence. When she told the Bonobo that she had lost her baby the primate seemed to understand and changed behavior. The researcher was "forgiven" for having vanished and the primate showed empathic reactions and tried to console her.
Elephant mothers also mourn the loss of a calf (much longer than let's say a bear or antelope, or cat). The more social = intelligent the more traumatic the culling is when the young, or even the old die. The only prevention: restricting growth voluntarily / culturally / by group imposed NORMS that are usually in form of religious rules, taboos, cultural norms.
Cultural norms do not rely on insight and compliance of individuals (yes our group shoud not have too many children BUT I want to have mroe than two, someone else should be reasonable) but they rely in the instinctive urge of homo sapiens to have group cohesion, which is crucial for survival of homeo xx - so self restriction of the urge to procreate is NOT left to the insight and wisdom of individuals - it is backed up by powerful cultural "instincts".
A norm is almost as strong as an instinct, but humans can have all kinds of norms, so that makes them much more flexible than animals that are stuck with their instincts, which cannot be changed fast, not even in unusually good or bad situations.
Evolution does not change instincts easily, it is way too slow to mitigate a sudden crisis.
Cultural norms ALSO do not change easily (it is their goal to add stability) - but in times of crisis or new suurplus the cultural instincts can change and the insticts are also not the same for all group of humans.
That adds resilience in case of global harmful events (there was a bottle neck 70,000 years ago, like volcanoe eruption messed with global weather for a few years). _Some_ groups of humans will have a set of norms that helps them OR they are able to change their cultural norms fast enough to cope with a crisis.
A change might be desireable when positive inventions happen. New technology like better hunting weapons, mstering fire, boat building. Or detecting new sources of energy - one can burn peat, or burn bones with forced air installations. Or new sources of food: like cooking / roasting food, fermentation, drying fruit, meat and rendering fat (in bags ! of leather over fire). Preserving food with salt (that can be harvested in slow times, and then can be used to process food fast during busy fall. Or the detection to promote the growth or starchy roots or grasses and that one can breed for more yield, or one can domesticate animals !
Humans can even afford to keep their old group members alive (even if they are not a net gain for the group anymore, losing a group member is THAT traumatic for them). As a highly social species the old continue to be useful, and the cultural norms protected them even if they had become a drain on the group.
The old can of course be more useful for an information driven species that puts a lot of effort into raising their young, into maintaining a COMMON culture, and which are able to store fuel and food, or to make tools. The old still can help with watching the little ones, teaching them skills. Collecting / processing resources: Light work like collecting fuel or food, rendering fat and keeping fires going, preparing food or drying it (meat, berries, starychy roots). An old hunter could still accompagny a group of females, or children, that were productive foraging and add to their security.
An old hunter may not have been fast enough to still run after the mammoth or hunt grass eaters, and not agile enouhg to bend down to collect food - but the use of the spear of a thrown weapon still could ward off many predatorses. The larger a group the less interesting they are even for large predators. An old group member that did nothing but carrying a torch or some smouldering fire in a skull added a lot of prtection. All animals are wary of fire and the smell of smoke, and with good reason. Fires in steppes took out even the large and powerful herbivores or predators. Smelling of smoke was very effective protection.
Females ovolute less often, if the supply of food is inconsistent and they burn body fat (ketones), and if was wise to nurse the little ones for longer than 1 year (2 - 3) so that also reduces the ovulation rates and made sure that the females had fewer children.
Another way (if the land was more fertile or the group had made an invention that was a major advantage) was that one group grew and aggressively went after other groups of humans, if they could produce a surplus of calories they could afford to devote a part of the able bodied males to war, and raids (and defense when other groups retaliated, or were eager to get exclusive use of land and water or wanted to seize the stored food, access to mines, forests, rivers, water, salt, ocean beach ....)
But the humans that lived at the edge (Australia, Bushman in Africa, Inuit) did not go to war. Harsh nature and cultural practices kept their numbers steady so they did not waste resources on war and conflict. The aborigines had the belief that the ANCESTORS were represented IN the land. Obviously it did notmake sense to take land / territory from other groups. Their own spirits were not present in seized land, and one would only offend the spirits that belonged to the other group and those spirits were tied to the land. So when crossing the land (which was allowed) or temporarily using resources (water, food, hunting) one had to get into the good graces of those spirts - and the group they protected that controlled a certain territory.
Just study the survival rates of young wolves, or gorillas (usually only the leading couple of wolves has offspring, so there IS a quota, wolves are so successful with their hunting strategy that they would soon extract too much prey from the land - therefore they "self restrict". The leading couple does not use brute force to achieve that they are the only ones procreating, it would not be possible, they have to rely on "agreement" (plos some pressure from their side of course) backed up by strong instincts.
In nature procreation is often dominated by competing males - another form of quota. Animals have lots of offspring and they lose most of them, and most of them do not live long. There are a few intelligent ! animals (orcas, elephants, ...) that need much longer to raise their young and their survival rates are better - but still they likely lose 40 - 60 % before they mature. And those animals typically do not procreate a lot - but if they do, think lots o rain for a time, at some point whole herds die (elephants during draughts).
Wolves seem to do fine nearby Chernobyl. If they get cancer they may have procreated earlier and / or they were useful as capable hunter for a while. If many cubs die because of birth defects - so what. The alpha couple has young every year, many of them would die anyway, and a few will make it.
If a lot of young wolves die, there will be an excess of prey so groups will split, and some will have healthy enough ! offspring (at least long enough healthy to support hunding and able to procreate).
Adaptation Joel? That would be an athiest point if view no?
1:03:45 It is unethical to feed sausages to the children of vegetarians or vegans w/o the consent of parents, never mind potential allergies or religious taboos - if that is true and not just a gag to get some laughs.
yes like the rats that fall into the vats of peanut butter in the factories.
Funny how Joel will also impose "top down" quotas onto his animals (or this employees ! he does not pay them per hour) - and restrict access: which bull breeds, the rotation, access to water if he wants to protect the banks of a body of water). - He likes to trash big bad government. But quotas top down and imposed on a lot of actors CAN be reasonable and the only way to achieve some things. Whenever doing harmful things (can be damaging more in the long run, so no immediate tangible fallout) would be in the (short term) individual interest of many actors. Good luck with making people fall in line behind a project that does not benefit them. Either at all, or not right away.
Social pressure and / or good relations in smaller communities _can_ result in good cooperation, but that is by no means guaranteed.
Example: a region in India that is in the rain shadow of a mountain range, one of the regions in India used for farming with the least rainfall. They were in serious trouble, draughts and erosion when it did rain (only a few months during the year, and then it is dry often for longer than 6 months).
One village banded together, the "mayor" (village leader) convinced them to install earth works and more humble methods to stop, slow, soak in and spread the rain. They get sufficient rain for TWO crops like in the past, and now that they catch the rain _as a community_ they restored the ground water enough that all in the village can have 2 crops.
But: they collectively decide if the more profitable crops with high water demand (sugar cane and bananas) are possible. They do so by measuring the water table (the mayor does it and the villagers are present). If the last harvest of rainwater (and all contribute to that with the earthworks on their ground) was good, they can splurge. Else they plant something like potatoes that needs less water. And no individual can do their thing and take a free ride on the self restriction of the other villagers.
At least they _can_ have TWO harvests again (which also means more ground cover = better rain infiltration, supports soil life and better protection form erosion). Streams are fed by groundwater and have water year round (like in the past), which also helps with daily life and irrigation.
They stopped taking out more water from underground than they can recharge. And it had to be imposed / initiated top down. For instance they started with the earth works on the hills (so the water did not accumulate and do damage because it could gain in volume and speed). But of course there were initial complaints why certain farms got their earthworks first while others had to wait. It was explained, but that may not be enough in all communities, so it was also imposed, and the others had to wait (and likely had to help with free labor) whether they liked that or not. If they did not have legal means - they certainly had considerable SOCIAL PRESSURE to make all fall in line.
India has a government program to deal with those problems- NREGA = NATIONAL Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Erosion, loss of topsoil and infrequent water supply are massive nation wide problems, they have enough water if you look a the yearly average but often it is destructive torrential rains, that end up as harmfull erosive runoff, followed by 6 - 8 months with no rain at all.
Local government is not the silver bullet either.
Some local communties take that money and put it to good use, but it seems like there is also corruption, waste or mistakes, nepotism (earthworks done by local companies that get the contracts by relatives in charge - and it is either too expensive or not done right). Or only _some_ get extensive earthworks and the rest of the village gets nothing. That can be a tremendous economc value for the favored farmers but of course achieves not much for the community, aside from the unfairness.
So in that case federal government and civil engineers from outside (with no skin in the game when it comes to local politics and embezzlement) coming in and having an eye on things and overriding local power imbalances can be a good thing. "Local" government _can_ be good - or not at all. If there is good leadership, usually a lot can be achieved in the small setting. Where people know each other - if accountability works and no local oligarchs have undue influence. - But if there is corruption it can be really bad and often there is no way for villagers / people in town to reign in the local upper class / big fish / local biz. It is not important enough to get state wide attention, but does a lot of harm in the small setting.
Local government has the potential to be really good - or really bad. And of course some tasks are just too big and require too much expertise and funding. Then "small is beautiful" also does not work.
If it is bad it is due to corruption and conflicts of interest of local big fish - and that can do a lot of harm and be quite persistent.
The attractive loans for U.S. farmers were supposed to be fairly distributed. Well, ask black farmers how that turned out for them. For better or worse competing in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s meant investment or buying more land - and white farmers getting loans gave them a competitive edge. They may have an unsustainable biz model and must change course now with their big farms (that swallowed up a lot of land of black farmers who had to sell) - well they _can,_ they still HAVE the land and gots lots of subsidies over the decades.
On principle it was reasonable to have local allocation of resources like attractive loans - but in that case it opened up the chance for much more discrimination that was spread out than the federal government could have pulled off.
A part of the earthworks in India need more money and also expertise (civil engineers). Earth dams need machines to build, they need large rocks, it is a security risk if they are not stable, and it is also important that they do not fill up with deposit within a few years again. So getting it right needs engineers and folks that have done that many times. The Indian government provides those experts, which have a chance to do it over and over again (because the government creates the market for their services - it is possible that they are gov.employees anyway). so of course they gain in insight what works, and get faster, and better at it. The government agency also create "blueprints", what solution with what slope and soil type, so the civil engineers or newbies coming from the university do not have to reinvent the wheel.
Same with the Loess Plateau in China: The locals that fed the herds with the minimal growht (2.5 million people live in a region as large as the Netherlands) resisted the push from government to restrict the grazing that had severely ! degraded the land. The dictatorship used the carrot and stick approach. Folks could not really defy government that sent in the earth diggers, engineers. BUT: they got money to buy fodder to keep the sheep and goats in for a time. And they were paid, thousands of people using also shovels to get massive earthworks done. Ponds, terraces, thousand (likely millions) of trees were planted.
After 10 years the land was green again, it was a spectacular success.
I remember one old man that complained (while others listened to him). They want us to plant trees everywhere, _even in the good land._ - You can't eat trees (the crowd laughed).
Well, if only a part of the population would have been reasonable the goats of the others would have ravaged any saplings or anything coming up by itself, there was not enough new growth (it was that bad) and goats are notorious for getting all young shoots no matter how steep the slope is. Only the big top-down approach had a chance to be successful. At the same time the central government realized that they had to take care of the locals with the wandering herds. Again: government has the money (they can create it). you have to watch the videos with the fade in of old versus new, it is spectacular. Only 10 years - the land had good conditions for restoring, still fertile soils left (although bare when they started, and already heavily eroded) and also enough rain if properly handled.
Did you know why; Africa does not need to spend that amount on medical care for the people. Because they primarily don't eat meat...I'm plantbased but I still love most of what he has to say!
300 500 I think it’s more the overeating of skittles and donuts. Not so much the meat. Never seen a person in a African village eating Oreos huh?
That is incorrect. Many peoples in Africa eat ONLY meat. If they are not eating meat they are probably in refugee camps being fed GMO grains and rice from FEMA (or something similar).
300 500 May I humbly suggest you drew a wrong conclusion from his statement: when he said that he did not mean that Africans are have fewer health problems! Do you not not know the facts about how much malaria or AIDS - as just two of many examples - there is in Africa that many Africans die from unnecessarily BECAUSE their governments don't spend enough money on both preventing and treating these diseases?