F.A. Farm

Here is a link to yesterday's article in The New York Times on agro-imperialism. Unfortunately, this is a trend that is gathering steam. The lead example is Saudi Arabia, who had started a program of intensive wheat cultivation in their own country from 1980-1999, using tremendous amounts of irrigation. During that time they became the world's sixth-largest wheat exporter. However, when environmentalists suggested the Saudis were draining their underground aquifers at an unsustainable rate, they actually took heed (unlike the US for instance, which is still draining the Oglalla aquifer at unsustainable levels for wheat irrigation, from South Dakota to Texas). The Saudis new gamble is to buy/lease land in Africa and set up capital-intensive agriculture that is heavily dependent on irrigation, mechanized equipment, and chemical fertilizers (sound familiar?). Other countries are following suit, including China.

One problem the article does not mention is the historical climate/geographical pattern of Africa in relation to other areas of the world. Nearly the whole continent of Africa has been historically dependent on either herding or shifting cultivation (i.e. horticulture) rather than varying degrees of intensive cultivation (i.e. agriculture). One way to parse this is to think of the cultivation continuum, where horticulture stands at one end and is characterized by low-labor inputs on shifting plots. On the other end is agriculture, with high-labor inputs on permanent plots. Industrial agriculture substitues petroleum inputs for the high-labor inputs that formerly depended on slaves - hence petroleum as the "energy slave." This idea of a historical/climate/geographic pattern of shifting cultivation helps explain why the Green Revolution was applicable to Mexico, India, the Phillipines and other areas of the world, but not applicable to Africa.

The upshot is that Saudi Arabia and other countries are taking a big gamble in thinking that their massive amounts of capital can EASILY translate into more food. I think it is more likely they will fail AND since they are one of the principle buyers of American-made F-16's and other weaponry, they will end up destabilizing Africa. Then who will bail out the Saudis? Who do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22land-t.html?_r=1&t...

While looking at my tiller gas consumption in my spreadsheet for the last year, I noticed something astonishing. I used 23 gallons of gas for mowing the lawn, versus 22.25 gallons for my tillers (I don't have a tractor). In other words, I use more gas for keeping up appearances than I use for growing food. Amazing! For another comparison, think of how many gallons of gas the average consumer uses in his/her car, just to get around. The US national average is 25 miles per gallon and 12,500 miles traveled per year. That works out to 500 gallons of gas per year. This amount of gas dwarfs the amount of gas used for sustainable agriculture - and probably industrial agriculture as well! All of us postmodern agriculturalists are flogging a dead horse as long as American consumers continue to drive their cars. The solution is mass transit, but cities across the US are cutting bus/train service, instead of increasing it. Strange as it may seem, the automobile is still king - and the greatest source of our problems. I have managed to get my mileage down to 4-5,000 miles per year and have done so for several years. However, I work at home, so that solution is not amenable to most people. We really do need massive amounts of mass transit, right now.

I am quite fond of winter squash. This year I have Delicatas, Flame Buttercup (my own variety), Butternut, Dutch Crookneck, Blue Hubbard and Carnival. The Carnival seeds were given to me by a neighbor and they yielded spectacularly. The Blue Hubbard I grew out at another neighbor's, so I could keep the strain alive. I had gotten a buff-colored variant and I wanted to see if they would breed true. They didn't and my conclusion is they have more diversity in this seed line than I thought. The Delicatas, Carnival and Dutch Crookneck all produced at a rate of $30,000 per acre at the retail price of $1.50, $1.25 and $1.00 per pound respectively. All three produced at the calorie rate of 3-4 million kilocalories per acre, making them comparable to wheat in calorie density.

The Buttercups and Butternuts are not all in yet, but they are producing at the rate of $15,000 per acre. (I have the total square footage in my spreadsheet and so the figures are not "hard" until the whole harvest is in.) Their calorie value is around 2.3 million kilocalories per acre, again with only a partial harvest yield, but the total square footage alloted to the vegetable. I anticipate both the Buttercups and Butternuts will rise to the level of the other squashes once I have the harvest done and the final numbers in the spreadsheet. Since I am the only farmer on the place, there is always too much to do and the weather being so mild, I am leaving squash out in the field longer.

Here in modern America, we don't eat enough squash. I notice that the Local Harvest newsletter has a good recipe for Butternut Squash Soup in the newsletter that just came out today. This is a standard recipe and quite easy to prepare. We use a similar recipe all the time, but Toni and I mostly eat our squash baked. It is easy to pop into the oven at 350 degrees for an hour and a little bit of butter on top is all you need. (Forget the brown sugar - if the squash is mature it is sweet enough.) Squash, beans and potatoes are wonderful staple foods for the winter. Add a few root vegetables, sprouts and overwintered salad greens (including mustard) and a little meat for flavoring, and you can eat cheaply all winter long.

Back when I was coaching soccer, I taught my players to think in terms of time vs. space. For example, when the attacker is coming downfield with the ball, he (or she) has the advantage in timing because he (or she) is initiating each move. The defender will always be slower by at least a fraction of a second. If the attacker is also a good ball-handler, this becomes a distinct advantage. The primary job of the first defender must then be delay - giving up a little space but keeping the pressure on until the 2nd and 3rd defenders arrive on the scene. [BTW, notice the subtext here of splitting up the fields into discreet units with actors in each scene.] In essence, you can control time by controlling space. The inverse is true. You can control the space downfield if you slot a timing pass into space and your 2nd or 3rd attacker arrives on the scene the same time as the ball does. You can also create space (and problems) downfield by sending your 3rd attacker out wide to spread the defense - hence the concept of 3rd man running. The point is that you can control space by controlling time and control time by controlling space. It is a constant interplay, a push and pull that moves down the field in a flowing pattern that constitutes the beautiful game.

Yesterday, I had a discussion about permaculture with a colleague and it gravitated into evolutionary biology. We were discussing natural selection vs. artificial selection. I made the point about natural selection being essentially negative selection, while artificial selection is positive selection. [Yes, all you academic types can comment on my simplistic analysis if you wish. You can even take issue with my concept of the individual organism being the locus of evolution if you so desire.] For example, the wolves hang around the elk herd and observe which ones are a little slower, or limping, or a little spaced-out at the moment. Then they make one or two choices and see which ones respond. The result is dinner - about 20% of the time or less - wolves are far from perfect. This is natural selection, where individual organisms are selected against by something in the environment. The wolves don't shout out to the buff elk, "Hey Harry, you're looking pretty fit today! We won't mess with you!" Nor do the cows hear this positive affirmation and decide that Harry can suddenly buy them drinks and dinner. What happens is that the unfit specimens get eaten before they can pass on their genes in a significant amount in the gene pool. Over time, the fitter genes increase in frequency in the population. This is evolution by natural selection.

In artificial selection, the farmer picks out the best cattle (or corn or tomatoes or something else) that serves his (or her) purpose. The farmer then makes a selection which ones get to breed and which do not. This is positive selection, where individual organisms are selected for by something in the environment. Over time, the selected-for genes (not necessarily the fittest genes!) rise in frequency in the population. This is evolution by artificial selection. Notice that we already have a problem with fitness in the overall environment. What the farmer is selecting for may not necessarily be viable.

Now, since genetic differences come largely from mutations in DNA, selecting against a small number of individuals allows for a large amount of genetic variation to exist in the gene pool. If a gene pool consists of variants A, B, C, D, E, etc. and only A is selected against, B, C, D and E still exist in the gene pool and gene D may continue to reside in the gene pool, even though it confers no fitness. It is just a mutation that has not been subject to environmental testing. Most biologists are guilty of using the term "selected for" in their writing, but this is usually just imprecision in language. It is similar to talking about hypothesis testing, where the correct answer may be, "We cannot reject the null hypothesis," but the writer/lecturer may actually say, "We accept the null hypothesis." The imprecision is along the lines of President Bush saying, "Either you are with us in the war on terror, or you're against us." Of course, this was fatuous nonsense, since many countries were not with the US, but still did not support terrorism. In the same manner, selecting against one organism and its set of genes does not select for another organism and its set of genes.

If we think of these genetic differences lying about in the gene pool and not being subject to selection, we can think of them taking up "genetic space." Sometimes the term used is "junk" DNA. In the soccer analogy, these genes are controlling space and we can control them by timing. How do we do this? It really is quite simple. We select for traits we want. Anyone can see that stock breeding has achieved massive changes in dairy and beef cattle in the last 50 years. We can also see massive changes in plant varieties in the last few years also, as corporations, university research stations, and even small farmers extend their control over the livestock and plants they grow. They have shortened the time element of evolution by artificial selection. The result is that the "genetic space" is controlled and is even now being circumscribed. This is not to say differential mutations will not arise. Of course they will, as they are essentially random. However, we might want to think about our control of genetic space as we produce fewer and fewer varieties of crops.

Most people don't really grasp the magnitude of the peak oil problem as it relates to agriculture. Ever since the 1950's, there have been plenty of adverts extolling all the things that are made with petroleum products - from nylons to Nintendos. In the last few years, many people have started connecting the ubiquity of petroleum in our daily life to the food we eat. Without petroleum, there is no industrial agriculture and our ability to feed 6.8 billion people is compromised. Even now, we cannot feed everyone. The Green Revolution was heavily dependent on cheap fossil fuels; the increased levels of pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and research and development on high-yielding grains were all dependent on increasing use of cheap petroleum and its byproducts. Now, the increased population fostered by the Green Revolution has amped up the problem by several levels in India, Mexico and Asia. Yet the world supply of petroleum is decreasing and the price of a barrel of oil is steadily increasing. There are short-term price reductions, of course, but the overall price momentum continues to go up. These are all trends we can read about every day, but the sheer volume of info and the inability to put the problem in a local framework predisposes ordinary humans to just dismiss it. Here is a simple way to put the problem in perspective.

This year, I have produced enough calories on 1.5 acres to provide food for 3.54 people. This is based on 3.23 million calories produced from 77 crops and a calorie need of 2500 calories per person over 365 days (3,230,725 ÷ 365 ÷ 2500 = 3.54). To produce this food, I used 1.06 million calories (3000 hours of my labor at 125 calories per hour + 22.25 gallons of tiller gasoline at 31,000 calories per gallon = 1,064,750 calories). This gives me an efficiency ratio of 3.03 (3.23 million calories output ÷ 1.06 million calories input = 3.03). Now, these are interesting numbers, but how do they compare to the energy usage of a normal American driving 12,500 miles in a year with their car/truck at 25 miles per gallon? We can easily calculate this as 500 gallons of gas used per year and at 31,000 calories per gallon, the average American uses 15.5 million calories of gasoline - just to drive around. This means that the average driver uses over 15 times as much energy in their personal transportation use as I do for growing food to feed 3.5 people.

Obviously, the magnitude of the peak oil problem has more to do with personal transportation than with agriculture use. In point of fact, as we wind down our energy usage, it may become public policy to shift more of available fossil fuels to farmers to continue to feed people, while simultaneously restricting personal automobile use. This would certainly benefit everyone and would also keep industrial agriculture going for several more years. So why develop a sustainable model right now, when it would obviously be to my advantage to grow food through use of tractors on larger acreage? There are several reasons to abstain from the current industrial model.
1) I don't have access to enough land to grow food at the level of industrial agriculture.
2) I don't have enough capital to buy equipment, seed, fertilizer, etc at the industrial level. Nor do I have access to capital.
3) Industrial farming does not provide the same high-quality food I grow now, even from corporate organic farms. As any of you who have purchased so-called "organic" produce at the supermarket and compared it to my produce, my stuff wins hands down.
4) I am getting older and spending 14 hours on a tractor at a time does not sit well with my body.
5) The industrial ag game is rigged against family farmers - just ask any farmer in your own neighborhood.
6) Business plans are based on the future and the future is extremely dicey. Getting involved in a 5-year expansion based on current markets is just foolish.

A better model for solving current agriculture problems is to forget about being a "farmer." The real problem is growing food that is good to eat. Once you start thinking in this manner, a lot of alternatives are available but the main paradigm shift is to think about bridging the gap, or "transitioning" between the modern industrial agriculture model and the postmodern human-scale food production model. So what we need now are ways to grow food that meets our needs now, while simultaneously working towards a sustainable future. That's what I am doing. Even though I work with it every day, the magnitude of the problem is still a mind-blower.

Many years ago I applied for a breakfast cook job at a hotel in Boulder, Colorado. The application process included a question along the lines of: "You have three orders come in for the same table. One is 2 eggs over with ham and whole wheat toast; the second is Eggs Benedict and the third is a Spanish omelette with a side of pancakes. Write down the step-by-step process you would follow in finishing all three orders at the same time." For those of you who have been line cooks, you could probably do this order in your sleep, as could I, and I always liked this kind of application question.

I remembered that question this morning as I made myself an omelette and I thought at some length about timing in cooking. Sometimes I do all my prep work ahead of time and leave the ingredients in little bowls that I add at the right time. However, I find this boring, as I have to stand around and wait for the right time to add the ingredients. I much prefer to do my prepping as I cook and I sometimes refer to this as "just-in-time prep work." Back when I was an office temp I used to learn each new program I had to use by going to the tutorial in the Help Menu in the program itself. I called this approach "just-in-time learning." I first got onto the "just-in-time" concept when I worked in a machine shop and the owner had adopted the idea from Japanese business. Now many people have used this idea in their businesses and there is even a backlash against the concept because it is heavily dependent on cheap oil for transportation and it tends to clog up city streets during the workday hours (as it has done in Tokyo for years). Now American business is rethinking the idea of warehousing, especially if it can take advantage of inflationary cycles. In short, timing itself is being analyzed.

"Timing is everything," is an oft-used soundbite. Just as in cooking, timing is important in farming. For example, getting new potatoes out of the ground ahead of the lifecycle of late blight provides a backup against losing the entire crop. Using soaker hose or drip tape to water tomatoes not only lessens the probability of late blight, but also affords the opportunity to short the plants on water and speed up ripening. It is difficult not to hit the tomatoes if you have an impact sprinkler system, as I do, with a specified number of watering stations and a 10-day cycle - here's that timing thing again. The point is that timing is important in crop cycles and in individual plant cycles. This is not a new concept.

However, let's look at timing in a wider context. For the last 40 years I have been waiting for something to happen to afford the opportunity for real change. There was quite a burst of social change during the 60's and a lot of follow-through in the 70's. However, mainstream society fought back against real change and many cosmetic changes took the place of real change. One of the things Toni and I marvel at his how little progress has been made since our back-to-the-lander days. If we could have known how stratified and repressive American society would become, we wouldn't have believed it. The upshot of this perception is that the timing wasn't right in 1969. Of course, the question now becomes, "Is the timing right in 2009?" Tentatively, I think so.

The Transition Movement is gaining some traction right here in Whatcom county and around the nation. There are quite a few flaws, as it is mostly repackaging progressive social tactics developed over the last 40 years into a slick, branded package and marketing them heavily as new ideas. However, if it sweeps up the disaffected and airy-fairy and touchy-feely types into a movement that actually gets down into the dirt and sweats calories, it will have done its job. Right now the Transition Movement is mostly about meetings and spreading the word. However, it has provided another forum for me to spread my ideas and the local Transition Whatcom site provides constant updates from The Energy Bulletin and other worthy peak oil sources. I do take issue with its permaculture roots (there is way too much "cult" in permaculture) and since I have discussed my take on permaculture in other posts, I won't repeat myself. I also take issue with the whole idea of branding. As David Bowie once said, "Product plus personality equals brand." This is quite accurate and one only needs to look at Bowie's career to see how he marketed himself into superstardom. Personally, I find the whole concept of branding disgusting and Naomi Klein's book on corporate branding, No Logo (2000), was quite an eye-opener.

Clearly, I am selling my story when I am fresh-picking and selling vegetables to customers on the farm, but I am not doing the same thing as Nike (one of Klein's examples) is doing with their branding. Nike sells the brand and outsources the product. It doesn't really matter if its shoes are made in the Phillipines or Vietnam - the brand is what the customer is buying. The place means nothing and the product very little. It is all about the image behind the brand. In certified organics, the brand is once again most important. It doesn't matter where the product was made and the product is less important than the image being sold. In a nutshell, that is what then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman was saying back in 2000 when he said organic certification is not about food safety but just about marketing.

There are different levels to marketing. I do some marketing and I sell my commitment to the land every time I tell my story to a customer. However, I don't do branding like those who use the certified organic brand. The place I grow my food is important and the product itself is of prime importance, not whether it has a certified organic label. As an example of how the certified organic brand has gone astray, the Bellingham Co-op doesn't care whether their produce is grown in California or in Northwest Washington. What is most important to them is whether the produce has the certified organic brand.

How does all this relate to timing? I think the time is right for real change - right now. It starts with the land and proceeds through the food into the time spent cooking our own meals with like-minded folks. However, I think we have to be careful this time around. We cannot let ourselves be co-opted this time, especially by retread corporate tactics like branding and slick promotion. The environmental stakes are much higher and the societal costs more expensive.