Natural Systems Agriculture Field day

I attended the Ecological and Organic Farming Systems Field Day at Carman last Monday. As in previous years, the plots and the work we were shown was most impressive. In introducing the day, Dr. Martin Entz informed us that their work indicates they can produce field crops using 37% of the fossil energy needed in conventional farming. The 150 guests there spent the rest of the day seeing how the research team goes about achieving this remarkable efficiency.

This reported efficiency is astonishing for two very different reasons.

It is astonishing that, given this efficiency, only very few people produce food in this way. Why don’t they? Because current economics does not reward this efficiency. The current fossil energy price is artificial. True, the price is determined by free market forces. In that sense it is the free market price, but that price only includes the cost of extracting the oil, and does not even include all of those costs. Furthermore, that price includes no compensation to future generations who will not have access to this precious resource because it will be gone. Whatever that compensation ought to be, whether it is high or low, it is never included in the market price of fossil energy. The market price of fossil energy is artificially low. Because of this low market price, it currently makes economic sense to use fossil energy extravagantly, in the production of our food.

But the number is also astonishing because it shows what is possible when good science is applied to a problem. In conventional agriculture, the posed challenge is, maximize net economic return by managing fertility, weed control, pest control and genetics. Prodigious amounts of research dollars have been and are being devoted to addressing the challenge defined in this way, and the results have been truly impressive.

The Natural Systems Farming research team has redefined the challenge. Their focus is not on economic return, but on return to energy. Prior to the fossil era, prior to this era when fossil fuel has been readily available, the food production challenge has always been that: how to get the necessary food, while expending the minimal amount of energy. What was lacking prior to the fossil era, was the application of the scientific method, and world wide communications.

When my grandfather farmed with horses, he was very aware of energy in and energy out. There was no cheap energy. His tools to enhance fertility were summerfallow, alfalfa, sweet clover, and to a limited extent, barnyard manure. The Carman researchers, today, are able to choose for some twenty different potentially useful green manure crops. My grandfather was very limited in the tools he had available. Today many more tools are available to both researcher and farmer.

The work done at Carman needs to be nurtured. Input manufacturers will not do this research, because it does not result in a return for them. Such research needs to be and only will be funded by a forward thinking government.

By Eric Rempel

The Need for Resilience

In 2006 we became aware of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Even if we did not read the book, author Michael Pollan effectively raised all of our awareness of the implications of our food choices: the distance some of the food on our dinner plate has travelled, the inputs used in growing our food, the labour conditions present in the production of other food, and the sustainability of our whole food system. Pollan’s other concern is agricultural policy, and how subsidies, some overt, but many covert, affect our food choices.

On the heels of that book came The 100-Mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. This is one couple’s account of life when they had set themselves the challenge of eating only food grown within 100 miles for a year. Inspired by that account, others have set themselves identical or similar challenges. All the people I have heard talking about this experience say the same thing: the discipline was a good experience, one they encourage others to try, but it is not a discipline they intend to follow for the rest of their life. They do not advocate it as a lifestyle.

Now there is The Localivore’s Dilemma. The book seems to make some good points primarily in drawing attention to the fact that long distance transportation may not be as large an energy input in the production of our food as say, the heating of a greenhouse. Had they stopped there, the book would be a good contribution to the whole food discussion. Unfortunately, the authors seem exceptionally intent on debunking The Omnivore’s Dilemma and The 100-Mile Diet. Without that emphasis, the book would be much more helpful to us as we make food choices.

Perhaps more helpful is The Resilience Imperative, a book I have been reading lately. This book suggests that with regard to our entire way of life, things have been going well. Nevertheless, shocks will come, whether they be the result of financial breakdown, resource depletion, or political breakdown. How well are we prepared for such a shock?

Our food system is predicated on a number of largely unexamined assumptions. The first assumption is that cheap fertilizer made from distant fossil and rock deposits will always be available. Conventionally, large quantities of energy are needed in both the production and delivery of food. The second assumption is that this energy will always be available.

A few dedicated researchers at the University of Manitoba are devoted to developing a food production system independent of imported fertilizers, and less dependent on fossil energy inputs. If these questions concern you, consider attending the Natural Systems Agriculture field day in Carman July 23.

At the South Eastman Transition Initiative we discuss and delve into these important questions. Join us Thursday, July 26 as we spend the evening with Kim Shukla and Richard Whitehead of Stonelane Orchard discussing the challenges and rewards of growing food without chemical inputs.

Eric Rempel

Local Fruit, Free for the Sharing

Unless you have a mature orchard in your backyard you probably don’t have access to a diversity of local fruit. The grocery store may sell a small selection of local fruit, however most fruit is trucked in from afar. Distant fruit is picked early and expected to ripen enroute. This results in fruit with focus on texture rather than taste. How do you get local fruit when you don’t have fruit trees? The answer is Fruit Share.

Fruit Share is an organization started by Getty Stewart in Winnipeg that connects volunteer fruit pickers with tree [or rhubarb] owners to harvest luscious, local fruit. This year South Eastman Transition Initiative is bringing Fruit Share to Steinbach.

When you walk the neighbourhoods of Steinbach you may notice many fruit trees and bushes. Apple trees, cherry trees, and rhubarb plants are just a few of the possibilities. During September you may notice some fruit beginning to get over-ripe, it may even be littering the sidewalk on which you walk. Local fruit going to waste!

With many people struggling to fill their bellies, food should not be squandered. There are different reasons that fruit owners may not be able to harvest their own fruit. Fruit owners may not be physically able to reach the fruit on the high branches or they may not have time due to a busy schedule. Un-harvested fruit drops to the ground and rots; this attracts insects, undesirable animals and makes a mess.

Now Steinbach fruit owners who do not have the ability or desire to pick their own fruit can register with Fruit Share. Fruit Share will organize Steinbach volunteers to harvest that fruit. On the day of the harvest 1/3 of the fruit will go to the fruit owner, 1/3 will go to the volunteer pickers and 1/3 is donated to a local organization such as the South East Helping Hands Food Bank. Instead of wonderful fruit going to waste, Fruit Share connects those in the community who have excess to those that have a need.

Not only does Fruit Share rescue fruit and deliver it to those who want it, Fruit Share also builds community. New friendships and connections can be made over the sweet success of a full apple basket or a freshly baked crisp made from the harvest of a neighbour’s plentiful tree or bush.

Next time you bite into a tasteless apple trucked in from a distant land take the time to sign up with Fruit Share. Make your fruit trees available to those with the ability to harvest them or sign up to volunteer and go home from a harvest with an armload of delicious fruit costing you only an afternoon of picking with friends.

Fruit Share is now picking rhubarb. Do you have excess or are you looking to make some rhubarb crisps? Visit and register at www.fruitshare.ca or call Fruit Share Steinbach at 326-3919. 

Rebecca Hiebert

Local, Efficient Protein Production

Meat! I like meat. I also like eggs, cheese and other milk products. Meat, eggs, milk and plants contain amino acids that form proteins. Our bodies need eight different amino acids to survive. However, it takes ten vegetable proteins to produce one animal protein, so the production of animal protein takes about ten times as much space and resources as it takes to produce the equivalent amount of plant protein. In a finite, polluted, populated world, a world running out of resources, surely it makes sense to eat less animal product. Should we live without animal products? Probably not, but I say we need to do with less animal products? I do. I have been doing it for a several years.

Cereals (wheat, oats, barley) have six of the amino acids our bodies need. The two missing ones are present in legumes (peas, beans, lentils). If you eat your cereals together with legumes (a common, ancient practice in many traditions), you will get all the essential amino acids your body needs. It is equivalent eating meat – well, almost. Vitamin B12 is also essential, and this we cannot get from plants. Most of us get the small amount we need in meat and milk. However, vegetable B12 is available at your natural food store (food yeast, naturally brewed soya sauce, supplements). Alternatively, you can continue eating small amounts of local animal products.

Responsible eating also means we examine how far our food travels. Locally grown whole cereals, legumes, meats, eggs, milk products are available. We do not have to depend on food produced far away (In North America food travels an average of 2000 kms. between field and plate). There is no need to burn tons of fossil fuels transporting the food we need. If I have to burn fossil fuels, I prefer burning it to travel myself. My food cannot enjoy traveling anyway!

I am an organic gardener and I have found a relatively easy way to reduce my dependency on animal products. I now produce my own dry beans. For the last two years, I have been producing my own organic red kidney and pinto beans! Legumes grow well in poor soils and are good companions for potatoes because they confuse potato beetles and their roots fix nitrogen: they produce a natural fertilizer. Most of the beans dry on the plant, so you do not have to can, freeze or dry them. You simply throw the pods in a burlap bag, tread on them and beat them up a bit (excellent frustration spender and good exercise! Save on gym costs!). Then wait for a windy day and let the wind separate the beans from the chaff. Bonanza!

I can already envision the yummy chillies, soups, stews! Life is great! Yes, there are challenges, but solutions are available everywhere for those who want to find them!

The South Eastman Transition Initiative (SETI) gathers people who are concerned about the use of fossil fuel. We meet to encourage one another in the search for solutions to problems of this nature. SETI is sponsoring a workshop on organic backyard food production on Thursday, April 26. The workshop will be at the allotment gardens behind the Steinbach Mennonite Church, 134 Loewen Blvd. Anyone is welcome. Check southeasttransition.com for details.

Gabriel Gagne

We Are Running out of Miracles

You may not have noticed. Today we do not treat medical infections the way we treated those twenty years ago. I recently accompanied a friend to the emergency room at the hospital. It turned out he had a serious infection. Twenty years ago, he would have been given an injection of antibiotic, a prescription of oral antibiotic and sent home. Not today!  He immediately got a dose of antibiotic intravenously, and then needed to come back to the hospital two times a day for the next several days for further intravenous antibiotic.

This, my medical friends tell me, is because of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I am not old enough to remember infections before antibiotics, but I am old enough to remember the first generation of antibiotic: Penicillin. Penicillin was followed by second, third and fourth generation antibiotics. Now, it seems, the only way antibiotic is sufficiently effective is if it is administered intravenously. And once that no longer works, what is the next step?

This should surprise no one. Natural selection decrees that this will occur. The bacteria resistant to an antibiotic survive and reproduce.

Had we known then, when penicillin was first discovered and available to doctors, what we know now, would we have used these wonder drugs in the way we have? For example, would we have allowed their use in animal feed? We have a problem.

Within our food production system, we face a similar situation. Conventional food production conveniently disregards nature’s cycles.

Within nature, there are many natural cycles. The ones we understand best are the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and the phosphate cycle. In each case the plant, as it is growing, take up elements from the soil and air, converting them into plant tissue. The plant dies and the elements return to the soil and air. Some plant tissue is eaten by animals, but as the animals defecate and die, the cycle is still completed.

But our conventional food production system does not recognize these cycles. Instead, the science behind our conventional food system recognizes that plants need phosphate and nitrogen to thrive. Science has found a way of converting natural gas into nitrogen fertilizer. The plant response to this fertilizer is phenomenal. The natural nitrogen cycle, it seems, is no longer pertinent.

In the same way, conventional science has found that phosphate, mined at Kapaskasing, can be converted to fertilizer. Again, the plant response to this fertilizer is exceptional.

But there are problems with this food system. First, the supply of both, natural gas and phosphate rock is in limited. Already we have used up the most accessible supplies of both resources. Secondly, when the plant tissue we consume is “used up”, the “waste” consists of the nitrogen and phosphate. Nature says that needs to go back to the soil to feed future generations of plants. But it does not. Instead, it becomes a pollutant. Much of it ends up in Lake Winnipeg.

Fortunately, for food production, there is an alternative, at least a partial one. While scientists and farmers within the conventional food production stream have been looking for ways of increasing the plant response to chemical nitrogen and phosphate, a much smaller group of scientists and farmers have been looking at an alternative, a way of enhancing food production within the natural cycles. They call themselves organic producers. As we remove our conventional blinders and become more aware of what these scientists and farmers have discovered, what we find is truly impressive.

By Eric Rempel

Can Organic Farming Become Mainstream?

Had someone asked me five years ago to describe the organic food industry, I would have placed organic food production somewhere on the fringe. I knew of consumers who believed organic food was healthier than conventional food. These consumers are willing to pay a premium for organically grown food and are complemented by farmers who grow food organically. These organic growers need the organic price premium in order to compensate for lower yields. Everyone is happy.

But not everyone, really. Anyone prepared to take a critical look at conventional agriculture, has always been concerned about the vulnerability of that production system because of its dependence on scarce and exotic chemicals; scarce in that phosphate and nitrogen as inputs are non-renewable resources, and exotic because chemicals are carefully developed in order to address a defined problem under defined conditions. The understanding of how these exotic chemicals work and of their side effects is limited.

The above thoughts should really not be new to anyone. What follows may surprise you.

In February, I attended the first ever Canadian Organic Science Conference in Winnipeg. The conference was fascinating in many respects, but what struck me most was the growing awareness by the conference attendees that organic food production is able to compete with conventional food production on its own terms: that is, organic food producers are poised to compete in the same market place with conventional food producers.

The Rhodale Institute in Pennsylvania has been a leader in the research, development and promotion of organic food production methods since 1947. They have been running a farming systems trial for 30 years comparing conventional and organic farming systems. The Institute has recently published a report thirty years into the study. They have found that:

• Organic yields match conventional yields
• Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought
• Organic systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system
• Organic farming uses 45% less energy
• Organic systems produce 60% of the greenhouse gases a conventional system does
• Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional

Organic food production is not simply the elimination of chemicals in the growing of food. An organic producer told me recently, that a conventional farmer monitors his field, and when he detects a problem, he goes to his agricultural input supplier, buys the appropriate chemical and applies it. An organic producer, on the other hand, needs to be aware of the problems he is likely to encounter two or three years earlier, and begin to deal with them then. Organic production requires an understanding of the biological systems at work in the field or garden, and a familiarity with the wide array of tools now available to the organic grower.

Nobody said organic food production is easy, but as fuel prices go up and weeds and insects develop chemical resistance, more and more of us will need to embrace organic food production.

Eric Rempel

Saving Summer Shine

Just a few weeks ago, Ruth and I harvested a dozen large, organically-grown cabbages from our garden.

Most of those cabbages ended up as sauerkraut. For the most part, our generation has forgotten about this wonder-food. But last year, Ruth and I made our first attempt to re-discover lacto-fermentation, one of the oldest preservation methods known to humankind.

The process is really quite simple. Cut up the cabbages into thin wedges or send them through a food processor. As you layer this cabbage in a large container, preferably a stone crock, sprinkle on a bit of salt and break open the cells of the cabbage with a “stomper.” Repeat this process until either your container is nearly full or you run out of cabbage. Then cover it with a large plate and place a weight on it.

Within 24 hours the natural juices will have covered the cabbage and the fermentation process will be underway. After about six weeks, when the juices have been reabsorbed into the cabbage, you will know that your sauerkraut is ready. Then it is a matter of placing the sauerkraut in clean jars and storing them in a cool place. And bingo – you are set for the winter.

Even before modern studies have proclaimed fermented sauerkraut as an amazing health food, James Cook introduced it as a staple food for his sailors and found that it helped to prevent the plague of the seas; namely scurvy. He didn’t know exactly why it worked, but later studies showed that it was because of the high level of vitamin C in sauerkraut.

Further studies through the years have identified many health benefits to sauerkraut. For starters, it is an immune booster. The common cold and flu, skin problems, weight gain and tainted blood can all be fixed with a healthy immune system.

Sauerkraut is also a cancer fighter. An interesting study of breast cancer rates among Polish-American women showed that they were much more likely to contract cancer than Polish women who had stayed in Poland and continued to each generous amounts of sauerkraut.

And sauerkraut is an amazing digestive aid, protecting the balance of bacteria in your gastrointestinal tract. It also helps to neutralize anti-nutrients found in many foods and facilitates the breakdown and assimilation of proteins.

So this is the second winter in which we will be eating sauerkraut three or four times a week as a side-dish to whatever else we eat. We find it goes amazingly well with most dishes.

Now if I have convinced you to eat sauerkraut and you head to the supermarket to buy some, be forewarned that much that passes for sauerkraut is simply cabbage soaked in vinegar and salt. Make sure that what you buy is “fermented” cabbage if you want to experience the benefits listed above.

Better still, grow your own cabbage next year and make your own sauerkraut. And save some summer sunshine for the dark winter months. 

Jack Heppner

Simply in Season

In 2005, Mennonite Central Committee published a cook book called, “Simply in Season.” It is a delightful work that gently invites us to eat fresh, seasonal foods instead of relying on the mono-culture of produce found in supermarkets year-round.

Here in Southeastern Manitoba, we have four very distinct seasons. I lived in a tropical climate for a number of years where temperatures and daylight hours varied only slightly throughout the year. After a few years I found this quite monotonous. When I came back home I gained a renewed appreciation for the ever-changing seasons in this part of the world.

As I reflect on the many tidbits of writing scattered throughout, “Simply in Season,” I am reminded that a sustainable lifestyle requires two things of us all – living more simply and making the most of each season.

Living more simply is not as simple as it sounds. Every day we are bombarded with messages telling us that in order to be happier and more fulfilled we need to buy more stuff, travel more widely, participate in more activities and eat “fast” and “processed” food. Mostly we believe these lies.  

Yet, if we are to survive as a human race with any degree of social justice, we will need to move toward simplified lifestyles. Our earth simply does not provide enough resources for all of its citizens to live the consumptive lifestyles we have become used to in the western world.

Living more simply will mean different things for different people. For my Ruth and me, it means walking or biking more, down-sizing to become a one-vehicle family, growing most of our own vegetables and, if at all possible, purchasing whatever else we need locally. That may not seem like much, but we are in transition. 

And that brings me to the idea of making the most of each season. Supermarkets and shopping malls have pretty much obliterated seasons for most of us. Apart from seasonal changes in the clothing stores, most everything remains the same all year round. We can buy California lettuce and “notional” tomatoes any day of the year, plus fruit from the farthest corners of the world. And no matter what the weather, we are accustomed to climbing into our climate-controlled vehicles and burning precious fuel to get ourselves around.

So the lifestyles we have adopted have gradually removed us from living well “in season.” A simpler lifestyle re-connects us with the diverse challenges and delights that each season brings. My favorite season is autumn. It is the time of the year when we eat mostly from our garden. All year I look forward to biting into that first vine-ripened tomato as well as other organically grown vegetables fresh from the garden. And the colors of autumn never cease to amaze me.

I am convinced that the more we simplify our lives the more we will get in touch with our four distinct seasons – a blessing we cannot really afford to miss.

Jack Heppner

Can We Recycle the Phosphate?

Readers of this column will have noted that two weeks ago I wrote about the pending worldwide scarcity of phosphate. Last week I wrote about the pollution caused by phosphate. This week I deal with some ways of addressing both problems.

As we have noted, all animals ingest phosphate. It is a necessary component of the food they eat. Their bodies use a very small portion of the phosphate they ingest. The remainder is expelled in the urine and feces. That phosphate can have one of two destinies, but only two: it can recycle and again become a plant nutrient; or it does not recycle, and becomes a pollutant.

So there is an incentive for us to find ways of recycling the phosphate.

Were phosphate the only component of interest in excrement, we would probably be recycling the phosphate now. However, we have been much more interested in the pathogens found in excrement. We have become singularly adept at dealing with those pathogens. We are all familiar with the tragic part of the Walkerton story, but we should also note the other part of that narrative – the Walkerton story is unusual, a commentary on the effectiveness of our common treatment technologies in dealing with these pathogens. Unfortunately, as we deal with the pathogens, we more or less disregard the phosphate.

It need not be so. There is technology that will deal with human excrement in a way that will kill pathogens and allow the recycling of the plant nutrient component. The most familiar technology is composting toilets. These come in many designs, but all ultimately convert the excrement into compost in a way that will kill any pathogens. Unfortunately, managing a composting toilet is not as easy as pressing a leaver to generate a five-gallon flush. Any composting toilet requires committed management if it is to work well.

There are also technologies that allow for the safe application of municipal sewage onto cropland in a way that conserves the plant nutrients. Nevertheless, because of the way the sewage has been treated before it gets to the application stage, this is problematic. Firstly, our households dilute any organic effluent with prodigious amounts of water. This water needs to be dealt with if the organic matter is to be applied to cropland. Secondly, so much of what we flush plants do not like, things like cleaning agents, paints, and petroleum derivatives.

The best way of dealing with the phosphate and other potential plant foods generated in our households is to separate them from other waste at source. This way we would not dilute it with perfectly clean water or contaminate it with other waste. This could be done quite easily at the municipal level, but requires a cultural commitment to work.

At this time, we are probably not ready to change the way we treat human effluent, but as phosphate for food production becomes harder to get, and the impact of the pollution of our waterways with phosphates becomes more evident, we will have little choice but to become more resourceful in what and how we recycle.

Eric Rempel

Nature’s Phosphate Cycle

Nature moves in cycles. The most common cycles are the carbon, nitrogen and phosphate cycle, but there are others. Plants take their nutrients from the soil and air. Biomass is formed as the plant grows and matures. The plant die or are eaten by animal. The animals defecate and ultimately die. In each case the minerals that were taken up by the plant ultimately return to the soil to be taken up by subsequent plants, and the cycle continues.

Since we depend on nature for our sustenance, we do well to understand that cycle and nurture it. But industrialized agriculture does not do that. It has found very effective ways of circumventing the natural cycle. The result has been phenomenal crop production. But are these results sustainable?

 
For thousands of years, the Chinese and Indian civilizations have mimicked the natural cycle. Each peasant farm was more or less self-contained so that all biological material coming from the farm ultimately was returned to the soil of that farm. Most notably, human waste was returned to agricultural fields, often after careful composting. Using these techniques, they were able to maintain the fertility of their fields for those thousands of years.

In recent years, agriculture in those countries has also industrialized. Here too, this has resulted in phenomenal yield increases.

 
But industrialized agriculture, in significant respects, ignores the natural cycle. Within an industrialized system, a field is tested for available plant nutrients. The interest here is primarily in the macro-nutrients N, P, K, and S. Fertilizer is then blended and applied at the rate that will optimize plant growth. The questions: where does the fertilizer come from, and is the supply reliable, are not asked.

But if we are to build a sustainable, stable society, these questions need to be asked. In Canada, phosphate is mined near Kapuskasing in Ontario and near Radium in BC. But Canada, in spite of its vast geological formations, has not discovered any really good phosphate deposits, and we do not produce world class phosphate. The most readily available phosphate rock has already been utilized, and the phosphate we are going after now requires more energy to extract and is of a lower quality.

Phosphate is essential to crop growth. Unlike petroleum energy, which can, in certain circumstances be replaced with other forms of energy, there are no substitutes for phosphate. There is only one reasonable response to looming phosphate shortages. We need to use the phosphate currently within the food production system more efficiently. This means the more efficient return of livestock manure to growing crops, but also the recycling of human waste, which is rich in phosphate, to agricultural fields.

Currently, there is little incentive to do any of the necessary recycling. Just as a carbon tax is needed if we are all to use energy more efficiently, a resource use tax is needed to get us to change our phosphate use habits before the shortage of phosphate has a catastrophic effect on our food supply.

Eric Rempel

Natural Systems Agriculture

Last week I attended the annual field day of the Natural Systems Agriculture program of the University of Manitoba. I was again impressed with the important work these people are doing, and the importance of agricultural research to our lives.

Had average crop yields remained at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land. Since 1900, Canadian and US crop yields have more than tripled. In France, yields have increased by a multiple of 5.2 and in China by a multiple of 3.8. Primarily, three technologies made this yield increase possible: the development of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the development of pest control chemicals and the breeding of plant varieties that responded to these ideal conditions.

In 1900, agriculture used no synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Today’s agriculture, today’s food production, is utterly dependent on it. Without synthetic nitrogen, modern agriculture would collapse. The development of synthetic nitrogen is an monumental achievement on the one hand, but on the other, it creates a disquieting vulnerability. Ironically, virtually all agricultural research today is directed either towards achieving higher yields while optimizing nitrogen or towards increasing the efficiency of the use of nitrogen. The perpetual availability of synthetic nitrogen is assumed.

But all synthetic nitrogen manufactured today comes from natural gas, a resource in limited supply.

The only alternative to synthetic nitrogen derived from natural gas is natural nitrogen. We know of no alternative source of synthetic nitrogen. This is why the work done by the Natural Systems Agriculture program, a program run by a small group of researchers is so important.

What impressed me most at this field day is that these Natural Systems Agriculture people are not doing things the way my father (who was a farmer) did things prior to the availability of synthetic nitrogen and chemical pest control products. Through the judicious use of plants that fix atmospheric nitrogen and return biomass to the soil, they have been able to achieve yields that come very close to the yields achieved by what is currently seen as conventional agriculture.

At the field day, these researchers demonstrated that:

• Soil nitrogen levels can be maintained with nitrogen fixing plants in the rotation. Yields following a nitrogen-fixing crop typically approach yields of crops fed synthetic nitrogen.
• Tillage and the use of weed control chemicals have been over-rated as weed control tools. By using equipment designed to plant into untilled ground and by maintaining a good mulch, weeds are not eliminated, but can be controlled.
• Careful crop rotation is needed to maintain field fertility and control weeds.

As is typical at field days of this nature, the various donors that made this work possible were acknowledged. These included various government funding programs and assorted farmer and consumer organizations. Notably absent from the list of donors were the big agribusiness companies. Yet it is these companies that are responsible for most of the agricultural research done today, either by supporting work at the University or by carrying it out themselves.

Low input agriculture may not be important to the large corporations of this world, but it is vitally important to the people who depend on a healthy environment for survival.

Eric Rempel