Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:07:32 -0700
X-Sender: gyoung@pacific.net
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
From: gyoung@pacific.net (Gregg Young)
Subject: Albrecht Soil Dabate
Came across the debate on the internet - I'm one of those agronomists who
have been using Albrecht's recs (for last 20 years) in N Calif. This
approach solves a lot of soil problems; explains lots of fertility/pest &
disease relationships. Whenever I run across someone who states there is no
"perfect soil ratio" (Albrecht promoted a range of ratios); I ask if they
have personally tried the approach - answer is always no. Meanwhile, people
such as Ralph Jurgens, Kate Burroughs, Amico Cantisano, and myself have
been using these methods for years.Few argue that an optimum range of Ca:Na
ratio exists; it is easily demonstrated that Ca:Mg:K:Na ratios affect
uptake of those cations, plus soil texture/drainage (which affects
nutrients & bio-activity), etc. The problem lies in the true statement:
"crops perform adequately in a wide range of soil conditions & ratios" - I
could'nt imagine trying to talk a top winemaker in my area into growing
"adequate" quality grapes. When fine tuning a soil program - paying
attention to soil tilth, insect & disease resistance, taste & flavor,
storage quality, etc. the approach works well.
illegitimi non corborundum
Gregg Young, CPAg
Mendocino Co, CA
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 17:43:14 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re:Rwanda/Burundi and Alley Cropping
Thanks, Don, for your interesting contribution. It shows how dangerous it
is to generalize about a continent as diverse as Africa. Rwanda and Burundi
certainly have a more intense agriculture than many of the areas I am most
familiar with. What you are describing about use of animal manure is more
like what I have observed in Kenya. However, it seems to be consistent
everywhere that most of the organic by-products that are recycled, whether
animal or plant, apart from those crop residues left in the field, are used
to enrich the areas nearest the household. That leaves the outer fields in
greater need of fertility and hence the interest in alley cropping.
Your second point seems to relate more to the research methodology and not
to the technology itself. You certainly have a point, that the hedgerows
should be evaluated from the other perspectives besides simply soil
amendment. In fact, by addressing these other benefits one increases the
chances of farmer adoption. I also share your viewpoint in favor of
stepwise adoption of technology. As an agronomist, my concern about
planting the hedgerows at the borders of fields would be 1.) whether the
amount of biomass would be adequate to sustain production at a reasonable
level and 2.) whether farmers would actually apply the hedgerow prunings to
the fields given the added labor of transporting the prunings from the edges
to the center of the field. When the hedgerows are 4-5 m apart on the
contour, pruning operations are facilitated because farmers do not have to
carry the prunings. Erosion control is another benefit that would be partly
lost in border plantings. In Haiti, where farmers in the past refused to
plant that close, we are now seeing more acceptance, at least in the South,
as they are also seeing the yield benefits from alley cropping.
You will be interested to know that the Alley Farming Network for Africa
(AFNETA), the network that promotes alley cropping research in West and
Central Africa, is now taking a very broad view of alley cropping not
limited to the standard 4-5 m alleys you described above, and are
encouraging farmers participating in their on-farm trials to be innovative
in modifying the technology to fit their local conditions.
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:13:18 -0800
From: Carol A. Miles
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Avery/Benbrook Debate and the Tropics
Just my own 2 cents on why farmers in the savannah region of Africa do not use
soil tests, compost, mulch, or manure.
I worked for a few years in Northern Cameroon. There are no commercial
soil test labs in that area. I do not believe it would currently be
economically feasible for farmers to send soil samples to any labs within
the region. In addition, to most subsistence farmers in the savannah
region (and the vast majority of farmers are at the subsistance level),
money is almost a non-existant commodity.
To understand why farmers use chemical inputs, like fertilizers, it is
important to try and understand the crop growing/marketing systems which
exist in the region. When a farmer grows a cash crop (cotton, for example)
the state company in charge of that crop supplies the farmer with chemicals
(fertilizers and sprays), seed, and some technical assistance. When it is
time for the farmer to sell the crop he/she must sell to the company. The
price of advanced purchases is subtracted from the market value of the
crop. There is very little choice in this marketing system.
Regarding compost, mulch, and manure - basically, there are no "left-overs"
in cropping systems in the savannah region. Plant material is either used
as a human or animal food source (i.e., young legume leaves are cooked in
sauces, plant material after harvest is fed as hay) or used in contruction
(sorgum, millet and corn stalks are used for fences and reinforcing huts).
Manure is gathered and used for fuel. Literally, nothing is left in a
field after harvest.
In much of the savannah region, the non-cropping season is too dry to grow
any field crops. So a green manure crop grown during the off-season simply
does not work. And I can not see the possibility of a farmer growing a
crop during the cropping season simply to plow it down. Life is lived too
much from season to season. The more critical situation is how to live
from one year to the next without consuming next years seed.
Also, even though occupations tend to be defined by tribes (Fulani are
herders, Mafa are farmers), there is co-existance between the tribes on the
same soil. This means the herders keep out of the fields until after
harvest. At that time, the herds move in and eat any crop remains. Meat,
milk, and blood is then available on the local market.
These are all my impressions of how life is lived on the savannah of
Northern Cameroon. It has been a few years since I was there, but the
images are certainly etched very clearly in my mind. Thank you for
bringing them to the forefront again.
**********************************************************************
Carol A. Miles, Ph.D.
Washington State University
Extension Agricultural Systems
360 NW North Street
Chehalis, WA 98532
PHONE 360-740-1295 FAX 360-740-1475
milesc@wsu.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:55:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: Delivering AID
Thanks Dennis for your excellent and informative post. I have never been
to Africa, and am glad to hear some World Bank projects have helped raise
productivity levels. A couple of points:
1. WB is best for infrastructure development involving large
capital-intensive projects that are clearly linked to increased economic
activity, soi that the loans lead reliably to the economic activity
needed to pay for them. WB role in sustainable development in rural
areas remains to be scene; yes, roads and fertilizer supplies can and
often must be a part of the equation, and the WB, FAO and other
donors/aid agencies are relatively good at delivering that kind of
assistance. The problem is the field level ability, will, capacity to
integrate new infrastructure and inputs into sustainable production
systems. This is the part of projects routinelky identified as
problematic. And so, I think it is the area that deserves the most
attention, and that progress in it should be a pre-requisite for loaning
tons of money for infrastructure, which can be paied off only if all
three legs of the stool are present and balanced.
2. Best success in delivering aid has been through small, regionally
based, quasi-locally, quasi-nationally controlled foundations. Good
models exist in L.A. and Asia. The WB and UN system shoulkd be running
the majority of their farmer-level development aid dollars through these
foundations. To do so donors have to overcome resistance in country,
since elites and politicians like controlling the flow of external aid
funds; it sustains them. Donors have a responsibility to honestly
appraise and respond to the effectiveness of aid dollars and how they are
spent. As competition and need for dollars grows far beyond supply, one
positive way to make choices is to support sus dev. projects in those
regions wioth a local delivering and administrative infrastructure, if
you will, that will get lots done with available dollars. From my work
with UNDP I do not think it is particularly difficult to predict where
quality implementation can occur, and it is surely not difficult to do
annual program reviews that settle the issue. Aid agencies typically
know a lot about how well money is spent, but are relatively powerless to
affect change. If the money is in the 5-year plan, if Congress has
appropriated it, the money gets spent. Period. Aid needs to be delivered
in smaller chunks, subject to continuously review and mid-course
corrections, and for longer periods of time, to get the most out of each
dollar.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 15:09:30 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
To: Charles Benbrook
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Response to Benbrook: World Bank
Thank you for some tough but pertinent questions. There are a lot of issues
implied in your questions. I will try to answer as best I can.
>Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. The important issue boild down
>to this. The World Bank is getting ready for another major round of
>lending to central African nations where population, land degradation and
>low farm productivity have large regions on clearly an unsustainable path.
> Does the money go into infrastructure (roads, ports, trucks) and
>fertilizer plants, or into diversified cropping systems that rely
>predominantly on locally available inputs and which can work toward
>higher levels of production and lower dependence on capital, energy and
>chemicals? This is the issue.
Farmers in Central and West Africa need access to markets, access to new
information, access to inputs. By information, I include more sustainable
methods of production using low input techniques, such as agroforestry. The
question is how to deliver these. The answer will depend upon the
individual countries, which differ greatly in existing infrastructure, but
solution would probably comprise some mix of both infrastructure development
(roads, maybe ports), input supply (fertilizer or fertilizer plants,
depending upon the country; seed, etc.), and extension linked to good
research.
> I say let foreign corporations put up the money for capital
>intensive, export oriented farming systems, which will almost always be
>on the best lands. I frankly wish even that such lands could be farmed
>by people to meet regional needs, but that seems hopelessly unrealistic
>in most countries where consolidation and control has already been lost.
Isn't that a cop-out? Export oriented, capital intensive agriculture does
not address the problems of sustainable agriculture or domestic food
production. On a macro level, it might increase foreign exchange, which
could be used to purchase cheap food for urban consumers. However, unless
this is done in a way that benefits small-scale producers, the effects could
be ecologically and socially detrimental. Food production would presumably
decline through reallocation of land. By diverting the best land to export
crops, use of unsustainable cropping methods would be expanded on soils less
tolerant to poor management, thus exacerbating soil fertility problems.
Crop yields and total production would decline further, impoverishing the
rural population. Food would become more costly unless food imports are
increased, but the latter would further decrease farm income. This in turn
would lead to increased urban migration, unemployment and crime. It sounds
like a recipe for trouble and I don't think that outcome would be in their
or our national interests. Chances are, such commercial ventures would go
broke in five years, but by then the damage would be done.
The reality is that these lands can be farmed to meet regional needs. I
believe that it is quite possible for African nations to again become
self-sufficient in food production and that it does not have to be through
large-scale capital intensive farming. It can be accomplished through a
combination of improved, sustainable soil management using appropriate
technologies like agroforestry, moderate use of fertilizers and some
pesticides, and access to improved crop varieties. It will require working
with farmers at the village level, but it can be done. What is often
lacking is the delivery system.
For those who want to farm on a large scale, it is still possible and there
are a few entrepreneurs who are trying it. But there needs to be research
on how to manage the often fragile soils sustainably with large-scale
mechanized farming. At this point, I don't think we have sufficient good
data on how to sustain production nor a sufficiently large clientele
interested and able to farm in this manner to justify massive investments.
Besides, those who have the capital certainly don't need the international
community to subsidize their endeavors.
> The record shows -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that where ag
>development projects go into an area focusing on dams, fertilizer and
>pesticides and high yield varieities the results have proven
>disappointing for a complex mix of social and biological reasons.
We are talking apples and oranges. True, some irrigation schemes I know
about have been white elephants and caused serious social problems. I have
usually found farmers eager for fertilizers and high yielding varieties,
provided that they are appropriate to the environment, cropping system and
do not have crop quality problems. Where the World Bank has assisted
farmers through Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), it seems to have
been successful in increasing farm production and probably income. I have
seen maize on farms in Northern Nigeria worthy of any mid-Western farm,
thanks to fertilizers and improved varieties supplied by World Bank ADPs.
These are areas where 30 or 40 years ago, one would have seen only sorghum
and millets. The fertilizers distributed by the ADPs were appropriate to
the particular soils of the region (eg. boronated single superphosphate),
whereas had the fertilizers been attained through the private sector, I am
quite sure that such would not have been the case. In part of Zaire where I
once worked, farmers would not have had access to fertilizer and only
limited access to improved crop varieties had it not been for the World
Bank. When you visit rural areas, even within World Bank project areas,
farmers constantly complain about not being able to get fertilizer, or not
being able to get enough seed. Supply does not keep up with demand. If
there is a disappointment, it is not that the wrong thing is being done, but
that the job is not being done as well as it should be.
I am not for no inputs and I completely agree that productivity
>has got to be increased. I simply think it is foolish to think the
>developed world has the commitment and money needed to turn Nigeria into
>Iowa.
I agree, it is foolish to reproduce American agriculture in developing
countries. The American economy is typified by high labor costs, hence the
need to maximize returns to labor. Such is not the case in much of the
developing world. But I don't think anyone, including the World Bank, is
trying to do that in Central or West Africa. However, high yields are scale
neutral. The only advantage of a tractor over a hand held hoe or an ox plow
with respect to yield is the ability to plow deeper, where a pan or
compaction may be a problem. Fertilizer response is the same, regardless of
scale. A low resource farmer can benefit from a disease resistant crop
variety as much as does a commercial farmer. The question is whether
Nigerian and Zairean farmers will have access to the inputs (material and
intellectual) to enable them compete within their own economies and to
achieve an increased standard of living and to be able to invest in a
sustainable agriculture. When that is achieved, we will see food production
catch up with population growth.
> One of the problems many developing countries face is paying off
>the debt from the last 20 years of loans in the name of high yield
>agriculture -- loans which have made some people rich but left countries
>much worse off. So the solution is more of the same? I hope not.
Perhaps loans to governments are not the answer. Debt repayment is outside
of my area. I take it as a given that there is a crisis in food production
in sub-Saharan Africa and that its solution requires participation from the
wealthier nations of the World. From that standpoint, we can discuss how
that assistance can be effective.
One issue is how our assistance should be channelled. The question I have
with World Bank Projects is how much of the investment actually reaches
farmers? I am not an expert on the World Bank, but I have seen enough to
have the impression that World Bank projects have serious problems of misuse
of resources. In the project nearest to me, accountability certainly did
not appear to be adequate. The people implementing World Bank projects are
political appointees, with probably doubtful qualifications, while the
resources at their disposal are immense. They control people, vehicles and
accounts. In Zaire, technical oversight by the Bank consisted of rare
whirlwind visits by an "expert" (a different one every time). Rumors of
fraud and abuse were rampant. I don't believe there is enough
accountability built into the system. This problem is not unique to the
Bank, but the nature and amount of assistance would seem to leave these
projects especially vulnerable to abuse.
Except for large-scale infrastructure projects, I don't see where the World
Bank has a comparative advantage over smaller implementing agencies. Why
not channel more of this money through smaller-scale bilateral assistance
programs and non-governmental agencies. I would guess that USAID provides
better value for money. Its projects tend to be smaller and therefore
easier to oversee, and American contractors are usually employed on the
ground, who are directly accountable to the funding agency. Even there,
politics seem to get in the way of accountability and good sense at times.
I would really like to see agricultural development projects under an agency
independent of the State Department, which would be accountable based upon
technical, rather than political considerations. There is a growing cadre
of unemployed or underutilized African agricultural scientists and Americans
knowledgeable about Africa, who could probably do a much better job of
agricultural development then the agencies presently involved in
agricultural development.
I think donor countries share some of the responsibility for lending (or
giving) money without adequately engaging the recipients in its use. It has
not been "politically correct" to involve ourselves in the internal
management of these projects. In the language of the 60's, it was
"paternalistic and neo-colonialist" to demand accountability. That was a
mistake. So long as donor countries are not willing to demand and obtain
accountability at the implementation level, the best of intentions will not
result in funds being used for their intended purposes. Unfortunately, my
sense is that the donor community is moving in the direction of further
disengagement, when just the opposite is needed.
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 15:59:08 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: African soils
Marcie,
Thanks for your questions.
Marcie wrote:
>Dear Mr. Shannon,
>
>Like Ann Wells, I have little knowledge of sub-Saharan agriculture, social
>systems, or political situations so, I was pleased you posted her questions
>and responded to them.
>
>I am always concerned when single issue solutions are exported without a
>sense of the social system into which they will be introduced. From my base
>of not knowing, these questions spring to mind.
>
>How long is the land fallowed before it is economically feasible to crop it
>again?
This depends upon the ecological zone (rainfall, vegetation type), soil
characteristics and how the land was managed. Under shifting cultivation,
estimates in the literature vary but are in the range of 7-10 years for
savanna and about 16-25 years or more in forest. I believe the references I
cited in the previous post have something to say about that. These numbers
are based, I believe, on the time to return the field to its "natural"
vegetative state. I have not seen good data on the required fallow period
with modern inputs, but I anticipate that it would be reduced. Again, use
of an improved fallow with legumes would shorten this period, probably to
one or two years. With alley cropping, the question would be whether you
need a fallow at all. The first alley cropping trial Dr. B.T. Kang planted
in Nigeria in 1978 is in its 16'th year of cropping and as far as I know is
still sustaining yields.
>Do the herdsmen have some treaty or trading relationship with the farmers?
> Would it make some sort of sense to explore the possibility of the herdsmen
>doing a modified "rotational grazing system" -- ie moving their herds from
>one ag tribe's to another's as the pasture is used -- having the ag tribes
>plant and that pasture to grain/legume mix in rotation with food crops -- in
>partial exchange for meat and milk? The movement of the cattle herds this
>way would approximate the traditional nomadic lifestyle of the Massai et al
>and benefit the farmers by speeding up the process of regeneration.
In parts of Nigeria, the local crop farmers allow the Fulani to graze their
cattle on the crop residues left in the field after harvest at the start of
the dry season. This is believed by many to contribute to the fertility of
these soils. This mutual benefit of meat and milk for grazing occurs
between the Fulani and Hausa in Northern Nigeria. But in many areas,
especially where the tsetse fly is endemic (cattle are especially
susceptible to sleeping sickness), one doen't find people dependent upon
cattle. The traditional nomadic herding is probably doomed, anyway, by
modernization, or at least will be greatly restricted as more congested
highways criss-cross the country and towns develop. I am sure that cattle
rearing will survive in some form, but I cannot predict how that will be.
In Kenya, settlers are moving into areas the Massai consider their
traditional grazing lands and they are having the same conflicts the Western
U.S. did between cattlemen and crop farmers. On the other-hand there is
much more cattle raising by crop farmers in Kenya than one sees in West
Africa, and there is also ox traction, so there is probably more scope for
the types of solutions that you are suggesting (improved pastures, etc.).
>Also, don't local flora growing naturally in those soils fix or mine
>nutrients unavailable to our "exotic" food crop species? Would it make some
>sense to use these "weed" species as a local cover crop to help correct some
>soil problems?
That is essentially what the natural fallow is. What researchers are
working on now is how to speed it along. ICRAF(International Centre for
Agroforestry Research) is doing some work along that line in the forest area
of Cameroon.
>
>I am glad to hear the regeneration ag research on leguminous tree species
>pioneered by the Rodale gang is being tried.
>
>Thanks for correcting my ignorance,
>Marcie
>
>
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 16:34:19 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Avery/Benbrook Debate and the Tropics
Ann,
I was hoping someone would ask these questions, because they are very
pertinent to the discussion. I hope you don't mind that I post my answer
with your questions on SANET.
>I read with great interest in what you wrote about developing nations.
>I have some questions that I hope are not too stupid. I am trying to
>learn more about the soil and soils quality in different regions. If
>these farmers are planting in savannah, isn't the soil quality fairly
>high in fertility? Why, instead of using chemical fertilizers, can't some
>inexpensive soil testing be done, and more natural methods of retaining
>soil quality, such as the use of compost and mulches be used? If they are
>clearing 10-20 ha, are they raising any livestock on this land. What is
>being doine with all the animal manure, plus all the cleared *debris*
>(for lack of a better word)? There is some pretty marginal land in the US
>that is managed for gardens year after rear, by the above methods.
>
>My lack of knowledge may be very evident with these questions. I feel
>that the way livestock is being raised here leaves a lot to be desired,
>and hate to see our less than sustainable methods being exported
>exclusively to third world nations. If you have any books or other
>references that you would recommend I read, please tell me. I guess I
>mainly don't understand why these people would be having to abandon their
>land after three years from lack of fertility, when there is knowledge
>that I would think would prevent that.
>
>Thank you for your time and expertise.
>
>Ann Wells, DVM
>
>
The Savannas of West and Central Africa are largely characterized by soils
with low cation exchange capacity, due to coarse texture in many places and
a clay fraction dominated by kaolinite, which is considered a low activitity
clay. There are exceptions, of course, such as the more fertile loess soils
of Northern Nigeria. That means that the soil is able to hold a limited
amount of nutrients relative to more fertile soils. Hence organic matter
plays a very crucial role in plant nutrition since it also is a store of
nutrients and in low CEC soils, comprises a large percentage of exchange
capacity. During the cropping phase, tillage results in a rapid breakdown
of organic matter through microbial action. This benefits the first crops,
which are able to utilize the nutrients released from this decomposition.
But with successive seasons the organic matter and thus nutrients in the
soil decline and crop productivity declines as well. Once the land is
abandoned to natural fallow, the organic matter is restored with the natural
vegetation.
Your question about compost and mulches is very pertinent, because they can
be used to maintain productivity. The problem is where to obtain sufficient
quantity of organic matter to accomplish this on a field scale.
Undoubtedly, better use could be made of the organic resources they have,
but for most crop farmers, this would not serve for much beyond the kitchen
gardens. You have to understand that in much of sub-Saharan Africa, you do
not have mixed livestock/crop farming, like we know it in Europe and North
America. Traditionally, livestock and crop farming tend to be separated
along ethnic lines, with tribes such as the Fulani and Massai living as
herdmen concentrating on cattle rearing, while other groups being sedentary
crop farmers. Although Africa is changing, the distinctions generally hold.
Crop farmers often have a few small livestock, such as chickens and goats,
but these roam freely or are tethered in the field, so that collection of
manure is not convenient, and at any rate would not be sufficient to sustain
production.
The Western solution to restoring organic matter was to introduce leguminous
cover crops as green manures. That has generally not been adopted by
low-resource farmers. Farmers generally are not willing to plant a crop
simply to restore the soil, with no other benefit. To me, it makes sense
that so long as they don't have traction and must rely on manual labor for
tillage it will not be an option. Recently, there has been some interest in
the slash mulch, a modified cover crop system with velvet bean that has been
developed in Central America. Velvet bean is an annual legume which
produces a lot of N-rich vegetation. The problem is that velvet bean can
become a very competitive weed and may not fit in cropping systems where
there are two crops a year.
One of the most promising alternatives is alley cropping, where fast-growing
leguminous trees are planted in rows about 4-5 meters apart and are pruned
regularly to provide nitrogen rich mulch for crops which are grown between
the rows of trees. There has been a lot of research on this during the last
10 years and most of it has been positive. One of the first trials was
established in 1978 in Nigeria and continues to support a crop of maize and
a crop of cowpeas each year. It is still in the testing phase on farm in
Africa and adoption is limited. It is being adopted by some farmers in
Haiti and apparently in the Philippines and Indonesia. Although there are
some problems to work out, I believe that it is one of the most promising
alternatives for sustaining crop yields of low resource farmers.
References on tropical soils:
Sanchez, P.A. 1976. Properties and Management of Soils of the Tropics.
Wiley-Interscience, NY.
Kowal, J.M. and A.K. Kassam. 1978. Agricultural Ecology of Savanna: A
study of West Africa. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Jones, M.J. and A. Wild. Soils of the West African Savanna. Commonwealth
Agricultural Bureau, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils Tech. Comm. No. 55
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 15:16:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Donald Voth
To: Dennis Shannon
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu,
Subject: Re: Avery/Benbrook Debate and the Tropics
I want to thank Dennis Shannon again for his discussionn of sub-tropical
African soils. I have only two qualifications to what Shannon said.
First, in the areas where I have a little bit of experience, Rwanda and
Burundi, there is a historical pattern of integrating animals into
farming systems, even cattle. There are complicated cultural
implications of this, implications that are not unrelated to the current
violence in these countries. However, for this discussion that is not
relevant. The point is that the value of animal manure is appreciated,
that it is used, but mostly for the highest valued food crops right
around the dwelling (partly because of theft). When we were doing
surveys and asked for the reason for having animals, manure was
frequently given as the first reason. My second qualification concerns
alley cropping. We did find some versions of alley cropping very
beneficial, but we found the rigidity of most alley cropping advocates to
be a serious detriment to acceptance. Farmers simply would not,
initially, divide their fields into 4-5 meter strips, but they certainly
would consider using the recommended hedges at the borders. Much as we
tried, we almost always failed to get the scientists who advocate alley
cropping to be willing to consider, conceptually at least, taking alley
cropping apart, and looking at its various potential contributions
(nitrogen fixing, provision of organic matter, soil erosion control,
provision of bean poles, etc.) separately, and trying to design
applications that farmers actually could implement in a progressive
manner. And, this was a Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E)
project!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 15:09:30 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
To: Charles Benbrook
Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu,
Subject: Response to Benbrook: World Bank
Thank you for some tough but pertinent questions. There are a lot of issues
implied in your questions. I will try to answer as best I can.
>Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. The important issue boild down
>to this. The World Bank is getting ready for another major round of
>lending to central African nations where population, land degradation and
>low farm productivity have large regions on clearly an unsustainable path.
> Does the money go into infrastructure (roads, ports, trucks) and
>fertilizer plants, or into diversified cropping systems that rely
>predominantly on locally available inputs and which can work toward
>higher levels of production and lower dependence on capital, energy and
>chemicals? This is the issue.
Farmers in Central and West Africa need access to markets, access to new
information, access to inputs. By information, I include more sustainable
methods of production using low input techniques, such as agroforestry. The
question is how to deliver these. The answer will depend upon the
individual countries, which differ greatly in existing infrastructure, but
solution would probably comprise some mix of both infrastructure development
(roads, maybe ports), input supply (fertilizer or fertilizer plants,
depending upon the country; seed, etc.), and extension linked to good
research.
> I say let foreign corporations put up the money for capital
>intensive, export oriented farming systems, which will almost always be
>on the best lands. I frankly wish even that such lands could be farmed
>by people to meet regional needs, but that seems hopelessly unrealistic
>in most countries where consolidation and control has already been lost.
Isn't that a cop-out? Export oriented, capital intensive agriculture does
not address the problems of sustainable agriculture or domestic food
production. On a macro level, it might increase foreign exchange, which
could be used to purchase cheap food for urban consumers. However, unless
this is done in a way that benefits small-scale producers, the effects could
be ecologically and socially detrimental. Food production would presumably
decline through reallocation of land. By diverting the best land to export
crops, use of unsustainable cropping methods would be expanded on soils less
tolerant to poor management, thus exacerbating soil fertility problems.
Crop yields and total production would decline further, impoverishing the
rural population. Food would become more costly unless food imports are
increased, but the latter would further decrease farm income. This in turn
would lead to increased urban migration, unemployment and crime. It sounds
like a recipe for trouble and I don't think that outcome would be in their
or our national interests. Chances are, such commercial ventures would go
broke in five years, but by then the damage would be done.
The reality is that these lands can be farmed to meet regional needs. I
believe that it is quite possible for African nations to again become
self-sufficient in food production and that it does not have to be through
large-scale capital intensive farming. It can be accomplished through a
combination of improved, sustainable soil management using appropriate
technologies like agroforestry, moderate use of fertilizers and some
pesticides, and access to improved crop varieties. It will require working
with farmers at the village level, but it can be done. What is often
lacking is the delivery system.
For those who want to farm on a large scale, it is still possible and there
are a few entrepreneurs who are trying it. But there needs to be research
on how to manage the often fragile soils sustainably with large-scale
mechanized farming. At this point, I don't think we have sufficient good
data on how to sustain production nor a sufficiently large clientele
interested and able to farm in this manner to justify massive investments.
Besides, those who have the capital certainly don't need the international
community to subsidize their endeavors.
> The record shows -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that where ag
>development projects go into an area focusing on dams, fertilizer and
>pesticides and high yield varieities the results have proven
>disappointing for a complex mix of social and biological reasons.
>
We are talking apples and oranges. True, some irrigation schemes I know
about have been white elephants and caused serious social problems. I have
usually found farmers eager for fertilizers and high yielding varieties,
provided that they are appropriate to the environment, cropping system and
do not have crop quality problems. Where the World Bank has assisted
farmers through Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), it seems to have
been successful in increasing farm production and probably income. I have
seen maize on farms in Northern Nigeria worthy of any mid-Western farm,
thanks to fertilizers and improved varieties supplied by World Bank ADPs.
These are areas where 30 or 40 years ago, one would have seen only sorghum
and millets. The fertilizers distributed by the ADPs were appropriate to
the particular soils of the region (eg. boronated single superphosphate),
whereas had the fertilizers been attained through the private sector, I am
quite sure that such would not have been the case. In part of Zaire where I
once worked, farmers would not have had access to fertilizer and only
limited access to improved crop varieties had it not been for the World
Bank. When you visit rural areas, even within World Bank project areas,
farmers constantly complain about not being able to get fertilizer, or not
being able to get enough seed. Supply does not keep up with demand. If
there is a disappointment, it is not that the wrong thing is being done, but
that the job is not being done as well as it should be.
I am not for no inputs and I completely agree that productivity
>has got to be increased. I simply think it is foolish to think the
>developed world has the commitment and money needed to turn Nigeria into
>Iowa.
I agree, it is foolish to reproduce American agriculture in developing
countries. The American economy is typified by high labor costs, hence the
need to maximize returns to labor. Such is not the case in much of the
developing world. But I don't think anyone, including the World Bank, is
trying to do that in Central or West Africa. However, high yields are scale
neutral. The only advantage of a tractor over a hand held hoe or an ox plow
with respect to yield is the ability to plow deeper, where a pan or
compaction may be a problem. Fertilizer response is the same, regardless of
scale. A low resource farmer can benefit from a disease resistant crop
variety as much as does a commercial farmer. The question is whether
Nigerian and Zairean farmers will have access to the inputs (material and
intellectual) to enable them compete within their own economies and to
achieve an increased standard of living and to be able to invest in a
sustainable agriculture. When that is achieved, we will see food production
catch up with population growth.
> One of the problems many developing countries face is paying off
>the debt from the last 20 years of loans in the name of high yield
>agriculture -- loans which have made some people rich but left countries
>much worse off. So the solution is more of the same? I hope not.
Perhaps loans to governments are not the answer. Debt repayment is outside
of my area. I take it as a given that there is a crisis in food production
in sub-Saharan Africa and that its solution requires participation from the
wealthier nations of the World. From that standpoint, we can discuss how
that assistance can be effective.
One issue is how our assistance should be channelled. The question I have
with World Bank Projects is how much of the investment actually reaches
farmers? I am not an expert on the World Bank, but I have seen enough to
have the impression that World Bank projects have serious problems of misuse
of resources. In the project nearest to me, accountability certainly did
not appear to be adequate. The people implementing World Bank projects are
political appointees, with probably doubtful qualifications, while the
resources at their disposal are immense. They control people, vehicles and
accounts. In Zaire, technical oversight by the Bank consisted of rare
whirlwind visits by an "expert" (a different one every time). Rumors of
fraud and abuse were rampant. I don't believe there is enough
accountability built into the system. This problem is not unique to the
Bank, but the nature and amount of assistance would seem to leave these
projects especially vulnerable to abuse.
Except for large-scale infrastructure projects, I don't see where the World
Bank has a comparative advantage over smaller implementing agencies. Why
not channel more of this money through smaller-scale bilateral assistance
programs and non-governmental agencies. I would guess that USAID provides
better value for money. Its projects tend to be smaller and therefore
easier to oversee, and American contractors are usually employed on the
ground, who are directly accountable to the funding agency. Even there,
politics seem to get in the way of accountability and good sense at times.
I would really like to see agricultural development projects under an agency
independent of the State Department, which would be accountable based upon
technical, rather than political considerations. There is a growing cadre
of unemployed or underutilized African agricultural scientists and Americans
knowledgeable about Africa, who could probably do a much better job of
agricultural development then the agencies presently involved in
agricultural development.
I think donor countries share some of the responsibility for lending (or
giving) money without adequately engaging the recipients in its use. It has
not been "politically correct" to involve ourselves in the internal
management of these projects. In the language of the 60's, it was
"paternalistic and neo-colonialist" to demand accountability. That was a
mistake. So long as donor countries are not willing to demand and obtain
accountability at the implementation level, the best of intentions will not
result in funds being used for their intended purposes. Unfortunately, my
sense is that the donor community is moving in the direction of further
disengagement, when just the opposite is needed.
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:07:14 -0800
From: Carol A. Miles
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re Shannon Post
In response to Charles Benbrook:
--- snip ---
> The record shows -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that where ag
>development projects go into an area focusing on dams, fertilizer and
>pesticides and high yiled varieities the results have proven
>disappointing for a complex mix of social and biological reasons.
Evaluating the success of development projects in developing countries has
to be one of the most difficult tasks there is. With that in mind, I just
wanted to share my impressions of a World Bank funded project in Northern
Cameroon, an area where I was a Peace Corps Volunteer for a few years. I
did not work with this project, but viewed it from a distance of 80 km.
The project was the rice production plant on the river along the border
with Tchad. I apologize, I was there 8 years ago and the names are
escaping me. The project built a dam, built a rice processing plant, built
several villages, relocated a population, planted trees throughout the
area, built roads for shipping supplies in and rice out, sent students to
national and international colleges for technical training, and supplied
seed, fertilizer and pesticides to farmers on the "company store" system
(farmers had to purchase from them).
The relocated population had been fishermen/women on Lake Tchad as well as
nomadic herders (actually, these are two separate populations/tribes). The
populations had been caught in civil wars within Tchad and Nigeria, settled
in Cameroon, and were suffering from starvation and malnutrition. After a
year of learning how to farm rice, many of these individuals farmed their
own paddy(ies). When the dam and rice paddies became fully active, the
shores of Lake Tchad receded several miles (I am not clear on exact
numbers). However, the newly formed lake (formed by the constructed dam)
became a new fishing source. The project became the major supplier of rice
to the region. Rice is a highly desirable food in the area, and there is
much demand for it.
There are many trade-offs in the world of development and agricultural
production. From a lay-womans perspective I felt the World Bank rice
project made great strides to provide work for a local,in-need population,
as well as food for an under-nurished region of the world. Is it
appropriate to change an entire population's cultural way of life - fishers
and nomads to farmers? A person can justify any side of the argument, but
when I look at the immediate benefits, food on the table and a settled,
safe environment, I feel the action was appropriate and the project
"successful".
I am not naive enough to think that Cameroon does not have to pay for the
project - World Bank is, after all, a bank. And "success" is a moving
target. Many mistakes have been made in the project, and many lessons have
been learnt. The challenge is to recognize what can be changed and how
best to approach those changes.
Carol A. Miles, Ph.D.
Washington State University
Extension Agricultural Systems
360 NW North Street
Chehalis, WA 98532
PHONE 360-740-1295 FAX 360-740-1475
milesc@wsu.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 07:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: Re Shannon Post
Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. The important issue boild down
to this. The World Bank is getting ready for another major round of
lending to central African nations where population, land degradation and
low farm productivity have large regions on clearly an unsustainable path.
Does the money go into infrastructure (roads, ports, trucks) and
fertilizer plants, or into diversified cropping systems that rely
predominantly on locally available inputs and which can work toward
higher levels of production and lower dependence on capital, energy and
chemicals? This is the issue.
I say let foreign corporations put up the money for capital
intensive, export oriented farming systems, which will almost always be
on the best lands. I frankly wish even that such lands could be farmed
by people to meet regional needs, but that seems hopelessly unrealistic
in most countries where consolidation and control has already been lost.
The record shows -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that where ag
development projects go into an area focusing on dams, fertilizer and
pesticides and high yiled varieities the results have proven
disappointing for a complex mix of social and biological reasons.
I am not for no inputs and I completely agree that productivity
has got to be increased. I simply think it is foolish to think the
developed world has the commitment and money needed to turn Nigeria into
Iowa.
One of the problems many developing countries face is paying off
the debt from the last 20 years of loans in the name of high yield
agriculture -- loans which have made some people rich but left countries
much worse off. So the solution is more of the same? I hope not.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 16:44:34 CDT
From: Dennis Shannon
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Avery/Benbrook Debate and the Tropics
High Input v.s. Organic Debate and the Tropics
In the debate over high input and organic farming last week,
several people made reference to developing countries in the
tropics, especially sub-Saharan Africa, to make their case. As
someone who has spent most of the last 15 years working as an
agronomist in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, I find neither
sides' positions entirely satisfactory from the perspective of the
Third World and the realities and constraints facing farmers in
the developing world.
Robert Stevahn suggests loss of wildlife and presumably other
environmental problems are the result of the export of Western
agricultural technology and "hooking them on expensive technology."
That can hardly be true of sub-Saharan Africa, where 95 % of the
region's food is produced by low resource farmers (Mellor et al.,
1987). Much of this production is achieved with manual labor,
little or no fertilizer and little or no pesticides. It is true
that there have been disastrous attempts at large-scale farming.
I have had occasion to visit a few such farms and most of them
suffered from agronomic and managerial mismanagement, lack of spare
parts and a host of other problems typical of developing countries
and can hardly serve as evidence for or against the technical
feasibility of high input commercial agriculture. Although some
used destructive land clearing practices and did not take adequate
precautions to control runoff over large surfaces, they represent
a drop in the bucket, in terms food production in the region.
Dennis Avery stated that "most of the wildlife the world is losing
has been the result of extending low-yield organic farming methods
in countries like Ecuador and Nigeria." I do not know Ecuador, but
I do know Nigeria, and I hardly think agriculture can take all the
blame. Hunting and destruction of habitat through logging,
urbanization and probably fires all share in the
loss of wildlife and habitat. In some countries, like Haiti, the
need for fuel is also an important cause of habitat destruction.
In slash and burn agriculture, farmers usually do not kill all the
trees and regeneration of natural vegetation occurs quickly once
the site is abandoned. Logging with heavy equipment would seem to be
much more destructive to the environment, leaving the soil more exposed
to erosion and removing upper story trees that can take decades to replace.
Avery does havea point, however, that low input agriculture practiced in
much of the tropics is demanding in terms of its use of natural
habitat. The following hypothetical example shows why.
Lets assume that a family is cultivates 1.5 ha, not an
unreasonable size for this region of the world. Without
external inputs, he will have to abandon his land after 3
years of cultivation because of depleted fertility. Shifting
cultivation is sustainable, according to the literature, if the
natural fallow lasts sufficiently long to allow complete regeneration
of the natural vegetation. Estimates vary as to how long that
may take, but lets take ball park figures of 7 years in
savanna and 20 years in forest. Let's also assume for
simplicity that the farmer divides his land into thirds, with
a rotation of 2 crops maize (year 1), maize (2 crops) /
cassava intercrop (year 2), with second year cassava ending
the rotation (year 3). Let's estimate maize
yields at 2 and 1 t/ha in first and second years, respectively
and cassava at 10 tons fresh tubers/ha in the third. Total
annual production: 3 t maize, 5 t cassava. However, on an
land-use basis, that works out to 300 kg maize/ha/year and 500
kg fresh cassava tubers/ha/year in savanna; 130 kg maize and
217 kg cassava tubers/ha/year in forest. Or inversely, 10-23
ha of land is required to produce a yearly harvest of 3 t
maize and 5 t cassava. Of course, there will also be secondary
crops, such as vegetables, fruit and legumes, as well as harvest
of a few products from fallow species, but it is the staple crops
on which farmers rely for their survival.
With increasing population and without an increase in productivity,
only two outcomes are possible. Agricultural production can
remain sustainable by converting larger areas of natural habitat to
agriculture. Or, the shifting cultivation gradually becomes
permanent no-input agriculture with fallows diminishing to the
extent that productivity declines. In either case the effect on
the environment is negative. It is reasonable to conclude that the
high land requirement of low-input agriculture is leading to
deforestation, soil degradation and soil erosion in many places in
the tropics.
Several contributors have suggested that population growth is the
problem. However, population, per se, is not a general problem in
much of tropical Africa; demographics is. Apart from certain regions,
such as SE Nigeria and the central African highlands, much of sub-
Saharan Africa is not over-populated. Even without population increase,
the problem would still occur. People congregate where
services are available, thereby over-cropping land within easy
proximity. How far can you travel to your fields on foot or
bicycle and still have time and energy to farm? How far from town
do you live if you want your children to attend school? Several
generations ago, in parts of Africa, villages were not at permanent
locations but moved as cropped fields became less productive. That
is not possible in modern Africa. Although land is abundant,
accessible land becomes scarce, fallow periods decline and so does
productivity. Population increase should be controlled, but the
way to achieve it is to enable the developing world's farmers to
increase their standard of living through more productive
agriculture.
Only modest levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are often enough to
obtain 50-100 % increases in yield and to extend the period of
cropping. Yields comparable to temperate production are possible
with high inputs. However, long-term use of fertilizers is not
enough to sustain yields at a high level (Kang and
Balasubramanian, 1990), or if so, not at economic levels.
Replenishment of organic matter is key. However, the strategies
taken by Western commercial agriculture, whether organic or
otherwise, are mostly inappropriate in the agricultural economies
of developing countries. No-till systems based upon herbicides, for
example, require inputs beyond the reach of most farmers.
Benbrook and others advocated sharing of landscapes between
wildlife and food production. Try telling that to a farmer who has
had his farm trashed by a herd of elephants. Setting aside habitat for
cobras and green mambas would neither be popular nor healthy. I have to
agree with
Avery on this point, wildlife preserves seem like a much better
idea.
It seems to me that Sustainable Agriculture for Third World farmers
will have to develop on a course of its own, integrating the best
and most appropriate ideas from both sides of this debate in order
to attain sustainable increases in yield. They need fertilizers to correct
nutrient imbalances and raise the ceiling on yields, and they need ways to
sustain productivity through organic matter and nutrient recycling. They
also need safe ways to protect crops from insects and diseases. Much
research needs to be done, and it is unfortunate to see support for
agricultural research in this region dwindling at such a critical period.
Mellor, J.W., C.L. Delgado and M.J. Blackie, 1987. Priorities for
accelerating food production in Sub-Saharan Africa. In
Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa. eds J.W.
Mellor, C.L. Delgado & M.J. Blackie. John Hopkins University
Press.
Kang, B.T. and V. Balasubramanian, 1990. Long-term fertilizer
trials on Alfisols in West Africa. Transactions 14'th
International Congr. Soil Sci., Kyoto, Japan 4: 20-25
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 95 02:27 EST
From: Joel Grossman <0003216125@mcimail.com>
To: Sanet-mg
Subject: Farmland vs "Natural" Land
r.e. the debate on sustainable agriculture and the issue of wildlife
preservation, I call to your attention an article in the science section of
the NY Times on Tuesday, 8 August 1995. It is by William K. Stevens and
titled "Restored wetlands could ease threat of Mississippi floods." I wish
I could post the whole article to SANET without breaching copyright laws or
having the hassle of contacting the NY Times for permission. While I am
inherently distrustful of newspaper articles, certainly the conclusions in
this article are worth further research and pondering, because if true they
certainly have broad policy implications.
For instance, a former farmland experimentally restored to wetland in
Illinois indicated that 5.7 acres of wetland could soak excess flood water
from 410 acres of watershed. If 3% of farmland in the Mississippi River
watershed were returned to wetland [which involves regrading the land and
destroying subsurface drainage tiles], the resulting marsh could have kept
the Mississippi River in its banks during the catastrophic 1993 flood. This
same amount of wetland [13 million acres would be needed for flood control]
it is said would also filter out pollutants and produce high quality water
throughout the drainage area. More interesting, farmers are already setting
aside more than 3% of their land [though presumably not the land best
situated for flood control]. I imagine an economist could weigh the costs
and benefits of the approach -- indeed, I would be surprised if someone has
not already done it.
In California, I know that the Lundbergs make much of the waterfowl and
wildlife attracted to their organic rice paddies. Even some of the
rainforests survive, perhaps even need, periodic flooding. Cranberries and
wild rice are other crops that seem to co-exist with water or periodic
flooding.
The article also suggests that strategic re-creation of wetlands that had
been formerly cleared for farmlands would have multiple benefits, including
the return of much wildlife. In the experiments, providing the habitat was
enough to lure back the wildlife, including an endangered bird species.
Kind of like "Field of Dreams" -- you build it, and they will come.
Joel Grossman --- 3216125@mcimail.com ---
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:56:08 EST
From: Steve Lovejoy
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu,
"Laura K. Paine"
Subject: Re: A few comments on wildlife habitat
Should we decide which communities to preserve based on
> the greatest number of species saved per acre? Or based on how valuable the
> land that they occupy is for human use? And who is qualified to make these
> decisions?
>
> Laura Paine
> University of Wisconsin
> Agronomy Department
> lkpaine@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
> Laura has raised 1 of the fundamental policy questions here. How
do we establish value for a species or an ecosystem? What structures
can be established and who is qualified to make these decisions?
We can always trust the federal government or the UN to make them,
they have always done such a great job in protecting the environment.
Or we, as individual environmentalists, can participate in
establishing value by hooking up with one of the hundreds of local
land trusts that protect environmentally sensitive lands or with one
of the national groups that protect ecosystems rather than lobby
Congress. The bottom line is that individual citizens are best able
to establish the value of these environmental amenties, especially
when we forgo the purchase of other goods and services to protect
them. Government bureaucrats nor scientists have not shown any great
aptitude for establishing the value of ecosystems or particular
environmental amenties.
Stephen B. Lovejoy
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
1145 Krannert Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1145
phone: (317) 494-4244
fax: (317) 494-9176
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:24:08 -0500
From: Laura K. Paine
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: A few comments on wildlife habitat
Some questions for Mr. Avery in regard to where the wildlife is and what
land should be protected for wildlife: What about the wildlife that is
adapted to that prime farmland out there? The Midwestern US is a perfect
example. Many native prairie songbird species are declining in population.
Should they be discounted because they happen to occupy some of the most
fertile land in the world?
Grassland ecosystems such as the prairie tend to have a less diverse
wildlife community (fewer species) than woodland ecosystems such as the
tropical rainforest. Does that make prairie species less valuable than
tropical wildlife? Should we decide which communities to preserve based on
the greatest number of species saved per acre? Or based on how valuable the
land that they occupy is for human use? And who is qualified to make these
decisions?
Laura Paine
University of Wisconsin
Agronomy Department
lkpaine@facstaff.wisc.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:08:53 -0500
From: Laura K. Paine
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Benbrook/Avery Debate
I agree with Mr. Benbrook on the importance of soil quality in promoting
sustainability, but we can't ignore the fact that even the highest quality,
most fertile soils can and do erode if the cropping practices used on them
are inappropriate. Likewise, even if we all farmed using the most
sustainable methods possible, if population growth goes unchecked, it will
still eventually outstrip our ability to feed it. I don't know what the
answers are, but I think we need to keep an open mind, consider *all*
options, and be prepared to compromise.
Laura Paine
University of Wisconsin
Agronomy Department
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 09:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: Policy, Sus Ag, Etc
Energy and capital intensive, specialized agricultural systems of the
kind Avery espouses have and can achieve spectacular short-run results,
and with the right government policies (subsidies for inputs and
infrastructure) and accomodating (none) conservation and environmental
policies, such systems can sweep across a country, even a continent.
That does not make them right, sustainable or good for wildlife. The
problem with such systems is their inherent dependence on off farm inputs
to, on the one hand, displace and eliminate natural processes and
biodiversity, and second, replace nutrients and natural pest management
with imported materials, some of which end up doing bad things for the
underlying biological health and productivity of the soil and farming
systems. History is pretty clear about this, including now the more
recent and objective assessments of the outcome of the Green Revolution.
The answer for meeting global food needs, and preserving wildlife
is improving the productivity of the soil. This can be done in an
environmentally sound, sustainable and profitable way only by improving
the structure of the soil and its biological "life support systems"
composed of microorganisms and other life forms. By improving what
scientists now call "soil quality", the capacity of the soil to take in
and hold water, nutrients, and support healthy root development, is
maximized. While the processes through which a farmer can improve soil
quality are many and complex, the goals, the end result, is simple -- a
soil that takes in water more swiftly, holds it longer, supports more
complex nutrient cycles, thereby increasing the supply of essential
nutrients and lessening dependence on fertilizers which, while necessary
for sure, entail an unavoidable degree of loss and inefficiency, and cost
the farmer money and a society energy and capital. Such soils also are
more amendable to microbial and other biocontrol processes, and
non-chemical weed management; again, the mechanisms through which such
systems control pests, and reduce pest pressure are complex, but just
because science has not figured them out yet does not mean they do not
exist or are unimportant.
So Dennis, we agree on many things, but not on whether the
solution to the world's food problem is fundamentally an
ecological/biological challenge or one requiring the skills and systems
of an engineer/chemist. Of course all skills can and must be drawn upon
and woven into practical steps to get from here to there. But the world
will be better off, I believe, when the paradigm governing the direction
and nature of those steps is rooted in biology and natural
cycles/systems. Pardon the puns.
Re policy -- Ann, nicely argued and correct. Policy has played
an important role in shaping agricultural systems from Canada, to Cameron,
to Indonesia, and will probably play a bigger role in the future as
pressure/competition for resources and clean water grows. I doubt that
gov't can compel sustainable agriculture. Gov't is pretty inefficient at
synthesizing information and adpating to dynamic systems and unique
circumstances -- the nature of farming.
What gov't and policy can do is direct public and private
investment toward different forms of infrastructure -- knowledge, tools,
material handling techniques, regualtions and marketing systems,
financial instruments and institutions, technical and human services. We
have conventional ag today because that is where policy has directed
investment in infrastructure. The economic "advantages" of current ag
systems is not a function of their underlying biological soundness; they
are profitable because the have co-evolved with policies and instituions
designed to bring them into widespread use, something a generation of
scientists, leaders and farmers sincerely thought was the right and good
thing to do. New knowledge eventual prevails, and it will in this debate
as well. But until the infrastructure needed to support sus ag is put
into place in a serious way, sus ag systems will remain a minor
contributor to the overall food system. The changes needed would
include, for example, redirecting all public money supporting research to
prove atrazine is more/less hazardous than simazine then alachlor than
metolochlor than the sulfonylureas, and instead using 90% of public weed
science funding to support work on reduced and non-chemical integrated
weed management systems. Private companies making herb. can and should
pay for the research needed to sustain their place in the market; it is
the Republican thing to do moreover (don't hold your breathe).
Instead of doing research on fertilizer technology, which again
the private sector can and should do, public money should be supporting
work on green manures, composting technologies, the biochemistry of
disease suppressive soils. Instead of allowing a product like BST to
take up 100's of millions in public and private capital, other options
toincrease the efficiency of dairy production, like forage-based rations
and rotational grazing, should receive the lion's share of attention and
investment. But today investment patterns are controlled by companies
and institutions with money, income streams and political power. The sus
ag world has none of the above, and until that changes we will be
frustrated by the reality that success, solid science, and generally
being right is not enough.
But given the tide in the political arena, corporate subsidies
are vulnerable, as are lax environmental and food safety policies that
force people, communities, and state/local gov'ts to deal with the
unanticipated and unwanted effects of modern farming systems. Hog lagoon
spills, herbicides throughout the midwest, fish kills in the cane fields,
all are telling people something is not right with this picture, as
wonderful as American agriculture is. But change will be slow because
most people do not care, and receive mixed messages about what is right
and wrong with current agricultural systems. Farmers will ultimately
drive the change, and will get serious when they realize they have not
been served well, or even honestly by those whom they view as their
natural allies and supporters -- in academia, business, and government.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 23:33:43 EDT
From: E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Farmland vs "natural land"
Dave F. and others: interesting dialogue. One comment on
"legislation" for sustainability. Might be helpful to recall earlier
discussions (last year on SANET) on the powerful influence that
legislation and policy have had on promoting "bigness", capital
intensiveness, and specialization in what some have called
"conventional" agriculture today. One good example was the effect
that "subsidized" transportation routes have had on the economic
rationality of regional specialization and long-distance movement of
perishable commodities.
So, it could be argued that legislation/policy to support sustainable
agriculture is just "turnabout is fair play". Alternatively, if the
legislation/policies that have so efficiently favored large, resource-
intensive agriculture were rethought and perhaps redrafted or just
dropped altogether (?), allowing greater latitude to producer-
decision makers, then the impetus/necessity for policies explicitly
favoring sustainable agriculture might be diminished.
Key point: Although it may not be obvious from the rhetoric, the
dogma that large-scale, capital-intensive production agriculture
is "efficient", cost-competitive, and societally desirable, while
smaller scale, ecologically sound, family farming isn't, does *not*
reflect free market forces acting freely. Rather, it reflects a
decision-making mileau which has been intentionally crafted. What
has been built can be unbuilt, or rebuilt. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 17:23:51 -0600
From: Robert Stevahn
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Cc: CGFI@aol.com
Subject: Re: Benbrook "Amused?"
Dennis Avery writes:
[cleaned up for your viewing pleasure]
> Chuck, I can't believe that you are really willing to dismiss the
> wildlife habitat question -- the largest possible loss of wildlife
> since the Age of the Dinosaurs through habitat loss (primarily by
> extending low-yield agriculture) -- with the one word "amusing."
> I'm sure the wildlife appreciates your amusement.
I can't speak for Chuck, but I find your argument "amusing" because it
appears to me to be a transparent, cynical, poorly reasoned attempt to
turn environmentalists against each other, _not_ because I do not
recognize the horrors of habitat destruction.
> But remember, one of the historic justifications for organic farming
> has been that it was kinder to wildlife. That's why you have the
> public's approval!
It may be one minor justification, but you cannot state with any
certainty at all that it's the reason why "we" have public approval. I
would guess (yours is just a guess, after all, unless you can supply
references) that personal health and general environmental concerns
(clean air, clean water, etc.) are the primary reasons for "our" public
approval.
> Most of the wildlife the world is losing has been the result of
> extending low-yield organic farming methods in countries like Ecuador
> and Nigeria.
Peer reviewed references, please. It's my impression that there's been
quite a bit of export of your brand of agriculture to developing
countries. You know, another handy way to exploit their resources by
hooking them on our expensive technology.
Dennis, would you please address the Earth's limited carrying capacity?
Is it your belief that our technological prowess will enable us to grow
in population forever? How do you counter arguments that, once our
petroleum reserves are exhausted, your agriculture becomes impossible?
Will new technology save us? Or, are petroleum reserves unlimited? Or,
will we colonize outer space? I'm truly interested in understanding
your point of view in this regard.
--
Robert Stevahn | Ours is not to feed the world. Let's learn
rstevahn@boi.hp.com | to feed ourselves, then teach the world.
Boise Food Connection | Population: Birth Control xor Death Control.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 17:31:57 -0400
From: CGFI@aol.com
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Benbrook "Amused?"
Chuck, I can't believe that you are really willing to dismiss the wildlife
habitat question -- the largest possible loss of wildlife since the Age of
the Dinosaurs through habitat loss (primarily by extending low-yield
agriculture) -- with the one word amusing. I'm sure the wildlife
appreciates your amusement. It must be that you just haven't come up with a
good organically-correct answer yet.
But remember, one of the historic justifications for organic farming has been
that it was kinder to wildlife. That's why you have the public's approval!
Now that countries like Indonesia have demonstrated their willingness to
destroy millions of acres of tropical forests and dam up whole regions worth
of migratory fish populations to get high-protein diets, the wildlife
contributions of organic farming look pretty small. In fact, theyre
negative. Most of the wildlife the world is losing has been the result of
extending low-yield organic farming methods in countries like Ecuador and
Nigeria.
cont'd in next message...
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 17:33:42 -0400
From: CGFI@aol.com
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Benbrook "Amused"?, cont'd
However kind organic farming might seem to the birds in our backyards, the
vast majority of our wildlife is in the wildlands, not in anybodys crop
fields or gardens. Were talking millions of square miles of forest, not a
few songbirds, deer and pheasant. (I certainly agree that commercial farmers
could and should be encouraged to plant more wildlife habitat strips along
and in their crop fields, they are not wastelands.)
If youd like, I can send you a presentation by ecologist Micheal Huston of
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and author of Biological Diversity
(Cambridge Press). He says the land good enough to farm has little
biological diversity compared to marginal lands. The huge majority of the
worlds wild species are in the poor lands: wet rain forests, swamps,
mountain microclimates. Most of the species on the U.S. endangered species
list arent species at all but sub-species and fringe populations. (The
marbled murelet, which is listed as threatened in the Pacific Northwest but
has always been rare there, is thriving in its primary habitat, Alaska.) He
recommended an end to U.S. setaside, and full-speed-ahead on higher yields.
I'm certainly happy to hear about other ways to get high crop yields. (The
SANET has just given me one note about controlling weeds with flame, mulching
and mowing. The mulching, in particular, will be important for the
erosion-prone tropics -- but so will no-till.)
I dont care about chemicals, I care about sustainable high yields.
Dennis Avery
Center for Global Food Issue, Hudson Institute
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 13:33:34 EDT
From: E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Avery's vision
Have been following this dialogue with interest, and wanted to make a
comment on those "ineducable, promiscuous, savages" (did I get the
words right?). Am just reading a fascinating, new book by Hillel
(sp?), called Out of the Earth (or something like that; get back to
me if you want the specific reference). Focus is how civilizations
stand or fall on the basis of their approach to resource management,
specifically, soil and water. Very strong on the implications of
irrigation, for example. I am now reading a chapter about the plight
of Africa, and was struck by Hillel's reasoning that the ecological
devastation of parts of Africa is attributable to mismanagement of
the land, as well as uncontrolled population growth.
On population: Hillel correctly notes that the stability of a
population (growth/decline) results from the net of birth/death, and
that historic population levels reflected high rates of both birth
and death (esp. infant mortality). Improvements in access to health
care have temporarily relieved the death rate, but without
concomitant decreases in birth rate, population is soaring (3% per
year in Africa). However, he also correctly points out that
developing societies eventually get beyond this out-of-phase state,
to where changes to living standards and life goals reduce birth rate
back to a new equilibrium with death, yielding a more stable (albeit
higher) population level.
From this broader perspective, it seems reasonable to ask how
Avery's vision (capital- and resource-intensive paradigm) will
promote/discourage evolution to this equilibrium state in Africa
and elsewhere in the developing world? Anything that retards the
progression toward reduced birth rates should be viewed as a net
negative, no matter how superficially attractive it may seem in
the short run. It is counterproductive to feed people, if the
means by which this is done alienates them from producing their
own food and obstructs the process of improving living standards,
from which, as a natural consequence, birth rate declines.
On land mismanagement: to a revealing degree, Hillel explores the
ways in which modern technology (and Western value systems?) have
displaced traditional, often ecologically sustainable approaches to
soil and water management in Africa and elsewhere. The presumption
that high yield is attainable, desirable, and sustainable is
challenged by a review of the ecological disasters unfolding in some
regions which have been the recipient of contemporary intensive
approaches. High tech means of crop production are shown to have
degraded the productive potential of large regions (including
irrigated regions of North America), and/or to have diminished the
incentive to produce locally (e.g. dumping of subsidized grain in
developing countries), creating the very dependence which Avery and
others now decry.
From this background, one may ask just who is it that is
expected to benefit from the "high yield" paradigm that Avery and
others are promoting?
*Not much doubt that there is demand, great and growing demand,
for food, although the money to pay for it is distributed somewhat
disuniformly among the world's people.
*Not much doubt that the high yield approach has fed us (and our
livestock) very well indeed, particularly if one doesn't count the
societal and environmental side effects.
What seems worthy of question, however, is the degree to which the
high yield paradigm that has worked so well for us (at least during
this 50 year blip of artificially cheap energy) is, in fact, the
historic cause or the future solution of hunger, particularly in the
Third World? Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 12:26:00 EDT
From: E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Modern farming debate
Laura: your figures are consistent with what I've read - 70-90% of
the grain grown in North America is fed to livestock - either at home
or after export. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not milk and
meat production should be reduced, per se, I can certainly agree that
the method of production need not be injurious to the environment.
Indeed, I would suggest that sustained grain/vegetable production in
the absence of a significant ruminant livestock component may, in
fact, be quite difficult.
Withholding cultivation under a perennial sod crop is one of the few
ways of increasing soil OM and enhancing soil "health". This could,
conceivably, be done by set aside programs, but might well involve
systems in which directly human-usable products (grain, fruit,
vegetables) are produced in perhaps 5 years out of 10, just as
potatoes are now produced in only 1 year out of 3 in PEI. The "non-
crop" years are to reconstruct the soil following the potatoes, and
typically involve land covers without a net economic return. Thus,
the price of the potatoes in one year has to be enough to cover all
costs of production in three years. The same would apply to
grain/veg systems without benefit of livestock cash flow in the "non-
crop" years.
Alternatively, mixed farming systems can be (and have been) devised
to capture synergistic interactions between plant and animal
agriculture. Soil and water management, weed control, and nutrient
cycling feature prominently in the logical structure of these
systems. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 08 Aug 95 15:22:45 MDT
From: Stewart Duncan
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Rending, tearing, gnashing, etc.
I have been on sanet for over a year and have responded to only one
communication, though I have been tempted on many occasions.
The lively debate being carried on by the honorable benbrook, avery,
and stevan(sp?, sorry) brings a shot of much needed levity to me out
here in the heartland. One question I have often been tempted to
pose to all participants in these written diatribes is: "Did you grow
up on a farm, in a farming community, or in any area remotely
connected with production agriculture and food and fiber production"?
I did. Our small family farm was "sustainable" because both of my
parents worked off the farm. Frankly, that lifestyle sucked. If
someone wants to live in such a manner, fine. If someone else wants
to farm half the county, to eke out a living on narrow margins, fine.
Either way, too many folks with too much time on their hands and
opinions out the wazoo want to legislate how either or both of these
producers should be allowed to make a living.
These elitist attitudes are embarrassing and boring. Go out and get
your hands in the real thing rather than your foot/feet.
Stu Duncan
Extension Specialist, Crops and Soils
Kansas State University
SC Area Extension Office
Hutchinson, KS
Sduncan@oznet.ksu.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 11:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Response to Avery
Glad Dennis seems to have plugged into Sanet, things have been too quiet
lately.
Avery says the we should worry about the output of farming systems
and not microbes, or soil quality, which he says is important. The
problem with many industrial and ag systems is that
people/societies/politicians have been mislead by production figures into
thinking that prosperity is assured forever. Unsustainable uses of
resources occur because people become captured, for one reason or another,
by the lure of high production that can be achieved by mining natural
resources and not conserving their underlying productivity nor accounting
for (paying for) environmental and public health externalities, as
economists call whatever goes down some one else's sewer, or river, or
whatever (or gets into their food or poisons their kids).
We will begin to gain the capacity to shape and manage
agricultural systems for sustainability and productivity when we focus
less on outputs and more on the inherent productivity of inputs -- soil
(and it's microbes), water, human skills, systems, and technology. The
goal must be to promote sustainabiulity and productivity while also
increasing supply to match demand. Chemical intensive monoculture,
Avery's kind of agriculture, can work well in almost all regions with
enough money and capital and energy, and willingness to accept
environmental degradation that results from what farmers have to do in
response to their mindful unraveling of the biological processes that
sustain food production, replacing them with off-farm inputs and
chemicals and fertilizer.
Avery ignores the failing productivity and reliability of
chemical intensive systems worldwide, and the now widespread recognition
that the next agricultural revolution is going to rest upon systems and
technologies that enhance and direct biological processes, NOT as
supplements to fertilizer and pesticide based systems, but as the core of
productive agricultural systems. Fertilizers, soil amendments and
pesticides will remain vitally important; less and less use will render
more and more benefits per pound applied, and progress will be made
toward farming systems that everyone can accept as balanced and
acceptable in terms of risk.
I am not anti-chemical. I am anti-dangerous chemicals that do a
poor job of pest control; that waste farmers' money and get them hooked
on a tecnology that undermines their interests and capital resources, and
sometimes their health and those around them. I am pro-soil quality and
microbial bio-diversity, pro biocontrol as the basis of pest management,
and safe ways to produce food.
I agree with Dennis that no-till can build organic matter,
increase earthworms and enchance soil microbes -- all pluses. Managed
well, no-till is a net plus, even with, for a period of time, greater
reliance on herbicides. By picking the right chemicals, applying them
correctly, rotating tillage systems, and through use of rotations, no-till
can be a positive part of cropping systems, especially on highly erodible
land. On flatter land where erosion is a modest concern, there are better
ways to achieve the same goals, although 1 or 2 years of no-till in a 5 or
7 year rotation can again be a positive thing, for example, no-tilling
into a chemical-killed cover crop. The day will come when the pesticides
available for such purposes will be biologically-based, natural products,
akin to BT.
Avery's position on wildlife is, well, amusing I guess. It is an
attempt to gain favor with certain parts of the environmental community
who are not knowledgeable about the impacts or consequences of
agricultural activities based on big machines, monoculture, and
chemicals.
Sustainable agricultural systems are inherently diverse and compatible
with many forms of wildlife. Whether chemicals rule the day or progess is
made toward more biological approaches, food production activities are
going to take up more and more of the remaining pockets of un- or
under-developed land. The issue is whether the types of food production
activities adopted are going to provide diverse habitats and freedom from
routine exposure to biocides, and as a result, leave ecological niches
accessible to and supportive of wildlife. The way the CRP in the U.S. is
being managed is a good example of how agriculture, land use, conservation
and wildlife can be mixed together and managed for multiple benefits
(especially once Congress allows economic use for haying and grazing,
managed to preserve wildlife benefits). In the tropics, diverse cropping
systems, agro-forestry and small scale aquculture are all moving in a
direction where wildlife and food production can share a landscape.
Avery's version of progress leaves little room for such an outcome.
Avery's comments on atrazine show his true colors. While
tempting I will pass up the chance to debate Dennis on risk assessment
issues, since I think Ciba's and the rest of the industry's views are
visible enough already. Risks from herbicides in people's drinking water
is not going away as a public policy issue. Just keep telling people how
many glasses of atrazine-contaminated water they have to drink to get
cancer, and things will work themselves out.
So Dennis, what have you got against soil microorganisms?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 09:56:53 -0400
From: CGFI@aol.com
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Benbrooke has wrong goal, cont'd
The evidence is mounting that subsoil biotic activity is suppressed more by
plowing than by herbicides -- and those are the only two choices we have for
controlling the weeds that would otherwise steal the nutrients from our
crops.
As for my often-ridiculous projections and conclusions, there is
virtually no debate about the reality that the world will demand at least
two-and-a-half times as much food by 2050, and the desire for high-quality
protein is likely to triple the global demands on farming resources. If
this food cannot be produced on our current cropland, the Third World has
already demonstrated that it will hunt down virtually every wild creature
for the stew pot, and then clear their wildlands for low-yielding crops in
spite of their low-quality soils.
I hear no concern from Mr. Benbrooke about leaving room for wildlife. The
last time we shared a podium, he was declaiming on the dangers of
atrazine. I presume he knew that EPA had just raised its safety rating on
atrazine by seven-fold. Witih the new safety rating, a woman would
apparently have to drink more than 150,000 gallons of water for 70 years
to get a more potent dose than the no-effect level in the laboratory rats.
In addition, for nine months of the year she would have to provide her own
atrazine! Is this level of risk high enough to accept the massive
destruction of wildlife?
How many million acres of wildlands is Mr. Benbrooke willing to sacrifice to
have chemical-free farming ?
Dennis Avery
Director, Center for Global Food Issues
Hudson Institute
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 09:52:50 -0400
From: CGFI@aol.com
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Benbrook has wrong goal for sus ag
In response to Charles Benbrook's comments about my work on the sanet I
ask/state:
When the world measures its agricultural success by the number of soil
microbes in its subsoil, instead of by the amount of food produced and the
acres of wildlife preserved, then Charles Benbrook's fixation on subsoil
creatures may become valid.
Until soil microbes become an end in themselves, however, soil quality will
be a means (though a very important means) toward an end -- sustaining as
much food production as possible on the fewest acres.
Even then, Benbrooke may find that his chemical-free preference runs a poor
second to no-till/precision farming. I talked with researchers in Canada
this winter who reported 100 times as many earthworms per acre on a field
which had been no-tilled for 20 years as on the plowed field next door.
(They also noted a large increase in subsoil microbial activity, but counting
it was outside the parameters of their study.)
continued in next message...
Dennis Avery
Director, Center for Global Food Issues
Hudson Institute
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 13:57:16 PDT
From: 09996668@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Biodynamics
I just joined SANET and am happy to see the vibrant conversation
concerning bio dynamics. I am beginning my PhD work, and it concerns
biodynamics. I am worki ng with Dr. John Reganold, author of the
biodynamic paired-farm study published in SCIENCE in 1993. Obviously,
there are a lot of methodological similarities between BD and other
organic systems. We are attempting to separate out the effects of the
preparations themselves. Yes, much of it has been done before, b ut not
by U.S. universities. The research done by BD-ists and other (mostly Eu
ropean) researchers is helpful, but does not always live up to strict
American research standards. We are attempting some very strict, honest
trials comparin g BD to organic to conventional to control management
systems. Our field test plots should help us to determine whether the BD
compost and/or spray preparati ons have any effect on "soil quality" or
"crop quality" in the short-term.
Preliminary research on the compost preparations (502-507) suggest
that there is an effect of these preparations on the speed of compost
development and the end product. Our preliminary data tend to support the
results of Heinze and Br eda (1978) BIODYNAMICS 125:12-22 and E. von
Wistinghausen (1986) [available fro m Verlag Lebendige Erde,
Baumschulenweg 11, D 61 Darmstadt]. Yes, those same B D and European
researchers we tend not to trust sometimes get the same results that we
get. As to why, that will be someone else's PhD or life study. W. C.
Stearn, in his Masters Thesis at Ohio State (1976) did find cytokinins in
preparations 500&50 1. BD-ists will say that the tiny amounts used are
sufficient because of the r adiative effects of the preparations. We are
thinking it is either an inoculat ion effect, where very few organisms can
quickly make a big difference, or an e ffect of volatile organic compounds
(VOC's). My master's work, just accepted i n SOIL BIOLOGY AND
BIOCHEMISTRY dealt with the effects of very small amounts (fractions of
micromoles) of VOC's on germination of VAM fungi.
Just because someone uses a spiritual explanation doesn't mean that
there is no physical explanation; once there is a physical explanation it
doesn't ha ve to negate the spiritual significance. Science and
spirituality do not have to be afraid of each other. Stay tuned!
-Lynne Carpenter-Boggs
09996668@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 00:38:39 EDT
From: E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: organic agriculture trend in US
Prof. Li Zheng-fang: I will take a stab at your questions, but
I would expect others will respond with their own views as well.
> 1. What's the relationship between organic and sustainable agri.? Are
> they the same thing or something different?
No, organic and sustainable are not the same thing. Under most
circumstances, organic practices would be considered to be a subset
of sustainable practices, although I would have to qualify this with
my answer to your question #2 - how one "defines" sustainable
agriculture. Organic farming is often defined in terms of what it
does NOT do, namely, practicioners decline to use synthetic chemicals
in the form of fertilizer or biocides. The functions of these kinds
of products are replaced by other practices, such as integrating N-
fixing plowdown crops into the rotation or declining to grow crops
such as corn, which are particularly dependent upon biocides.
However, this kind of definition is superficial and really misses the
point. From my own observations, organic farming is first and
foremost a *holistic* philosophy that explicitly recognizes the
*interactions* among components of a farming system. Biocides are
avoided not simply to conform to some sort of purist dogma (although
this is true for some). Rather, they are avoided because the linear
thinking that underlies their use is known to be problematic.
Organic farmers know that weeds are a symptom of a larger problem (a
system which has opened up a niche for weeds to proliferate), not a
problem in themselves.
Conversely, weeds are the problem and herbicides are, increasingly,
the solution to a conventional agriculturalist (e.g. 90% of the
transgenic plant research in Canada is to introduce herbicide
resistance genes into crops). In conventional agriculture, inputs
such as an herbicide are expected to have one and only one effect -
to kill weeds. Other effects, such as
*wiping out a food source for a natural predator or pathogen of some
crop pest, thus aggravating the pest problem, or
*increasing susceptibility of the crop plant to stress or pest
hazards, or
*contaminating groundwater, or
*creating biocide resistant weeds that necessitate purchase of ever
newer and more expensive herbicides
are not factored into the decision to use the herbicide (with the
possible exception of groundwater contamination in recent years),
simply because the mentality underlying their use is linear in
nature. They do not see the whole, because they do not look for it.
Contrast this with the more holistic philosophy of an organic farmer
(and, it must be said, farsighted farmers of all stripes). Even if
all the links are not known, an organic farmer acknowledges that
unintended side effects are *likely* in response to any given
management intervention. So, although higher yields could be gotten
by growing corn instead of mixed grains (oats/barley), organic dairy
farmers (in Ontario) grow a variety of small grains (winter and
spring cereals) and seldom grow corn. The decision sacrifices yield
in order to gain
*greatly reduced weed populations (adaptation to colder soils, which
allows greater spring vigor, coupled with narrower rows comes to full
cover sooner and shortens the window of opportunity for weeds to grow)
*crop rotations which can routinely keep the soil covered for most of
the year, instead of the 2-3 months of full cover from corn, with
consequent advantages in weed control (red/far red ratio on canopy
transmission retards weed germination) and soil
conservation/enhancement
*crop rotations which allow manure (compost) to be applied in
midseason instead of early spring or late fall, with consequent
effects on soil compaction and nutrient cycling
and so on. And, I might add, organic dairy operators make more money
(per cow, per person year, and per acre) than conventional dairy
operators, according to one recent study (Sholubi et al., submitted).
Organic farmers employ practices that are explicitly intended to have
more than one effect. In common language, they fully comprehend the
notion that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and that it
is the *interactions* among the components - not the components
themselves - which hold the system together. To my eyes, at least,
most of what separates organic from conventional farmers is in the
explicit harnessing of these interactions to achieve human benefit.
This is also one of the key reasons why conventional agricultural
researchers tend to miss the point when they design studies looking
into organic farming - they focus on the components and practices,
not on the interactions.
The other key feature of organic farming is attention to maintenance
of the infrastructure or manufacturing plant from which yield is
derived. For example, they speak of "feeding the soil" rather than
"fertilizing the plant". This is one reason why it is difficult to
compare conventional and organic crop responses to management
interventions. Organic farmers "load" their land with regular
applications of livestock and/or green manure for years, knowing full
well that only a small fraction of the nutrients contained within a
given loading is going to contribute to yield in that same year.
Yield in any given year reflects the combined effects of
mineralization from loadings in all previous years. Those who
presume to analyze nutrient dynamics in organic systems in research
station studies often neglect this fundamental premise.
> 2. What's the definition of sustainable agri. ? Does the definition
> accept by most of academic people?
This note is getting overly long, so I will try to be brief. No -
there is no well accepted definition of sustainable agriculture. As
Chuck Francis has said, the term is just too attractive. People tend
to define it in ways that support their preconceptions, and not
incidentally, rationalize their own research for the preceeding
decades! Some include profitability and societal dimensions. In our
own work, we have emphasized fundamental, immutable ecological
principles and have argued that profitability is too fickle and
vulnerable to change in response to policy and other interventions to
be included in a definition of "sustainability".
> 3. What is the trend of organic agriculture development in your
> country? ... and around the world?
It is growing rapidly, but still accounts for a very very small
fraction of the total. Growth is actively hindered by lack of
available information. Producers are obliged to learn largely from
each other, in a vacuum of plausible or relevant research from
established sources. Funding for research in organic farming is zero
in Ontario, although other provinces such as Quebec are more
generous. Some countries, such as Sweden and reportedly New Zealand
and Australia, are actively exploring the potential for expanding the
contribution of organic or sustainable approaches to agriculture.
> 4. Is demands for organic foods in US growing up or not?
Demand is increasing, unquestionably.
> engaging in organic food development in China. Because of some vague and
> confusion of conceptions,
Don't apologize. We are confused too! Good luck with year endeavors
in this new and exciting field. Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: Ikerd and Avery and Sus Ag
John Ikerd makes useful and relevant points in remarking on Avery's often
ridiculous projections and conclusions re the state of agriculture. Both
Ikerd and Avery fail to highlight the essential foundation of productive
agriculture that is likely to prove sustainable and capable of meeting a
developed countries environmental expectations -- the quality and
productivity of soil. Avery thinks (hopes) that yields will
continue to rise with more chemicals per acre, more intensive systems,
precision farming, and the other currently in fashion versions of
conventional agriculture. Fortunately, most farmers know now to enjoy
Avery's idealogical and political arguments but ignore his agronomic
pronouncement. This is because they came to recognize in the last 5-10
years that conv. ag systems were steadily degrading the ability of their
soils to support high levels of production without "spoonfeeding" with
nutrients and heavy pesticide use to maintain organism-free zones.
Avery does not care to mention, or seem concerned about the
exploding knowledge and recognition that many conventional farmers are
now facing serious production problems associated with compaction, loss
of microbial biodiversity, especially organisms needed to make P
available, and to control nematodes and associated plant pathogens
without heavy duty fumigants and soil insecticides.
The science is getting clearer all the time -- productive
agriculture has less to do with what you call it, or what idealogy
someone professes to follow (organic, conv, biodynamic, sustainable) and
everything to do with the impact of farming systems on soil quality --
see various other posts for definition. Once conv. agriculture graduates
from acceptance of the need for soil erosion control to a more holistic
acceptance of all the dimensions of soil quality, and then goes about not
just keeping soil in place, but also enriching its biological support
capacity, then agriculture will become more productive, more profitable,
less dependent on chemicals, and by just about everyone's definition,
more sustainable.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Cc: benbrook@hillnet.com
Subject: Joel Grossman's Excellent Post
Geez, SANET has had some really good posts lately. Joel -- thanks for
adding some important details to discussion of disease suppressive
soils. I too have looked long and hard through the literature in about
20 disciplines, talked to many experts, spent lots of time with farmers
who know the difference between a disease suppressive soil and one which
just does not seem able to slow down nematodes and pathogens.
My research/contacts lead me to a plausible explanation of why
the unfumigated trees catch up with the fumigated ones. Scientists have
now documented at several levels, in many crops, a phenomenon called
systemic acquired resistance. This is the mechanism whereby a plant
attains a strong, or high degree of capacity to express its inherent
potential immune response, its ability to withstand or overcome pest or
stress attacks. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is sort of like a
mammals response to allergy shots; to "work", or to happen, a plant must
be exposed to some level of a pathogen early in its growth, when its
immune system is, in effect, being turned on and stretching to
accomodate, as best it can, the threats it thinks it will encounter in
its environment. A plant or tree's immune response is, in effect, fully
formed after it goes through early maturation. If the plant/tree is not
subjected to a pathogen when its immune system is "growing", or gaining
the capacity to "kick in" in response to particular pathogen pressure, it
will never be fully able. It is a "need it early and use it early,
or lose the capacity to develop it" phenomenon. This much we know.
So, my guess is that plants/trees growing up in fumigated soils
are not exposed to the low levels of pathogen attack needed to stimulate
SAR. Hence such plants may grow well early on in the abscence of pest
pressure, but later on when they SHOULD NATURALLY BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND a
degree of pressure, they are immunological weaklings, having lacked the
chance to "grow up with" the pathogens that are a normal part of their
environment.
I have some other more cmplex ideas/theories about mechanisms
through which SAR is triggered, and how different management systems
affect it, but this is not the time or place. Anybody encountered such
an explanation before? Bob Goodman at Univ. Wisconsin plant path. dept,
Joseph Kuc at Kentucky are two of the brightest, most broadly
knowledgeful people on SAR and farming systems. Several excellent papers
have been published in Science and elsewhere describing the mechanism.
It is fascinating science, and lies at the heart of disease suppressive
soils. My guess is that the capacity of a soil to suppress disease has
as much to do with how soil microorganisms trigger plant physiological
processes, especially SAR, as it does about microbial biocontrol of plant
pathogens.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 16:29 EST
From: Joel Grossman <0003216125@mcimail.com>
To: Sanet-mg
Subject: Biodynamics: Long-term Studies
I welcomed the mention of long-term studies in the biodynamic discussion,
which has been fascinating. I would love to see the results if some of the
proposed experiments and observations are scientifically tested,
particularly BD preps and controls at various phases of the moon for
quackgrass control. But I imagine that anyone proposing such a study for
funding would have to enjoy getting laughed at a bit along the way.
My own interests in long-term studies, or perhaps more correctly my
frustration at the lack of long-term studies, was sparked by own search for
studies that would support decisions whether or not to fumigate [e.g. with
methyl bromide] before planting or replanting orchards or vineyards. The
farmers that I was interviewing in California seemed to be almost evenly
divided in both thought and practice with respect to methyl bromide
fumigation before replanting stone fruits or grape vines. The research and
extension personnel swore by the virtues of fumigation, and scoffed at the
results of those who did not fumigate. However, the farmers themselves did
not share the farm adviser views of their trees or vines as being bad
without fumigation, and seemed perfectly satisfied. Also, about half those
that fumigated were not satisfied with their results. I stopped short of a
large enough sample for statistical validation, as I was more concerned
with generating leads for my subsequent literature searches and researcher
interviews.
The prevailing scientific justification for fumigating trees and vines,
which are long-term perennial crops that can potentially yield for decades,
was that the trees or vines looked better [e.g. bushier, more leaves,
thicker stem diameter] 2-3 years after methyl bromide fumigation, as
compared to no fumigation. Also, more kill of pathogens and nematodes in
the soil can be demonstrated for several weeks or months before the
pathogens recolonize from lower depths in the soil. In essence, the
fumigations provide a window of time for growth with fewer pathogens. The
studies always stopped after 2-3 years [before fruit yields could be
measured]. The implicit assumption was always that this was indicative of
the future, which could be several decades for vines and trees. However, I
never found any scientific basis for this assumption, which conflicted with
observations that sometimes trees got off to a slow start but caught up or
surpassed trees that had faster starts.
I went through the CABI and AGRICOLA databases, looked at thousands of
sources, spent months combing the biomedical library at UCLA and the bio-ag
library at UC Riverside looking through decades of journals, proceedings,
ag experiment station bulletins etc., talking with researchers over the
phone, writing letters and e-mail, etc. It is probably safe to say that
out of several thousand studies, I found only one long-term study [10
years, which is not long compared to the Rothhamstead studies] comparing
fumigation with no-fumigation before replanting.
The one needle in a haystack "long-term" study, from Italy, was hidden away
in an obscure 500 or so page proceeding on stone fruit decline:
Minguzzi, A. 1989. Rootstock effects on peach replanting: A ten years
trial. Acta Horticulturae 254:357-361.
For the first 3 years of orchard development, the peach trees in fumigated
plots grew better in Minguzzi's Italian trials. This is consistent with
other studies, which end after 2-3 years, and seem to be the basis for
recommending that growers fumigate long-lived perennials before replanting.
However, a trend inversion began at year 4 in Minguzzi's study. By year 10,
the trees that had not been fumigated were doing better than fumigated
trees. Minguzzi concluded that "Fumigation gave an advantage only in the
early years of planting; later it negatively affected tree performance
because of excessive sterilisation of the existing microorganisms
[Mychorrizae?]."
Perhaps researchers are just resigned to the impossibility of getting
funding for long-term studies, along with the fact that you don't get the
necessary publications in timely fashion for career promotion with this
approach. But it is troubling to me that such major farming practices as
preplanting fumigation of long-lived perennial crops rest upon assumptions
that go unchallenged by the vast majority of the scientific community. In
the case of the long-lived perennial orchard or vineyard, the yield at the
end of orchard or vineyard life is the better measure of productivity than
how bushy plants are after 2-3 years. Just food for thought.
Joel Grossman
11 April 1995
email(internet): 3216125@mcimail.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Diver
To: sanet-mg@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@wolf.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: BIO-CONTROL MATTERS-> Humus
Abstract: Response to post about the role of humus in Nature
Farming and S.A.
Keywords: humus, microbes, Nature Farming, the Luebke
method, soil test
Jim McNelly,
I saw your posting (below) on sustag-public concerning the
concept of humus as the basis for sustainable agriculture
as versus designer microbes, companion planting, etc.
[Sustag-public is a gateway for Usenet news to be posted on
an Internet mailing list, and vice versa]. Thanks for bringing this
issue to light. A couple of comments:
Firstly, it was revealed on sanet-mg that the NatureFarm posting
was a working draft by folks associated with this project.
It was posted onto sanet-mg by a third party without prior
notice or approval from the authors.
Secondly, here are my two cents on the matter of humus in
Nature Farming and S.A.:
In the 1994 Proceedings of the Oklahoma Horticulture
Industries Show, I compared Nature Farming, traditional organic
farming, biodynamic farming, and Reams biological farming as
viable sustainable farming 'methods' that conventional
veggie growers may want to adopt during a transition to
low-input sustainable agriculture.
Here is an excerpt on Nature Farming:
"Nature Farming was developed in Japan in the 1930s by
Mokichi Okada, who later formed the Mokichi Okada
Association (MOA). Nature Farming parallels organic farming
in many ways but includes special emphasis on soil health
through composts rather than organic fertilizers, when
possible. Kyusei Nature Farming, a branch group, emphasizes
use of microbial preparations in addition to traditional
Nature Farming. Nature Farming is most active in the
Pacific rim, including California and Hawaii."
"Since the late 1980s, Nature Farming has gained wider
recognition in the United States through the coordinated
efforts of MOA and the Rodale Institute in the formation of
the World Sustainable Agriculture Association (WSAA). The
WSAA and MOA sponsor annual conferences on Nature Farming
and sustainable agriculture. Kyusei Nature Farming conducts
on-farm research in California."
One MOA worker in Hawaii explained that in fact they
even make special composts for different purposes. Thus,
in terms of how the foundation of Nature Farming is laid,
it appears that humus indeed forms the basis of production.
Likewise, while not being familiar with all the particulars
of Effective Microorganisms (EM) used in Nature Farming,
on viewing the number of research papers available through
Kyusei Nature Farming that deal specifically with microbes,
it appears that these microbial additions to soils are
important also for the role they play in the formation of
humus.
All of this stuff on humus is important, just as is the advanced
work being done on biological controls by Dietrick, Grossman, BIRC,
Kyusei Nature Farming, etc.
More on humus, the Luebke influence:
The Luebke farm family of Austria have infused a reawakening
amongst farmers and landgrant workers as to the importance of
humus through their seminars and conference appearances.
The Luebkes teach a 3-day seminar on humus management, and a
4-day seminar on Controlled Microbial Composting (CMC). The
Luebke system is based on the use of forage- and
covercrop-based crop rotations, green manures microbially
incoculated at plowdown, CMC compost prepared with microbial
inoculants and rock dusts, and proper tillage (spade plow).
Whether a farmer is financially capable of purchasing a
Sandberger compost turner and adopting the whole CMC compost
preparation method is secondary to the fact that they come
away with a deeper understanding of the vital role soil microbes
play in the formation of the clay-humus crumb, and how they can
manage their soils to increase this effect.
For example, the Luebkes improved a clay soil on their farm
from 2% O.M. to 15% O.M. in a ten year period using humus
management techniques.
Most interesting to me as a farm advisor and sanet
participant, are the soil health evaluation procedures the
Luebkes employ. These include percent O.M., the colorimetric
humus test, the circular chromatography test, and the buffered
pH test.
One of these in particular, the colorimetric humus test,
has merit for wider adoption, and indeed has already been
adopted by several commercial soils labs in the U.S. after
it was re-introduced by the Luebkes. In fact, this method
was developed in the U.S. decades ago but fell out of usage.
The colorimetric humus test is done by extracting a soil or
compost sample with a weal alkali solution (sodium
hydroxide), filtering the solute, and then comparing the
color of the extract against a colorimetric scale of
standardized liquid-filled test tubes. The result is a
relative number from 0-100.
The idea behind this test is that it gives an indication of
the degree and amount to which organic matter in soil has
entered a humified state. When the humus number is compared
against percent O.M., it provides a ratio that can be evaluated.
Ideally, the ratio will be 1 part O.M. to 3 parts humus.
Too little or too high humus readings provide an indication
of a soil out of balance.
This test is especially insightful in combination with
the chroma and buffered pH test. In one instance,
it was apparent the soil was constipated...plenty of soil
humus, but no microbial activity to make the goodies available
through mineralization.
At the very least, it demonstrates that sustainable
farmers are getting useful information about the condition
of their soils via other methods of soil evaluation in
addition to or as an alternative to standard university soils
tests.
So, McNelly, you have a good point and I think farmers,
landgrant workers, and s.a. advocates should be thinking about
humus. That's why I've summarized these few ideas and
post them here for others to 'mull' over. :-)
Steve Diver
steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu
Jim McNelly wrote:
> After a long and informative note on Naturfarm, I was surprised to find
> no reference concerning the organic matter concentration in the soil.
> Is this typical of many of the new generation of sustainable farmers?
>
> Forage and dairy farmers I have met at sustainable ag conferences speak
> longingly about organic matter levels, and how to import organics from
> off farm to build up soils to native levels around 7% humus, or at least
> to a more sustainable level around 3% to 5%,
>
> If I read many of the early proponents of both organic and sustainable
> farming correctly, compost, humus, and natural ecosystems were stressed
> over other influences such as pest control, disease suppression,
> watering and so forth. The (older?) model held that if the soil was
> improved, other values would follow. Perhaps it is just me, but does it
> not seem that more and more farmers on the sustainable front are talking
> about companion planting, beneficial insects, designer microbes, drip
> irrigation and other techniques.
.....................Stuff Deleted................................
> This is not to put down such practices, but more to make the observation
> that these efforts might be considered to be a substitute for humus and
> organic matter.
>
> Does anyone else think that organic matter levels in the soil are being
> neglected in much of the sustainable agriculture discussion?
>
> Mr Compost~~~
> Affordable In-vessel Composting
> PO Box 7444
> Saint Cloud, MN 56302
>
> Jim~ McNelly
> jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
>
>
> * RM 1.3 02460 * A bird in the hand craps on the wrist.
>
> ------------------============<>=============-----------------
> Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
> Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
> ------------------============<>=============-----------------
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 13:19:24 -0500
From: a16msafley@attmail.com (Marc Safley)
Subject: Soil Quality
To: sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
I have read the exchange pertaining to John Ikerd's paper with
interest. Aside from the more philosophical points that are being
expressed and postulated, there appears to be some need of term
clarification arising from the discussion. Granted this is not a
formal medium; however, we should have some agreed-upon terms since
we cannot see one another and conversation via this medium is very
tedious.
The term is "productivity". In terms of natural systems it has a
specific meaning in the ecological sense and in the economic
sense as well. Ecologically, productivity is the rate at which
radiant energy is stored by photosynthetic and chemosynthetic of
producer organisms. It is the rate of accumulation of biomass (i.e.
production). Management applied to natural systems is said to be
good or bad based on productivity of management systems or their
components. Productivity in this sense has to do with the
efficiency of use of inputs to produce outputs. One can increase
productivity in this sense by increasing outputs without
increasing inputs or by maintaining outputs while decreasing
inputs.
Because sustainable agriculture relates to both the physical and
the economic system we should be clear when we are referring to
terms such as productivity. Especially when we may be referring
to the harvested production and not necessarily the rate of
accumulation of production.
Application of nitrogen inputs may increase production and
economic productivity; however, by use of alternative sources of
nitrogen and other management inputs, productivity may or may
not be improved.
Marc Safley
a16msafley@attmail.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:27:47 -0800
From: Patrick Madden
To: support@igc.apc.org
Cc: benbrook@hillnet.com, pmadden@igc.apc.org, ssikerd@muccmail.missouri.edu,
wsaa@igc.apc.org
Subject: help!!!!!!
TO: SANET-MG
FROM: Patrick Madden, World Sustainable Agriculture Association
I heartily agree with Chuck Benbrook, and will raise him a nickel, on the
need to de-emphasize definitional hair splitting as related to sustainable
agriculture.
I cannot count the number of meetings I have attended, usually at universities,
that started out with a self-righteous scientist assuring the assembly that
nothing they might do in this conference will amount to anything unless
everyone first agreed on an explicit, reductionist definition of sustainable
agricullture. This position is not surprising in view of the typical reward
system of academia, which forces people into reductionist boxes. Holistic,
chaotic, diverse -- all such concepts are judged to be inferior to the nice
neat, overly simplified, unnatural but highly repeatable milieu of the
reductionist experiment.
The moderator of one such conference handled the matter with admirable
diplomacy. When assaulted with the demand by 3 or 4 of these super-
reductionists, with insistence that the entire two day conference just beginning
must come to a complete halt until everyone agreed on THE definition --
the moderator calmly and respectfully appointed those three plus three others
who raised their hands, to serve on a "Definition Committee." These folks
were happily led away to a small room, which they proceeded to fill with
heated rhetoric, bad vibes, shouting, and frustration. Meanwhile, the other
150 or so participants went ahead and created what has come to be known as
the California SAWG (Sustainable Agriculture Working Group). When, at the
close of the conferrence, the moderator respectfully called upon the
"Definition Committee" and asked if they had come up with a definition they
could all agree on, their spokesperson reported, in frustration, they had not
reached a concensus. This was, incidentally, the exact result that the
moderator and all other experienced hands fully expected.
And so it goes. There are those who would stop the parade until all the
participants are fully documented and everyone is marching lock step to the
same tune and beat of the drum. And (fortunately for humanity and Earth)
there are those who are willing to press on in the face al less than
complete agreement about the definitions.
There is a philosophical basis for the difference. Those who believe in and
are dedicated to enabling a more sustainable agriculture recognize the
paramount role played by chaos, biodiversity, natural resiliency. The others
feel more comfortable in a climate-controlled lab doing reductionist work,
under highly predictable and repeatable conditions -- which result in many
essential contributions to reductionist science. We have to have both kinds of
people. I regret there is not better rapport, more mutual respect across this
imaginary line in the sand. And I would hope that those who are comfortable
only in the reductionist mind set will have patience and some degree of respect
for those who are going after real world solutions to real world problems --
which are often heuristic, messy, unrepeatable, ... but useful to those who are
trying to make agriculture more sustainable, more ecologically beneficial, more
socially desirable for present and future generations.
Please pardon me if this sounds like a crotchety old activist. I just get
impatient to get on with action that seems aimed in approximately the right
direction.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:30:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: More Soil Quality and Def.
The long post on Ikerd's sus ag discussion paper is interesting and
raises all the right questions/admonitions etc. But as I have said
before I think the community has reached about as explicit, useful,
concrete definition of sus ag as now possible, or possible at any given
time, given the differences of opinion, world view etc that exist. At
any point in time, in any society, the definition of any concept like sus
ag is going to be a compromise among differing world views, sets of
values etc, no one of which has any way to prove the other wrong, or
illegimate. So the sus ag tent is now relatively stable; its shape and
inards perhaps fully pleasing to no one, but I am certain there is no
real point in debating the fine points anymore because we will simply
document more crisply the differences that are out there, and have been
all along.
One of the other realities is that the "definition" of something
like sus ag is going to remain fluid, driven by changes in politics,
idealogy, science, community values, etc. If we re-open definition of sus
ag in 1995 farm bill, I guarantee the result will be displeasing to those
who advocate a social justice leaning definition. But while the political
arena has moved underneath the definition, the scientific community seems
to be moving in other, positive directions. Abelson's recent editiorial
in Science on sus ag, with at least some mention of soil quality, along
with its discussion of trends, etc is better than what I would have
expected given his views about pesticides, risk assessment, and the need
for environmental protection.
So, I hope people will stay focused on things that are amendable
to meaningful change, like studying the economic tradeoffs of farm bill
proposals that will shift the relative profitability of different systems
and technologies. People worried about corporate hog farms should focus
on IFPs and manure management because that is where that industry is
vulnerable. I also think there is a firm enough consensus now on the
essential dimensions of soil quality to craft some useful provisions
focusing on identifying soils that are seriously impaired for reasons
other than erosion, and providing farmers technical and financial
assistance for starting along the path to enhance their quality.
On the issue of N leaching and fertilizers versus organic matter,
it all boils down to the ability of a soil to store and cycle nutrients.
Recall the excellent work of those who developed and have adapted to
various regions the side dress N test kit; there needs to be 21 ppm, if
memory serves me correctly, of N in the root zone to support maximum
growth of a corn plant. The fertilizer guys are right that they can
control/predict levels, but are dangerously misguided in thinking that it
is better to meet N needs with fertilizer on dead soil than with largely
organic matter sources/cycling in an alive soil. There is lots of
research basically proving this, but the fertilizer guys know how to look
creatively at numbers, and will put forth studies/data that show that N
loss can be great from orgo systems. Of course they can. Do not
underestimate mankind's ability to mismanage an agroecosystem, regardless
of its genetic heritage. But in general a trashed, low soil organic matter,
compacted soil, like so many in America today, will lose more N per average
bushel of corn yield than a healthier, well managed soil. Period. If
you set two soils up in a fair comparative trial and use the same degree
of "best available technology" for meeting N needs and controlling N
losses, the higher organic matter soil will support same yields with
maybe 20-30% less N, and loose less than 1/2 to the environment, if the
research I have been reading over the last few years is to be believed.
What is amazing to me is that the scientific community has not
been able to convince itself of these conclusions, nor communicate them
to policy-makers. Until that happens, why should we expect, or ask for
policies to change?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:49:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Tinsley
To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)"
Subject: Re: Soil Quality; Con't (fwd)
When push comes to shove in the world population the tuber crops will
provide more calories per hectare than the grain crops thus the world
will have to slowly accept a diet of potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams and
cassava.
regards.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 12:48:51 EST
From: Tim Wallace
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Soil Quality; Con't (fwd)
After reading Chuck's excellent note on soils, a question arises in my
mind. Are there any staples that would feed large numbers of the
"growing world's population" that are more environmentally friendly
than others? Are potatoes better than rice, or wheat better than
corn? I am asking this purely from a purely hypothetical point of view.
Also, differences in soils and climates would make for important
differences, also different cultural tastes account for food crop
production decisions.
Is this question too naive?
Tim
***************************************************************
James M. (Tim) Wallace Tel: 919-515-2491
Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology Fax: 919-515-2610
N. Carolina State University Email: Tim_Wallace@ncsu.edu
Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 27695-8107
***************************************************************
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 12:52:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet
Subject: Soil Quality; Con't
Sandy soils in hot irrigated regions are among the most productive in the
world. Some people commenting recently imply that the definition of soil
quality should be heavily weighted toward capacity to support high yields
(or some yield) with little or no inputs. In a world with 6 billion
people and growing, much of agriculture is going to have to be very
intensive, and support very high yields relative to what any soil could,
or would if left in a natural state, or if original soil properties were
re-created. This is a reality of life, planet earth.
So I think the capacity to support high yields with inputs that are
accessible, and relatively sustainable is an important soil quality attribute.
Also, let's remember that many of the world's people, and a lot of land are in
hot, arid, or semi-arid regions where soils will never build up the
organic matter content and tilth common in the corn belt; and also
remember that the richest soils (in their natural state) tend to be where
there is lots of rain, and temperate climates, which can grow great
crops, but have their limits too related to growing season, climate,
pests, etc. You can make a sandy, irrigated soil in the west out-produce
the corn-belt in terms of biomass any day, in effect raising production
maybe 10 or even 15 fold over what it would be under more or less natural
conditions, but modern scientific ag can not do that in areas where
nature dealt such a good hand to start with. Contemporary example --
roughly natural grass operations under rotational grazing in upper
midwest are producing roughly as much milk/meat per acre (and certainly
cheaper) that the highest of the high tech dairies, where alfalfa, corn,
and cows are all on drugs.
In case of irrigated potatoes, relative to potato production in
humid regions of upper-midwest, Maine, and elsewhere in the U.S.,
Washington state and Idaho potatoes can be grown with much less use of
pesticides, for a host of natural reasons. Just as the region's sandy
soils are a soil quality disadvantage, the region's climate is a "soil
quality to grow potatoes" advantage. So yes, a full appraisal of soil
quality has to be against some benchmark, some defined, desirable
outcome, and a host of relative factors need to be taken into account.
Again in potatoes/Northwest the region's principle soil quality problem
is propensity to leach nutrients and water, and low organic matter
content, which lessens chance for microbial biocontrol of soil pathogens,
which can hammer potatoes. So the challenge is to find systems with
cover crops, composts, etc which can raise the organic matter level of
these soils, thereby reducing this fundamental constraint and also
helping lessen propensity to leach. Will this
cost money, take energy/biomass? Yes. Does growing organic strawberries
in the same region under plastic? Yes. Which is more sustainable? It
depends on market demand in the near term more than anything else, and
competition, of course.
By focusing on very long-term sustainability issues, and placing
great emphasis on whether a given system, practice, technology, type of
farm is theoretically sustainable forever, we miss the chance to gain
better understanding and do a better job of managing issues in "our own
backyard". Backyard in the sense of time (our lifetimes) and place (the
U.S. or the region we work in).
The Pierce/Larson paper somebody mentioned defines the concept of
a minimum data-set to measure/track changes in soil quality. Its a great
paper, was done for a conference in Thailand in 1991 I think, and has
since been published. Contact Fran at Mich. State Univ. soil science
dept. It is definitely one of the most important papers in a decade, and
should be up and accessible at a bunch of ftp, gopher, etc cites. It does
have lots of tables/complex graphics though. Could someone from Mich. or
Minn. ask Bill or Fran how best to get a copy, and post it so others can
have it. I would like to add it to my soon to be up WEB page.
Also, their paper and the concepts in it were the foundation for
the Northwest Area Foundation supported project on soil quality
indicators being managed by John Gardner out of North Dakota's Carrington
ag res. station. How about an update from someone involved in that
project? They have been collected baseline soil quality data-sets in 4
states for I think 3 years now, or at least two.
Returning to my initial question, is anyone thinking about soil
quality as a farm bill issue? And, does everyone know about the soil quality
conf. in mid-March at Colorado State Univ., sponsored by the soil ecology chapter
of the ecological society, I think. The program looks excellent, and I wish I
could be there. Maybe someone in this dialogue who will would be willing to
post some summaries of what transpires.
chuck
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:07:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles Benbrook
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: More Soil Quality
In response to Rex Dufour's suggestion re customizing definition of soil
quality to encompass the tropics, I agree on one level, but not another.
I think the three basic attributes of a high quality soil are universal:
capacity to take in, hold water; hold and cycle nutrients; suppress
pathogens and other pests. The attributes or soil physical and
biological parameters which will give rise to these attributes will
differ between temperate and humid regions, as will a soil's ability to
withstand things like tillage, Furadan, and excessive irrigation. One
might add that another dimension of a quality soil is robustness -- takes
a lickin' and keeps on tickin' -- and on this dimension tropical soils
might be judged as limiting. But the underlying attributes do not change.