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

Searching for Alternatives

Old habits die hard. Usually we have to be thoroughly convinced that the old way of doing things is harmful or not sustainable and that an alternative way is better before we make a move to change our lifestyles.

Smoking is an easy example to pick on because by now even the government is trying to convince smokers to quit. But there are many other lifestyle habits that society as a whole has not yet identified as being harmful or unsustainable. And so many voices call out to us to continue on with destructive patterns of life. One hour of television viewing will garner an amazing amount of bad advice about lifestyle choices.

But once we are alerted to the possibility that the voices calling out to us generally do not have our long-term interests in mind we need to start asking serious question on a broad front about the way we live.

How much energy do we consume? Where does that energy come from? What effect does the production and use of that energy have on our environment? Is it possible to reduce our energy requirements? If we decide to live in a way that consumes less energy, does that down-grade or enhance our quality of life?

How many toxins do we consume via the processed foods we buy at the super market? What pesticide residues are left on the fruits and vegetables we consume? What effect do the chemicals used in our groceries to maintain long shelf life have on our bodies? Are there ways of reducing the number of toxins we ingest? Will that improve our chances of being healthy longer?

How many of the gizmos and gadgets that get thrown at us by an aggressive business community do we really need? What negative effects are left behind in the environment and in the lives of those persons who make them? What are the minimum number of products and services we need for a healthy and purposeful life? Does our happiness quotient rise significantly with every purchase we make? Could we do with less and possibly be more happy and content at the same time?

Once we begin asking such questions we begin looking around for alternatives to our status-quo lifestyes; alternatives that will help us transition toward healthier and more wholesome lives.

But the next question is whether anyone has thought of alternatives and actually made them work. One of our goals at South Eastman Transition Initiative is to facilitate connections with people and their ideas that might help us in our transition efforts.

A group of people that has been modelling alternatives to the modern lifestyle is the intentional community, Northern Sun Farm Coop, located near Sarto just south of Steinbach. Join us for a visit with that community at 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July 28^th to listen, look and learn about possibilities that might work for you. For those who wish to carpool, we leave the parking lot at Steinbach 55 Plus at 6:30 p.m.  

Jack Heppner

So What About the Bio-diesel Mandate?

Since July 1^st we have had a national bio-diesel mandate. All diesel, whether for transportation, farming or home heating is to include 2% bio-diesel. This new mandate follows a Manitoba mandate already in place since 2009. One needs to wonder what problem our governments are trying to address with this mandate.

One might assume the problem is our dependence on fossil energy. If we can power our diesel engines with bio-diesel rather than fossil-diesel, that would seem to be progressive.

Wishful thinking, perhaps. We cannot reduce our dependence on fossil energy by merely tweaking with the supply. It does not make sense and it does not happen. Remember Jevon’s effect. We have written about this effect in previous columns. Technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. Human nature is such that a more efficient light bulb has the effect of encouraging people to use it more, resulting in the end in the greater use of electricity. Adding bio-diesel to available diesel will not result in a reduced consumption of fossil diesel. The bio-diesel mandate will not reduce our consumption of fossil fuel.

It might be thought that regardless of the effect on consumption, consuming bio-diesel is simply more responsible that consuming fossil diesel. Hence the mandate.

But that raises the ethical question. In a world where people are starving, is it morally right to use land that could be used for the production of food for people for the growing of fuel to feed our voracious appetite for energy?

What seems most plausible (however unlikely) is that the government wants to give support to Canada’s canola growers. In effect, a biodiesel mandate is a subsidy to all those involved in the biodiesel industry: farmers who grow canola, suppliers and processors. The mandate will increase the demand for biodiesel, thereby increasing the canola price. The Canadian Canola Growers Association readily acknowledges that this mandate will be good for them.

This is truly unfortunate. This mandate is good neither for the environment we call our home nor the Canadian economy.

This move is bad for the Canadian economy because subsidies distort. There are a host of technologies that could potentially reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. Biodiesel is one of them. By giving this subsidy to the canola industry, government is mitigating against other technologies.

It is by no means clear that the production of diesel from plants is energy efficient. Growing fuel crops takes energy. Fossil fuel is used to power the tractors, to manufacture the necessary fertilizer and to build the necessary equipment. Transforming canola oil to diesel takes energy. Some investigators have concluded that if everything is considered, more energy is used to produce the biodiesel than there is energy in the biodiesel.

However, the biggest deficiency in this new policy mandate is that it does nothing to reduce demand for energy. If we wish to offer a livable planet to our children, we need to find a satisfying way of living that requires less energy. That will only happen if, in addition to the moral incentive, there is also an economic incentive to change our lifestyle.

A simple carbon tax would not only encourage all of us to find ways of living using less energy, it would also stimulate a search for fossil fuel saving technologies.


Eric Rempel

Made of Sugar

When I resisted getting wet as a child, my mother used to say that I wasn't made of sugar, so I would be alright. But I am afraid this may not be the case for today’s younger generation.  According to Dr. Ben Lerner, writing in Maximized Living, “Americans consume an average of one hundred twenty pounds of sugar per year, per person, compared to five pounds per year, per family in 1900.”

Only a little research uncovers the ugly truth about the devastating results of our collective addiction to sugar. Dr. Lerner goes on to comment: "Sugar is an anti-nutrient offering insignificant amounts of vitamins and minerals and robbing your body of precious nutrient stores. This inevitably leads to diseases of the new millennium such as chronic fatigue, ADD, ADHD, heart disease, diabetes and cancers."

Yet the Globe and Mail reported this spring (May 25, 2011) that, while other parts of the economy have been struggling recently, the $26-billion (US) sweets and snacks industry has experienced a 2.5 percent growth this past year, which is double the growth of all other groceries.

This raises an interesting observation. When economic times are tough, we like to gorge on treats, especially sweet treats. Apparently it is an “affordable” indulgence. This helps to explain my own observations while living in an under-developed country some years ago. It seemed that no matter how poor people were, there was usually enough money to buy candy.

But even in developed countries like Canada we witness more and more people loading up on sugar. Every day I see groups of youngsters walking down the street sucking on slurpees – sugar, water and coloring! Convenience stores are loaded with sugar-laden pop and candies. It is not uncommon to see people spending twelve dollars on cigarettes and the same amount on sugar treats at the same time.

Will we ever learn? When will intelligent and informed adults begin to decrease their sugar intake and encourage their children to do the same? Is it not time to set the sweets and snacks industry back on its heels instead of allowing it to flourish during tough economic times? But that will take disciplined resolve, something we apparently lack when it comes to our addictions.

Last August I noted in an article, Candy Mania, that at least half of the participants in the August Long Weekend  parade in Steinbach had showered our kids with candies. I suggested that with a little creativity and determination we could do better as a society. Our children should not intuitively be bringing ice-cream buckets to the parade to collect their stash of candies.

This year I am challenging all parade participants ahead of time to find a way to delight our youngsters in other ways than showering them with candy. Some of us concerned adults will be watching and reporting on how well we do this year in transitioning away from the annual candy shower. See you at the parade!

Jack Heppner

Plastic Picnics

Finally, after a cool and wet spring, we have arrived at the summer picnic season! We all look forward to times of “dining out” with family and friends, especially since that option is only available here in Southern Manitoba for a few months every year.

My concern is that such events have become “plastic picnics.” I have an image clearly etched on my mind that leaves me with a feeling that something has gone wrong with our picnics.

Two or three families have just finished a picnic in the park – perhaps a family gathering or simply friends getting together. The feast is over and now the picnic tables are piled high with garbage, mostly some form of plastic, styrofoam or paper. Cups, plates, cutlery, food containers, bags, wrappers, pop and water bottles and everything else you need for a modern picnic.

But this is only the beginning of the unfolding tragedy. Now you see a couple of the adults swooping up all these disposables into a couple of large plastic garbage bags. And bingo – they hit the garbage can! And now all are free to enjoy their post-picnic rituals. Nothing to take home! As a matter of fact, it only took ten minutes to erase any evidence that there had even been a picnic in this place – except of course for the over-flowing garbage bins.

Now this may be an extreme example of our picnic habits. But, truth be told, it is closer to reality than we care to believe. Perhaps, if these picnickers had separated their disposables and deposited them in recycling bins there would have been at least a partial redemption of sorts. “But hey, we’re out here to enjoy ourselves, so don’t make us feel guilty about our burgeoning landfill site just out of town!”

I think it is time to rethink our picnic habits. Some of us are old enough to remember picnics before the throw-away culture overtook us. And I don’t think the quality of our “outings” was lower then. Perhaps it was even higher.

So here is the challenge. Plan for a “throw-away-nothing picnic” this summer or at least see how close you can come to this standard. Here are some ideas to make it happen:

•  Purchase a set of light-weight dishes, cups and cutlery for the family and take them with you to the picnic in their own special container. Take it back home when the sun sets and wash its contents together as you reminisce about the good time you had.
• If you are going alone, always bring your own non-disposable plate, bowl, cup and cutlery. You may stand out like a sore thumb, but you will be a positive example.
• Plan for a “finger-food” picnic that cuts down on the need for dishes.
• If you happen upon a picnic unprepared, consume only those items that don’t require the help of disposable products. A few awkward moments perhaps, but also a chance to begin a conversation about a less polluted planet.

Jack Heppner

The Paradox of Efficiency

The advent of more efficient electric lights ought to be hailed as a great step forward for energy conservation, since lighting consumes a hefty 6.5 percent of the world’s energy supply.

But human behavior regularly confounds expectations, and in this case we find a seeming paradox. Researchers expect energy efficiency increases to raise the amount of energy consumed in lighting. It’s basic economics, in a way.

Surely light is a good thing. And the law of demand in economics suggests that if the price of a good thing goes down, people will always want more of it. (The concept of “enough” has never really caught on in economics.)

This was the case when gas lighting replaced candles and whale fat – cheaper light led to higher demand, including street lights (!). The conversion to more-energy-efficient electric lights led to another increase. A typical resident of the western world now consumes 100,000 times as much light as he would have had he lived in western Europe in 1700. 

Light is so much in demand that the increase in consumption wiped out the gains from efficiency, so more energy rather than less was used. The same is expected to occur in the future, as solid-state lighting replaces today’s compact fluorescent lamps. This was recently reported in Economist news magazine. They’ll be better for the environment, if and only if we were satisfied with today’s level of lighting. But we won’t be, if history is a judge. Efficiency is expected to increase by a factor of 3, while consumption of light is expected to increase by a factor of 10. We’ll need twice as much energy to make that light.

We’ll have brighter indoor lighting, better-lit retail spaces. And, security-obsessed as we are, we’ll light up outdoor spaces that are currently dark. That would be a good thing in some neighborhoods, but it has side-effects.

If you haven’t seen the Milky Way lately, get your views in now. Light pollution (combined with air pollution) already obscures all but the brightest stars in urban areas.

More efficient cars don’t lead to less gasoline consumption, either, in case you were wondering. Cheaper car travel makes private transportation more attractive relative to public transportation. With more efficient cars, people drive more.

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue those gains, it just means we can’t expect relative prices to make us virtuous people. We still have to confront the culture of “more” in the context of well-lit 24/7 consumerism.

This is known as Jevon’s effect. This is another reason we should embrace a carbon tax if we want to move to a more sustainable future.

Eric Rempel

Let’s Talk about our Lifestyle

I find critical thinking, particularly about the way I live and the life choices I make, inherently uncomfortable. When I do the critical thinking, I invariably find that too many of the choices I make favour what gives me pleasure on the short run. My long term welfare, and the welfare of others takes second place. I suspect I am not unique, and I suspect this is why we all avoid this kind of thinking. The course of least resistance is certainly to avoid that critical analysis of the choices we make – too assume, and to live as if the good times we now experience will continue forever, and that our consumption has no effect on others. We would rather not think critically about our lifestyle – the lifestyle most people in the affluent West live, and the lifestyle most of the rest of the world aspires to. Yet, if we have any concern about the future of the civilized world, someone needs to think about the long term viability of this lifestyle. And, like it or not, since we live in a democracy, that “someone” needs to be “all of us”. That is hard and uncomfortable, because as we do that we soon realize that our lifestyle can only be justified by believing at least one of the following:

ñ    The  resources essential to our way of life will last forever.

ñ    The resources will last long enough for me and nothing else matters.

ñ    They will last long enough to find more and then those will last forever.

ñ    It's not my problem. I deserve everything I have.

ñ    We are doomed anyway and I can’t affect anything.

Wow! Really!? That's shocking! In fact it’s too shocking. So we continue with our denial.

A recent survey polled 9,000 individuals in 22 countries about their attitudes on energy. It found 90% were concerned by rising energy costs, and 76% by the prospect of shortages; 83% were concerned by climate change, and 89% thought it was important to reduce their country's reliance on fossil fuels. But barely a third thought they should be using less energy; the remainder believed their governments should find new sources, stat. Now doesn’t that say it all – about us.

Yet, yet, deep down we all know we need to curb our consumption. There is a growing interest in simpler living.

So let’s talk about it. Spend some time with us at Summer in the City. We will have a booth “somewhere” on main street and we invite you to join us for some conversation as to how we move this agenda forward in this city we consider home. Let’s have a discussion as to why a carbon tax would (or wouldn’t) be good for all of us. Let’s have a discussion about how a more energy aware set of building bylaws would lead to a better city.

We will also have an assortment of fact sheets and brochures you can take home with you. We believe that together we can make a difference.

Eric Rempel