This shit is looking more and more like gold...

This article from The Atlantic caught my eye the other day, and I just had to share it. Anything called 'Why Farmers are Flocking to Manure' is sure to catch my eye... Gene Logsdon, who wrote the article says:

Fertilizer machines reporting for doodie...

"In 2009, with no assurance that grain prices would be high enough to cover the high cost of manufactured fertilizers, farmers lined up at animal confinement operations willing to fork over good hard cash for the manure, since it seems to be cheaper (depending on how you jigger the figures) than commercial fertilizers for farms close by."

He even describes how a friend of his is considering starting a cattle operation next to his corn/soy fields just so he can have access to the manure produced there.

Microbe-inoculated organic fertilizer!

What this article shows me is that farmers are starting to really want alternatives to chemical fertilizers. While the move to source manure from CAFOs is not my favorite, I do see it as a perceptual step in the right direction. Now, if we can get farmers to recognize that the real valuable stuff will be the fully composted form of that manure, we are on the right track. Heck, even better, if we can get farmers to realize that giving their fields a period of rest, wherein they are holisitically grazed, they can cut out the whole process of buying/producing and then applying the manure to the fields.


Does this sound to anyone else like a step toward the good-old-days when farms integrated multiple species of animals into the farm both as a cash crop and as a system of resource generation? Personally, I like it. Turnin shit to gold...

Not all Compost is created Equal

I received some good feedback from my post about compost tea, so I decided to do a similar informational post about compost...

Not all compost is created equal. I find myself, much to my surprise, spending lots of time explaining to people that 'compost' is not a blanket term for a single thing. Some compost is good, and some compost is bad, depending on what you are trying to do with it. Let me start out by defining what I mean by compost.

Since compost is no more than organic matter, and the microbes that devour it, the quality of a compost can be measured through the same lens. As far as inputs go, while the end product will differ based on the inputs, equally important is the way the compost is managed during the break-down process. Those organisms we want in our composts, our soils, and in relation with our plants are almost entirely 'aerobic,' meaning 'oxygen-breathing.' Just like us, beneficial microbes generally need oxygen to survive. What this means for compost is that I will want to keep my pile aerobic for as much of the process as possible. The general threshold for aerobic organisms is about 6% dissolve oxygen (DO), or 6 parts per million (ppm). When our piles drop below 6% DO, which they do as a result of the aerobic organisms using up all the available O2, the 'anaerobic,' of non-oxygen-breathing organisms wake up. These are the microbes that make our piles stinky (which by the way, is no more than our vital plant nutrients like nitrogen being volatilized out of the compost and blowing away in the wind), and they are the organisms that can give us and our plants diseases.

Compost can be made in a variety of ways.
-The most familiar is the thermal compost process, in which we make a pile of organic matter, it heats up due to microbial activity, and the materials break down and are consumed/transformed by the microbes.

Thermal Composting

-The most practiced is probably the cold-pile process, wherein a person continues to add materials (like food scraps, lawn waste, etc) to the top of the compost pile, and then leaves it to it's business. The microbes break down this material without as much ferocity and vigor, so it is a slower process, and generally, the oxygen levels deep in the pile are below our aerobic threshold.

-A third familiar practice is called vermi- or worm-composting. In this practice, a community of red worms (aka Eisenia fetida) are responsible for consuming the material, and transforming it into worm-castings. This method produces a fairly consistent product, mostly aerobic, and is also a cold-process.

Fungal Composting - about halfway done

-One method gaining popularity is a cold-process for creating fungal compost. This method involves assembling a large amount of high-carbon material (woodchips, straw, etc) in a shallow, but broad pile, inoculating it with a compost or humus known to have a high fungal diversity, and covering the pile with a breathable material like cardboard or compost fabric. This method produces a highly fungal compost, is a cold process, and takes as much as 2-3 years to make the final product.

And those are just the most popular ways to make this stuff. Maybe you can start to see how one name just isn't adequate for all these different products...

Now, most of the time, when we talk about compost in agriculture, we are talking about Thermal Compost. The interesting thing about thermal compost is that it is an intensively fast breakdown of the organic material provided, so to keep it aerobic requires a fair amount of monitoring and input. Most commercial compost operations just make big piles and leave them for 30 days until they turn them. This means that in the center of those piles, where air isn't able to easily penetrate, the material is spending a large portion of those thirty days below the aerobic threshold, so the organisms being bred are the anaerobic ones. This can lead to some unhealthy consequences... for example, one of my area's main compost producers actually had one of their piles spontaneously combust last summer. This is what happens when the anaerobic organisms, who can produce byproducts like methane, alcohol, and formaldehyde in their process of decomposition, are left unchecked. Once these systems reach a high enough temperature, those anaerobic byproducts ignite.

I consider it safe to say that I don't want alcohol-producing organisms to be sharing the soil with my food... and as a result, I don't feel okay about putting composts in my garden that come from questionable sources.

So how does one find a genuinely 'good' compost? Here are my 3 rules to live by when it comes to selecting a compost for yourself:

1) Compost should smell good. Healthy soil organisms produce byproducts like water and CO2. Their shit don't stink, and it'll help my plants grow. A good compost smells like rich earth.

2) Compost should be the color of 70% dark chocolate. If you don't know what color that is, go buy a bar and check it out before you eat it. Its not true that darker compost is better compost. High heat, by means of anaerobic decomposition, can actually burn compost, turning it black.

3) Compost producers should know a lot about their compost. A good compost producer will be able to tell you just what goes into their compost, and in what proportions. They also will have data to show you proving, via some third party, that they have a quality product. Chemical testing is good, residue testing is better, and biological testing is best.

Following those rules, while making it a little more challenging to find the right source, has made the difference for my garden, and it can do the same for yours.

Don't be fooled. Not all compost is created equal. Until we catch up with countries like Germany, where there are actually certification bodies for composts, we consumers have to do the research ourselves. The quality of your compost will contribute to the quality of your soil, and none of us want unhealthy soil, so why buy unhealthy compost?

Hope this post has been helpful to anyone looking for information on this topic. Please leave me a comment if you have any further questions or comments!

S 510 and you. What does food safety modernization mean?

So some big news from this past week, the US Senate approved a bill called the Food Safety Modernization Act. That's right, our government, while being stymied by the childish insistence of the GOP to reinstate the Bush-era taxcuts for businesses over $200,000, has actually done something! The Senate voted 73 to 25 to approve of S 510 this past week, a major move in the food industry. I know this may come as a bit of a shock, but I'm totally thrilled! Yippee! I'm excited about something the government has done in the food industry!

Basically, the bill gives the FDA more power over assessing and controlling the safety standards of our foods. Should the bill pass all the way through, the FDA will have the power to force food recalls on private companies, instead of waiting for the producer to do it themselves. Based on how much I trust our nation's biggest industrial food producers (see my post on the recent nationwide egg recall), I am completely in support of letting the government impose safety regulations on these folk, make them write out full safety plans, and inspect their facilities more than once (if that) per year!

There has been significant outcry against this bill. As a matter of fact, I myself called up my congresspeople to express my concern that this bill could be potentially devastating to my small local farmers, farmer's markets, roadside stands, etc. Much to my delight, there is a provision in the bill that says that these rules and restrictions only apply to producers who have more than $500,000 in sales every year. Here is a direct excerpt from the text of the bill showing this.



Somehow, I still hear conservative pundits claiming that S 510 is in essence, the government taking control of our food. The way I see it, S 510 is a great motivator for small local farmers. Doesn't seem a little like a food-system that supports the small, local farmer/producer is actually a way to encourage us to take our food back into our own hands?

Our Nation's history does not demonstrate that the markets are very good at regulating food safety. Again, I refer to Upton Sinclair and The Jungle, and while I'm on the topic of history, lets consider that the FDA, officially founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, was specifically focused on food producers who were providing 'adulterated' food (meaning things like they used dye to make the meat look fresher, they used fillers to increase the weight of their products, and they used "filthy, decomposed, or putrid substances" in their products). Reading this out of context, one might think, 'Gee, its great that we've come so far since then,' when in reality, the only things that have changed are the names. Today, our food is 'adulterated' by E. Coli (which lives in chicken shit), and excessive amounts of rBGH (aka chemically induced overproduction).

I say its about time someone stepped in to ensure that our food is safe, and that we can comfortably call it 'food.' In response to those who are crying out that the government is taking control of our food, I say I'd rather have the feds in charge than the producers. I trust my government more than I trust the market. Or is there even any difference nowadays anyway?

However, amidst all the celebrating, leave it to the government to mess it up. Apparently, the Senate made some changes to the bill that would add some taxes somewhere, and constitutionally, only the House is allowed to write taxes into bills. Sadly, S 510 is going to have to run its course again. Maybe it'll make it through twice, who knows...

In conclusion, I recommend that we, as eaters, keep ourselves informed about this bill. There is a lot of uproar about this bill, and I'm not completely sold on it just yet. There is a part of me that is concerned about certain parts of the bill, like where it says that the feds have the right to impose martial law on an area where there has been some kind of contamination and where they perceive a risk that the contaminant might spread... and of course, the conspiracy theorists are having a ball with all of the Orwelian implications that can be inferred from this bill.

Fortunately for me, I will be able to continue buying fresh, local, organic food with or without this bill. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled and my fingers crossed for the rest of us.

What is Compost Tea anyway?

I get asked this question a lot. So much in fact, that I hesitate to even use the term 'compost tea' because everyone's understanding of what this is seems to be different. Often times nowadays I'll talk about 'compost extract' of 'actively aerated compost extract,' just to avoid the confusion that comes whenever I say 'compost tea.' In my experience, people have told me that compost tea is anything from a burlap sack filled with horse-poo steeped in water for three days in a closed container, to the smelly liquid that seeps out the bottom of your compost or worm bins. These definitions make me cringe. It feels to me like someone saying that making bread is no more than some flour and water. Similarly, the reductionist understanding of compost tea often leads people who might be expecting a 'loaf of bread' to be disappointed by the tasteless lump of dough they pulled out of the oven.

A slight dated photo of me next to my compost tea brewer

In my search for how to amend this, I went to the source (or at least the most popular source of relevant information in today's modern age), Wikipedia. According to the general masses:


"Compost tea is a liquid solution or suspension made by steeping compost in water. It is used as both a fertilizer and in attempts to prevent plant diseases.^[15] The liquid is applied as a spray to non-edible plant parts, or as a soil-drench (root dip), such as seedlings, or as a surface spray to reduce incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the phyllosphere.^{[16] "}


While this definition certainly seems to reflect the general attitude, it is a big source of frustration for me. The very most basic premise is spot-on. Compost tea is a combination of compost and water, and yet it is really so much more.

Compost Tea Equipment from my company BioLogic Systems

What irks me about this definition is the lack of recognition that compost is much more than a fertilizer. In so many ways, we are still approaching farming and gardening from a very conventional NPK perspective. I will often see compost branded as a fertilizer, and while it is true that compost does have a nutritive chemical component, that chemistry is all a result of, and dependent on, the microbiology that really makes compost what it is.

My own definition of compost is: "Organic matter, and the microorganisms that eat it." I find this to be a simple and accurate description of what compost really is, and why it is so important. As an example, one teaspoon of healthy compost will contain around 33,000 different species of bacteria and fungi. That isn't even counting how many of each species there are... Without the microbes, nothing would compost. The process of composting is almost entirely a biological process, not a chemical one, and though there are certainly chemical reactions happening within a compost pile, most of those take place in the guts of microorganisms.

Therefore, compost tea is much less a fertilizer, and much more a biological inoculant. I recently spoke with a agricultural extension agent who told me that the farmers using biological inoculants are a fringe group within organic farmers. I asked him how many farmers use compost, to which he replied that most, if not all of them do. I didn't dare correct him in the moment, but in my mind I was shouting "That means everyone uses bio-inoculants!"

A photo (through a microscope) of my own Compost Tea

So, in my efforts to dispel the myth that compost is an inert fertilizer, similar in some way to the synthetically produced fertilizers we all know and love, here is my definition of compost tea:

"Compost tea is a liquid suspension of compost-dwelling microorganisms, the organic matter on which they feed, sometimes with the addition of specific ingredients to further feed those microorganisms. The liquid is actively aerated (brewed) until the organisms have reached a peak in their population levels at which time the liquid is applied foliarly and as a root drench for plants."

While it may be true that my definition is not necessarily better than wikipedia's, it feels to me to be more accurate. It is one of my deeply held beliefs that if we can start to recognize the living nature of our compost, compost teas, and soils, we would change the way we manage land, grow food, and treat our soil.

More information on this topic in a recent post of mine about resources!

A Healthy GMO Debate

photo courtesy of Economist.com

This week, Economist.com is hosting a debate around GMO plants. The debate is around the statement that

"This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory." 

 The invitation is to either agree or disagree with this statement. The opposing sides are being led by Pamela Ronald, Plant Pathology prof at UC Davis (representing the 'defending the statement' side) and Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center (representing the 'against the motion' side).

The debate is open all the way till friday, and there is space for anyone to participate. This is a hot topic these days, considerably more so in light of the recent ordeal with 'roundup ready' sugar beets. Interestingly, the majority opinion has been moving back and forth a bit, starting out with almost 80% of people agreeing with the motion that biotech and sustainable agriculture are complimentary. Soon after, the opinion swayed and 60% of participants disagreed. Today it seems to be balancing out a little more.

I thought I might take the opportunity to add my 2 cents.

Recognizing that we, as a species, have been modifying the genetics of plants for thousands of years to our benefit, it seems like this next step may be just that, another step in the evolution of our relationship with plants. We have long selected the seeds from our crops that bear the healthiest, biggest products, and replanted them. This has long been the way for us to manipulate the plants we grow to better serve us as people.

Here is where I get to my stance on the issue. This is also where I see a crucial distinction in the debate. Biotechnology has for a long time served us. Currently, the way we use biotech has made me question who the manipulation really serves.

Possibly our most famous BioTech company is Monsanto, who has given us such wonder-substances as DDT (see Silent Spring), rGBH, terminator seeds, 'RoundUp' (and the gmo plants to withstand the toxic effects of it), and more.

My question, or rather my contention here is about what biotech has become for agriculture. It seems to me that instead of engineering plants that are higher yielding, healthier, and support the farmers, they are creating ways to contribute to Monsanto's net income.

Terminator seeds, while protecting against the risk of the modified genes from spreading (which clearly hasn't worked all that well considering the amount of farmers being sued for having their crops pollinated by GMO plants), also creates a dependence on a single source for farmer's seeds. They've taken away the ability for farmers to inexpensively produce their own genetic stock for the following year.

The recent fiasco around sugar beets was specific to the Monsanto brand of 'roundup ready' seeds. These plants have been engineered to be able to withstand fatal levels of the herbicides glyphosate (aka RoundUp). What strikes me here is that farmers a) have to buy the seeds from the company, b) then have to buy the herbicide from the company as well, and c) since weeds are evolving resistances to this poison, farmers have to be continually applying more and more of this chemical to their lands. This seems suspiciously to me like a way to create a dependence on a company... especially considering the amount of farmers who are in debt to Monsanto, and who likely won't be able to pay off that debt in their lifetimes.

My basic point here is that biotech has been around for a long time. It is a TOOL we have used as a species to support our continued subsistence on this earth. Just like any tool, biotech can be used in ways that benefit the most people, or in ways that are destructive to some and highly beneficial to a choice few. The way we are using biotech today is in support of a petroleum-dependent form of agriculture which is not only unsustainable, but is already (after about 50 years) showing diminishing returns. Pests and weeds are developing resistances to the chemicals, yields aren't what they used to be, costs of chemicals are generally rising, and the food produced is shown to be inferior in taste and nutrition.

Biotech today is contradictory to sustainable agriculture. As long as the focus of biotech is on supporting the current chemical-based land management paradigm, it will continue to contradict a model of agriculture that would genuinely sustain us for generations to come.

A little political... WA Chooses Soda over Health and Education

A highlight this year for me was the implementation of a tax here in Washington State on soda and candy. As far as unhealthy items of consumption go, soda and candy are major contributors to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other major (and costly) concerns for which we taxpayers often foot the bill. The proposal to tax those items (by roughly $.02 per can of soda) would have generated an estimated $107 million in the first year to go to health and education programs (or at least to prevent budget cuts in health and education).

[Creative Commons photo by Kevin Wong]

Today I've been reminded of the massive power that 'Big Food' wields. The American Beverage Association (which represents the Soda industry) spent $17 million dollars to squelch this tax. They paid for the signatures to be collected to get the measure on the ballot, they spent millions of dollars in advertisements making it seem like this tax would put people out of jobs, threaten our farmers (what? and just how many sodas use any fruit?), and be unfair to tax this food and not others. Hold on, did they say food? Really? So to be clear, a bottle containing water, corn syrup, and flavorings qualifies as food? Now I know my perception on food might be a little swayed thanks to Michael Pollan, but really? Soda and candy are food? A substance that 7 PhDs and MDs recently stated in the New England Journal of Medicine is significantly contributing to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease (download the full pdf here) is a FOOD!? I'm not even sure if I should be writing about this topic, since in my estimation, these substances fall more under the 'drugs and other intoxicating substances that somehow in a very abstract way resemble food' category.

So, based on millions of dollars in corporate spending, Washington state's voters have decided to repeal this tax. The fat cats of big soda and big candy are patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves not only for defeating a meager tax which would have done way more good than ill, but for something else as well. Following the footsteps of the other mega-players in the food industry, Big Soda has now also established that they are willing to spend whatever it takes to keep their profit margins the highest, even if it means contributing to a national health epidemic. Once again has the monetary influence of large corporations proving that they actually wield the power in our country. Even on a measure that would give opportunities to our children and our sick, they have the ability to convince the masses into seeing things their way, even if it is through manipulative half-truths or outright 'pants-on-fire' false statements.

Blech. This post leaves a bad, sugary, HFCS taste in my mouth, but then again, so do many of the results of yesterday's voting.

I hope that this can become a cause for people to rally around, to recognize what corporations are doing to manipulate our perspectives and beliefs in order to advance their own quarterly profits. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US! So lets stop caring about them and their propaganda. Lets start listening to our doctors and scientists, and stop listening to the multi-billion dollar industry spokespeople. Please?

The Dirt: The Video

Here is an intro to why I do this...

Here's to the Ladies! The women of sustainable agriculture

While it may be true that today's average farmer is most akin to Elmer Fudd, there is a growing (or maybe its just re-emerging) trend of women in agriculture. The agricultural industrial revolution introduced the farm to many boy-oriented products and practices like tractors (weee! look at my big toy!), pesticides (die bugs DIE!), and a narrow-minded linear perspective on a complex system. Thankfully for farms everywhere, a resurgence of women farmers is making waves in the agricultural industry.

Recently, Tom Philpott wrote an article for Grist titled: "Acknowledging Women's Role in the Sustainable Food Movement" and after reading it, I felt inspired to reiterate some of what he wrote. While the sustainable food movement does have a group of men in the spotlight (Michael Pollan, Wendell Berry, Joel Salatin, etc) the voices and names of the women in the movement are becoming more and more recognizable every day.

Personally, I find myself so drawn to this topic because most of my biggest role-models in sustainable food are women.

-Firstly, I have my mom to thank for introducing me to farming and gardening at our home in suburban Boston. She is the one who first taught me how to plant a seed, help it grow, harvest the food, and compost the rest. Thanks mom.

-I learned the principles and practices of Permaculture from a woman named Joanna Pearsall, who is co-creator and organizer of the New Zealand EcoShow, a conference to bring together sustainability professionals. She is also an integral member of the New Zealand permaculture movement, and much more!

-I was inspired by the grit and determination I witnessed in Ann Cure, who co-taught an Agro-Ecology course I took during my BA at the Naropa University. Ann used to be the farm manager for the university-owned educational farm in Boulder CO, until the school's board of trustees decided to sell the farm to free up some cash to finish building the MFA facilities elsewhere... Personally, I left Naropa's environmental studies program after the sale of Hedgerow Farm. Ann lost her job at the farm, but she didn't even flinch. She went out, found the financing, and bought her own farm, Cure Organic Farm, which she runs to this day. She continues to provide educational opportunities to children in the Boulder area, along with delicious organic food to high-class restaurants and at the farmer's market.

-After Boulder, I moved to Oakland CA, where I was lucky enough to meet Temra Costa, who was then program director of CAFF (Community Alliance with Family Farms). I was inspired by her commitment to sustainable food, and then totally wowed when she released her book "Farmer Jane" which is all about the ways women are changing the food system. On her website, Temra writes:  

"As farmers, moms, businesswomen, chefs, and activists, women are changing the way we eat and farm. They are the fastest growing demographic to own and operate sustainable farms, comprise the largest percentage of sustainable agriculture nonprofit employees, own sustainable food businesses, cook the majority of household meals, and control household budgets. “Farmer Janes” are creating a more healthful, sane, and sustainable food system for present and future generations." 
 
-Another influential woman I encountered in California was Alice Waters. Her work as a chef led her to focus on where her food came from, and well beyond. I was lucky enough to spend some time at the Edible Schoolyard in Berkeley, and witness what growing a garden can do to change the way a child sees the world. Inspired by Alice and her work, I went and taught a gardening class at a small elementary school in San Leandro where the kids and I built up a beautiful and fruitful garden.

-I work with a company providing information, products, and equipment to the growing agriculture movement increasingly known as 'Biological Agriculture' which focuses on managing the microbial communities in the soil and on plants. The technology is amazing, and stands to put Monsanto out of a job. This technology, and the scientific approach to its agricultural applications, has come from Dr. Elaine Ingham, now president of Soil Foodweb Inc. I attended an educational workshop of hers after listening to her lectures on CD, and my life has never been the same since. In fact, I decided to pursue a master's degree in business to be able to figure out a way to bring these technologies to the world!

-Currently, my inspiration from Dr Ingham has led me to a very interesting project I am developing. I am working on a way to assist in breaking the cycle of chemical dependency in rural Indian agriculture. In my research, I have repeatedly come across the work of Dr Vandana Shiva (not to mention really enjoying her books Soil not Oil, Stolen Harvest, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Also, be sure to catch her interviews in films like Dirt: The Movie, The Corporation, and Blue Gold). Not to be overwhelming, but she also founded Navdanya, an organization networking, training, educating, and facilitating people working toward sustainable food in India (oh, and did I mention that Navdanya is a woman-centric organization and has a branch called Diverse Women for Diversity?)

So, without going further (and I assure you I could!), it is abundantly clear to me that women are back when it comes to sustainable food, or maybe they never left and we just haven't been hearing about them. In his Grist article, Philpott (actually his girlfriend) made the observation that: "the whole "vote with your fork" ethos that has dominated the food movement for decades is arguably a permutation of one of '70s-era feminism's central insights: "The personal is political." Lets keep that mentality moving!

In conclusion, it is clear to me, at least in my own path and development, that women have played a major role in leading me to where I am today in sustainable agriculture and food systems. Lets all try to find ways to recognize the women in ag who are shaping the next generation of food producers around the world. To my woman readers: what ways can I, as a man, help to support, promote and recognize the critical role women are playing in the food system?

Renewed in my gratitude to the women in my life who have helped to shape my perception of what a sustainable food system looks like, I'll end this post. Hopefully I'll be coming back to this topic less as a way to point out the unrecognized women of ag, and more to celebrate a wide-reaching public perception of women as an obviously powerful force in our food system.

Here's to the ladies!

Sustainable Food and Agriculture Resources

While I sit here on my soapbox shouting out to the world about all kinds of amazing ways that we can meet our food-system needs without utterly devastating our earth and the good people on it, sometimes I forget that not everyone thinks like me, or even has the same informational background I do...

So here is a chance for all of you who would like to learn more to have a look at some other places you can learn about this stuff I'm preaching:

Soil Microbiology and Agriculture:

http://biologicsystemsusa.com/ - My Company! Check us out, and our website is pretty rich with information, research, supplies, and more.


http://biologicsystemsusa.com/docs/catalog.pdf - Produced by my company, our catalog is actually an amazing way to get some perspective on this whole approach without having to 'buy the cow,' as they say

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/sfi_approach1.html - This is the website for all your Soil/Microbe/Plant interaction information. Dr Ingham, president of Soil Foodweb Inc, is a personal hero of mine, an amazing scientist, and an inspired change-agent.

 Soil Carbon Sequestration and Cows


http://www.savoryinstitute.com/ - Allan Savory is the founder of the Holistic Management movement, and his book is worth reading for anyone. Savory works all over the world to spread his experience and knowledge working with cows and other large herd animals to actually heal land. (Check out the project he did in Zimbabwe in a recent post of mine!)

http://soilcarboncoalition.org/ - These guys are serious about impacting climate change by putting the carbon back where it belongs, in the soil! There are some incredible stories, some really educational articles and papers, and be sure to check out the interactive map where you can actually see where (and how much) people have made a difference on their farm!

Enjoy these links! I'm sure there is plenty more to come...

Face your Food

A fellow food and sustainability blogger Organic Nation recently wrote about an event that I want to share. Fair Food International, a non-profit working to advance the cause of healthy and sustainable food globally, has initiated a campaign called "Face your Food."

The campaign recognizes that to enact change, especially in an industry so heavily lobbied by corporations, public support must be impossible to miss. So, Fair Food has invited people to make a video of themselves eating. The video will be slowed down and reversed, with the intended consequence of getting people to think about where their food comes from. 

Dorothee from Organic Nation writes:


"I think this is a great opportunity for folks in the U.S. to show their support not only for this organization, but for the concept of sustainable and fair trade food. I like how easy they make it to participate, you can simply use your computer's web cam to film yourself eating something and the site will turn it backwards and share it on Facebook with all the other entries."

As a huge food advocate myself, I absolutely agree that the premise behind this campaign (rallying public support around healthy food by creating a viral video campaign to which it is easy to contribute) is really good. The drive to bring out people's opinions around healthy food to show to the government and the food producers is hugely important.

Filming yourself while eating? The mere thought makes me uncomfortable. Watching up close other people eating, even in reverse? Not really an appetizing activity...

Unfortunately (or maybe not) the culmination of this campaign was about a week ago, so I missed my chance to put myself chowing down on Facebook (where they want me to post the video). In a way, it is campaigns like these that make me wonder... who thought this up? did they really think that this would encourage people to think about food sustainability? or about where the piece of broccoli in that blond guy's teeth came from? Honestly, it didn't me.

I am really glad to have encountered this post on Organic Nation, as it inspires me to think of how this kind of campaign (easily accessible, showing of public support for healthy food, directed to the decision-makers) can be otherwise structured to better guide people's minds to food sustainability.

A question to my readers: What kind of similar campaign (perhaps viral and video-based) could bring people together to voice their concern for healthy foods/lands/farms?

If I get some good suggestions, I may even take them to completion as part of a class I'm taking right now. So you never know, you might find that an idea you sprout here may become nationally fruitful!

Water, Water, Everywhere...

When Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," he probably didn't do it thinking about agriculture in the 21st century, but I will.

He wrote:  
"Water, water, everywhere,
     And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
     Nor any drop to drink."

While Coleridge may have been referring to the un-drinkability of seawater from the eyes of a sailor, I will focus on the un-drinkable water we create everyday through bad agricultural practices. Today, in honor of Blog Action Day, I'll be focusing on water. Since my focus is on sustainable agriculture, I'll take a moment to highlight some of the relevant posts I've made about water, and share some new information. 

First, allow me to point out a post I made back in August after reading an NPR release about the severe drought in West Africa. I brought to light, in comparison with the situation in Africa, which the UN was under stress about because they didn't have enough food to send to feed those who were suffering from the consequences of the drought, a positive example from Mexico. Doug Weatherbee conducted an experiment in rural Mexico growing corn during a severe drought season. He treated his land with biological inoculants (good compost and compost tea) and had some amazing results. Go to my post to see the pictures. 

One point I'll introduce, also related to water and specific to Africa, is that Ethiopia, for example, puts 96% of the water collected from above and below, into their agricultural system. The remaining 4%, a mere sip in comparison, pretty much entirely flows to the capital Addis Ababa, where it is drunk, used for watering lawns, and pooped in. The people who live outside the city rely on murky puddles of water which they share with livestock (who don't necessarily refrain from using those puddles as toilets). They come to the water with a bucket, push the cow out of the way, and fill up on their daily dose of drinking/washing/cooking water. All the while in the background, huge sprinklers are spraying thousands of gallons of water into the air, where most of it (on a hot day, as much as 85%) evaporates before it ever makes contact with the ground. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner certainly has some close relevance for these people. 

Another water-topic I want to mention is something I just recently discovered. Turns out, a team at the University of Minnesota produced a movie call "Troubled Waters: A Mississippi River Story." The film documents the ways in which bad agricultural choices are leading to major problems down the line. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it. U of M decided to postpone their release of the movie after some criticism was brought up by some interested parties *cough* LOBBYISTS! *cough*. Apparently the issue has turned into quite a debaucle over academic freedom, and the control that financial contributors to an educational institution ought to have over the material produced therein. 

Dixon, CA

One piece of info I am privy to related to this movie is that in Dixon, CA, home of almond, walnut, and other agricultural products, there are some concerns from farmers about their drinking water. The EPA has set the limit of nitrite (a soluble form of Nitrogen, and a popular fertilizer) to 1 ppm. On a small walnut farm in Dixon, the nitrite concentration in the water coming out of the faucet measured in at an astounding 75ppm! All that extra nitrogen comes from the excessive use of this synthetic fertilizer on Dixon's orchards. What a waste! Producing that fertilizer consumes 3-5% of our global natural gas production every year, only for it to become a health risk and pollution problem! Where's the logic there?! 

Okay, so I may be rambling a little, and I'll curtail my rant. Before I do, I just want to ask the question of whether it is really worthwhile for our food system to rely on an energy-intensive process that leads to water contamination, and actually decreases the soil's ability to hold on to that precious water. Is it really worth a 'dead-zone' the size of Rhode Island in the Gulf of Mexico? Is chemical-based agriculture really providing enough benefit to outweigh the cost to lives of people who are effected by contaminated drinking water, a system that doesn't allow drinking water for people outside the city, and a system that is devastated when excessive amounts of water aren't available?


Water, water, everywhere...

From Grist: Vote for the your favorite Food Villain

This week Grist has launched a poll to assess who is the world's worst villain of food. I know a few names popped into my head as soon as I saw the title, and I reckon some will for you too. Chances are, they're on the list.

As much as I really try to focus on positivity and possibility in my blog, there are some times when we just need to get together and collectively vent our frustrations with agriculture, the food system, and those who we perceive as actively trying to squelch the efforts of those trying to create a healthy and sustainable food system that will genuinely nurture.

Image courtesy of Grist.org

From the Grist article: "This is our attempt to root out who's currently keeping America sick, fat, and poisoned: a preliminary list of a Dirty Dozen rotten eggs spoiling our food system. Cast your vote, or write in your candidate in the comments below, and let's see who's food's Public Enemy No. 1 -- and plot what we can do to stop them."

So go read the article, cast your vote for the worst offender, and stay posted as to who comes out to be Food Villain #1!

Peak Soil and Sustainable Cheeseburgers

I read an article this morning from The Grist (full article here) called Peak Soil. The story centers around how our globe is losing its precious skin of healthy topsoil at alarming rates. They mention how Ethiopia loses nearly 2 billion tons of topsoil every year to erosion, and how the plowing and institution of industrial agriculture has ruined lands and people's lives for nearly one hundred years.

The brown color is made by the soil washing away downriver

The angle I found most interesting in this article was when the author turned the focus from loss of topsoil to herd-animal grazing. The author points out that there are very large herds of cattle, goats, sheep, and other grazers all over the world, and makes the claim that grazing those animals on our lands is destroying them. The article lists all kinds of statistics about how many sheep there are in China, etc... To those claims, I beg the question; 'why wasn't the globe facing mass desertification problems when there were herds of billions of large herbivores roaming the plains and savannas before man instituted practices of mass-extinction of wild herbivores and the domestication of what was left?'  Before the advent of agricultural management of herd animals, the hoards of herbivores that criss-crossed our lands vastly outnumber the pastured herds we now manage. Why, then, were these much larger herds not creating the same kind of devastation we see today? The answer is in the method.

When a large herd of grazers are penned up on a large parcel of land, each individual will actively seek out, in a lazy way, their favorite grasses, leaves, and plants. Usually there is enough land per animal (often around 2 acres per cow in the case of cattle) that the grazers can spread out and casually browse from the salad-bar selection. This means, first of all, that they don't eat the plants that aren't their favorite, which often leads to proliferation of troublesome weeds in pastures, and secondly, that the plants they do like aren't given the proper amount of time to recover between each visit from an herbivore, so they weaken and eventually die. When the plants die, there is less to hold together the soil, and come the next rainfall, away it goes.

Naturally, as you may have seen in NOVA documentaries or in the Planet Earth movie, given their natural habitat, large herds of grazers move in tight packs over large areas of land. In these dense clusters, they are constantly on the move (think of the baby caribou that is keeping pace with the whole herd only minutes after being born) because they are always being followed by predators. What this means for the ground they cover is that every plant gets nibbled down, the top layer of earth is churned up from all the hoofing and trampling, and the whole area is fertilized and irrigated by the herbivores. The plants then have ample time to recover before they are bitten again.

A suffering ranch in Zimbabwe, 2004

This natural pattern of grazing was the inspiration to Allan Savory (www.SavoryInstitute.com), a South African pioneer in regenerative agriculture practices. He asked himself, 'why can't we mimic the natural movements of grazers in our own pastures?' This question led to the development of what is know as Holistic Planned Grazing techniques, which replicate the effects of large herds moving in their natural pattern.

2005 - One nasty drought, one year of Holistic Grazing

He has tried and trued his practice over many years, and this one ranch in Zimbabwe is only one example. Simply by changing the way that we manage our herd animals, we can actually increase the health of soils, increase the living ground cover (plants), and drastically reduce the erosion rates. These images, taken over 4 years, clearly show what kind of impact the appropriate management of herd animals can have. The site where the photos were taken transformed from a near-desert into a lush grassland, with no input other than cows.

2006 - after a decent rainy season

2007 - after a major drought

 It is clear in the pictures how profoundly this land changes, even during years that experienced severe droughts, this ranch continued to improve its soil, cover the bare earth, produce healthier, happier, heavier cows, and mitigate whatever erosion might have been occurring down to nearly nothing.

It seems only fair that articles like this one from Grist would point the finger at herd-animals for committing these atrocities. On the surface of the issue, it seems that the animals are indeed overgrazing, and thereby destroying our precious lands. However, once we look a little closer, we can see that the animals are only doing what they do best, and actually, the methodology employed by the people who graze them is what is truly detrimental to our planet.

We can stop erosion and still feed the world! There are answers out there!

Nature had it all figured out. A planet in ecological balance for thousands of years... then we came along and thought we could do better... (hubris much?) We have dealt with the consequences of that choice for long enough, and now we are able to see the ways in which Nature really did have the right idea. We can emulate those natural patterns to our gain! We could swim upriver against Nature as much as we want, but we certainly won't cover as much ground if we work with the flow of the water...

May we all get the opportunity to eat meat that helped to halt desertification, erosion, climate change, and pollution!

Cheeseburgers that heal the world!!

Beets and Berries, Connecting the dots

There have been two news items recently that caught my eye. The first was about a decision by a federal judge to undo the approval of GMO sugar beets (hooray!) linked here. This decision sent the sugar-beet industry into an uproar with a lot of farmers concerned with how they would be able to meet their needs without roundup ready beets.

The second piece of news that grabbed my attention has been the release of a study conducted mostly by scientists from Washington State (Pullman) University, as well as members from Utah State, U of Oklahoma, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (full text here). The study compared conventionally grown to organically grown strawberries from 13 different farms. What they found is that "the organic strawberry farms produced higher quality fruit." The organic strawberries have a longer shelf-life, higher concentrations of many nutrients including antioxidants and vitamin C, and that they showed through their taste-tests that the organic berries were generally sweeter.

Wait, so the organic strawberries were sweeter? And the beet growers are thowing a hissy-fit because they can't grow their sugar beets conventionally? Has anyone else noticed this connection? Also worth noting is that the farms in the study didn't manage the microbial communities in their soils, so each trial was still a bit of a crapshoot (each farm could have started out with very different microbes, which will grow very different plants). I dare to suggest that had the organic trials incorporated a more thorough microbiological management, they would have seen results much more pronounced than what they found.

Determining the BRIX level for a fruit or veggie is a way of quantifying it's sugar content. According to John Evans of BounTea, a competitor/cooperator (coopetitor?) organization to my own BioLogic Systems, a normal grocery store carries veggies with a BRIX score of between 6 and 10. My guess is that typical organic would test right in between, probably at 10-15 or so. A vegetable given all it needs by the addition of billions of microbiological workers (i.e. good compost/compost tea) in the soil will regularly have BRIX levels of up to 20!

Hello beet farmers of the world! You can do it without roundup, grow beets with more sugar, do it for less money, with less dependence on certain multinational gene-manipulating corporate juggernauts! Doesn't that sound appealing!?

So yes, to recognize any arguments that might stem from this study, they did report lower levels of nutrients like potassium and phosphorous, but considering that their method of fertilization is to dump excessive amounts of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous (NPK) on the plants, that news comes as not much of a surprise. Yes, the organic crops also had lower yields by up to 25%. I believe that these places where the organic crops came in second can be explained by means of what microbes were present in each of these farms. What I found to be a bit of a pity is the way the study examined the microbiology.

Imagine billions of these guys working for your plants to provide them with all they need to thrive!

It seems as though the study simply mashed up all the microbes together and then weighed them to determine the total microbial biomass. What we miss by doing that is knowing what the diversity is like, what communities were present, what the relative populations are of specific organisms, which has a huge impact on the plant. They missed out on a great opportunity to really show that organic is more viable than conventional because they failed to properly account for the microbes. Guys, just because their little doesn't mean they don't matter! 

So here's my appeal to the university scientists. Now that we have this data, great! Job well done! Now lets go ahead and do another study comparing conventional, organic, and biologically managed veg. It is my belief that this proposed trial will leave no room for question. The biologic plot will, as it constantly does in undocumented trials, perform at least to the yield standard of the conventional, with all the added benefits from the organic. Who's up for it? Takers?

Erosion Explosion

The corn commodity policies and incentives put in place by former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz (during Nixon's term), whose message to farmers was "go big or get out" and to plant "fencerow to fencerow," have understandably resulted in farmers following his recommendation and expanding their corn fields to take up not only all their fields, but every inch of plow-able land available. As a result, corn fields now dominate land where animals used to graze, and other crops used to grow. The corn now grows from the edge of the farmer's house all the way to their exact property line. Sometimes this means that corn grows in risky places.

images:Gannon, Desmoines Register

Farmers along the Nishnabotna River in Iowa have demonstrated exactly what those risks can be. Susan Heathcote, a water program director at the Iowa Environmental Council recently took a canoe trip down the Nishnabotna and was astounded by what she saw(original article here) While Iowa is renowned for being a state with a very good record of riparian buffers and proper care for its waterways, those areas which are not under some sort of protection are falling prey to corn.

The local farmers have planted as much corn as their plows will allow, and the result is that the very land they intended to profit from is washing down the river on its way to the Mississippi and then to the Gulf. On its way, the soil, (which took thousands of years to form there, and us only a hundred years of industrial agricultural mistakes to wash away) will contribute to the sedimentation of the river, making it less hospitable for living things and mechanical ones.

Standard applications of chemicals destroy the microbial community that holds together the soil, the glue-forming bacteria and the fungal hyphae (which wrap like ropes around the soil particles and hold them together) are either crushed or poisoned, and the structure of the soil collapses, hence erosion, loss of organic matter and farmland fertility, dust-bowls, etc.

Some people, including Ms Heathcote, are calling for people to contact their local government representatives and insist on mandating riparian buffer zones so that the fertile lands of Iowa don't all end up in the ocean. I commend that effort, and would suggest further recommending that farmers start caring for their soil in a way that ensures productivity and at the same time protects waterways, prevents erosion and leaching of chemicals. Those microbes that belong in that soil, that built it and have maintained it for these thousands of years, lets bring them back too, and ensure that our food and the land that grows it doesn't end up taking a cruise down the river.

As an example, I'll show off the work of Hendrikus Schraven of the Hendrikus group. These photos are from a property here in the pacific northwest. A homeowner, living in a recently built home(on the far right in the photo) with a lovely view, was being threatened by erosion. In fact, the hillside was falling away, and before long it would be claiming the house as well. In this image, an application is being made of a microscopically scrutinized compost full of beneficial microorganisms. The microbes build up the structure of the soil, give the plants what they need in terms of nutrients, water, pest/disease protection, and the plants thrive. The slope stabilizes, and bye-bye threat of 'house-toboggan.' Below is actually a picture of the same slope. Look for the tall solitary tree in the background. These healthy established plants flourish because of the help they receive from their billions of microbiological allies, and our homeowner at the top of the hill can rest easily now.


So if simply adding a healthy diverse community of microbes (aka - really good compost) can keep a house from falling into the water, imagine what it could do for some corn!

The erosion problems the Iowa farmers are facing have been brought on by their own practices of cheap, linear solutions that remain blind to the system to which they are part. So, our nation's corn is floating down the Mississippi on its way to Mexico...

Really folks, we can do better than this!

100 years old, and still a potent message

This historical poster is from WWI era, (about 1917), and delivers a message we could benefit from listening to today. Thanks to the Maine Historical Society for keeping records. The ONLY change I would make for this to better suit today's food-climate, would be to replace 'wheat' with 'corn.'

What profound statements these are! And at the same time, what ridiculously simple ones. These basic principles of involving yourself in your food have been so lost today! These days, most people in the US buy the cheapest food-option, cook it in a microwave, most of our food is made primarily of corn (which is in turn made (grown) primarily using petroleum-based products), we buy our apples from Chile, and a 'small' serving in today's food market is equivalent to what used to be considered huge! Nevermind the waste, I won't even go there...

Over the weekend, Glenn Beck held his 'restoring honor' rally for all of his followers from his seat as a Fox News pundit. At one point he said something about reclaiming the values we held 100 years ago, and how we americans need to do that. While I certainly believe that it would be a very bad idea to regress back to a time when our values were racist, sexist, classist, bible-focused, capitalist (think Upton Sinclair's The Jungle), and nature-dominating,  I do love the concept of bringing back this little gem from that era.

At the very least, let's try to follow the very first rule, buy your food with thought. Educate yourself as to where it comes from, and what implications that has. Know your farmer if you can! Read labels, and don't believe health claims printed on the box (they usually do that to try to convince you to eat something that is actually NOT healthy)! Learn about industrial food practices. Lastly, and most importantly, VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS!!! The market for more sustainable food options grows by 20% every year (even through the economic jumble we're in now), and the big guys are listening! Soon the price gap between organic and chemical food will close, as oil becomes more expensive and farmers need to use more and more chemicals AND as organic recognizes that with the proper care and management, growing chemical-free food is way more profitable than not.

So let us learn from history, eh?

Pink Panthers and Cyanide Dumps

Thanks to Don Piper (www.Myndzeye.com) for referring this very cool story to me!

Somewhere out in the central Nevada desert, Tony and Jerrie Tipton came upon a monstrous sight. A 300 foot tall pile of crushed rock called a heap-leach pad. The rock contained low-quality gold ore, and it was extracted using applications of cyanide, into which the gold would dissolve, and be able to be claimed by the miners.

How a heap-leach pad works

The Heap-Leach pad pre-Tiptons

After a few years of pouring cyanide onto this specific pile of rocks, the mining company decided it was no longer extracting enough gold to make it worthwhile to continue leaching. The company sprayed enough water on the pile to make them feel like it was clean, and then they left it. There it sat, completely sterile, void of any organic material, and not growing anything. An eyesore at the very least was all that was left of this gold extraction project. The miners tried to re-vegetate the area by spraying it with chemical fertilizers, seeds, and a plasticized mulch used on highways. The area was able to grow one species of poisonous weed for one season, and then they were back to square one. The mine company, having satisfied their government-imposed responsibility of 'reclaiming' the site, left it to sit there.

When the Tiptons (who lived nearby in an old greyhound bus converted into an RV with a funny painting of the Pink Panther on the back, hence the name) approached the mining company and asked if they could try out a different method, the company didn't see any way it could hurt, so the gave them the go-ahead.

The same slope, after the Tiptons had their way with it

Tony and Jerrie Tipton brought in a few very simple ingredients. They spread a mixture of native seeds, some organic fertilizer (rich in microbial life!), some hay and some straw. Then, they brought in their processing team; cows. The cows came in, ate up the hay and straw, trampled down what they didn't ingest, and spread their own version of microbially diverse fertilizer on the ground. After only a few days, the cows left. What they left behind, the seeds, a bit of trampled organic matter, and a bunch of urine and manure, then went to work. After six months, the area was covered in native plants, growing well and establishing themselves. After three years, a scientist from the US Forest Service went to check on the area and found that there was not only still a healthy population of native plants still residing there, but also a community of wildlife had moved in and made themselves at home.

Since this first incredibly successful project, the Tiptons have gone on to engage with larger scale endeavors using their extremely simple, and extremely effective methods. They have attempted to engage on large scale (250,000 acre) projects, and have appealed to congressmen, senators, gov't land managers, educators, investors, and even to leaders of environmental organizations. With all this, its still pretty hard to find mention of these two after the year 2000 (yes, this project took place in the 90's!). However, apparently they haven't just faded into the background. Jerrie Tipton has held the position of Commissioner of Mineral County Nevada since 2007, and she and Tony have a BLM public land ranching operation in the middle of NV where they are continuing to do amazing things with their lands. 


Lets get these people in the spotlight! Sure, it may not be the most glamorous or technologically 'wow-ing' method, but dammit, it works. Sometimes it takes a little bit of openness to realize that the solutions we seek for our world are already right in front of our eyes. We don't need to invent new chemicals, new machinery, or new technology to solve the issues we have created for ourselves and our planet. If we use the tools that nature has given us, in the right ways in the right places, we can create a better, healthier, cleaner, more productive world for the coming generations of humans on this earth. 

This story, and others like it, can be found in the excellent book by Dan Dagget, Gardeners of Eden: Rediscovering our Importance to Nature. I recommend checking it out.