Tuesday, 8 January 2013

So what have we learnt from this journey?


It’s 9 Jan and time to conclude…
(NOTE: This is a rather long post hehe… but I really hope it sums up my blog well!!)

Thought I’d give a brief recap of the main posts (leaving out the interesting-to-know nuggets for now) just so I can come to a reasonable conclusion. Refer to the actual posts for videos/citations etc. J

For easier reading…
1)     In BLUE- Guide for the journey through & Important points
2)     In RED- quotes that I have collected that I think sum up the issue well!
3)     In BLACK: Summaries of the posts
4)     In GREEN: Some additional points I have gleaned from a very insightful documentary that provides a nice conclusion…

It’s always helpful to start with a big-picture/ retrospective view of things to let it inform our future decisions. So first we looked at the origins and evolution of agriculture...

POST #2: History of Agriculture: Origins
Various theories & evidence that led to the domestication of crops & livestock. These include:
a.     Relegation to ‘oases’ after the Younger Dryas
b.     Suitability of Climate
c.      Technological invention
d.     Population Pressure
e.     Self-actualisation
No definite conclusion on the fundamental cause/initiation but indications of interacting factors esp through positive feedbacks that allowed the sustenance and propagation of agriculture worldwide.
Differences in evidence between global locations led me to the conclusion that “it is probably a result of macro- and micro-scale factors: common broad factors which nudged the move but different strategies employed which were tailored to immediate conditions.”

LESSON DRAWN: Acknowledge multi-factorial nature + Varying Localized conditions


Mechanisms used for greater productivity
f.       Crop selection
g.      Acquiring tools  à Use of animal power (E.g. plough)
h.     Industrial agriculture- mechanical transport, fertilisers, pesticides, CAFOs, GMOs
Movements countering the green revolution: Organic Farming i.e. Back-to-the-Past methods

LESSON DRAWN: Agriculture drew upon the expertise of technological and scientific knowledge but the negative ecological effects of agriculture makes us question how beneficial the technological development and sound the scientific knowledge/ application has been.
Then we went on to evaluate if the problem of ‘excessive nitrogen use’, for which modern agriculture is the culprit, was really a problem.


The problems (eutrophication, health effects, dependence on fossil fuels to make nitrogen fertilizers etc.) brought about by excessive nutrient inputs into ecosystems are undeniable, but the limits we should delineate are not agreed upon.

LESSON DRAWN: It is not rational to dramatically reduce nitrogen in puts everywhere. it all really depends on local conditions. The key is in understanding the balance of each system. While we can’t currently prove with much certainty that we will cross ‘planetary boundaries’ into another unknown and frightening state, but from the examples of ‘multiple-states’ in ecosystems, there is a justification for precaution here. More importantly, this presents not only a problem but an opportunity for better stewardship, it is afterall  safe to say that ‘preventive action’ is always better/more efficient than ‘curative action’.
We went on to look at the dominant/popular alternative of Organic Farming which came (in part) as a response to some of the lacks in Conventional Agriculture


There remains uncertainty in terms of scientific justification for better macronutritional health benefits of organic food though it does rule out the ingestion of pesticides (which are harmful or not depending on how much one subscribes to the reliability of FDA/regulatory authorities’ testing of these products) and there is evidence higher amounts of good nutrients e.g. in grass-fed beef. Once again, the precautionary principle is often applied here.
"the absence of proof means that we either haven't studied it or we haven't found it yet, it doesn't mean we won't. In the meantime, there's a precautionary principle: even though the case isn't closed on low levels of pesticides in our diet, there are very good reasons to minimize them."
-Michael Pollen
The environmental basis is also mixed. In terms of yields, some growing conditions allow organic foods to nearly match conventional ones though this cannot be said for all. The main argument comes in here: more organic agriculture = more manure (more emission!) & more landuse (more deforestation!). Accordingly, it seems that the Organic Movement is too lacking- it might be beneficial for health but not for the environment.
LESSON DRAWN: It is not so much synthetics VS natural but more of the modes of production that we should be looking at.  The lack of ecosystem & health benefits under the guise of the ‘Organic’ Label is perhaps because Organic Agriculture isn’t as radical as it should be..!  There is a need for better alternatives that focuses on more on how the process should be in tune with our environment…
"Large-scale organic is much the same as conventional agriculture in that it is all numbers -- get the most yield in the fewest days." 
-  Farmer Kira Kinney of Evolutionary Organics farm 
What then should guide our future development in agriculture? We looked at lessons of the past from our experiences with agriculture and drew several principles that can be inferred from the above…


The Green Revolution:
Problem #1: Wholesale adoption of technology without adaptation to localized environments
Principle #1: Much care has to be taken when touting a "global or cure-all" solution, and many good solutions still have to be tailored to local conditions.

Problem #2: A Technocractic Approach
Principle #2: Socially-sensitive Change is required

Problem #3: Perspectives have been to narrow- EITHER Ignoring the Environment OR  Dismissing Productivity
Principle #3: An Ecologically sound approach taking into account the myriad of Environmental Goals (e.g. unsustainable water withdrawals, biodiversity loss, water pollution) in addition to Food Security

Problem #4: Food distribution & wastage woes make up a surprisingly big piece of the pie!
Principle #4: Remember, yields is not equivalent to food!


LESSON DRAWN: There is agreement that in light of the population boom & global environmental change, solutions should be geared to fulfil 2 aims
i)                 High Productivity
ii)               Environmental Sustainability
“Perhaps a helpful plumbline to guide us would be considering harm if the long-term costs to humans exceed the short-term food production gain and whether or not these agricultural methods can be part of the solution (instead of the problem) of various environmental issues.”
Then we went in search for alternatives!

It has been put forth that GMOs are both very beneficial to the environment and health. That statement even if it might true, should be taken with some amount of caution- esp when experts who have been in that very field caution against the use of the technologies… Nevertheless, I did not delve deeply into this issue but given the newness and uncertainties of such a new technology, are there alternatives that have similar benefits minus these uncertainties?

Agroforestry certainly fits the bill of maximising production while providing environmental benefits of better soil condition, higher biodiversity, carbon storage. The issue lies with its feasibility. There have been successes but these come with an in-depth understanding and tailoring of species to conditions..

This is a curious one. While there have been anecdotal and some empirical evidence of higher crop yields with the rather random “treatments”. Perhaps the success have been a result of ‘hormone-like effects’ of the additions or perhaps it is due to their more ‘ecologically-in-tune’ cycles adhering to nature… I might say that this is a bit far fetched to be applied widely now. Perhaps more research in the future will prove its effectiveness, perhaps not- for now the jury is really still out

This is a convincing one. High yields with hardly any external inputs and low energy mechanical aids. All these because the farmer does a duty of understanding the environment- how one species’ wastes becomes another’s food and really squeezing dry the ‘mutualistic’ relationships. Very ecologically sound.. Feasible? Well there are certainly small scale success that lead one to gasp in amazement. More work needs to be done to see if it can be applied globally!

An understanding of large-scale agriculture does fulfil the 2 criteria if done well too! While the above has shown that small-scale environments allow for sensitive tailoring and great success, there is still hope for industrial systems which might be the most feasible step next given the infrastructure already in place. This methods involves: understanding crop requirements (with the use of technology like GPS i.e. Precision agriculture), small amounts of synthetics, crop rotations and integrated pest management (biological methods to control pests). Not too different from Joel Salatin and co.’s small polycropping farms if you ask me!


=> LESSONS DRAWN:
The more ‘ecologically-sound’ methods (or at least those promoted as that) have shown differing i) usefulness ii) feasibilities. Generally agroforestry & polycropping- these systems that harness the benefits of animals, trees and crops show great result. Here's what I've learnt: 

1) Biodiversity is important
This is something that really left a mark on me after all that reading. The things that work encourage diversity on many levels, not only crop diversity but the use of fauna, and soil microbial diversity. This is all the more important of course given the biodiversity crisis and the need for crops to respond to a changing climate (See “Post #14 In the News this week… Agriculture responding to ClimateChange”It is my personal opinion that one should maximize this through the use of the myriad of crops  (currently mainly in seedbanks only) made available by evolution. One thing’s for sure, the monoculture is unlikely the way to go….

"Biodiversity protects our food"
"Every plant is important in some way"
-        Someone from the video below

2) It is important to understand the symbiotic relationships between animals and plants, macro invertebrates and plants, ultimately enabling us to develop them, Technology should be tools to this end, not drivers of the system.
Those systems that work aim to understand the balance of an ecological system and not go all out on a single aim.  We need a life/nutrient-cycle view to agriculture- nothing in nature is useless i.e. not a linear raw material ->product-> waste system! Life in the soil creates grass health which supports and maximizes the harnessing of solar energy. Using synthetics isn’t bad and might even be necessary in some cases what’s important is that technology should be environmentally-friendly. The video below shos that there are farms that are thriving WITHOUT the use of fertilizer or heavy machinery. Why? Hay is not needed and not gathered because Cattle are able to stay out in winter without rooting out all the grass because of root health of grass attributed to a diversity of grass present.

(No-till/ ploughing → Maintains Invertebrate diversity→ Allows topsoil fertility → Allows Grass diversity → Allows strength of grass rooting → All year round grazing)

"The only reason why modern agriculture could get away with killing life in the soil is by another use of fossil fuel. This time it is by turning it into chemical fertilizer…. we  use fertilizers to grow plants in soil that is otherwise dead"
-        Someone from the video below

We wanted to show that small amounts of synthetic inputs are very powerful tools, but they’re tools with which you tune the system, not drive it,”
-Adam Davis, a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture.
"Chemicals are like a drug-trip- you need a bigger injection to get the same kick every time"
-Joel Salatin
"Work the land, observe it instead of fighting against it"
-        Someone from the video below


3) A step further… Biomimicry in farming??
Now this last point brings me on to a final video (great video really!). This video shows a farmers’ journey on finding a low-energy and feasible farm of the future. One of the most interesting parts (last half of the video I think?) is that about learning form forests- the most productive ecosystems on earth. This approach involves “Taking the principles of this and bending them to something more edible" and what you get is “a forest garden… is like half a dozen fields stacked one on top of each other". This involves using trees to feed animals! A step further into agroforestry I guess? Sounds intriguing & promising indeed!



Just like to say a Big THANK YOU! To all who have accompanied me on this meaningful journey… Think I’ve been able to develop my writing a little? (in terms of argument-structuring and speed at least I hope!). And it’s been great fun getting do rethink and question the things I am excited about- by far one of the most fun things I have done in university hehe…

Why care about all this you might ask? My blog heading has the quote:

"Eating is an agricultural act" - Wendell Berry

Eating concerns both OUR HEATLH & OUR ENVIRONMENT: It’s not only climate change, but our fossil fuel dependence. Since the 1980s, we have been "eating into our inheritance" going from an "oil crisis" to an "oil famine".   Amidst all the food choices we have, how can we as consumers do that?

“Think of the Sticker VS Actual cost/benefit to both our health and environment.”
-        Joel Salatin
"We pay three times for our food: at the register, with our health care, and via agricultural subsidies"
- Michael Pollan, Fresh The Movie

Sometimes, the easy way out/convenience doesn't always save us money it comes at a hidden cost to our health and environment.  But if we take a close look in appreciation of the wealth of processes that nature has already in place and harness that, it would not only facilitate our survival but to me it also adds beauty and meaning to life. 

I started my blog with this question “Put it plainly: if one tries to be healthy (which could also mean feeding the earth here), does that mean he necessarily is harming the environment and vice versa?”
I’m encouraged to say that possibly, the answer is no. In the end, I still do stand by this view:"Since Man is dependent on and part of nature (environment), whatever is best for nature would be best for Man(health). Hence the development or nature is not contrary to the development of human society i.e. the two are not mutually exclusive. (If it helps, this is a 'co-evolutionist' ethical perspective on the human-environment relationship.)" Hopefully now I can say that there is indeed some evidence to back that up (though this is just a shallow dip into the whole field, and I’ll be happy to stand corrected on what I’ve figured out). And if we work hard in the direction of these alternatives, it is quite an exciting future for agriculture even amidst the problems :) What we need now is really, the will I guess..!

On that note, Goodbye everyone! Eat well, Live well J


Saturday, 5 January 2013

Large-scale, industrial but Ecologically-beneficial?

If you have been following this blog, you would know that I think the evidence does not show a very positive view of agriculture as it is now i.e. conventional agriculture. However, moving on from the mistakes of the past, it seems that conventional/industrial modes of production have recognised the unsustainability of their practices as they were in the 1950s. In fact,  arguing for a whole system change (e.g. switch to agroforestry or completely local farming) which might be ideal/most beneficia but might not be globally feasible amidst many many constraints.

In the field of agriculture, perspectives are often split as to what is the most green/ecologically friendly approach (that works). This split is between the "Environmentalist" (ideal) VS "Agriculturalist" (practical)- although I personally don't feel the dichotomy is necessary/always justified. An environmentalist tends to differ in their dislike for large-scale, capitalized, industrialized production (and from the previous posts, it does seem like a small-scale approach if with a lot of attention and passion does work out very well in those case studies).  For example, Joel Salatin does not advocate large-scale agriculture. However, in the real commercial, profit-driven economy, small farms might not be globally successful if conditions are not right (e.g. government/community is not supportive), especially given the extensive infrastructure/system that supports industrial-scale agricultural techniques/ functions i.e. a whole-system might just not be possible (now at least).

This study by Daviset al shows that, like Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm, this large-scale approach works too works! And the results are highly encouraging (summarized in this article: Big, Smart and Green: A RevolutionaryVision for Modern Farming)


Caption from the site: Two-year corn-and-soy rotation field (left) and four-year rotation field covered in alfalfa (right). Both were photographed in early September, 2012. By using cover crops like alfalfa, researchers achieved dramatic reductions in herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer use without sacrificing productivity. Photo: David Sundberg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/10/marsden_fields.jpg
By using crop diversification (e.g. 4yrs with 4 crops as compared to normal 2yrs with 2 crops- see the difference visually in the photo above!), they were able to  maintain and even increase yield with very minimal chemical inputs (8 times less). In the end, weeds were fewer and freshwater sources in proximity had much lower pollution when compared to conventional systems. I quote: “We exceeded those goals — not by pumping chemicals in, but by maximizing ecosystem services,” Davis said. “We’re not throwing away those tools. They’re very important. But you use a strong cropping system as the foundation for your agriculture. Then, when you need it, you tweak it a little bit with the inputs.”

By "tuning and tweaking", this form of farming with "technology's new tools", this form of farming could be alluded to (but isn't explicitly mentioned by the researchers) 'precision farming' a recent movement in industrial-scaleagriculture that has an ecological-bent to it (or it could be motivated by cost-savings, which isn't mutually exclusive really).

Precision farming
In general, precision farming ... (Paarlberg, 2010)
  • When coupled to conventional agriculture has resulted in a decline from the peak of its negative impacts with an  increase in 5% yield with a fall in impact per area in recent years
  • Involves no-till techniques which result in decreased soil erosion
  • Uses GIS,  GPS, Infrared technologies to, for example, measure the  depth of  the soil so that we know exactly how much to fertilize and this prevents wastage in the process
  • Uses GMOs to allow pest control with less chemicals

Ultimately, proponents argue, there is no limit to impact-reduction possibilities. While the above benefits might be broad generalizations that do not always hold (and in this case GMO wasn't necessary with proper crop rotations and integrated pest management- read more on IPM here*), it is clear that with the use of such technologies coupled to efforts like that by Davis et al., industrial agriculture could be a part of the reformation of destructive agriculture. A case in point would be the use of precision farming in contributing to the knowledge of integrated pest management (using biological methods to control pests) and for site-specific weed control (Gerhards, 2011)

In conclusion...
Precision agriculture when used to investigate and take advantage of ecological principles with the use of small amounts of chemical, is a thoughtful and beneficial approach to large-scale farming that should be put in place more and more rapidly (given that most of the appropriate infrastructure is in place!). All is needed now is more awareness of this approach perhaps and more research in terms of how this can be applied for different crops (Bramley, 2008).

It is definitely stepping in a right direction of using science to care for nature and reaping the benefits that  that brings :)

* I quote a useful definition from the article:
"IPM involves the concerted use of multiple tactics to suppress and kill pests and reduce crop damage to economically acceptable levels. Emphasis is placed on modifying habitat characteristics to
reduce pest densities and promote crop health, conserving and releasing beneficial
organisms that attack pests, and planting pest-resistant cultivars.
Pesticides are used in IPM systems as therapeutic tools only when preventive
practices fail to provide adequate control. "

Saturday, 29 December 2012

In the News this week… Agriculture responding to Climate Change


It seems like the changes in climate are being felt quite painfully this year in the agricultural industry.

This article just came out in the BBC this week:


This year the harvest of grapes was so poor in terms of quality that many wine producers are completely unable to produce wine. In the video, Cherry Spriggs of Nyetimber laments that even if they change the crop for next year according to the weather conditions of this year, then "by murphy's law it'll be completely wrong for next year".

Unforgtunately, by murphy's law or not, it seems that global warming, for the UK at least, doesn’t mean a 'gradual heating up' but instead weather extremes of "erratic excursions" due to the nature of how the UK is affected by a highly fluctuating jet streams. Tim Palmer, expert in climate physics explains this in the article. Wow, what a worrying thought for farmers indeed! Not being able to know if the next year's harvest would yield anything….

But this isn't really news to experts… its just that it seems like the effects of climate change would soon be felt by normal unassuming people like us, not only in terms of storms and droughts but also in terms of our food choices.

Another article that came out this year: 

Its not just grapes that will be affected. Experts predict that the three most important staples- maize, rice and wheat- would decline with weather changes- important crops like the potatoes would not be able to survive warmer and more erratic weather. Such erratic weather with warming includes a shift in vegetation zones, quantity and distribution of rainfall and inundation of coasts with rising sea levels (Rosenweig & Hillel 1998).

Don't know about you, but to me this really does epitomize how climate change will affect our everyday lifestyles. The thing is, there is much uncertainty and there remain many questions to answer to ensure the food security in erratic weather. The cause and effect of feedback effects and rate/amount/timing of global warming are still difficult to tease out to enable us to model these changes at such a fine scale.  And it doesn't help that we are starting to react to these changes on a not-so-good foot: a generally homogeneous crop gene pool. With the Green Revolution, many corporations controlled seed inputs through establishing their infrastructure and the implementation of "Plant Breeders Rights" which encouraged companies to produce uniform varieties (Paalberg, 2010).

Crops consumed throughout history have fallen from 1500 species during the hunter-gatherer age, to 30 in pre-industrial times. Today, 75% of the worlds food crops come from just 8 types..! (Mooney 1980) This historical perspective really does give us a better sense of the extent of genetic erosion in the global food supply.

In response, and fortunately perhaps, there have been people taking precautions in the form of seed banks.




(Very interesting and worth watching video)

A case in point would be the efforts by Fowler et al. together with the Global Crop Diversity Trust in creating a seed bank an extremely cold and isolated hole-in-the-ground in Norway. Traditionally, variability in crops was maintained purposely to protect against weather, disease, mutating pests and it might be appropriate to keep some of that, at least in the form of a seed bank.

I think these quotes from the Ted talk sum up the importance of preserving crop diversity well:

"Crop diversity is the biological foundation of agriculture. It's the raw material, the stuff of evolution in our agricultural crops, not a trivial matter…

that foundation was crumbling- a mass extinction was underway. And this mass extinction was taking place with very few people noticing or caring…

Think of diversity as giving us options and options are exactly what we need in the era of climate change "

Perhaps some might recommend genetically modifying foods to be more resilient to different weathers instead. While it is true that GMOs can indeed help us face up to climate change, I honestly think maybe in addition to that, such seed banks are really a small price to pay for a possibly life-saving food security precautionary measure.

And I think this last quote from the talk sums it up well:

"I can't look you in the eye and tell you that I have a solution for climate change, for the water crisis… But I can look you in the eyes and tell you that we can't solve any of those problems if we don't have crop diversity. Because I challenge you to think of an effective, efficient, sustainable solution if we don't have crop diversity."

Why sacrifice the wealthy resource that evolution has provided us with? :)

(If interested, Marci's blog (she's doing her PhD in Biology & Society  at the  Arizona State Uni ) touches on the issues of  Seed Banks.In short, seed banks should ideally be set up with the interest of free-access-to-all (or at least somewhere near that) instead of restricting access to genetic diversity through patenting).

AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL IN ADVANCE!
May this year be a blessed one for you :) 

See y'all next year!

Tuesday, 25 December 2012

Polycropping

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE! Hope everyone had a good time :) I sure did, spent some time admiring the natural wonders of Slovenia! Explains the hiatus for the past few weeks heh...

Anyway back to the topic!

I came across this rather interesting slide from a lecture by Plant Pathologist Dr Nelson (University of Hawaii) on "Poly- & Monocultures"

It shows the evolutionary pathway of  aspects of agriculture- most of which has been covered in my previous posts except: 3) Intercropping/Multicropping/Polycropping



The Green Revolution (i.e. Conventional Agriculture) resulted in widespread adoption of monocropping techniques.  As mentioned, the adoption of these techniques, while they seem to lead to short-term employment and profits, are unsustainable from an ecological point of view. In  contrast to monocropping is the method of polyculture (agroforestry is a form of it).

What is polyculture?
It is the planting of more than 1 species of crops which also involves the rotation of crops (and in some cases livestock) on a piece of land (UNESCO glossary)

What are the benefits of polyculture?
Here are 2 big benefits:
  1. Higher Genetic Resilience to Epidemics
In fact, it has been observed that  certain diseases do not occur amongst plants such as the papaya until monocropping techniques were applied. There are two reasons for this:
  • A lack of genetic diversity results in the wiping out of entire crops with a single pathogen
  • Proximity of plant stands results in higher transmissions of pathogens
Such biological caveats play out clearly in economic and social consequences: In Hawaii, many lands were abandoned due to epidemics such as the papaya ringspot which caused the destruction of whole plantations. In contrast, typical polyculture (and in this case in the form of agroforestry- see my previous post for more on this) which consists of papaya being planted with other fruits result in lower pest pressure (Nelson, 2006)This has also been evident in eggplants which when grown together with buffelgrass produce over 100% yields compared to conventional treatments due to the lowered mite infestations and lower weed densities (Learyet al. 2006). 

  1. Higher Yields
With more in-depth studies comparing mono VS polycropping in recent years, experts are now questioning the fact that in the longer term and taking a bigger-view of things (i.e. taking into account water-use, transport, fertilizer-use), polyculture is the more economically-viable form of agriculture (Roslin,2008) (and, yay!, this fulfils our principled approach of both caring for the environment and ensuring food security). For example, there is substantial evidence supporting this: intercropping in Africa resulted in lower interspecies competition and so higher yields (Harrison, 1987)In a long-term review of integrated croppings systems, Chavas et al. (2008) showed that rotational systems outperformed farms with conventional practices. 

  1. Lower environmental costs (even environmental benefit)
In terms of how to replenish the soil,the use of practices such as living plant mulch by multiple-cropping creates  lots of benefits to the system (E.g. increasing yield 4-fold,  filtration, water-holding,erosion-resistance (Harrison, 1987)). Also, many of these systems use animal slurry which instead of becoming a form of waste that needs to be rid off (coupled with the possibility of polluting downstream ecosystems), it is now used as fertilizer without the problem of transportation (transporting manure the way we transport chemical fertilizer would be absolutely inefficient as i mentioned previously in this post). In fact, it has been shown that adjacent uncultivated land left untouched would render higher yields than if it were to be cultivated because of positive biodiversity effects of pollinators (Figure below). For example, canola yields are highest when 30% of the land is left uncultivated/left to go fallow- this goes against conventional thinking which assumes a direct correlation between land and yield (Moradin et al 2006).



But, how feasible is polyculture?

So it might be true that polyculture has proven itself to be ecologically superior. But are the societal conditions ready to make it happen?

I quote from an FAOpublication:

"It is now commonly argued that monocrop systems based on off-farm inputs cannot be sustained and that there should be a shift to low external input mixed farming systems which would be more appropriate for resource-poor farmers. While this is a laudable objective from both an ecological and an equity point of view, it is unrealistic for many situations at the present time from both economic and humanitarian standpoints because food availability would decline and food prices would rise"

Herein, there seems to be a conflict of interest. However, interestingly, the author of this publication argues that the "unrealistic" actually only refers to a lack of political will which is really just up to us to rectify. In essence, because of the efficiency of such systems, "food prices won’t rise" he argues.

And so, I would like to end this post with an example/case study which I am personally very inspired about. You might have heard of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm.  It is probably quite justified to say that he is a master of polyculture and I respect his philosophy very much. Interestingly, Joel is strong organic-critic, in particular, industrial organic. I think anyone in this field should take consider this way of thinking because it works.  And looking at the results… my does it really work!

This video sums it up well (HIGHLY WORTH WATCHING!)



"40,000 lbs beef
30,000 lbs pork
10,000 broilers
1,200 turkeys
1,000 rabbits
35,000 doz. eggs
All Off 100 acres
and at the end of the year
there is more biodiversity, not less
there is more fertility, not less
there is more soil, not less.
The significance of this is that, it is NOT a zero-sum system!"

Here's how it looks like in real-life:


From another video interview, about how this might work, I glean several traits of his philosophy in showing that with the right implementation, polyculture isn't "unrealistic":


  1. It is "profitable"
    This is really the primary concern of farmers' & feasibility in the modernized society. What is not profitable won't work in the real world. Through direct-marketing and word of mouth coupled to rewards, small farms practicing polyculture can survive.
  2. It learns from nature's "healing relationships"Joel's polyfacefarm aims to understand the symbiosis between species, by "massaging close-relationships between animals". "I'm a grass farmer" says Joel- because grass is the mediator for building these healthy relationships.
  1. It benefits "human health"A strong example would be that grass-fed beefs have consistently showed greater benefits in health compared to  grain-fed beef (Daley et al. 2010) 
  1. It maximizes the appropriate use of science technology that lowers costsUnlike anti-technology methods (like some organic farms perhaps?), his farm uses state of the art technology but not those which are resource-intensive such as electric fences/paddock to herd up and section the area required for fertilization of animals.  Then, through understanding the lifecycle of pests and predators and timing the feeding cycles accordingly, another animal's waste becomes another's food i.e. no wastage. For example, chickens feed off the maggots in the cow dung while their faeces fertilizers the ground with more bio-available nutrients and ducks are fed during snail control (video below)

(If interested, here are videos of other farms applying similar philosophies to much success)


(Cute-factor alert! Seriously, look how happy the ducks are haha :p)



"Husband and wife team, farmers Mike Guebert and Linda Bangs live on 10 acres of land, raising and tending to a variety of livestock. Currently, they have 2 Jersey cows, and 40 goats that provide raw milk; about 250 laying chicken hens for eggs, and 800 chickens for (meat) broilers; and 5 turkeys: 4 hens, and one happy tom. Oh yes, and not to forget, 2 heritage breed pigs, and just the day before we arrived this spring (2012), they picked up 14 wiener pigs."- Video description

But how far can such individual case-studies go?

This is a very valid question to ask, and one which we probably don’t currently
have answers to. However, in his reasoning, Michael Pollen also holds the same respect I do for this method of farming, says this "Models are very important, we need good models. You can ask me if this farm can be scaled up… But the fact that it exists, I think can help us define what we mean by this word 'sustainable' "

Localized conditions would require tailoring of these methods and I doubt Joel would advocate wholesale adoptions of his methods worldwide. Also, this degree of understanding nuance in life-cycle coordination would require small-scale farms rather than large-scale mechanized ones without the ability to respond as quickly to variabilities of our environment. Perhaps then what is needed is a mindset change that small-farms can work and are not necessarily inferior in efficiency to large ones.

In conclusion...
I think what Joel Salatin has shown can be summed up in a sentence: Do to the environment what you would have it do to you. (slightly cheesy I know.. haha). It seems from the above that this way forward, you can't go very wrong… and in fact you can reap more rewards!