Comments on: A Virtual Tour of Tomorrow’s Super-Sustainable Farm (Part 2)

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:45:31 +0000

Tom,
That example of no-till for small holder farms is excellent. It is sad how things went in Zimbabwe, but encouraging that Brian Oldrieve is helping so many people. No-till has also taken off for the small farmers of Brazil. You met some of the real pioneers of no-till on that US trip!

By: Tom Borland

Tom Borland — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:38:53 +0000

Hi,
I have been involved, on and off, in the development of herbicides and No Tillage in South Africa and Zimbabwe since 1965. I made an extensive tour of the USA (sponsored by the Grain and Cotton Producer’s Associations of Rhodesia) in 1975 specifically to study developments in no tillage in the USA. I visited and was conducted around by research workers in Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois and Georgia, which included a visit to the then no tillage farming expert, Harry Young in Kentucky.
I recently “escaped” from Zimbabwe and am now retired and live in Wales.
It may be of interest to you to know that No Tillage farming, or as it is now more favourably referred to as Conservation Tillage or Agriculture/Farming, was popular amongst a number of progressive farmers in Zimbabwe, now sadly “kicked off” their farms, from as early as 1980.’s. Amongst these farmers was one Brian Oldrieve who successfully no till farmed a total of 3500 hectares of cotton, soyabeans and maize in rotation and irrigated wheat/soyas in rotation.
You may be interested to know that Brian, a devout Christian, still remains in Zimbabwe, despite having been driven off his farm, and is now behind an incredible “Evangelic” movement operating throughout Southern, Central and East Africa, which is promoting Conservation farming – Farming God’s Way” amongst millions of rural folk. You can look up the BLOG page “farming god’s way” on google.
Are you aware of the group of scientists at FAO who are promoting Conservation Agriculture worldwide?
Tom Borland

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:53:20 +0000

Erin,
You have stated a fantastic question, “Is it possible to bring the power of the consumer to bear in helping switch land to these more sustainable methods.”

I really wish there was a way to do this, but the “band width” for consumer pressure has been very effectively focused on “Organic” and it has become such a super brand that I doubt that it would ever be possible to supplant it with something different.

I’m planning a blog post about the 20th anniversary of the effort to define the rules of Organic. I’ll talk about what that could have been vs what it is today.

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:44:34 +0000

Greg, “herbicides and pesticides” are not uniformly toxic. Many are less toxic to us than table salt. They are obviously toxic to pests, but modern ones are amazingly non-toxic to us and to other non-target organisms. We don’t buy food “full of herbicides” because those are applied very early in the growing season, are not that toxic in the first place, and have certainly broken down long before harvest. The reason I made a point about runoff is that a field that does not erode does not cause multiple problems starting with silt but also including fertilizer and pesticide residues. Also, if the rain does not “run off” it is stored there for future crop growth. I don’t apologize at all for wanting this.

As for “faceless corporations” controlling our basic needs – please explain how that happens. I don’t know of any “faceless” corporations.

By: erin

erin — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:50:08 +0000

If this system is more eco-friendly than organic (which it may well be – you have some good arguments, and I don’t have enough background to really know), how can one create a similar labeling system?
Like many folks, I buy a bag of organic food in the store because I believe that on average, it’ll have less pesticide/herbicide residues to feed my family, and a lower impact on the environment.
If you’re right, a farmer using the system you describe may produce “conventional” food that is more sustainable than “organic.” But in the store, I can’t tell the difference between Sarah’s corn, and the least sustainable sort of conventional farming.
Is it possible to bring the power of the consumer to bear in helping switch land to these more sustainable methods?

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:42:22 +0000

Most of us understand that herbicides and pesticides are very toxic. As long as we still buy food full of herbicides, farmers will keep using them. That’s why Steve made a large point about preventing runoff. If herbicides were really benign, then runoff wouldn’t pollute the environment and farmers wouldn’t worry about their drinking water.

Steve, it wouldn’t surprise me at all that industrial organic almond farming is bad for the environment. When we let faceless corporations control our basic needs, we’ve lost our ability to demand environmental protection.

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:16:21 +0000

MS Patterson,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that part of the challenge is government policy. Interestingly, these sorts of sustainable practices are much more widely employed today in South America and Australia. There they don’t have crop subsidies and farmers tend to own the land. I will probably write about biochar, but I’m still trying to evaluate the economics (even the char has fuel value so that may always be the most attractive use vs as a soil amendment)

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:10:10 +0000

Greg,
Actually Mother Nature makes many far more toxic compounds like aflatoxin. These chemicals are intensely regulated and the EPA uses a 100x safety threshold for human and environmental exposure. I was just reading about how organic almond growers control weeds without herbicides. They use a propane flame weeder and use 49.5 gallons of LPG/acre/year

Bob,
I agree that land ownership is best, but that tends to be a bigger investment than most farmers can swing. Also land prices can be influenced by development potential, mineral rights etc. Land rents usually reflect the yield potential better. There may be a wave of land sales coming because of changes in tax law.

By: Bob Henry

Bob Henry — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:01:25 +0000

This is wonderful.

Recently, I read an article about a group of permaculturists who started a no irrigation food forest near the red sea.

This is just one more reson for hope.

One of the things that I don’t like is the separation of ownership of the land and people who rent the land.

This is a level of cost that in the long run will always keep costs higher than necessary.

Because as time goes on and the land changes hands, each new owner will want to raise the rates.

You probably all can see how that can be solved but in the long run it never will unless it is pointed out.

But overall this a great article.

I would have liked to know how much water is saved in irrigation. It looks like this could be a solution to California’s water problem since the fight is for agriculture water and city water.

Anyway, I love this.

By: russ

russ — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:22:21 +0000

Excellent article Steve!

This is sustainability in real time as compared to most of what is published!

@Gregg – İ believe that ricin is a natural substance – by your definition does that make it good?