Over the past five years, droughts have caused many Americans throughout the Midwest and western United States (U.S.) to reevaluate the importance of water in their lives. This commodity and resource is taken for granted in this country. It often seems that the presence of water is either over-abundant or insufficient. Though both constitute unwelcome challenges from an agricultural perspective, a surplus of water is likely more manageable than a scarcity. A severe, or even moderate, drought probably tops the list of a farmer’s greatest fears (perhaps along with an untimely freeze) as a threat that exists out of his or her control. The amount of precipitation that falls over the course of a year is certainly beyond our control, but what we do with the water we have can compound or alleviate pressures felt by farmers, municipalities, companies, and individuals alike. As the population swells, people are clamoring for more water, when they should be asking, “how can I use less, and how can I target my consumption to more useful areas?”

It is estimated that the average American uses 40 gallons of water during the course of a day, rarely questioning its source or final destination. Much of that water is used as part of daily chores and activities, such as washing dishes, clothes, or ourselves. It comes from reservoirs, rivers, and aquifers that are part of a larger system generally intended for multiple uses. When this water gets flushed along it usually heads to a septic tank or treatment facility. Both require huge amounts of time, energy, and space to safely address a potentially toxic and hazardous by-product. The toxicity levels of these effluents often become higher when they are combined or concentrated, thus resulting in more challenging efforts to purify with less favorable results. What we can do as consumers is limit our inputs into an overburdened system by implementing individual changes. Obviously, a conscious effort to use less is something we all could benefit from, but other more progressive and aggressive measures might be in order as the situation grows more contested in the upcoming years. One approach that continues to gain acceptance is the use of grey water.

Of the 40 gallons used daily, a large percentage of that water passes on with minimal contaminants before arriving at its final destination. Certainly toilet water that is considered raw sewage, or black water, presents a public safety concern in our current system. But water from washing machines, dishwashers, sinks, and even bathtubs should be considered relatively clean and usable as long as it remains free of chemical detergents. These are the most common sources for residential grey water. To harness the potential of this “waste” one can make some basic plumbing alterations so that machines or drains discharge into a yard, landscaped area, or garden. The main idea is to tie into an outflow pipe and install a three-way valve that allows you to direct water outside for irrigation as desired (the most common appliance that people associate with grey water is the washing machine because the risk is fairly minimal and the reward substantial, with traditional top-loading machines averaging 30 gallons per cycle in the U.S.).

During the planning process, a variety of other site-specific conditions are worthy of consideration prior to installation. Topography and slope of the land can greatly affect gravity flow in a positive or negative manner. Soil type will determine absorption rates and appropriate volume. The type of plants or crops one opts to grow will also affect volume or rate of flow. Acceptable edible plants to introduce into a grey water system are the subject of much debate within the field. Those that err on the side of caution will say that grey water should only be applied to ornamental landscaping and fruit trees because of the threat of bacteria and pathogens coming into direct contact with produce. Others will say that only root crops should be avoided while everything from tomatoes and peppers to blackberries and hops are acceptable candidates. Each individual is capable of determining their threshold for risk, but systems that incorporate dishwater or bathwater should include additional filtration or bio-remediation methods in the form of planter boxes, mulch, or composting worms that break down bacteria harboring residues prior to dispersal on vegetation. Once the type and location of plants has been determined and the source and volume of water set, one can commence outlining the plan for irrigation pipe. Digging trenches and finding the proper level are the bulk of the installation. Sub-surface irrigation, by way of drip or soaker hose, is recommended to reduce saline deposits and loss due to evaporation.

An elephant in the room that has escaped mention up to this point is regulation. Before even considering a grey-water system for a home, one should check with local and state authorities for restrictions, permitting, and approval. Thorough investigation is required into plumbing and building codes, as well as state and local environmental and board of health regulations. This daunting prospect is enough to deter even the most committed enthusiasts, but the process creates engagement in community issues and encourages active participation in important dialogue. The variance is huge throughout the country. Take the case of two neighboring states where water rights in the past have caused disputes resulting in death: Colorado and Arizona. In Colorado, the attempts to recognize grey water systems as a viable alternative to current methods have been met with strong opposition due to many archaic laws and beliefs. A recent House Bill (HB 12-1003) introduced last year intended to merely distinguish the difference between black water and grey water failed to pass, leaving many hopeful supporters of practical change demoralized (including Colorado State University, considered one of the leading research institutions within the field that had built a $230,000 grey water system for a green dorm that was deemed illegal by current state law). Now consider Arizona, which has embraced the use of grey water since 2003 when it passed comprehensive legislation aimed at simplifying, streamlining, and validating the practice. They developed a three-tier system set by volume targeting different uses: residential, commercial, and municipal. The language is clear and concise and information regarding how to go about setting up a grey water system suited to your specific situation is readily available on a governmental outreach program through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (information available below). They have set the gold standard for grey water law in the United States (not so much the case for their immigration laws).

The fact of the matter remains that water issues throughout the country, particularly the West, forever have been, and continue to be, enormously complicated. As Wayne Aspinall, Colorado Congressman from 1949 to 1973, said, “In the West, when you touch water, you touch everything.” However, years of convoluted rationale should not obstruct pragmatic and sensible progression. Resistance to change is often the result of a failure to understand the recently exposed facts at hand. Grey water may seem like a small matter, but it represents a greater principal tied to a necessary shift in perception regarding prudent stewardship of our waterways. Though it is best applied for homeowners looking to reduce waste and produce home grown food (a noble cause in itself) it also represents something bigger. It stands as a declaration that we as citizens prefer our water to be used for important purposes, such as drinking and irrigating our crops, not moving sewage through a pipe. Greater efforts need to be made by people across the board, including hay farmers who use pivot irrigation to blast jets of water twenty feet into the air at one o’clock in the afternoon on a hundred degree day, or fruit growers that use flood irrigation in orchards as opposed to drip or micro-sprinklers. They are just as much at fault for reckless endangerment of a limited resource as the city planners and governmental officials that fail to see the benefits of safely using reclaimed water. Grey water systems, however, embody an era of more conscious thought about utilizing crucial resources in the best way possible.

Information about setting up home-scale grey water systems:

http://www.greywater.com/

http://greywateraction.org/greywater-recycling

Arizona’s outreach program:

www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/graybro.pdf

Additional references:

http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/index.htm

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06702.html

Cuban Farm Landscape (taken by author)

History:

Commercial pesticides and herbicides were introduced to Cuban agriculture in the 1940’s. After World War II, the effects of DDT, aldrin, chlordane, 2, 4-D, and other, new chemicals were recognized. Internationally, DDT became popular as a wide range insecticide, and 2, 4-D as an herbicide for use in grass crops, including corn (Delaplane 1996). Over time, new varieties of agrochemicals were developed and put into commercial use. Cuba relied heavily on these external inputs to guarantee higher production, as many agricultural areas throughout the world did, and continue to do so. However, by the 1970’s Cuba began exploring Integrated Pest Management as an initiative of the newly created National System of Plant Protection (Nicholls 2002). The National System of Plant Protection, referred to in other academic sources as the Cuban plant health system, was not so much a formal policy, as an overarching agenda which included the eventual construction of plant health laboratories, plant protection stations, and reproduction centers for entomophagous (organisms that feed on insects) and entomopathogenous organisms (organisms that parasitize insects) (Roettger 2003). Integrated Pest Management became the national policy in 1982 (Funes 2002), although other researchers have noted that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union the IPM technologies were rarely utilized (Rosset 1995). Since then, while much of the world still relies on agrochemicals for food production, Cuba has become recognized as a model in transitioning to a more sustainable, low input style of agriculture.

After the revolution in 1959, the face of agriculture in Cuba changed rapidly and continuously. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959 nationalized all large private farms over the size of 402 hectares, including those owned or run by the United States (Mears 1962). The United States had a significant interest in Cuban sugar, and many of the largest, redistributed farms were sugarcane plantations, funded and controlled by U.S. investors. The United States embargo against Cuba was enacted in 1960 by President Eisenhower, halting all sugar purchases from Cuba by the U.S., discontinuing any oil trade with Cuba, and beginning a partial economic embargo. The embargo was further tightened by President Kennedy in 1962, and in 1963 it was declared illegal for any U.S. citizen to have financial or commercial transactions with Cuba. Among the vast number of other bans, all agricultural commodities, including farm machinery, seeds, plants, livestock, and agrochemicals, were no longer accessible for Cuba from one of its closest trade partners, the United States. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1963 nationalized the land of any farm over 67 hectares, bringing the total percentage of land owned by the Cuban government to 70% (University of Florida 2004).

After the revolution, Cuba established a strong relationship with the USSR. From 1959 until the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1989, 85% of Cuba’s trade was with the Soviets. The USSR bought sugar from Cuba at a preferential price, up to five times the world market price. Cuba bought 90% of its fuel and 80% of its fertilizer and pesticide imports from the USSR (Warwick 1999). As the Soviet Union fell, Cuba plunged into an economic depression known as the Special Period. To keep the country from starvation, Cuba needed to find new trading partners or find a way to feed itself. In 1992, President Bush passed the Torricelli Act, also called the Cuban Democracy Act, which prevented foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from engaging in trade with Cuba, and stipulated that any ship that used a Cuban port in the previous 180 days could not enter a U.S. port (U.S. Department of State 1992). Establishing new trade was made difficult, and in the Special Period, Cuba launched forward with alternative agriculture, learning to use local resources and disband reliance on other countries for fertilizers and pesticides.

Many of the alternative farming practices adopted in the Special Period involved returning to a more comprehensive, holistic approach to management. Integrated Pest Management is just one example of this. The EPA classifies IPM as “the coordinated use of pest and environmental information with available pest control methods to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most economical means and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment.” Integrated Pest Management is based on the principle that careful observation, planning, and action can reduce or eliminate pest problems in a safer and more efficient way than the spraying of a multipurpose pesticide. It also focuses on prevention through a number of smart farming techniques (EPA 2012). In Cuba, farms use Integrated Pest Management to varying degrees, picking and choosing from IPM techniques to find which are most viable and effective for a specific crop, land, and location. In 2008 the Cuban government started allowing for the redistribution of underused or unused state land to local farmers (León 2012). Many of these farmers have embraced the farming skills adapted during the Special Period, and have further extrapolated upon them to suit their own farming needs.

IPM and Biological Control in Cuba:

One widespread practice is the use of entomophagous and entomopathogenous organisms. Reproduction centers for entomophagous and entomopathogenous organisms (CREEs) were created rapidly once the depression hit Cuba. By 1992, 227 centers had been built on the island, and by 1997, 280 existed. CREEs provide services not only to state farms, but also to cooperatives and private farms. Their main objective is to provide a low priced product for local farmers, and in fact most CREEs operating on a cooperative’s space offer the cooperative the product for free (Nicholls 2002).

(from UC IPM Online)

One of projects of the CREEs is the rearing and distribution of the entomophagous Trichogramma. Trichogramma is a genera of wasp which parasitizes the eggs of hundreds of species of insects, including moths, butterflies, sawflies, fruitworms, beetles, and flies (UC Davis 2012). The CREEs breed the wasp by collecting colony stocks from local crops that the reared wasps will later be released onto. The centers keep eggs of Corcyra cephalonica or Sitotroga cerealla, a rice moth or grain moth, respectively, to allow the wasps to infect them. Once they have hatched from the initial batch of parasitized eggs. Cuban farmers use Trichogramma to kill the cassava hornworm, the tobacco budworm, and the sugarcane borer. In total the CREEs produce almost 10 billion wasps each year (Nicholls 2002). The use of Trichogramma as a predator for harmful plant pests is an example of biological control. “Biological control is a component of an IPM strategy. It is defined as the reduction of pest populations by natural enemies and typically involves an active human role” (Hoffman 1993). This ideology summarizes well the agenda of IPM in Cuba: using nature inspired methods to foster plant health and productivity.

Entomopathogenic fungi and bacteria are also produced by CREEs. CREEs are particularly instrumental in making biopesticides from Bacillus thuringienis (Bt). The centers multiply the bacteria and ship vials of Bt to any of the three Biopesticide Product Plants located in Cuba. Biopesticides from Bt are currently the most used biopesticide, making up 90% of biopesticide used worldwide. The biopesticide is in a liquid form and is sprayed on plants. Bt can provide mosquito and lepidopteran (moth and butterfly) larvae control. Moths and butterflies can otherwise cause significant loss in corn crops and cruciferous vegetables. Additionally, the biopesticide is used to combat the tobacco budworm, cassava hornworm, potato and citrus leafminers, and mites (Fernández-Larrea Vega 1999). Bacillus thuringienis is also used in aiding soil health. Because some soils in Cuba can be high in aluminum and iron oxides, phosphorus can become unavailable for uptake by plants if it complexes with either. Bt is a phosphosolubilizing bacteria. This means that when the bacteria consume the complex, phosphorus is detached from the other chemicals and made available for plant use again (Oppenheim 2001).

Potato Beetle infected with Beauveria bassiana

Bighead Ant – Pheidole megacephala (from alexanderwild.com)

An entomopathogenic fungus is used by Cuban farmers to combat the sweet potato weevil. The sweet potato weevil is a pest worldwide, but particularly in subtropical and tropical areas. The fungus Beauveria bassiana can be dispersed by spraying a topical solution on the leaves of the sweet potato plant, or can be used in combination with a pheromone trap to infect the sweet potato weevil. Cuba is noted for its success in producing significant amounts of the fungus, although production is decentralized in a number of small scale facilities (Korada 2010). A second technique used to control the sweet potato weevil is the use of predatory ants. The bighead ant, Pheidole megacephala, is found in banana plantations. Cuban farmers use a technique of rolling them up in banana leaves to transport the ants to sweet potato fields where the ants are let loose to enjoy a feast of sweet potato weevil (Korada 2010).

Neem based biopesticides and Bt biopesticides are both used on Cuban tobacco crops. This is a tobacco drying house. The tobacco here is used to make Cuban cigars. (taken by author)

Another plant based method for preventing pest problems is intercropping with maize in vegetable and row crops. This is used to lessen the effects of Thrips palmi, commonly known as melon thrips, an insect which harms plants by eating the leaves, stems, and flowers (Nicholls 2002; Martin 2007). The melon thrip feeds on many plants, including eggplant, pepper, potato, cucumber, various beans, cotton, tobacco, soybean, and other vegetables, tubers, and grains (Martin 2007). The maize plants produce pollen which attracts natural predators of Thrips palmi, especially the Orius species, which are collectively called minute pirate bugs. Intercropping is inherently beneficial for reducing pest damage as it distributes the insects over a larger number of plants in the same area (Nicholls 2002).

Organoponico (taken by author)

Urban farms are popular in Cuba, notably in the capital city of Havana. Organoponicos are the most common type of urban agriculture, and are characterized by raised or cement encased plant beds (Taboulchanas 2000). These organoponicos benefit from many of the aforementioned IPM techniques, but some are simply not feasible in a city setting. For instance, releasing thousands of wasps would not please the surrounding community. Intercropping is an example of IPM that is well suited to both rural and urban settings.

Marigolds as a pest repellent (taken by author)

Unlike a traditional farm, plants in organoponicos are not grown in extensive rows, therefore intercropping occurs on a much smaller scale. Intercropping is the practice of growing plants close together for the purpose of increasing yield per unit of area. A closely related term is companion planting, which is the practice of growing plants close together to benefit the development of one or both of the plants (Penn State University 2012). So although intercropping can be used in an urban farm, often the term companion planting is more applicable. A common example of companion planting is that marigolds and tomatoes are planted together, since marigolds repel insects, including aphids, which are a frequent pest for tomato plants. The combination of marigolds and tomato plants is used by backyard farmers everywhere and by most farmers in Cuba. Many organoponicos plant garlic, onions, and certain herbs around and within plant beds to prevent insects from invading the bed. Garlic is an ideal companion plant for tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, cabbage, broccoli, kale, and carrots. Garlic repels aphids as well, and the plant is capable of amassing sulfur, which is a natural fungicide (Vanderlinden 2012). In the extensive network of urban farms in Cuba, employing plants for biological control is necessitated and well substituted for entomophagous insects.

The progress Cuba has made in agriculture since the collapse of the Soviet Union has proven to the world that sustainable agriculture in not unattainable. Through implementation of comprehensive farming practices, such as those encompassed in Integrated Pest Management and biological control, the country has been able to keep farms once founded on the principles of conventional agriculture operating. The country does receive criticism, as 80% of its food needs are still imported (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012). Some observers believe that if given the resources, Cuba would quickly return to a pesticide, herbicide, and synthetic fertilizer based system of production. In recent years Cuba has created political and financial alliances with Venezuela and China (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012). Cuba’s relationship with Venezuela has opened up trade for oil once again, one of the most important inputs needed for making pesticides and fertilizers. While Cuba continues its path to recovery after the Special Period, many are watching to see how Cuba’s policies on sustainable, low input agriculture will develop.

References:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2012. Agri-Food Past, Present and Future Report: Cuba [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/lat/4678-eng.htm

Alvarez J. 2004. Transformations in Cuban Agriculture After 1959 [Internet]. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida IFAS Extension; [cited 10 June 2012]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe481

Delaplane KS. 2002. Pesticide Usage in the United States: History, Benefits, Risks, and Trends. Athens, GA: Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.

Diáz JO. 2003. Biopesticides in Cuban Agriculture. In: Roettger U, Muschler R, editors. International Symposium on Biopesticides for Developing Countries. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigavion y Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica. p 29-36

Fernández-Larrea Vega O. 1999. A review of Bacillus thuringienis (Bt) production and use in Cuba. Biocontrol News and Information 20:47-48.

Funes F, Garcia L, Bourque M, Perez N, Rosset P, eds. 2002. Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba. Food First Books p. 110-111.

Hoffmann MP, Frodsham AC. 1993. Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. p 63.

Korada RR, Naskar SK, Palaniswami MS, Ray RC. 2010. Management of sweetpotato weevil [Cylas formicarius (Fab.)]: an overview. Journal of Root Crops 36:14–26.

León JJ. 2012. [Lecturer] A Briefing on Cuban Agriculture.

Presented on May 2, 2012.

Martin JL, Mau RFL. 2007. Thrips Palmi [Internet]. University of Hawaii; [cited 10 June 2012]. Available from: http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/Kbase/Crop/Type/t_palmi.htm

Mears LG. 1962. Agriculture and Food Situation in Cuba. ERS-Foreign 28, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Nicholls CI, Perez N, Vasquez L, Altieri MA. 2002. The development and status of biologically based integrated pest management in Cuba. IPM Reviews 7:1-16.

Oppenheim S. 2001. Alternative agriculture in Cuba. American Entomologist. 47:216–27.

Penn State Community Garden. 2012. Intercropping, Companion Planting, and Intensive Gardening [Internet]. Penn State University; [cited 2012 June 10]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/a/psu.edu/community-garden/intercropping-and-companion-planting

Rosset P, Cunningham S. 1995. The Greening of Cuba. Earth Island Journal 10:23.

Taboulchanas K. 2000. Case Study in Urban Agriculture: Organiponicos in Cienfuegos, Cuba [Internet]. [cited 2012 June 10]. Available from: http://dp.biology.dal.ca/reports/ztaboulchanas/taboulchanasst.html#toc

US Department of State. 1992. TITLE XVII – Cuban Democracy Act of 1992. Retrieved from: http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html

US Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. Pesticides: Health and Safety. [updated 2012 May 9 / cited 2012 June 10]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/ipm.htm

US Environmental Protection Agency. [Internet]. Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets. [updated 2012 May 9 / cited 2012 June 10]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm

Vanderlinden C. 2012. Best and Worst Companion Plants for Garlic [Internet]. About.com; [cited 10 June 2012]. Available from: http://organicgardening.about.com/od/vegetablesherbs/qt/Best-And-Worst-Companion-Plants-For-Garlic.htm

Warwick H. 1999. Cuba’s Organic Revolution. The Ecologist 29:457-460.

by Erica Romkema

Greenbank Farm’s collection of red buildings springs up from the slim green stretch that is Whidbey Island. North and a leap over the Puget Sound from Seattle, Washington, the farm brings together wild nature and agriculture, hikers and farmers, herons and hens. It hosts artists and eaters and learners of all kinds. Jessica Babcock, farm manager and instructor at the Agriculture Training Center, took some time out of the busyness of spring to share some thoughts and snapshots from this multi-faceted, dynamic place.

 ER: Tell us a little about Greenbank Farm and your role there.

JB: Greenbank Farm is a fantastic example of different groups coming together to save a cherished community resource. The Greenbank Farm property, once the largest loganberry farm in the U.S., was slated to be sold to developers in 1995. The community worked for the next two years to find a solution. In 1997 a consortium of the Port of Coupeville, Island County, and The Nature Conservancy bought the property.

The Ag Training Center was established in 2008 in order to teach sustainable agriculture methods at different scales.  The Ag Training Center encompasses several different programs, all of which are included under our organic certification: the Organic Farm School, Organic Seed Project, Market Gardens (plots leased to commercial growers), P-Patch (community garden spaces), and livestock pasture.

ER: Can you share more about the Organic Farm School in particular?

JB: The Organic Farm School is a key component of the Ag Training Center. It is a 7.5-month residential program in which students learn to be organic farmers by being organic farmers. We like to say we have a triple bottom line–growing farmers, food, and community. The students cooperatively manage the 8-acre farm with an emphasis is on small-scale, diversified vegetable production.  We also delve into broilers, bees, goats/sheep, and organic seed production.

The students manage a 75-member CSA, run a booth at the Coupeville Farmers Market, and sell to two local grocery stores.

ER: What are key skills and subjects taught at the farm school? What’s the curriculum, timeline, etc.? 

JB: Students arrive in early March and stay through the end of October.  We spend about 30 hours each week out in the field learning by doing.  There are two classroom lectures each week, one on an organic farming skill (soil fertility, crop rotations, etc.) and the other on direct marketing and small farm viability (CSA administration, business planning, etc.).  We also go on field trips to other area farms to learn about the amazing array of farming methods being implemented on farms in our area.

ER: Why should someone attend the school?

JB: The statistics are scary. Daunting. Terrifying even. So many small farms fail. During the first week of class I teach about the history of agriculture in the U.S. (consolidation, concentration, industrialization) and the challenges facing small farmers today (limited access to land, capital, know-how). I watch their eyes widen in alarm. I imagine them thinking, “Wait a minute, do I really want to be a farmer?!“ But THAT is why they come to the program. To learn if they really want to be a farmer. And if the answer is yes–and it usually is–to learn how to farm wisely. To develop the skills and knowledge and decision-making tools necessary for their farm to not just survive but thrive.

The confidence to make sound decisions regarding a farm business is quite possibly the most important tool the Organic Farm School can impart to students. There are many ways to learn hands-on farming skills. There are classes that teach about direct marketing. There are business planning courses. But to have all of these things in one program while simultaneously cultivating the thought processes that are the foundation of every smart farming decision–this is the single most important gift the students leave the program with. They finish the program with the confidence to say, “I know farming is difficult, but I have the tools to meet each challenge as it comes my way.”

The Organic Farm School also invests in its students past their first growing season. We encourage students to stay on the farm for another year to participate in our incubator program. They lease plots at the farm under our organic certification; they have access to our tools, equipment, and knowledge; and they start their own farm business without so much of the risk of going off on their own.

ER: What do you hope students will gain / what are things that seem especially needed skills/knowledge in our changing agricultural environment?

JB: In addition to the confidence and decision-making tools that I hope to impart to the students, I also want to help them learn how to think outside the box. There are so many diverse marketing opportunities, crops, and value-added options for farms of this scale. I want to get students thinking about what their farm/life goals actually are and then help them work toward those goals.

In this same vein, organic seed production is especially close to my heart. There is a crippling shortage of organic seed; demand far outreaches supply. This has the potential to be an important component of small-scale organic farm income. As part of the Ag Training Center’s Organic Seed Project, students learn the ins and outs of organic seed production, including navigating contracts with organic seed companies.

ER: I noticed that in addition to practicing agriculture, Greenbank Farm puts emphasis on local commerce, recreation, and natural resource stewardship. Could you talk about how these things work together?

JB: Greenbank Farm is a mecca of community involvement. Every day you can see many people out using the hiking trails, shopping at the art galleries, eating at the Pie Cafe, and birding in the wetland. The farm itself is a diverse place (wetland, forest, open space, agriculture), and we seek to enrich the diversity of the human activities that go on there. We believe that all of these things–local commerce, recreation, natural resource stewardship, and agriculture can work together to create a stronger whole.  For example, we farm in such a way that enhances the local ecosystem, which draws in recreationists and tourists, which in turn helps the local businesses at the farm.  Our goal is for all of the pieces to work in concert to create a stronger whole.

ER: What advice would you have for someone considering attending farm school and/or going into farming in general?

JB: My advice for someone considering farming as a profession (or for anyone considering any profession) is to do your homework. What are your goals (life, business, family)? What knowledge/experience do you already have? Where are the gaps in your knowledge? How can you go about filling those gaps?

If you think a farm school might be the ticket, visit the farm and talk to the farmers! Every farm school program has differences–program emphasis, size, climate, etc.–get a feel for what works for you. The Organic Farm School at Greenbank Farm is small and focuses on one-on-one personal attention as well as very hands-on farm management. We invest in our students beyond the first farm season. We have a long, cool growing season that presents unique opportunities and challenges. And last, but definitely not least, we’re located in one of the most beautiful spots in the world!

 To learn more about Greenbank Farm and the Organic Farm School, visit their website. <www.greenbankfarm.biz.>

by Dan Hughes

Hügelkultur, translated literally from german, means ‘mound culture.’ More specifically, it is the use of rotted wood and other organic materials to create low-input raised beds that are highly water retentive and self-feeding. It is a method that is based on the simple principles of decomposition that, when done properly, provides nutrients to the plants without the need to add externally acquired fertilizers for years while at the same time holding what water they receive for extended periods. They are therefore well suited to dry climates and production in areas where fertilizers are not desired, aren’t accessible or are prohibitively expensive. In the following pages, I will demonstrate just how this method can be used in virtually any area to create permaculture beds that are essentially self sustaining indefinitely with the proper care and cultivation.

Hugelkultur beds are little different from other raised beds in composition apart from one key difference: the beds are built on top of a stockpile of rotted wood and other composting biomass, be it duff, leaves, wood chips or whatever else may be on hand. Because of the large mass of all this, the beds will necessarily be built high and so are most often the site for the bed is dug out a few feet. The depth to which the troughs are dug is determined by preference, the amount of time and effort one is willing to spend in building the bed (though this part is obviously greatly facilitated by the aid of heavy digging equipment), how hard the soil is and so on. For example, were you to want to make a hugelkultur bed in a neighborhood where there are restrictions regarding the appearance of a yard, it is possible to make the bed rise only a foot off the ground when in reality it may reach as far down as six feet. Most sources recommend a total height of at least four feet and ideally around six feet when the beds are completed, especially since much of this height will be lost in the first couple of years as the organic materials break down and thus compact slightly. If appearance is not an issue or there is only a limited amount of wood and organic materials available, it is perfectly suitable to simply build your beds on top of the existing ground level although you will then have to import soil from elsewhere. Typically the troughs are dug to a depth of about two to three feet with the soil and sod set aside separately, filled in with the rotted wood and other biomass, covered with the turf inverted so the soil side is up and then covered again with the remaining soil. After this, the beds are ready to be planted; indeed, as we will see later, there is good cause to plant the beds immediately.

The process that makes hugelkultur work is no mystery. The key is the stockpile of organic material created underneath the bed. According to Sepp Holzer, the preeminent authority on all matters permaculture, the wood acts as a sponge, holding in what water falls on the bed as well as drawing moisture up from the ground. As the wood decomposes its nutrients are fed directly into the soil of the bed while simultaneously providing food for microbes and nematodes (2011). Paul Wheaton of Richsoil.com states that the shrinking that occurs as the wood breaks down will, over time, create air pockets that promote strong root growth and loosen the soil which makes tillage all but unnecessary (Wheaton, n.d.).

One of the best attributes of hugelkultur is its versatility. It is possible to use a huge variety of materials, locations, soil types and so on when making a hugelkutlur bed. There are, however, a few considerations that should always be made before building one. Location is the first and foremost of these. One should take several factors into account when choosing a site for the bed. Sunlight, as always, is the foremost of these, and as such the beds should be oriented to maximize sunlight throughout the day. A bed that runs north to south would create an optimal conditions for most plants, but if you wished to grow plants that needed indirect light, an east-west orientation would give you one side that received less light through the course of the day. Holzer also recommends that the prevailing wind direction be determined and a tall bed planted in tall, hardy plants such as berry bushes, jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosus), or even fruit trees to create a windbreak, thus preventing soil compaction in other beds from constant wind (2011). Slope is another important consideration, and if the beds are to be built on a sloping surface it is perhaps the most crucial. This is because the beds are so absorptive that if they are not oriented properly with the flow of water, they will become over saturated. According to Holzer, beds should be neither parallel nor perpendicular to the slope of the hill but rather “…determined by the course the rainwater takes down the slope”  (2011). Were your beds to run perpendicular to the slope then those at the top would catch all the water, leaving those at the bottom deprived and dry. If the opposite orientation is employed, the water would simply sheet down the hill which could lead to massive soil sloughing and even landslides. Therefore, what Holzer is suggesting is that you take note of which way the water flows and then position the beds on a slight bias to the slope with offset breaks between them. This way the water will flow down along the sides of the bed allowing them to absorb some but all until it reaches the end of the bed and then passes through the break, down to the next row of beds, thus evenly distributing the water between all beds while slowing its roll down the hill. Accessibility is another factor worth going into. The placement of your beds should be in an area that is easily reached and that can accommodate the desired length and height of your beds with plenty of room between them and on the ends to facilitate plantings and harvests.

Once you’ve chosen the appropriate location for your beds, it’s time to start digging. It should be noted here that it is not entirely necessary to dig out trenches for your beds, but it is highly recommended for a couple of reasons. Firstly, digging will create a stockpile of soil that would otherwise have to be brought in from elsewhere. Secondly, digging troughs will create beds that are of a shorter final height. Due to the nature of hugelkultur, the more organic material that is buried in the bed, the better it will perform over a longer period of time. Wheaton suggests beds that are at least six feet (2m) in total height (Wheaton, n.d.), but the above ground height will ultimately be determined by the depth to which your trenches are dug. For example, if you wanted to create beds that are a total of six foot (2m) but only rose above the ground three feet (1m), then you would want to dig down 3 feet (1m). It is in this way that huglekultur can be made to conform to neighborhood restrictions or personal preference. The beds can, of course, be shorter, as any amount of buried organic material and wood will aid in the growth of the bed. However, the greater the percentage of the bed that is buried the less arable surface area present in the bed. That is why Holzer, Wheaton and others suggest that you dig 1 1/2 – 2 feet out and build up to a height of 4 1/2 – 4 foot above ground, totaling 6 feet (2011, n,d.). Using heavy machinery for digging and moving the rotted wood, soil and other organic material will obviously speed up the process but it is not necessary, especially for smaller beds.

After the troughs have been dug, you can start filling them in with the rotted wood. Wheaton posits that it is important to use wood that has been rotting for at least a year primarily because if freshly cut wood is used, it will rob much needed from the soil as it decomposes. Therefore, the more rotted the wood, the better as this will not only prevent nitrogen robbing but will also essentially inoculate your bed with microbes, fungus and bacteria needed for the decomposition process that makes the whole thing work so well (n.d.) One must also put thought into the types of wood that are used, as certain species are well suited to the task while others must be avoided due to their negative (for this application at least) attributes. Cedar, ailanthus black walnut are no good because they are allelopathic (meaning that they produce biochemicals that can negatively effect the growth of other plants). Locust is far too rot-resistant to be effective. The best woods for hugelkultur, according to Wheaton, include but are not limited to: alders, applewood, cottonwood, poplar, maple and birch (n.d.). Conventional wisdom would have it that the harder/denser the wood, the worse it is for this purpose as it would be slow to break down, and indeed there is a good deal of debate on this matter on the internet with some purporting that the slower the wood breaks down, the longer the bed lasts and others saying that this slower breakdown will negate the reason for using the wood in the first place. For the purposes of this article, I will advise that you should use what is most readily available to you without using species like the ones listed above that will retard the growth of your plants. There are myriad considerations to be made here (acidity levels in the soil and wood, allelopathic properties, whether or not the pieces of wood will create new growth, etc.) and each region is different in an equally large amount of ways, namely in species diversity. So ask around, do a little research and find out which woods will be best suited to your climate, soil type, what species of trees are abundant in your area, the types of plants you want to grow in the beds and so on. The beauty of hugelkultur is its adaptability. You don’t actually have to use wood at all, though your beds will be substantially more effective if you do.

It is advisable to lay some of your rotted wood in vertically, as this will aid in wicking moisture upward to your plants. Additionally, I never think that it’s a bad idea to inoculate any type of bed with effective microorganisms, mycorrhizae, or some of the various beneficial worm species. The wood should be mounded neatly and tightly but not without gaps and spaces for dirt to fill in. Holzer maintains that beds should be tall and angled at least 45 degrees as flatter beds will over time become compacted and “…the process of decomposition is interrupted and … an anaerobic sludge can build up, which has a negative effect on plants.” He further suggests that you can slightly terrace the sides of such steeply angled beds to ease planting and harvesting (2011). Once this is done, you can cover your wood with any excess organic material you may have on hand such as leaves, wood chips, straw, manure or compost. After the innards of the beds are built, you are ready to apply the final layers. If the area that was dug out had grass or turf, most people advise that you put it on with the grass side down to create structure and add to the organic material available for decomposition. On top of this you make a final layer with the dirt that came from digging the troughs. Wheaton suggests that the best soil be separated from the rest to be used on the outermost layer, or you can apply whatever amendments you may have on hand to improve the quality of the soil (n.d.). As you pile the dirt on that you water it so that it will hold its shape better. Once all this is done, you are ready to start planting.

Holzer, among others, stress the importance of being ready to plant as soon as you are finished building the beds. This is because the soil will still be loose, aiding in quick root growth and helping to prevent seeds from blowing away in the wind or washing out with rain, and as such, you should not overly smooth the surface of the beds in order to preserve these optimal conditions (2011). When choosing what plants to put in your beds, there are again many things to take into account. The first of these of course is the climactic restrictions of your region. For the most part, you will grow the same plants in a hugelkultur bed as you might in any other bed. It will be possible, however, to grow plants that require more water than if they were to be planted in the ground. This is because of the incredible absorptive powers of the wood and organic materials in hugelkutlur beds. Not only will they hold water for longer periods of time than other beds, but they will actually hold more, thus enabling you to grow plants that might not otherwise be feasible in your region without massive irrigation (Holzer, 2011). Wheaton also claims that the warming of the beds in the initial few years actually enable you to extend your growing season as the soil will be warmed from within (n.d.). Though the choice in plants ultimately comes down to what you wish to grow, as with any permaculture scenario it is always to have a well thought out and diverse array of species that will complement one another in their growth. It is also important to think about planting deep rooted perennials for two reasons: one because they will add to the overall structural soundness of the bed but also because their long roots will draw moisture up to the benefit of other, shallower rooted plants. Another important factor to bear in mind is decomposition level of the organic material used in the bed previous to building. If your materials are small and only slightly composted, then you can expect high levels of nutrient release in the first few seasons and so you should plant accordingly with high demand plants such as cucurbits, night shades, and apiaceae (Holzer, 2011). You can then move on to less demanding plants like legumes (even better as they will fix nitrogen and add to the fertility of the bed) in later years. Mulch crops are also recommendable, and these again will be determined by all of the factors stated above. Strawberries are a good example, as they spread easily, are good for shading out the ground beneath, are hardy enough to be cut back to make room for planting and have the added value of producing an edible fruit. It will also be to your advantage to plant a resilient cover in the aisles between your beds; something that can withstand foot traffic but at the same time keep the soil in place.

Again, the best part of hugelkultur is how open-ended it is at every turn. As long as the basic principles are in place, then chances are your beds will flourish. Hugelkultur may afford those who have little water a viable option for growing much more than they could without the massive water storage capacity of the wood. It also creates an excellent use for wood and other biomass that might simply go to waste otherwise. If nothing else, it provides an interesting experiment that is a great alternative to normal raised bed gardening. This article really only scratches the surface of possibilities regarding hugelkultur. Its applications and variations are seemingly endless, they need only be implemented and, of course, shared with the world.

 For more information, refer to the cited materials as well as the many on-farm trials and blogs that abound on the internet. 

CITED SOURCES:

Wheaton, P. (n.d.). Hugelkultur: The ultimate raised garden beds. website: http://www.richsoil.com/hugelkultur/

Holzer, S. (2011). Sepp holzer’s permaculture: A practical guide to small-scale, integrative farming and gardening.Retrieved from http://www.krameterhof.at/pdf/presse/permaculture-pm68.pdf

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

1. http://www.permies.com/t/17/hugelkultur/hugelkultur
2. http://permaculture.org.au/2012/01/04/hugelkultur-composting-whole-trees-with-ease/#more-6825
3. http://communities.ic.org/articles/1507/Hugelkultur_on_the_Prairie_or_Learning_from_Our_Mistakes

by Vanessa Ventola

Hand in hand with the growth of public interest in local and organic produce is the increase in urban farms, community gardens, and backyard vegetable plots. Unfortunately, plants grown for consumption in the urban environment may contain a unique set of potential health hazards. Soil contamination by lead and other heavy metals can be present depending on exposure to air pollution, water pollution, and prior use of the land (Houlihan Turner 2009).

I became interested in the subject of potential contamination of urban soils after a visit to the Brooklyn Grange by Professor Tom Whitlow. He is a member of Cornell University’s Department of Horticulture, and has been conducting a research project at the Grange. His current project involves testing rain water samples for heavy metal particulates, as a way of measuring the safety of growing vegetables in an urban environment. To complete this project  he hopes to compare his findings to the results of samplings in rural areas. Since I have been interning at an urban farm, and supporting the urban agriculture movement whole heartedly, I wanted to inform myself about the possibility of lead making its way into the fruits and vegetables grown in cities.

The heavy metal worrying most consumers and growers of city grown produce is lead. While high doses of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, and even a coma or death, it is unlikely that this sort of exposure would be relevant to urban agriculture. Ingesting small amounts of lead that has been taken up or deposited on the fruit or vegetable is a possibility. Low doses of lead is know to result in anemia, nervous system damage, headaches, constipation and fatigue. When lead enters the human body it travels in the bloodstream and may deposit in tissues and, more likely, in bone. It does not readily degrade (the chemical’s half life is 25 years), and so it stays in the body for an extensive period of time (Health Canada 2007). Lead is especially dangerous for small children and babies as it can effect mental development.

Lead was once used in paints and in gasoline. In Canada and the United States, lead paints are no longer used because of the serious health risks. Dust containing traces of the paint can be inhaled, and small children sometimes eat lead paint chips do to their sweet taste. Lead paint has been banned since 1978 in the U.S. (EPA 2011). Yet, any older buildings still contain lead paint, and plots where buildings once were may have remains of lead paint chips or lead plumbing.

Prior to the early 1970s gasoline contained lead additives as a lubricant for engine valves, so car exhaust was a major source of lead particulates in the air and environment. With new engine developments in the 1970s, lead additives were no longer necessary and unleaded gasoline became more commonly used. In 1990 Canada banned leaded gasoline in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Health Canada 2009). In 1996 the U.S. banned leaded gasoline as a stipulation of the Clean Air Acts Amendment of 1990 (EPA 1995). Airborne lead particulates have dropped dramatically in the U.S. and Canada. Other countries, especially those using older models of cars, still use leaded gas.

Lead particulates do not just disappear over time. Some will have dispersed, but some accumulate in soils. Lead from car exhaust remains mostly contained to 100 meters from the road. Soils near high traffic areas, or older construction sites should always be checked for lead content. Rooftop farms are generally an exception to this. Most rooftop farms have new soil purchased from a farm supply store. While the soil will not have elevated lead levels from sitting in urban pollution, these new soils may still be exposed to lead and heavy metal contamination as rain drops collect lead particulates in the air and carries them into the soil. This is what the research of Professor Whitlow is examining. Interestingly, he found that there were ten times less heavy metal particulates in the air at the Brooklyn Grange, six stories above ground level, than at the busy street level of Northern Boulevard in Queens, New York (Whitlow 2012). Us rooftop farmers were breathing easy with this news.

Uncontaminated soils in an untouched environment have a naturally occurring lead concentration of 20-50 parts per million. Typical urban soils fall in the elevated range of 50-200 parts per million. The United State’s EPA has published Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs), which are “concentrations of contaminants in soil that are protective of ecological receptors that commonly come into contact with and/or consume biota that live in or on soil” (EPA 2005). The EPA’s researcher collected hundreds of papers about Eco-SSLs for different conditions, such a species type, soil pH, and type of soil contamination. Papers which represented extraneous situations were dismissed (such as those where the organism was exposed to contaminants in a manner other than normal ingestion or uptake, or if the study was conducted on a known toxic area), and an average of the applicable paper’s proposed Eco-SSLs is what the EPA reported. These values exist for plants, bugs, birds, and mammals. The Eco-SSL for terrestrial plants was found to be 120 ppm for lead (EPA 2005). However, Eco-SSLs are a guideline and not a regulation. To open a community garden or urban farm there is currently no requirement that soils be tested and approved by a government or private regulatory company beforehand.

Just because a soil is contaminated with lead, or other heavy metals, it does not mean the land cannot be used for urban farming and gardening. Soil amendments can be used to decrease the bioavailability of lead. Lead is more soluble at lower, acidic pH levels. Adding phosphate to soil will raise the pH and make lead (and mercury, cadmium, nickel, copper, zinc, chromium, and manganese) less available to plants. Arsenic, molybdenum, selenium, and boron are metals which are more soluble at a high pH, so it is really important to know what metals are in soil before treating it to avoid accidently creating another potential plant contaminant (Muckel 2004). Liming is another method to raise the pH of soil. Using calcite limestone will add calcium to the soil, and dolomite limestone will add both calcium and magnesium. An organic method of liming is to use ground oyster shells (Mitchell 2012). The Brooklyn Grange uses oyster shells from swanky dinner parties on the roof to add calcium to their soil and keep pH levels elevated.

An alternate approach to dealing with lead contaminated soils is to grow produce which is less susceptible to lead uptake or deposition. Leafy vegetables and those with a long growing period are most likely to accumulate lead (Armar-Klemesu 2000). Leafy vegetables become contaminated through deposition from the air, or from rain. Washing your greens before cooking or consuming can lower the risk of ingesting lead by up to 73%. This shows that the minority of lead contamination is through uptake by the roots (Nabulo 2012).  Root vegetables may also have elevated lead concentrations, but this is do to direct contact with the soil, as opposed to the roots having absorbed the lead (Rosen 2012). According to Armar-Klemesu “Celery, parsley, leek, lettuce, spinach, carrots, beets and radishes are not advisable to cultivate on heavily polluted soils, on account of their high uptake of heavy metals and nitrate. Gourds, onions, garlic and fruit trees and shrubs offer lower risks.” As a general rule of thumb, the order of highest lead levels to lowest lead levels is leaves, roots, fruits, and seeds (Massadeh 2011).

For those involved in community gardening or urban farming, assessing the risk of lead exposure can be difficult. Many urban growing areas are within 100 meters of high traffic areas, putting them at serious risk for lead heavy soils, yet it is not common for these soils to be tested or treated accordingly. As a consumer of local, city produce this research has not deterred me from continuing to support urban agriculture. Only limited amounts of lead particulates actually accumulate within the plant, with most lead contamination being on the leaves and roots from direct exposure to lead in the air, rain, and soil. It is comforting to know that with proper testing, soil treatment, and plant planning lead should be of little concern for urban produce. However, I believe that washing local, organic produce is not stressed, and that many people believe that since it is pesticide and herbicide free it is not necessary to do so. City farmers, and especially gardeners, are not strategizing to reduce the risk of their plants taking up lead, but hopefully in the future these practices will become more widespread.

References

Armar-Klemesu M. 2000. Thematic Paper 4: Urban Agriculture and Food Security, Nutrition and Health. In: N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw (eds.) (2000) Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, pp. 99-117, DSE, Feldafing. Available from: http://www.ruaf.org/node/58

Health Canada [internet]. 2007. Lead and Health. [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contaminants/lead-plomb-eng.php#a4

Health Canada [internet]. 2009. Lead Information Package – Some Commonly Asked Questions About Lead and Human Health. [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/contaminants/lead-plomb/asked_questions-questions_posees-eng.php#sources

Houlihan Turner A. 2009. Urban Agriculture and Soil Contamination: An Introduction to Urban Gardening. Kentucky: University of Louisville; [cited 24 August 2012]. Available from:  http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/practice-guides-1/PG25%20-%20Urban%20Agriculture%20-%20Soil%20Contamination.pdf/at_download/file

Kloot JVD. 2010. Brownfields and Urban Agriculture Reuse Webinar #1: The State of Scientific Knowledge and Research Needs [internet]. United States Environmental Protection Agency; [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/urbanag/webinar1_transcript.htm

Massadeh AM, Baker HM, Obeidat MM, Shakatreh SK, Obeidat BA, Abu-Nameh ES. 2011. Analysis of Lead and Cadmium in Selected Leafy and Non-Leafy Edible Vegetables Using Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal 20(3):306-314.

Mitchell CC. Soil Acidity and Liming (Overview) [internet]. South Carolina: Clemson University; [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/acidity2_review.html

Muckel GB (editor). 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property. A report by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln Nebraska. Available from: http://nature.nps.gov/geology/soils/Understanding%20Soil%20Risks%20and%20Hazards.pdf

Nabulo G, Black CR, Craigon J, Young SD. 2012. Does consumption of leafy vegetables grown in peri-urban agriculture pose a risk to human health?. Environmental Pollution, Volume 162, Pages 389-398, ISSN 0269-7491, 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.11.040. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749111006580

Rosen CJ. 2010. Lead in the Home Garden and Urban Soil Environment. [internet]. University of Minnesota: Department of Soil, Water, and Climate; [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/DG2543.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency [internet]. 1995. Leaded Gas Phaseout. [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/webpage/Leaded+Gas+Phaseout

United States Environmental Protection Agency [internet]. 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Washington D.C.; [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl_lead.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency [internet]. 2011. EPA Region 4 Lead Based Paint Priogram. [cited 2012 August 24]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/lead/

Additional References

Whitlow TH. Personal Communications. August 2012.

by Lady Spirit Moon, CB, CN, MH

Commercial beekeepers keep from 100 to over several thousand beehives for pollinating and creating nucs (a small colony of bees with a queen), usually treating Varroa mites with harsh chemicals, such as fluvalinate and coumaphos. These affect the queens (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493-95.1.28). Both build up in the wax, and both cause problems for the bees and contaminate the hive. Some commercial beekeepers may use essential oils, such as Thymol. Synthetic chemicals of any kind upset the bacterial balance bees need in the hive. There are hobbyist beekeepers keeping anywhere from one to twenty or more hives; and some of those may use harsh chemicals or essential oils. Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) defines natural beekeeping as using organic chemicals in the hive, i.e.: oxalic acid and formic acid, essential oils, powder sugar, etc. What sets me apart is my being in a growing group of Natural Beekeepers. I don’t treat my bees with anything. If the bees don’t take it through the front door, I don’t put it into the hive. Watching my bees over the years I have learned they can take care of themselves as long as I assist in keeping them healthy. A healthy hive will take care of itself, including pests and diseases. I now have about 17 hives in my two yards, where my bees are resistant to pests and diseases.

They are not, however, resistant to chemicals. Studies have shown bees don’t fatten up in farming communities growing commercial GMO crops where they are using three classes of neonicotinoid pesticides: clothianidin (http://grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents-show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide/), thiametoxam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamethoxam), and imidacloprid (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120405224653.htm). All three of these chemicals are sprayed on GMO crops: corn, soybean, cotton, rape, sugar beets, etc. Clothianidin is used in the coating of corn seeds, especially GMO. These and more studies indicate how neonicotinoids are killing the honeybees and other pollinators, worldwide. The chemicals rise up through the plants into the nectar and pollen for bees to harvest. The bees gather and store the nectar and pollen to feed the young in the next spring. Some are saying these chemicals are one of the leading causes of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which can be defined as a hive full of bees disappearing without cause or evidence.

Neonicotinoids affect the bees’ nervous systems and learning abilities. The forager will go out to collect pollen and nectar, but will forget how to come back, causing the colony to dwindle down to nothing. The chemicals also affect the queen. A queen lays on the average of 2,000 eggs a day; but I watched one march across the honeycomb for three months, acting drunk, without laying one egg. I never had problems until a farmer increased his GMO crop of corn. Apiary 2 is located within 2000 feet of his corn crops and suffered a 3-hive loss in the spring of 2012. At the same time Apiary 1 suffered a 2-hive loss. There are other illnesses causing hive loses, but there are usually evidences indicating the cause or the bees can be tested in a lab.

The honeybees, and many other pollinators around the world, are in a global crisis because of major losses each year. I feel the honeybee is trying to evolve and man is not letting them by over managing the bees; constantly moving them for pollinating purposes; using chemicals which upsets the bacterial balance in the hive; etc. If bees are not happy they will leave/swarm. When keeping bees I always keep a visual image of a tree, which is where honeybees usually (I used ‘usually’ because they will reside wherever the scout bee figures there is enough room, which could be inside a house, barn, eaves, swarm boxes, etc. Anywhere they can reside is natural to them.) reside. They are alone, where no animals can reach them other than those living in the trees. The animals know to leave the bees alone because bees sting anything wearing fur or something dark. The leaves protect the hive from the elements and intense sun. And bees don’t move their kitchen of stores around or swap out their brood frames, or anything else humans do to the hive. They will create queens so the old one can swarm with part of the hive. This is their natural way of making sure their race continues in the grand scheme of things. They will requeen if the old one is no longer laying eggs as she should, or if the queen dies for some reason or another. Part of their mystique is sometimes that they get notional and kill their queen for reasons we may not always understand.

I plan to expand to about 30 hives and into a 3^rd apiary by the spring of 2013. I use diverse genetics by placing my nucs where there are feral hives, trading a nuc from another apiary, or getting nucs from another source within a 100-mile radius, if I know their genetics and the breeder. There are a few of us giving a hive to another on the condition they get the mated daughter back. There are only a few breeders selling queens all over the country. This only weakens the stock strain for future generations. Another thing weakening bees is feeding them sugar water. As an Apitherapist and Nutrition Consultant, I can tell you sugar has no value in the way of vitamins or minerals. After the honey harvest in late summer, some beekeepers feed sugar syrup to their bees. That sugar water is stored as honey for feeding when the queen starts laying eggs after the winter solstice. Honey is the bees’ prebiotic. A prebiotic is a nondigestible food ingredient that promotes the growth of beneficial microorganisms in the intestines.  For humans they are fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The bees collect pollen and crush it if they can. They then add lactic acid to the honey placed on top of the pollen. As the honey sinks down through the pollen, the combination becomes beebread as it ferments over time and becomes their probiotic. A probiotic is a preparation (as a dietary supplement) containing live bacteria (as lactobacilli) that is taken orally to restore beneficial bacteria to the body; also: a bacterium of such a preparation. Much like a yogurt product is our probiotic, having lactobacillus. Bees have lactobicillicus in their gut. And just like humans, the lack of probiotics compromises their digestive tract. In honeybees, it causes Nosema (a bee’s diarrhea), which in turn lowers their autoimmune system. Bees and humans both have lactobacillus in their guts and if the bad bacterium feeds first, the gut suffers. Both humans and bees need pre-& pro-probiotics for the same reasons.

Calming bees with smoke is a myth. When a bee smells smoke they think their surrounding area is on fire. They suck up a lot of honey and wait for the fire to get closer to their hive before they swarm. Bees can communicate. I don’t smoke my hives because the smoke stops that communication. My girls tell me when I should be in the hive or out of it. I listen to my girls and always ask, “What can I do for you?” Each hive has a special song in the spring when they are busy increasing the brood and prepping for the first honey flow. I sell nucs with four frames of brood and one frame of honey, with beebread if possible. Each bee has a duty in the hive based on their ages. Young nurse bees taking care of their brood don’t fly out to forage until they are older. The honey and beebread helps the nurse bees feed the young. By the time the young have hatched, the nurse bees have become foragers and there is a mated queen in the hive laying eggs in all five frames. My nucs are expensive at $275 and I don’t sell to anyone who treats their bees. I also don’t ship. My girls create their own queens when needed, so I don’t sell queens.

The honeybee is responsible for 85% of our food because it is the only pollinator in the world maintaining the integrity of our fruits and vegetables by carefully pollinating each plant species. Unlike the bumble bee going from flower to flower with no regard to species, the honeybee stays with each species until pollination is done. Because the honeybee pollinates different kinds of plants, I harvest my honey at the end of the season to be sure I have all the honey and its pollen from a full year’s cycle of plants. This annual harvest is then sold with each jar having the pollen properties to help with allergies the following season. Even then the honey is not sold until after I’m sure my girls have enough to get them through the winter. – I have a large extractor, but there hasn’t been enough honey to warrant using it, so I use the poor man’s method. I crush the wax and let it strain over a tiny-meshed cloth to filter out dead bees and debris. I don’t even use a hot knife to cut off the honey cappings because heat just above body temperature kills enzymes in the honey. The honey I harvest and sell is pure, unadulterated, contains a year’s worth of pollen, and is chemical free.

After harvest and in the winter, I research bees and write about bees. This past winter I started creating a mini-lab in the honey house. A monitoring system will be set up to watch a nuc 24/7. The goal is to learn what goes on in the nuc during all the stages of its development, from creating a colony, making a queen, and cleaning out and prepping cells for new eggs, to honey capping, etc. There are things going on in the hive we still don’t understand. The Center has several professionals hooking a few hives to a monitoring system keeping track of weight, coming/going of bees, hive temperature, stationary viewing the inside of a hive, etc. This will eventually be put on the Center’s website. All research data we collect is free to the public. All funds we get go to research and projects. No one gets paid. We have 50+ volunteers of beekeepers and professionals. As Ambassador for the Center for Honeybee Research I have traveled to Europe and have visited other beekeepers, scientists and professionals in bee labs, and organizations working with beekeepers. I listen to everyone and glean what I can for my bees. But in the end, I listen to my girls. This year I traveled to Senegal, Africa, to teach beekeeping in a partnership program between BEe Healing Org, my business, and the Center. I plan to go back in May, 2013. I have been asked to teach in Haiti when a bee project comes up. I teach and educate through my articles, my website, and other beekeepers in my apiaries. I do mentor other like-minded beekeepers. I write articles for magazines, organizations, and am the editor and writer for the Center’s newsletter. One can sign up for it at www.chbr.org.

BEe loved,
Lady Spirit Moon, CB, CN, MH
Ambassador for the Center
for Honeybee Research

Camphill Village Minnesota (CVM) is part of a worldwide movement of more than 100 intentional communities which strives to initiate social change through living and working with people with special needs. An intentional community is a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. Most Camphill communities have some form of Biodynamic farm or garden in their midst, and CVM embodies this. CVM was founded over 30 years ago, and CVM has grown to include over 50 people living family style in seven houses on 510 acres of land. The farm includes three acres of intensive vegetable production, 110 acres of cultivated fields in rotation, 100 acres of marginal permanent pasture, and 300 acres of swamps, ponds, streams, rivers and forests.

The farm and garden function under the associative economic CSA model where the members of the community (consumers) meet annually with farmers and gardeners (producers) to decide what should be produced, how much should be produced, and what the financial limitations are to meeting these production goals. Excess production is processed in our licensed processing kitchen for future use or sold through local co-ops, wholesale and direct market channels. Currently, the CVM farm and garden supply between 50% – 60% of the food consumed by the community.

The main goals of the community farm are fourfold: to provide meaningful, therapeutic work for the people of the community, to heal the land, to grow farmers and gardeners for the future, and to strive for financial viability. The farm and garden provide the opportunity for the people of the community to co-create with their environment in producing healthy, nutrient dense food. The nature of the work and the consumption of the healthy food are part of the greater therapeutic environment in Camphill. The CVM community strives to operate according to the fundamental social law put forth by Rudolf Steiner where, “the healthy social life is found when in the mirror of each human being the whole community finds its reflection, and when in the community the virtue of each one is living”.

The farm and garden crews provide meaningful work for about ~25 people with a wide range of skills and abilities throughout the year. Animal husbandry, tractor work, milking, weeding, mucking, reeling polywire, and fence repair are just a few of the many things we do on any given day. Rhythm, pace, and social dynamics between crew members are kept in mind to help maintain a positive nature to the land work.relationship between the people, the land, and the work.

Over the past 30+ years many different farm enterprises have come and gone depending on the needs of the community and the interests and/ or skills the people working the land. Currently, we have a cow-calf forage fed beef herd, three dairy cows, 120 laying hens, two sows and one boar for farrow to finishing, turkeys, geese, a horse, and a goat. The farm also grows eight different types of grain for feed, all the hay for the ruminants, and the garden produces over 40 different types of fruits and vegetables.

Biodynamics provides the framework for the CVM farm organism., The method includes bringing in the often times overlooked rhythms of the cosmos that have their subtle effects on living elements of the farm. The zodiac, the sun, the moon, and the outer and inner planets all play a role. Planting and harvesting are done according to the Stella Natura Calendar as much as possible, weather permitting. The Calendar is a detailed schedule for growing Biodynamically and more information can be found at their website. The Biodynamic method also provides us with a series of homeopathic remedies to help improve our soil and produce quality. The 500 and 501 preps are sprayed over all pastures and cultivated land at least twice per year and the compost piles are infused with the homeopathic remedies. Rudolf Steiner provided the Biodynamic method as a set of suggestions to seasoned farmers almost 100 years ago. Though his teachings have become the basis of our methodology, we also try to incorporate newly evolving and old, sturdy biological farming techniques. We view Biodynamics as an amplifier for these new techniques.

The fertility of the farm is the end-all-be-all for the productivity today and determines what the future will inherit, not as simple as just Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium (NPK). This is a multi-prong approach. The soils have been more or less Ph balanced out according to the cation Albrecht-cation method for more than 30over the past 30+ years, using non-synthetically derived amendments approved by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). Because of the light, sandy soils that we are on with low organic matter levels (∆~1.5%), it didn’t take much compared to what it might take to achieve theis same cation (Ca, Mg, K, Na) balance on a heavier soil. Trace elements and/ micronutrients, especially the essential boron and sulfur, are depleted. This is typical in sandy soils where those elements tend to leach without a large grounding clay or humus to help hold them. These elements are being brought in through the animal’s free choice mineral rations and also with trace mineral packs bound with humates broadcast out onto the fields and gardens.

Compost, the true fertility driver, is the farmer’s gold of the operation that is worth its weight in gold to the farmers, and we are constantly trying to improve ours here. During our long winters (sometimes over 6 months) the livestock are housed in deep- bedded, loose housing with outdoor access. We constantly layer in straw from the small grains and sawdust from a local Amish sawmill. These, provide bedding, heat, carbon and nitrogen capture during these cold months. Pigs were brought into the system this year to help with the compost aeration process. This will hopefully produce superior compost, and reduce the fossil fuel bill needed for compost management. Compost wind rows (long rows of compost piled up) and bedding packs are prepped with the Biodynamic preparations in the spring, let to compost over the summer and spread in the late summer and/ early fall as part of the crop rotation. This helps to bring the nutrient cycle full circle. We also currently build small heaps by hand to experiment with different ratios of materials, moisture, and oxygen levels.

Nitrogen is the paradox of our time. Four tons naturally exists above every acre and yet a typical, conventional farm in our area, buys costly synthetic Nitrogen and applies it at an average rate 140 lbs / acre / year. Much of this leeches into groundwater or volatilizes back into the atmosphere. We strive with our legumes and nutrient cycling to help us bring some of this nitrogen sink down to earth and keep it cycling in a living form, but it needs much improvement though. Quicker legume plow-down cycles before they die, additional carbon in the bedding packs, and intermediate catch crops in the crop rotation are methodsways in which we try to grab more nitrogenN from leaching into the groundwater or from volatizing back into the atmosphere. No synthetic nitrogenN is ever brought onto the farm as it is seen as damaging to soil, plant, animal, and human health.

The carbon that the plants and nutrient cycles put into the soil is the fuel for the microbial processes of the soil life and the antithesis of climate change. They make everything available and are the lynchpin for life on the farm. Holistic management, intensive grazing, and biomass plow or graze downs are the chief tools we utilize to return carbon to the soil when it comes to making this happen. Bale grazing on depleted pastures, tall grazing (mob stocking), and mobbing cover crops are ways in which we are trying to bring large amounts of carbon and other nutrients down to the microbes, which in tuern build it into the humus, the nectar for future generations. Cereal winter rye planted in fall and mob grazed down in spring has proved to be a boon for keeping the soil covered over the winter and also in providing the cattle and microbes with an early spring treat. This coming season we will be experimenting with a 20+ species warm season cover crop as a buffet for the cattle and soil microbial life.

Drought is by far our biggest challenge. Over the past 15 years about 10 have been some sort of drought. In ten of the last fifteen years, we have encountered some form of drought. We are trying to focus on the things that we can control with this. Since we can not control the weather, we are trying to focus on the parts of the farm we can control. The farm’s proper stocking rate is constantly being looked at in contrast to the variable of drought. We are trying to focus on building carbon up in the soils, keeping litter and thatch on the ground with the understanding that for every 1% increase in organic matter in the soil there is a two-fold increase in water holding capacity. Yeoman keylines were put in this year to help catch rain on some of the more erodible slopes in the permanent pastures. Through the implementation of as many water conservation strategies as possible and on planning on drought every year, we will be able to be more resilient when confronted with the in evitable forces of drought into the future.

Camphill Village Minnesota is a landscape made by glaciers where the tall grass prairie from the west meets the coniferous forests from the north and the deciduous forest from the south. We are a place that strives for agricultural and social renewal through living and farming in community with people with special needs. We are always looking for short and long term volunteers and farm and garden apprentices. Give us a Call!

Questions by Ryan Sitler

Q: Give the readers a little introduction to you, where you’re from, and what it is you do these days?

Luane: I’m a native born Texan; specifically I grew up on the high plains known as the Panhandle of Texas, in Lubbock, which is about 100 miles east of New Mexico, about 200 miles south of the Panhandle of Oklahoma and a little over 125 miles north of the southern end of the Ogallala aquifer. It is also called the Caprock and it was irrigated cotton country when I was a kid in the 40’s and 50’s. The aquifer was the source of the irrigation water which turned what used to be tall grass prairie country—the grass was so high you couldn’t see over it even on horseback. The Spaniards passing through called it the Llano Estacada—the Staked Plains. I called it Big Sky country because you almost felt like you were under a dome out there and you could see almost 100 miles if the sand wasn’t blowing! It is a low rainfall, low humidity part of the United States. There isn’t much ‘greenery’ in the accepted definition of the word although there is, or can be, abundant growth for the area if you know how to look at it.

After I married in 1963 and started a family we moved to Houston where we lived until 1975 when we moved to Northwest Arkansas, to establish a cattle operation in the Ozarks. I lived on that farm for 25 years until I retired from active farming and moved into the nearest mid sized town in 1998. After a few years of doing not much of anything I decided to get involved in agriculture again as an advocate for those who are working to build a food system different from the industrial model. It seemed to me that there was a need for some of us who support the non industrial, local based food supply concept to be involved in developing a more sustainable way of feeding ourselves and rebuilding the economies of our rural communities.

Q: Describe to me your beginning farming experiences and how they influenced your interest in ecological agriculture.

Luane: It is with humility and respect that I shamelessly borrow the title of Fred Kirschenmann’s latest book – Cultivating an Ecological Conscience – and tweak it to tell my story. Interesting side note: long before I knew him, Fred told a class of graduating high school seniors that, “Education is like a baseball mitt, it extends your reach so you can catch balls you would otherwise miss.” That is a beautiful way to describe how I feel about my life although I would not have thought to use that analogy.

Education, specifically educating myself, has been an important part of my life for as long as I can remember. Lucky for me my parents and my local schools did an excellent job of teaching me how to learn. This has served me well over the years…how to ask the right questions to get useful answers. That skill has opened more doors into worlds to explore than I could have imagined.

About the same time Fred made his baseball mitt analogy I was embarking on a totally new life path, which continues to occupy me today. I had been a typical stay-at-home wife and mother in suburbia. I didn’t even flower garden let alone food garden. I was 35 years old when my husband decided we needed to flee Houston for somewhere less congested and hopefully safer for our two young children. Eventually we wound up on a rundown farm in the Ozarks of Arkansas in 1975. This city bred girl was in a whole new world with a lot to learn in order to live this new life. In some ways I think I am a throwback to the pioneers who left the more or less comfortable life on the Eastern seaboard and headed West into an unknown life in unsettled and somewhat hostile territory. It wasn’t exactly my idea to leave the big city but I said, “Why not!”

I knew nothing about cattle or plants but I am a quick study, which is good because I had to learn on the fly. There was no time for going back to school, but every day was a class in its own way. I used to say it was a good day when I didn’t make many mistakes, I learned more about what worked or didn’t, and nothing died. It is a good thing that I am curious and observant since that was important in the long run.

For the first ten years or so we operated the farm more or less the way the ‘experts’ recommended. The stock got quite a few veterinary type procedures. The land was tilled to establish ‘good’ forages. A lot of fertility and feed was brought in to keep things going. Fortunately my husband had an off-farm income to pay for all this because the operation was negative cash flow. Then in the mid 1980’s the partnership dissolved and the outside cash flow stopped. If I wanted to continue to farm I had to do several things differently.

Let’s be clear about something. I did not start out as a poster child for what you call ecological agriculture…that term was not in use when I started farming, and I didn’t have enough knowledge in the beginning to think about farming in those terms. Like a good number of other people I came to the ecological concept as a way to continue to farm a place I loved but could not afford to maintain the way the traditional experts recommended. I had to find ways to cut my costs while still using the land to provide a cash flow.

In fact, I think we will make more progress attracting new practioners of ‘Nature-mimicking’ agriculture (which is really the way I think about what I was doing; a form of Biomimicry if you will) if we also show that this can make us less dependent on inputs whose price cannot be predicted. In some ways this idea fits into my other attitude. I am a card-carrying member of the Dumpster Divers Club which is another way of saying that I have practiced salvaging things and finding new uses for things most of my life. I think it is fun and it saves money while creating something unique and personal. It is another form of art, and that is also the way I found myself thinking about the end results of my work on my farm. It was a gigantic canvas that Nature painted while I held the brushes and carried the palette.

Q: So how did you learn to do this style of farming and why? Did you have mentors or teachers?

Luane: In a way I had the beginnings of the solution to my problem already available. My stock were Beefmaster cattle, a breed developed by Tom Lasater in South Texas during the hard times of the 1930’s. It was a time when land had almost no resale value, and cattle had very little more. Tom faced a similar situation to the one I found myself in. Necessity forced him to create a herd of cattle selected specifically to live off the land without outside inputs and multiply anyway.

Tom was also one of the first people I actually knew and had talked to about what would come to be known as sustainable, regenerative – essentially organic – food production while developing a land ethic much like what Fred talks about in his book. I still remember Tom saying, “Nature is smarter than all of us. She’ll do all your thinking and most of your work if you’ll just get out of the way”. It is also the least expensive way to run a business based on the fruits of the land. Of course, as Benjamin Franklin might say, “If you can keep it functioning well.” And that is the challenge: you can’t destroy your resource base if you expect to stay in business. In this case the resource base for a livestock operation is the forage on the land. If that base is eroded you can’t keep going.

The Beefmaster people, as an organization, also provided one of the first platforms for Allan Savory in the late 1970’s when he came to the United States after being exiled from Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Charles Probandt, a Beefmaster breeder in San Angelo, TX, introduced Savory to our convention one year as, “That crazy Rhodesian with a hell of a scheme to sell wire.” This was a reference to Savory’s approach to forage management which involved, among other things, tightly controlling where and for how long the stock will be on any given piece of land in order to maintain plant growth and keep the soil covered.

As soon as I started studying Savory’s concept I realized it could be the answer to my need to have the land provide what I needed to continue producing cattle. I believed in Lasater’s hands-off ideas about stock selection, i.e. the stock have to be able to thrive without a lot of veterinary intervention. I also shared his conviction that everything on the land was there for a reason and therefore should not be eliminated without real cause. This means not killing coyotes or prairie dogs or other so-called pests. It also applies to the various ‘weeds’ that so many people try to eliminate. Observation taught me that the cattle took advantage of these unconventional food sources often enough to suggest there was a reason for those plants to be there. A quick search of available literature tells me that many of these weeds contain high amounts of necessary trace minerals not available in the grasses. It would appear the stock know this even if we don’t. I often wondered why the stock didn’t eat as much purchased mineral/vitamin supplement as the salesman said they would. Now I knew. Before supplements the grazers seemed to do quite well eating what the land provided so long as these natural supplements were available. With Savory’s monitored forage management system I believed I had found the only economically sound way to feed the cattle.

It made sense. Both men were letting the ‘nature of your place’ dictate how you managed it. Wendell Berry talks a lot about ‘becoming rooted in your place’, and I think this is how you learn what the nature of your place is — through the power of observation, attention to the details. You were now cooperating with instead of trying to dictate to Nature. More quickly than I could have expected the land and the animals responded to this approach. Almost immediately I was able to feed the stock year round from what grew on the farm. When I stopped trying to create a so called ‘ideal’ environment for the stock and let Nature dictate which ones could live well in spite of the conditions, not because of them, my life got a lot simpler, and the quality of the stock improved noticeably. In the process my life got a whole lot easier. The diversity of plant life over the seasons was amazing. There was always something green and growing no matter the season or weather conditions. And each year things got better.

I remember asking Walt Davis, one of the first producers I had the pleasure of learning from in the early years of my education, if he thought there was a limit on how far you could carry this concept. He said he didn’t think so because you were adding back fertility every season and the land was responding with increased plant growth which meant you needed to increase your harvesting to keep the quality where you wanted it. I can remember thinking, and sometimes saying, that although I knew there was not supposed to be a perpetual motion machine I wasn’t so sure after working with thoughtful, managed forage management using the stock as the tool to harvest and fertilize the plants.

Q: When did you commit yourself to producing agricultural products contrary to the influences of modern chemical agriculture?

Luane: I had used various cattle oriented meetings such as the Arkansas Cattleman’s Association state conventions and a very popular yearly event for cattlemen in a town near me to promote my breeding stock. As I started to get such remarkable results with the land management techniques, I incorporated that information into my displays as well. Once in a while I would also be a presenter at some local cattleman’s meeting. I developed a way of talking about my concepts and results that many producers enjoyed and appreciated. Temple Grandin talks about ‘thinking in pictures’, and I ‘talk in pictures’. It engages the listeners in a way they can remember and relate to. This would be useful later, although I didn’t know it at the time. Always I was promoting the idea of using the resources at hand and reducing input costs in that way. I had come to realize that the only way to stand a chance of making a living on a small scale was to do what Fred calls ‘develop a differentiated product’. I wasn’t big enough to compete in the volume markets. I also knew that my only real control over my business, the same one that exists in almost any other business, was to minimize the input costs. Quit writing checks for things you can do for yourself. By relying on the land to provide the needed soil amendments I could predict what my operating expenses would be from one year to the next without worrying about price increases for input costs, which are very difficult to plan for.

In the early 1990’s I added goats and hair sheep to my livestock inventory. They are compliments to the cattle when it comes to using all the bounty Nature was offering. In many respects this was a way to cooperate with Nature’s plan in that all the animals were grazers but they harvested different plants at different times. It is a substitution of cattle for bison and goats and sheep for deer, antelope, elk, or moose. They work well together. This allowed me to mimic on a small scale what Nature does on a larger scale.

We talk a lot about resistance to implementing this kind of careful management and who is interested or not in what we are doing. Over the years I was surprised that some of the old timers understood exactly what I was suggesting and agreed that it was sound. They would say they wished they had had the ability to do this when they were younger, but the tool that made it economically feasible was the high quality and dependable electric fence which is a relatively new technology. Some of them implemented the ideas. Most did not as they were in the process of retiring.

I don’t remember ever consciously deciding to operate my farm ‘contrary to the influence of modern chemicals’ as a philosophical statement. What I did do was determine what it was costing me out of pocket to use the chemicals and determining that this was something I could change; I could set up a system that didn’t need those costs. Of course over time, as I studied the whole thing in depth, I also realized the adverse effects of the chemicals. But that was later; it was not the initial motivator. Of course one of the more insidious side effects of using chemicals, whether it is in a farming operation or in your own body, is that these interventions reduce the ability of an organism to maintain its own defense system. Sir Albert Howard talked about this back in the 1940’s, but I hadn’t read his book when I first started my farm. I don’t know if Tom Lasater had read Howard when he developed his philosophy of raising cattle but the two men agree about the end result of overriding the built in defense mechanisms of plants and animals. I have to concur. In the end we have to have plants and animals and people that can live in the world as it is, not a world we construct for them.

Q: What were some of the defining characteristics of your farm?

Luane: In the late 1980’s I started writing a monthly column for Stockman/Grass Farmer magazine which was actually a diary of what I had done the previous month as I set up the grazing system. I also included the lessons I thought I had learned. Sometimes I would have to admit that something I tried didn’t work quite as I planned. One of the other writers coming on board for Stockman/Grass Farmer at the same time was Joel Salatin. Another regular contributor was R. L. Dalrymple, the head of the forage program at the Noble Foundation in Oklahoma. While I was implementing Savory’s suggestions and using Lasater’s stock selection criteria, Joel was doing his early work with the chicken tractor and R. L. was working with grass-finished beef from birth to slaughter. We were all working on optimizing the use of Nature’s feed sources while maintaining and enhancing soil health and productivity with minimum to no outside inputs. We were taking advantage of the nutrient cycle that exists when stock harvest then digest and deposit the processed plant materials back where they came from.During those years all of us writing for and reading Stockman/Grass Farmer were also talking about people like Andre Voisin, Sir Albert Howard, even Jan Bonsma, the stockman from South Africa who had influenced Tom Lasater and Allan Savory, plus the work being done in New Zealand on strictly forage production systems. At our conferences in Jackson, MS, there was a lot of learning going on.

In the early 1990’s I put together three other producers here in Arkansas, and we did a research project for the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program to validate the results we were getting using managed grazing. I was conducting regular tours of my farm, which were well attended by people in this area but also from other areas, people who were following my columns in Stockman. I went to Joel’s farm in Virginia one year, and I attended the monthly ‘Talk and Tours” that R. L. conducted at the Noble Foundation in Ardmore as often as I could. As interest in this management technique spread there were quite a few gatherings in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma as well, some conducted by the traditional information sources such as various extension personnel as well as some NRCS people. Some state agencies were more receptive than others but we learned to take advantage of as much interest as we could.

Several things happened on the farm over the 11 years that I operated it as a grass farm maintained by the stock. Attention to harvesting the grasses at peak quality meant that I was moving them to new forage at least every day. Sometimes, when the cool season grasses were growing very rapidly in the spring, I was moving the stock 2 or 3 times a day because the grasses were trying to make seed and I wanted to slow down reproduction to maintain top quality.

In order to take advantage of this spring flush of growth the cows were also calving at this time and getting in shape to rebreed quickly. A side benefit of all this moving was that the calves got used to the program from the day they were born and they learned to pay attention to their mothers; to go when mother did. This is quite similar to what happens in any wild grazing herd…stragglers are fair game for predators; there is safety in numbers. There must be a latent memory of this, even in domesticated stock. The calves were also very comfortable with humans. Since the calves were the cash crop it was worthwhile to have them calm in the presence of humans as this reduced stress to them from handling. Years ago I read a piece Temple Grandin wrote about her evaluation of the value of a calm disposition in the performance of weaned calves in finishing situations. I know disposition had an economic value that the buyers noticed any time I took calves to market; it added value as a side effect of the management program.

Moving the stock that often made it easier to notice any problems that might develop before they got out of hand; although I had almost no health problems in my herd. Having all the cattle in the same phase of production made feeding them based on nutritional needs much easier as well. In other words, it is difficult to do a really good job of caring for the stock and the land if the whole cycle is not coordinated and matched to need.

Another thing I learned on my own; at least I don’t ever remember anyone talking about this. In Nature the females of the herds are always together no matter what age they are. Using Lasater’s philosophy I expected my heifers to get bred as yearlings and be mothers at or about age two. In the early years I would hold the heifers away from their mothers from weaning until they calved at two which was approximately 18 months. There is a distinct difference in the type of forage available in the growing seasons and the dormant seasons. I finally realized that if I put the heifers back with their mothers a month or so after they were weaned they would learn what a cow was supposed to eat in the winter which would be very helpful as they approached their first calving the next spring. What I didn’t think about until I watched it happen was that the heifers would stay close to their mothers that yearling spring and they would also get to observe a calving season in action before they had to do it themselves. It was an education for me to watch the learning process in action. The following spring it seemed to me that there were almost no bonding problems with the first time calvers. I had not had much of that problem anyway, but now I had none. I was always open to anything that makes things easier for me and the stock. It also made grass management easier and better if all the animals were together, ideally one herd only. You can do a better job of taking care of the grass because your recovery periods are easier to manage and that is the real key to keeping the forages in top shape.

Q: What would you say were the strongest aspects of your operation?

Luane: The change in the land was remarkable. Without any seed applications on my part there was a range of plants that I would not have imagined possible. I estimated that there were somewhere between 15 and 25 different desirable forage plants growing on all 155 acres. Each acre had warm and cool season grasses, several different legume-type plants and a range of forbs (what we call weeds) that the stock ate at different times. Effectively that meant all acres could feed the stock any given season. The most remarkable thing was how many native plants re-emerged once they had a chance to grow without being ‘nipped in the bud’. They had to have been there always but the stock kept them pruned to the point that I had no idea they were there. Every time the stock went into a new area I watched them and they ate the natives first. No wonder I didn’t know I had them!

The native that surprised me the most was Eastern Gamagrass. I looked it up and found that at one time, before we took over management of the grasslands, this was the dominant grass from Canada to the Florida keys and from the Atlantic to about 250 miles west of the Mississippi River. That is a very broad range of soil and weather adaptation. Gamagrass is a grass with the ability to grow 15 to 30 feet tall and put down a root system of equal depth. That makes it very drought resistant. Because it is so deeply rooted it can access nutrients unavailable to shallow rooted tame grasses, much like the forbs. Technically it is a warm season grass but in my latitude it was the first grass to start growing in the spring, usually in late February, and it was still growing in late November and many times into December. For a grass based system this is invaluable because you get 10 to 11 months of very good quality feed on a regular basis. The stock love it, and I didn’t plant it, Nature did. If I had not been tightly controlling the time and frequency that the stock could harvest this grass I would never have known it was on the farm. Over time it became even more widespread on the farm partly because gamagrass could take full advantage of the other technique I used regularly. If I had a grass I wanted to ‘transplant or spread’ to a different piece of ground I would let it make seed, then turn the stock into the area where the grass was. The stock would eat the grass and seeds then 24 hours later I’d move them to where I wanted it planted. It came out in this nice little fertility packet, and the stock didn’t graze it until it no longer tasted like dung which meant it was also nicely established. That is no-till planting simplified!

I let about 30 acres grow up with sometimes only one grazing during the growing season then used the strip grazing technique to have winter feed for the cows that I didn’t have to bale and haul back into the field for them. Underneath the frosted stockpile there was always some green forage for the protein supplement a dry pregnant cow needs in the winter. You don’t get that with baled hay. This technique is also a way to put down even more fertility than I did with the normal grazing schedule since the cows are crossing the strip they grazed yesterday to eat today and they are dunging and urinating on yesterday’s ‘hay’ line which is behind them today. It is a lovely tool for rapidly improving the fertility of a particular piece of land. Each 1000 pound cow deposits about 12 tons of fertilizer a year. That is literally worth its weight in gold, or actually, dollars, when fertilizer is selling for about $1300 per ton these days. It will probably get even more expensive in the not-too-distant future.

By the time I left the farm it was fully capable of taking care of the stock all year with only management of the harvesting routine by me. As a fellow said one time,”Trust your grass,” and that’s exactly what I did. It never let me down.

One last point – this farm was a typical Ozark hill farm. It was very rocky and steep but it could grow grass once it was allowed to.

At the time I was doing this it really never crossed my mind that there was something else I could do to capitalize on the amazing fecundity of the soil. I had put two different groups of 4 young bulls on forage-only grow out programs over the years. One was at the Noble Foundation in the early 90’s and the other was in central Arkansas in the mid 90’s. These tests were conducted using small grains – wheat and/or rye. Both times, but particularly the second time, my bulls grew very well, at the top of their classes. They were a proper slaughter weight at 12 to 14 months of age. This goes against the commonly voiced ‘problem’ of it taking too long to grow out calves on pasture. Most feedlot cattle are at least 18 months old before they are ready to process.

There is a lesson to be learned from the feedlot people about feeding cattle. They are fed smaller amounts of feed 3 or 4 times a day to encourage them to eat more because it is fresh and I think they are bored so something new is interesting. Based on what Gabe Brown is doing in North Dakota – no-tilling grain into permanent pasture then feeding his cattle through the winter and spring on those forages – I could have done something similar on my own farm with my own meat calves in the very few bottomland pastures I had. Utilizing the strip grazing technique I could encourage more consumption by giving the ‘feeder’ calves fresh forage several times a day. That would have been a way to finish beef for the table even faster than the feedlots if I had wanted to do it. It would have allowed me to produce a value-added product to sell to the end user, the family in town buying food for themselves for instance. The only added expense would have been my time.

Q: Also, what was the weakest point of your farm?

Luane: When you are a one-person operation there is a limit on how many different businesses you can realistically operate at one time. I had wanted to expand into direct marketing much like what Joel Salatin was doing. I didn’t have the labor force necessary to do this. My farm was capable of generating more product to sell, but I had a logistics problem. I couldn’t bring in the large stock hauling trucks necessary to move as many animals as I could feed in a cost effective manner. When I (really my husband and I) chose this farm, it never occurred to us this would be a factor, which illustrates how productive the land had become. As I approached my 60^th birthday, after 25 years on the farm, I decided it was time to close this chapter of my life. I could not take the next step which was to increase the cash crop (actually change the focus of the farm) due to the logistical problems. I had no one to pass it on to, and I also realized that I was in a rather dangerous business where the mechanical equipment might eventually get me. It is not smart to have no other human close just in case an accident happens. After two scary encounters I was ready to do something else while I still could.

Q: Does anything stand out in your mind as being the biggest shortcoming to being a farmer?

Luane: Some would find it difficult to stay motivated when you are your own boss and make your own schedule. Not everyone is suited to self-motivation and self discipline. To some extent, particularly if you are a single woman, there is the issue of not being taken seriously, but that happens to the men also, especially when dealing with the academics. There seems to be an institutional bias that says the man in the field doesn’t qualify as an expert because his input is not replicated research results; it is only observational. The problem with replicating results for validation purposes is that Nature never exactly replicates conditions from season to season and especially from year to year. So long as Nature is in charge of conditions there can be no absolute replication of conditions.

Fred pointed out in a presentation in 1989 that “organic agriculture is derided by agriculture experts, frowned on by the United States Department of Agriculture and ridiculed by many farmers”. Twenty years later this is still true. As Rodney Dangerfield used to say, “I don’t get no respect.” Many times it feels that way, especially if you are doing something as contrary as what we grass farmers are doing. You are definitely going to get marginalized or ignored. That bothers a lot of people – not being accepted. It can be a downside of choosing to farm as a business. Most of the time I just considered the source and continued doing what I thought was right, but I admit this takes a lot of conviction on the part of the individual. Not everyone is comfortable with rejection or outright ridicule.

When the Schools of Agriculture morphed into Schools of Agribusiness teaching high tech, modern, ‘best management practices’ they became the tool to legitimize the industrial agriculture paradigm. For that reason it will be difficult, but not impossible, to get good information to help you implement non-fossil fuel based agriculture. For the most part you have to find alternate information sources outside of the usual channels and that can be time consuming. Depending on what kind of farming you are active in, time to do this is limited. The vegetable and fruit growers are more time-limited, I think, than the livestock people.

Q: Is there anything specific that you learned along the way that you think is important for people to know or understand that they may not already?

Luane: Anyone planning to do an alternative agriculture system, what I would call conventional agriculture because it is what was practiced before the industrial model we have now, will have to give up the notion so strongly ingrained in the Western, specifically the American, psyche that humans can control Nature. Nature makes the rules – we don’t. We will not be successful with regenerative, lasting, realistic, place based agriculture systems so long as we think we can remake things to suit us. I like Fred’s statement that, “We cannot save the planet in terms of preserving things as they are. At best we can engage the biotic community in ways that enhance its capacity for renewal”.

For a long time I have argued against the notion of saving the planet in part because I think the capacity for life on this planet will go on with or without humans, and it will be the humans who cause themselves to go extinct if they continue to try to override Nature. On the contrary, Fred nicely adds that, “Health is the capacity of the land for self renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity.” This should be the real goal of all we try to do – make our decisions about what practices we use based on maintaining the health of the soils, the plants, the animals, and the people. My experience suggests that attention to these things allows Nature to do most if not all the work and do it well. An excellent source of inspiration for how to set up a self-renewing food production system is F. H. King’s Farmers of Forty Centuries. Sir Albert Howard’s An Agricultural Testament is a must read is possibly the main source of inspiration for J. I. Rodale and The One Straw Revolution – also both great resources.

I would also strongly suggest regular ‘community of interest’ fixes. Go where people are congregating to discuss what they are doing to implement these somewhat strange techniques. Spending time, in person, with others who share your attitudes is good for the health of your mind if nothing else. Everyone needs positive reinforcement once in a while and humans are herd animals who benefit from the companionship of likeminded others. Understand that we contrary farmers, to use Gene Logsdon’s definition of himself, are a strange breed, and we will often be lonely in a crowd of farmers. In general it is always a bit lonely when you are the scout because you are usually so far ahead of the herd. But that is what we are – scouts for a way to survive and thrive as things change.

Q: Do you currently have any themes or specific focuses that are motivating factors for the work that you do?

Luane: Because I don’t have the responsibility for a piece of land I can travel more frequently to the places where people are gathering to explore alternatives. I can revisit all the work done by so many pioneers of the ecological solutions for humans and their other-than-human compatriots. There is much to be learned from these pioneers and this knowledge should be part of our deliberations. I can add my voice and experiences to these discussions to show what can be done. Along the way I am meeting and learning from the people who are actively doing these things now. This is a positive, being able to cite current work. With luck I can be a motivator for those still in the ‘thinking about it’ mode.

There is an even larger need as I see it. What I hope to accomplish is to help define the barriers to moving forward with building a complete food system that can be an economic benefit to more people in an area than just the farmers. People need meaningful, productive work and that is in short supply all over the United States. As things stand now, the agribusiness complex has defined the rules of engagement with the customers to exclude competition from smaller, locally based producers, processors and distributors. If you consider all the steps necessary to move food from the farm to whichever table you want to put it on there is quite a lot of work to be done – more than any one person can do alone. Agribusinesses understand that the real monetary reward attached to providing food for people is the retail business. That is the largest part of the cost of food – the processing and distribution segment. If we are to become true players in the provisioning of the public we have to establish a larger presence in this segment.

Sometimes I think our alternative farmers are their own worst enemy in the sense that they resist cooperating with each other for the benefit of their whole production community. They have fallen into the trap laid for them by, “…global corporations who cooperate to force people to compete…” as David Korten said. Again using David’s words“… the willingness to destroy local capital for the sake of indivdual gain” is exactly what I’m talking about. In the case of local agriculture, the community of farmers producing food differently than the industrial model is often at unnecessary odds with each other in ways that allows them not to be a true threat to the agribusiness conglomerates. So long as these farmers see each other as competitors to be bested they will be easy targets for the highly organized, coordinated industrial farming corporations.

In their book Food, Society, and Environment, Charles Harper and Bryan Le Beau ask readers to envision the food production system as an hourglass. On one end are millions of farmers, ranchers, and farm workers raising crops and livestock. In the middle are a small number of companies that carry out the packing, processing, and distribution of food, and on the other end, purchasing food from that small group of processors and distributors, are millions of consumers. That small neck in the middle of the hourglass—the packers and processors—may not be a part of the food chain that we often think about. But packers and processors have an immense amount of power over the shape of our food system. The power that they exercise can have harmful effects on both ends of the hourglass – closing markets to independent producers, affecting the price and safety of all food for consumers. Not to mention the safety and health of the workers these processors employ is often at risk.

We are dealing with a food supply system designed by agribusiness for the benefit of agribusiness. That has become so normal to the average customer that it never occurs to her to question it even as she pays ever higher prices for the food she must have and for the compromised health caused in part by that food. We are outliers in the current system, and we will have to engage in a consumer education program if we want the public to demand what we produce. The customers will have to be the ones demanding change because there are not enough alternative farmers to create a changed policy environment otherwise. As Fred has pointed out about ecological farmers, “There is no one to champion their cause in this squeeze.” I see this statement as increasingly grave because it includes the very entities originally established to serve small scale farmers – the Land Grant Universities. Wendell Berry discussed this corporate capture of the Land Grant system at length in his The Unsettling of America, which was published in 1977. Even in the early 1900’s Sir Albert Howard was observing the beginnings of corporate capture which he viewed a looming problem, particularly as the agriculture information sources were complicit in promoting the industrial model.

We have at least two generations of people who have accepted that the corporate industrial model is the only thing standing between them and starvation. Re-educating our customers about what smaller scale, place sensitive food systems can do for their overall well-being is a full time job that will need the attention of people committed to being spokespeople and advocates. It will also be imperative that many more producers come on board by changing their production practices, or the new system can’t fill the needs of the public. If the public were to refuse tomorrow to buy from the corporate suppliers they would have a hunger problem because there are not enough growers to provide the food that would be needed.

To quote a new (to me) observer of the forces we need to confront, Anuradha Mittal, one of the founders of Food First, has said, “Hunger is a social disease linked to poverty…any discussion of hunger is incomplete without a discussion of economics,” “…people are hungry because there is no money to buy food, not because there is a shortage of food.” As an example she points out that the Punjab region of India, one of the prime agriculture areas in that part of the world, grows abundant food that is mostly converted to dog and cat food for Europe instead of for the people of India who are having to buy imported food as a result of this agribusiness mandate. There are numerous other examples of this kind of insanity in most of the Global South but also in the U.S. where a good portion of the grains produced wind up in gas tanks or confined animal feeding facilities. You can find similar statements in all the published works of people like Sir Albert Howard, Fred Kirschenmann, Wendell Berry and even the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank. The last two also direct our attention to the unbelievable amount of waste in the food supply chain. We must address the obstacles of access to food that we can afford and to paying attention to waste because this also speaks to water and fertility issues. Food wasted is also water, soil, and labor wasted. I feel we must confront these issues head on.

As Ms. Mittal says, “I don’t think it’s too much to say that destroying local agriculture infrastructure is a central function of food aid. Once these local farmers have been driven out of business the people of the region are dependent on the West (more specifically agribusinesses) for survival.” Based on my study of American agriculture the same thing has been a feature of our food supply chain for over 100 years, starting in the late 1800’s. As Henry Kissinger said in the mid 1970’s, “…if I control the food I control the people,” and the food companies have put a great deal of effort to making our people dependent on them for survival. The powerful agribusinesses have built an entire economic and governmental structure to support themselves. It will take a concerted effort on our part to correct this situation. We have to rebuild a sense of purpose and respect for the business of growing food, but we also have to undo the regulatory issues that make it so difficult to do what we know how to do. As a Tupac rebel said about Peru, “We want to be able to grow and distribute our own food. We already know how to do that. We merely need to be allowed to do so.” This is the heart of the matter. It is probably worth remembering that the French Revolution wasn’t just about liberty and equality. There was not enough bread in Paris, and Paris has been able to feed herself for a very long time with extra to trade. Hunger is a powerful motivator of unrest.

In order to get the number of producers, processors, and distributors required to serve the public need, several things will have to be changed. At this point most alternative producers have a rather narrow window when they supply fresh produce. That is good but it is insufficient to provide food all year. This is the segment of food supply where the processing and distribution system applies and it is where the agribusinesses have a definite advantage now. We must address the whole range of demand, not just the seasonal demand. It is not enough for alternative producers to opt out of a system they reject. They will have to become actively involved in changing and opening up the operating environment in order to make a place for themselves. This will hopefully allow them to make what they are doing the normal method of supply. I don’t think it matters very much in the long run if we are talking about producers in the U.S. or in the other countries, the ones usually called the Global South. Our methods of production require more people doing the work to promote global change. Even as our producers secure their place in the new normal they must also bring in more help and stop looking at new people in the business as threats to their place.

In a way this is the strength of alternative, small scale, place sensitive food production. At its best it offers a way for many people to care for themselves and their neighbors at a time when industrial America is laying people off due to lack of demand for industrial products. This is an issue overseas as well – people being forced by circumstances beyond their control to grow products for export to satisfy creditors they never signed up to repay while they and their neighbors have malnutrition or outright starvation problems. What other industry do you know of that currently needs more people to step in to do the work? Alternative regional food production needs more farmers than ever. It is a system, by definition, designed to be implemented by many people in many places at the same time – especially more than are currently in the field.

Sir Allbert Howard asserted that, “The real Arsenal of Democracy is a fertile soil, the fresh produce of which is the birthright of nations.” Howard viewed the, “whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal, and man as one great subject.” He further stated about his book The Soil and Health, “ One of the objects of this book is to show the man in the street how this England of ours can be born again. He can help in this task, which depends at least as much on the plain efforts of the plain man in his own farm, garden, or allotment as on all the expensive paraphernalia, apparatus, and elaboration of the modern scientist: more so in all probability, inasmuch as one small example always outweighs a ton of theory. If this sort of effort can be made and the main outline of the problems at stake are grasped, nothing can stop an immense advance in the well-being of this island.”

Howard said, “The man in the street will have to do three things:

A healthy population will be no mean achievement, for our greatest possession is ourselves.”

Anuradha Mittal joins her voice to Sir Howard when she challenges us to “Get involved. If power is not taken back at the local level nothing will change nationally or internationally.”

At first we will be the only ones pushing for this to happen, and we need to select people to speak for us who are us even if they are not active growers. The work of growing the food is a full time job and we will have to put aside our natural reluctance to seek outside help if we want to make the future better than the past. Ours is a powerful new story if we will tell it. Stories change minds, as the advertising industry knows very well.

Q: I am interested to hear how you first got connected with A Growing Culture.

Luane: I met Loren Cardelli at the Prairie Festival in Salinas, KS, in September, 2012. Then I met him and you in Albuquerque, NM, at the Quivira Coalition meeting later in that fall. After much back and forth discussion you both contacted me to see if I wanted to contribute to your publication. I am delighted and honored to be invited to help with your work.

Q: Is there anyone or anything that we haven’t covered today that you would like to specifically mention?

Luane: I’ll end with these thoughts:

When making the decision to be a pioneer in this different way of doing agriculture “…there is no way to know if one is called or deluded. The only way to know is to jump in and find out”. Thank you Fred for that insight…

`Fred also brings up an interesting compilation of thoughts from that paragon of capitalism, Adam Smith. Apart from community and a framework of justice, competition becomes destructive. The ideal market must have community – in our case many small farmers, artisans, buyers and sellers. Entrepreneurs function within a set of commercial rules, sanctioned and protected by the state, that prevent business monopolies. Capital is locally rooted, owners living and working where they do business. Free and open markets must be available, and trade is only “free” when people are free not to trade.

This could be the start of a re-education initiative – discussing the different, democratic trade arrangements we envision.

Below is suggested reading list for perspective – provided by Luane. All these books have a common theme and were written over the past 100+ years:

Note: with the exception of The Lasater Philosophy of Cattle Raising, I didn’t read any of these books myself until the late 1990’s and beyond. Would things have gone faster if I had? Probably not. I knew about Savory’s work and talked to people who had studied with him, but his book came out long after I had committed to my way of doing things. I found little to disagree with when I did get the book. The same is true of all the other books.

Books, magazines, and the internet provide diverse scientific and anecdotal information demonstrating how industrial agriculture is physically unhealthy and ecologically harmful (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). So I will not belabor the negatives of industrial farming, nor will I preach a particular type of agriculture as the solution. I want to suggest methods for dealing with a foundational challenge we face as ecologically minded farmers. How do we develop and define our agricultural ethics? As we, the new generation of farmers, step into the fields, we must understand that our ethics will guide our practice. And that by developing strategies to further define our ethics we can move beyond theoretical dilemmas and transform our morals into balanced growing systems that provide plentiful crops with maximized social and ecological benefit.

In general, our ethics are largely shaped by our culture. Society tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong by facilitating, rewarding, or punishing certain behavior. Although an individual ultimately has choice, the scope of that choice is limited by our cultural boundaries. In other words, the opportunities that are available to us define what we think is possible.

Specifically, our recent agricultural ethics have been largely defined by consumer demand for inexpensive food and the drive to maximize economic profit. The resulting ethics encourage industrial farming practices. Practices that, among other things, eliminate a soil’s ability to produce food without massive chemical and oil inputs while simultaneously exacerbating issues of top soil loss (Cox, Hug, & Bruzelius, 2011), toxin coated food (Pesticide Action Network, 2013), climate change (Lin, 2011), water pollution (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1996), oceanic dead zones (Environmental Working Group, n.d.), and farm worker health and safety (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).

I believe our species’ health and existence hinges on whether or not we redefine our farming ethics. If we redefine our agricultural ethic to align with the imperatives of physical and ecological health we will have no choice but to transform our practices, creating agricultural systems that can provide enough food for our burgeoning population, indefinitely. It is up to us, the growers, those intimately involved with the land and most knowledgeable of production methods to continue and strengthen the effort started by those before us, namely Aldo Leopold, Wendell Berry, and Wes Jackson.

In the “old days” ethics and practice were passed down from our parents and grandparents. Their validity was proven, or disproven, by the health and existence of subsequent generations and necessary changes were discovered and made. Today, many of us are agricultural orphans, so we must develop new strategies to build our farms’ moral backbone. While much traditional knowledge may have been lost, this lack of established ethic affords us an open field on which to cultivate a new agriculture.

We are also in a new, technology based era and agriculture has changed dramatically. When the majority of farm work was done by hand, irrigated by gravity systems, and planted with seeds saved from the previous year it was much more difficult to do damage that nature could not quickly mend. Now that we have surpassed those limitations with massive tractors, transgenic seeds, deep wells for irrigation, and a plethora of highly toxic chemical sprays, an ecological, agricultural ethic is even more imperative. We are capable of causing much greater detrimental effect, and our culture has not yet evolved the necessary accompanying ethics to manage these abilities responsibly. That’s where the new farming movement comes in.

Whether or not we consciously develop our agricultural morals, we will inevitably practice agriculture based on some ethic. To develop an ethic that shapes an ecological farming practice I believe setting clear goals, being unafraid of failure, using observation and science to view our actions and their effects on a systems level, learning from others, continuously evaluating our practices, and not getting mired in the names and established systems of growing, are very helpful tools.

Set Goals:

Setting goals is the first step in nurturing our ideals into reality. We must take our dreams of a farm system and clearly identify the steps to achieve that vision. By setting goals we take strides toward developing our ethics by limiting the potential options. If our goals are to grow food without toxic residues on the fruiting bodies, than we can no longer believe in spraying for mid-season pests. After our goals are set, we must use science to inform our ethics.

Use Science to Make Informed Decisions:

There are innumerable ways we can manage our growing systems, and in general, there are no rights and wrongs. However, there are decisions and consequences. Our ethics should be informed and substantiated by a scientific understanding of the physical cycles and relationships within the growing system so we can understand the effect of our actions. Awareness of nutrient cycling, water dynamics, and soil food web afford knowledge of the physical consequence of our practices. This in turn allows us to further define our ethics because we understand the benefits and drawbacks of using particular methods or inputs. Fortunately, the scientific details are more easily discovered in this new age, thanks to organizations like A Growing Culture, ATTRA, Acres USA, extension offices, and the plethora of small sustainable farmers sharing their experiences. While science can help us immensely, we must also listen to our own experience and observation.

Trust Experience and Observations:

Our land, and the plants and animals on it, continuously respond to our actions. Disease, nutrient deficiency, or lack of water is shown to us by the way our system responds. We must hone our skills of observation to tease out accurate cause and effect relationships within a complex system. This is made difficult by the nature of farming, in that isolating variables is nearly impossible. However, by using observation we do not have to know exactly why something works a given way, only that it does. When we discover something, we must be honest with ourselves, answering the question, “are my methods achieving my goals?” If this means disagreeing with a practice you have been using for decades, then it is time to change. Setting goals and using science and observation are great tools for developing ones ethics and practice. However, there still can be significant fear in abandoning old methods and subscribing to new ones.

Continually Evaluate Our Practices:

It is a daunting task to evaluate and challenge all of our practices, especially when this leads to drastic changes in practice. But we cannot be stopped from breaking away from “standard” farming practice for fear of “failure”. We know that current farming cannot continue and it is up to us to change it. One of the largest challenges industrial agriculture has laid before us is the “failure” (crop loss, weed invasion etc) we will endure in rediscovering sustainable ways to produce food. Anything that goes “wrong” (loss of money, poor crop quality etc.) is largely the result of inadequate cultural training, not entirely personal inadequacy. Among other things, when we stop fearing failure and change, we become more open to trying alternative methods of production. And luckily, there are many people willing to lend a hand.

Learning From Others:

Many producers are achieving amazing results using innovative practices based on ecological ethics substantiated by years of study and practice. Eliot Coleman, Joel Salatin, John Jeavons, and Sepp Holzer have redefined farming in their own way. Yet, they all have found ways minimize their ecological impact while maximizing yields, as well as social and environment benefit. We should listen to them, and the many others in our own communities, in order to compare their experience with our own. Whether that means reading, watching videos, conducting interviews, or attending workshops this process develops our growing methods and the ethics behind them.

Blend all Methods to Suit Our Needs, Goals, and Microclimate:

While we must learn from others, I believe it is counterproductive to get caught up in particular growing “brand names” like “Deep Organic”, “Biointensive”, “Square Foot Gardening”, “French Intensive”, “Biodynamic”, and “Permaculture”. Each one of these methods alone can achieve great results, but by selecting and combining portions of each we have greater versatility and give appropriate respect to our own creative potential. Additionally, drawing from multiple “growing styles” enables one to tailor methods to specific, regional, climactic, and other land characteristics. There are innumerable combinations of actions we can take, and the most healthy, productive, low input, and sustainably fertile are yet to be discovered.

By using the tools described above, and any others not discussed here, we will stride towards defining our ethics and implementing the resulting practices. The crux to developing ecologically minded ethics and practice though, is committing to the goal of developing a growing system that is productive without negative ecological consequence. Through using the described methods to help discover my ethics, I find myself confident in the necessity of my practices. Growing vegetables in raised beds, without tilling the soil, using any chemicals (chemical or organic), irrigating conservatively, and striving to replace all off farm inputs with self-generated fertility allow me to farm in line with my ethics.

Developing an ecological, agricultural ethic is imperative to long-term food production and the health of all natural systems that sustain life. Despite being ill prepared by our culture, and confused by rapid incorporation of technology into farming, there are ways that we can develop ethics that force us to grow food without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. I hope for nothing more than to impress upon you the importance of your ethics and the practices that follow in their lead; And, to suggest that we start where Aldo Leopold left us, embracing “the role of Homo sapiens”, and our growing systems alike, not as “conquerors of the land-community” but “plain members and citizens of it” (Leopold, 1987).

References:

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445-456. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240832/pdf/ehp0110-000445.pdf

Cox, C., Hug, A., & Bruzelius, N. (n.d.). Losing ground. Retrieved from Environmental Working Group website: http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/losingground/pdf/losingground_report.pdf

Pesticide Action Network. Pesticides on food. Retrieved from Pesticide Action Network, Advancing Alternatives to Pesticides Worldwide website: http://www.panna.org/issues/food-agriculture/pesticides-on-food

Lin, B. B. (2011). Effects of industrial agriculture on climate change and the mitigation potential of small scale agro-ecological farms. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources,6(20), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ummz/fishes/publications/pdf/2011%20mitigation%20by%20small%20farms.pdf

(2013, February 13). Introduction to agricultural water pollution. Retrieved from FAO Corporate Document Repository website: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w2598e/w2598e04.htm#agricultural impacts on water quality

Centers For Disease Control And Prevention. (2012, July 13). Agricultural safety. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control Workplace Safety and Health Topics website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/

Leopold, A. (1987). In A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marder, J. (2011, May 18). Farm Runoff in Mississippi River Floodwater Fuels Dead Zone in Gulf.  Retrieved from PBS News Hour website: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/the-gulf-of-mexico-has.html

by Filippa Harrington-Griffin

“No society can become a post-food society. … Fertile land is a very precious and very scarce resource .. It needs to be protected and conserved as an asset of the farmers and as a national heritage to be passed on to future generations.” – Vandana Shiva

Modern agricultural farming practices have depleted soil quality on a global scale.  What it took nature 1000 years to create, took modern farming 30 years to destroy.  Soil, everywhere, is in need of drastic and rapid quality improvement in order to meet the increased demand for agricultural food products.

A solution is stepping up to the plate, a solution in the form of Biochar.   Simply put, biochar is the charred remains of what is formed when plant material or other waste products are heated in an oxygen free environment, a process called pyrolysis and offers an organic soil amendment that boosts crop yield.

The process takes material that would otherwise be left to decompose and in turn, release CO2 back into the atmosphere and locks that carbon into a rich in nutrient, biochar, that can be utilized in a number of applications across agriculture and horticulture to aid in soil restoration.   Owing to biochar’s unique physical and chemical nature, a great surface area and complex pore structure, it has the ability to absorb moisture and life-supporting nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus.  By adding biochar to soil, land stewards can reduce soil acidity, reduce soil leaching and the need for irrigation and fertilization.

The process of creating biochar has the ability to sequester tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year, whilst simultaneously producing clean renewable energy that would replace fossil fuels.  Furthermore, biochar is celebrated for preventing groundwater pollution, providing low cost water filtration, reducing the amount of material cast to landfills, decreasing greenhouse gases and increasing profitability.

Since the industrial revolution, we have increased the amount of fossil fuel based carbon added to the atmosphere  per year drastically.  In 2012, the CO2 concentration in the air we breath reached 395ppm, putting us 45ppm over the ‘safe and sustainable’ limit suggested by scientists (Söderberg).   High CO2 levels are a key component to the greenhouse gases that are warming our planet and giving rise to climate instability.  We’ve reached the point where ‘carbon neutral’ just won’t cut it, the solutions of our future need to go that extra mile, when it comes to carbon – we need to be in the negative.

Unlike other biofuels and bioenergy, biochar does not necessitate valuable agricultural lands, food crops like corn, nor the deforestation of already valuable ecosystems.   Biochar is a great addition to an active farm, as it offers a valuable waste management system whilst producing a soil improving product and it does not compete with the vital food or ecological services being offered.

Fazenda Santo Antonio, an organic coffee plantation in Mococa, Brazil is currently testing an on-site biochar initiative with support from Swedish based biochar campaigners, the OpenWorld Biochar Coalition.  Brazil’s impressive agricultural resources and year round growing season make it an optimum location for developing and applying biochar.   By nature, coffee plantations generate a large amount of agricultural waste, and thus have great potential for carbon sequestration through biochar production.

Fazenda Santo Antonio has been run by the Pereira Lima family since it’s inception in 1822 and stands as the first farm in Brazil’s Mogiana region to start producing coffee.  Up until 1990, the farm operated as a high-input conventional coffee plantation, but after a succession of poor growing seasons moved them to reevaluate, they made a bold and considered decision to turn their backs on conventional agriculture.  In 1993, with the farm in the hands of a new generation, Joao Pereira Lima, the farm’s most recent successor introduced a new farm philosophy, Agriculture da Grande Natureza, which translates to Great Nature’s Agriculture.  The core value of this new system is simple, when faced with a problem – bring life to the situation, not death.  Although this new agricultural philosophy has significantly boosted the productivity and life-systems on the farm, there is still decades of conventional agriculture practices to undo.

The OpenWorld Biochar Coalition are a group of scientists, researchers, agricultural experts, businessmen and women, builders,engineers, and students working to grow biochar facilities throughout Brazil, Sweden and the U.K.  They’re currently focused on introducing biochar to sugar cane, coconut and coffee plantations throughout Brazil, offering substantial savings in energy, increased crop productivity and carbon sequestration.

The biochar initiative at Fazenda Santo Antonio hopes is only in its infancy and still largely in testing, however, the product is currently being used to support the soil quality of the on-farm organic vegetable garden and is having a measurable impact on the quality and yield of crops.  In testing, the team discovered that the mountain of coffee husk discards already appear to ‘combust’ in a slow pyrolysis process when left to their own devices, producing biochar.  When the project proceeds to the next level, the coalition intend to retrofit the original coffee processing equipment to act as pyrolysis equipment for producing biochar.

On-site biochar production allows farmers to attain a valuable soil-improving substance to apply to the land from the waste materials that are in abundance in agriculture, without any additional transportation and negligible additional costs.

Biochar has great global potential and thus far has seen success with families,communities, peri-urban micro farmers, commercial agricultural units and private enterprises.  Biochar production can be as simple or complex as needed, it has a role to play with subsistence farmers in the developing world using hand-made kilns, as with medium-large scale agricultural businesses utilising more advance processing units right up to the private commercial companies that have built elaborate biochar processing plants to generate electricity and bio-oil.  It’s believed that biochar was first utilised by pre-Columbian Amazonians in South America’s rainforest basin to enhance soil productivity, this is not a solution limited by time nor modern technological advancements.  The process is ancient and its’ positive effects long withstanding.

It is said that biochar is the “win-win-win” strategy.  It has the potential to produce clean energy without subtracting from the world’s insecure food supply, it is a waste management solution, it mitigates climate change through the sequestering of carbon and it creates an ecologically friendly soil amendment that boosts crop yield, which in turn supports global food security.

Sources

Brunjes, Lopa, perf. “Biochar: An Ancient Solution to a Modern Problem.” TedxBerkley. TED, 21 Mar 2011. web. 11 Feb 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZroDAyIqW74>

“Ecoera Biosfair™ – a Platform for Biochar Carbon Capture and Soil Sequestration.” Ecoera. N.p.. Web. 13 Feb 2013. <http://ecoera.se/solutions>.

“Full Circle Biochar named Virgin Earth Challenge Finalist.”Full Circle Biochar. N.p., 02 Nov 2011. Web. Web. 18 Feb. 2013. <http://fullcirclebiochar.com/news-category/press-release-full-circle-biochar-named-virgin-earth-challenge-finalist/>.

Lehmann, Johannes. “A handful of carbon.” Nature. 447. (2007): n. page. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.

Shiva, Vandana. Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in a Time of Climate Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: South End Press, 2008. Print.

Söderberg, C. (2012). Openworld biochar coalition: Brasil. In OpenWorld Biochar Coalition: Brasil.